WE shall not need (I presume) to levy a dispute, for the ga­thering §. 1. or geting in that tribute due to the Crown and So­veraignty of Being, from all Beings besides, which consists in an acknowledgment of his free bounty, in calling them out of the abyss of vanity and nothing by the Word of his Power, hereby taking them into part and fellowship with himself in his Prerogative of Being, according to what was resolved by the counsell of his Will, as meet to be dispe [...]sed unto every of them (respectively) in this kind. Trees that are throughly and deeply rooted in the Earth, will grow and flourish, though the dew or rain from Heaven should seldome, or never, fall upon them: but grasse, and herbs, and tender plants, whose roots have but a slender and thin protection of their Element against the scortching violence of the Sun, will soon wither and die away, if the clouds of Heaven should not ever and anon drop verdure upon them, and relieve them. In like manner, such notions and impressions in the Soul, into which Nature is deeply baptized, and mightily [...]ssest with their Truth, are like to live, and to maintain their interest and aut [...]rity in men, though not seconded or relieved by argument or dispute: but those, which have only taken a fainter and looser hold of the judgements and consciences of men, are in danger of miscarrying, and proving like the Corne upon the house top, which (as David observeth) withereth before it be grown up Psal. 129. 6., unlesse they be timely, yea and frequently encouraged, back'd, and strength by discourse. That there is a Being, which looks upon this Universe, [...]ith all the host of it, as the workmanship of his own hands; and that every creature, or finite Being, [Page 2] is lineally descended from him, as their Great, and first Progenitor, are (I con­ceive) such principles of Light and Truth, written in so fair and full a Cha­racter in the Tables of all mens hearts, that even whilst they run, they may read them, yea and cannot lightly depose, or suffer the losse of [...]hem, though they be not bound upon their judgments and consciences with any other bands of argument or demonstration, then those of their own evidence and conviction. Therefore what God hath made manifest and clear in men, we shall not cast any suspition of darknesse or obscurity upon, by making it matter of dis­putation.

And though the dependance of things in actuall and compleat Being, upon §. 2. God, for sustentation and support, as well of their simple Existences and Be­ings themselves, as of their Operations (respectively, which is the sence and substance of the Thesis propounded) be not altogether of so pregnant an inspi­ration, as dependance upon him for their Production, and first bringing into Being▪ yet conceiving it not to be of any difficult or remote speculation, nor finding it so much as controverted or questioned by any considering man, (e­specially of latter times,) we shall in these respects content our selves with a brief and light enquiry upon it.

The Holy Ghost indeed judged the Assertion of this Truth, and that by one §. 3. of his Greatest Instruments, worthy of him; yet not so much, I suppose, to commend it simply as a Truth, or to secure the judgements and consciences of men of the Veracity of it, as to inforce the practicall consequences thereof upon them; upon which ground (doubtlesse) it is, that we finde so many com­mon and ordinary Truths, not only delivered, but some of them oft repeat­ed and inculcated, in the Scriptures. Principles and Assertions, that are very obvious and low for matter of Truth, and apprehension, may be transcen­dently weighty and High, in those things, whether relating unto practice, or opinion, which are infolded and contained in them, and deducible from them. Mary was but a Carpenters wife, yet did she bring forth the Great Messiah and Saviour of the world. But this only occasionally. The Truth held forth in the Thesis, is the clear Doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and that preached at Athens, amongst Philosophers, for learning and knowledge, the Princes of the world. For in him (saith he, speaking of God) we live, and move, and are, or subsist Acts 17. 28. (as the originall, [...], importeth) [...] In him, i. e. through him, or, by means of him, (as the Praeposition, [...], frequently signifieth.) We are not said to live, move, and have our beings in God in a way of permission only, as, viz. because he refrains the exercise of that power in him, by which he is as able to take away all our beings, as he was at first to give them; or because he forbears to annihilate us: in such a sence as this, we might as well be said to live in every man, who having power and opportunity to kill us, yet suffer­eth us in the possession of our lives: but we are said to receive or have these accommodations in, or through God, in a positive way, viz. by means of a glorious supporting influence, which issuing from his power by the media [...]i­on of his goodnesse, or will, is to the great Body of the Creation, and to the respective parts and members hereof, as the Soul is to the naturall Body of a man, with the members thereof, which remaining in union with it, preser­veth it from dissolution and putrifaction; or as the presence of the Sun is to the light in the ayr, which retains its Being, whilst the Sun shines upon it, but vanisheth presently, and becomes that which is not▪ as soon as the fountain of light withdraweth his shining. The Holy Ghost himselfe expresseth the de­pendance [Page 3] of creatures upon God in a borrowed resemblance of very near af­finity with this: Thou hidest thy face, (saith David unto God,) they (i. e. the creatures) are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they dye, and returne to their dust Psal. 104▪ 29. That Great Act of God, in it selfe so wonderfull, and inexpressibly glorious, the Sustentation and upholding of the Universe, with all the parts thereof, in Being, is ascribed only to the setting, or turning of his face towards it; to shew (I conceive) that it is an act of speciall dignation and favour in him to preserve it, and yet withall an act of easie performance, and which costs him not the least labour or toyle: A gracious look from him will do it effectually, as the contrary is enough to affright all things out of their Beings, and (which is equivalent hereunto, and in some cases, more) out of all that is desireable in their Beings.

The Lord Christ is said [...], Heb. 1. 3. i. e. to sustain, or bear up all things by §. 4. the word of his power; which implies. 1. An utter impotency and weaknesse in the creature to stand alone, or to keep it selfe by its own strength from a reci­divation, or relapse into its first vanity or nothing: For that which is able to preserve it self from falling, needs no support, or bearing up by another. 2. That Christ feels no weight, or burden, of the Universe, whilst he supporteth it. The speaking of a word, especially within himselfe, and in his mind only, en­gageth no mans strength, nor putteth him to the least pain. This great Act of bearing up the Universe, is therefore, (I conceive) appropriated unto Christ, (though common to the other persons with him) because in his Mediatory Humiliation he laid a foundation of Equity and Reason, why God, notwith­standing that great provocation given by the sin of man, to dissolve it, should yet consent to the standing and supportation of it. Such executions which de­pend upon his Mediation, and for which there had been no place otherwise, are elsewhere in Scripture peculiarly asserted to him in respect thereof: See John 5. 27. Though in respect of the Divine Nature, Power, and Will, being one and the same in all the three Persons, there is a necessity of their joynt con­currence in all actings ad extra, (as the Schoolmen call them,) yet such of these actings, for which way hath been made by any personall atchievement or transaction of any of the Three, may, with a good savour of Reason, be in a more speciall and remarkable manner attributed to that person, who hath more peculiarly interposed for the procurement of them.

When the Apostle affirmeth, that we live and move in God (in the sence §. 5. declared) as well as have our essence, or being, in him, his meaning seems to be, that it is through God, and his voluntary closing with us, that we have, and do enjoy, all manner of accommodations of Being, as well the greater and lesser, as Essence or Being it self. To live, oft-times in Scripture, signifies the enjoy­ment of an happy and contentfull condition, which signification is no ways inconvenient for this place. Or if the Apostle be conceived to speak of the life naturall, (which is not improbable) he must be supposed to include all those noble and desireable faculties and endowments, as of Reason, Memory, Judge­ment, Understanding, Speech, &c. which are appropriate to the life of man: So that when he saith, We live in God, his meaning is, not only, or simply, that that spring or fountain of vitall actions or motions in men, which in a district sence is termed life, is possess'd, enjoyed, and held by means of a gracious and loving comportment of God with them for such a purpose; but that all that honourable retinue likewise of those excellent powers and faculties named, which attend upon the Principle of life in man, is maintained in being by the same compliance also.

Whereas he adds, That in him also, [...], we move, or are moved (as the §. 6. word rather importeth) he implyeth, not only that all our vitall actions and motions are exercised and performed by the gracious concurrence and com­pliance of God with us, as well as our lives themselves, and Principles of acti­on preserved; but further, that there is a further and appropriate concurrence of God required (and by him accordingly exhibited) to enable men to act those very Principles of action and motion that are in them, distinct from that by which their lives, and Principles of action, in every kind, are preserved: In­somuch that though men be never so well appointed or provided for action in one kind or other, in respect of suitable, proper, and sufficiently-disposed Principles thereunto, yet upon a suspension of that particular influence or concurrence by God, which is appropriate and necessary, both for the leading forth unto, and for the supporting of these Principles, in, and under, their pro­per actions, there is none of them will go forth into action, nor is able to maintain or support it selfe in acting. But whether such a concurrence of God supposed, and actually granted, as is sufficient both for the leading forth un­to, and for the support of the Principles we speak of, in their proper actings, these Principles notwithstanding (at least such of them, whose actions lie under the command of the will) may not refuse or forbear to act, is another Question, wherein more may be said hereafter.

In the mean time, that God may at any time separate between Principles, §. 7. and their actings, even those that are most proper and connaturall to them, only by with-holding that compliance of his with them, which is appropriate and necessary for their conducting unto action, is evident from severall pas­sages in the Scriptures. Doubtlesse, the heat of the fire in Nebuchadnezzars furnace, being het seven times hotter then ordinary, was as proper, as likely, a means, to have consumed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, being cast into the midst of this furnace, as those, who were imployed by the King only to cast them into it. Nor can it reasonably be said, That God separated the heat, or burning property, from the fire, or annihilated it, all the time that these three men were in the furnace. For, 1. unlesse we shall suppose the subject it self, I mean, the fire, to have been destroyed, or annihilated, we cannot suppose, that heat, or a burning property, being [...] property inseparable from such a sub­ject, should be taken from it. 2. It appears by the story, that those, who cast the three Servants of God mentioned into the furnace, were consumed by the fire of it, whilst the Servants of God remained in the furnace. Therefore cer­tainly there was true fire, and true heat in the furnace, whilest the three men continued in it. 3. And lastly, The story saith, That the Princes, Governors, and Captains, &c. being gathered together, saw these men upon whose bodies the fire had no power Dan. 3. 27.. So that there is not the least question, but that there was reall fire, and reall heat, and that in abundance, in the furnace; which not­withstanding had no power, no not so much as over the hair of their heads, or the garments they wore. What now was the Reason why this fire, and this heat, prevailed not over those that were cast into the midst of them, as they did over those, who cast them in? Was it any other then this? The Lord of hoasts his withdrawing the wonted conjunction of himselfe from the heat of the fire, and refusing to comply with it in that expedition, or attempt, which it natu­rally inclined to make upon these men, as well as upon any others, to destroy them; whereas he kept his naturall and accustomed union with this heat, in that attempt which it made upon those other men, who cast these into the fur­nace; by means whereof it suddenly prevail'd upon them; and consumed [Page 5] them. There was the same Reason, why the Bush, which Moses saw burning with fire, was not consumed by it. The Reason likewise (in all likelihood) why the men of Sodom could not find the door of Lots house, was, because God withdrew his usuall concurrence from their visive faculty in order to the dis­cerning of that object: For that other things were all this while visible enough to them, appears from their continued endevours, even unto weariness, in seek­ing this door. If they had bin wholy blind, so that they could have seen nothing, at all, it is no ways credible but that they would have desisted their enterprize at the very first. This withdrawing or suspension of the wonted Presence of God with the Seeing faculty of men, is called, the holding of their eyes: Luk. Luke 24 16. 24. 16. But their eyes were holden, that they could not know him: [...], they were mightily, or powerfully held: they could not act, or perform that, which otherwise was most naturall and proper for them to do▪ in receiving, and re­presenting to the Sensus Communis, or adjudging faculty of the Soul, the true species and shape of a Person, standing visibly before them, and neer to them, through the want of that accustomed co-operative Presence of God with them in order to this act, which untill now (it is like) had never failed them upon the like occasion. Other instances we have in Scripture of such like im­potencies and deficiences as these, in naturall faculties, through the suspension of that soveraign presence with them, upon which all their motions and acti­ons depend. See Ioh. 20. 14, 15. 2 Kings 6. 17, 18, &c.

When God threatned his People of old, That the wisdome of their wise men §. 8. Esa. 29. 14▪ should perish, and the understanding of their prudent men he hid, (Isai. 29. 14.) he doth not (I suppose) threaten an utter annihilation of those Principles or habits of wisdome and understanding in these men, but only an intercision or failing of such interposals and actings from, and by, these Principles, in or­der to the safety and preservatio [...] [...]oth of themselves, and their state, which might reasonably, and accordin [...] to the common course of second Causes, be expected from them; which wonder (as he calls it) was (I conceive) to be effected, only by the hiding of his face from them, without the beholding whereof, no second Cause whatsoever is able to move, no not in those ways of acting, which are most appropriate to them. This manner of execution of the judgment here threatened, seems to be implyed in those latter words, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid; i. e. shall not be conspicuous or discernable in any fruits, or effects, worthy of it; not that the Principle it self should be absolutely destroyed, or devested of Being. This Liberty, or great Interest of God, which we speak of, I mean, to suspend the proper and most accustomed effects of second Causes, by refusing to joyn in action with them, causeth that time and chance (as the wise man calleth them) which happen now and then, in those occurrences of humane affairs, as, viz. when the race is not to the swift, nor the battell to the strong, &c. Eccles. 9. 11. Eccles. 9. 11. §. 9.

If it be here demanded; In as much as second Causes and created Prin­ciples, especially in men, act, notwithstanding such a substraction of the Di­vine Presence from them, as hath been declared, though not according to the perfection of their natures, but in a troubled and miscarrying manner; the eyes of the two Disciples we spake of, though they were so held, that they knew not Christ, (viz. to be the person, which he was,) yet they represented him unto them as a man, &c. Whether do such actings as these proceed from their Principles without any such presence of the first Cause with them, as that, which we have asserted to be simply necessary for, and with, second Causes, whensoever they go forth into action; Or what manner of presence of [Page 6] this first Cause, or how differing from that which is constant, and more agree­able to their natures▪ shall we suppose they have with them, when they act ir­regularly or deficiently?

To this I answer:

1. Whensoever second Causes move into action, whether they act congru­ously to their respective natures and kinds, or whether defectively, they still have, and must have, a presence of the first Cause with them, (as hath beene al­ready argued.) But,

2. When they faile or faulter in their motions or actings, if their motions be such which are not morall, or commanded by the will, (of which kind the mis▪ representation of the person of Christ by the eyes, or visive faculty, of the two Apostles, was) I conceive that the presence or concourse of the first cause with them, is attempered and proportioned in order to the deficiency of the action; I mean, as well to the degree, as kind, of this deficiency, and is not the same with it selfe in the ordinary and proper actings of these faculties: The reason hereof, is, because faculties meerly naturall, act determinately and uni­formly, after one and the same manner, unlesse they be troubled, and put out of their way by a superior power. But in morall actions, and such, whose de­ficiency proceedeth from the wills of men, or other creatures indued with the Whether, or how the con­currence of God with the wils of men in good actions, dister from that, which is afforded unto them in evill actions, shall (God willing) be taken into consideration, in the second part of this work. same faculty, the presence and concourse of the first Cause with the Prin­ciples producing them, is not (at least ordinarily) different from that, which is naturall and proper to them, and by vertue whereof at other times, they act regularly, or at least may. The Reason hereof, is, because the nature, and in­trinsecall frame and constitution of the will, importeth a liberty or freedom of chusing its own motions, or acts: this being the essentiall and characteri­sticall property of it, whereby it is distinguished from causes meerly naturall. Now then if this faculty, when it moves or acts inordinately, should be so in­fluenced by the first Cause, as hereby to be determined, or necessitated to the inordinacy of its actings: 1. That distinguishing property we speak of, should be dissolved or destroyed, and the will it selfe hereby reduced to the Order, and Laws, of Causes meerly naturall. 2. The inordinatenesse or sinfulnesse of the motions and actings of it, could not be resolved into it selfe, or its own cor­ruption, but into that over▪ ruling and necessitating influence of the first Cause upon it, which it was not able to withstand, nor to act besides, or contrary un­to, the determinating exigency thereof. And thus God shall be made the Au­thor of Sin; which is the first born of abominations, even in the eye of Reason and Nature it selfe. But of these things more hereafter.

Though all the motions, and actings of the creature, and created Principles §. 10. or faculties, are absolutely suspended upon the association of the first Cause with them in their actings, yet do they very seldom suffer any detriment, or actuall suspension of their motions, or actings hereby; God never denying, suspending, or withdrawing that concurrence or conjunction of himself with them, without which they cannot act, but only upon some speciall design, as (for example) now and then to be a Remembrancer unto the world▪ that Na­ture and Second Causes are not autocratoricall, i. e. do not perform, what or­dinarily they do perform, independently, and of themselves; but that he is the soveraign Lord of them, and hath all the strength and operations of them in his hand. The battell commonly is to the strong, and the race ordinarily to the swift, and bread most frequently to men of understanding, &c. But more of this also in the following Chapter.

The Apostle affirming, That in God we live, and move (in the sence declared) §. 11. [Page 7] passeth the sentence of condemnation against two opinions, which yet con­demn one the other also, being two extreams, leaving the Truth between them in the middle. The former denies all co-operation of the first Cause with the second, affirming, That God only communicateth that operating virtue un­to them, which they respectively exert and put forth, and preserveth it, but doth not at all co-operate with it. The latter affirmeth, That it is God only, who acteth or worketh at the presence of Second Causes, and that these do nothing, but stand by; act not at all. The former of these opinions w [...] held by Durandus (the Schoolman) and by some others, far more ancient then he; against whom Augustin disputeth, Lib. 5. d [...] Ge [...]. ad lit. c. 20. The latte [...], by Gabriel Biel, (a School man also) and some others of that Learning. The Apostles assertion, That we move in God, in the sence asserted▪ is visibly atten­ded with these two consequentiall Truths: 1. That God doth associate him­selfe, and communicate with Second Causes, and all created Principles, in their respective motions and operations; and consequently, contributes more towards their motions and operations, then only by a collation▪ and conser­vation, of a sufficient strength, or virtue, in their respective causes to produce them. 2. That the ordinary effects, acts, and operations produced in these sub­lunary parts, are not so, or upon any such terms attributable unto God, but that they have their Second Causes also respectively producing them, where­unto they may as truly, (and perhaps more properly) be ascribed, as unto God.

THe simple Existences, or Beings, of things, may be said to be determined §. 1. by God, the first Cause, three ways: 1. In respect of their Natures, or constituting Principles of their respective Beings. 2. In respect of their production into Being. 3. And lastly, In respect of their permanency or conti­nuance, in, and with, these Natures, and Beings. In the first consideration, they are absolutely, and in every respect, determined by God; neither them­selves, nor any other, contributing any thing at all towards their Natures, or Beings (in that sence,) nor being in any capacity, to withstand, or make any resistance against, that hand of Pleasure, and Power, which made them so, or so, and imparted such and such a nature, or frame, determinately unto them. But secondly, In respect of their respective actuall productions into Being, they are not (at least a great part of them are not) so determined by God, as in the former consideration. Men may sow more or less grain or corn in their fields as they please: and so likewise herbs in their gardens. Yea, the ordinary course and assistance of Providence only supposed, they have power to mul­tiply individuals in some species of animal creatures; and however, to re­strain such a multiplication. Yea doubtless many Persons, both of men and women, have been propagated and born into the World, whose Parents were not determined, or necessitated, to their generation. In the third and last con­sideration, though things cannot (at least, all things cannot) be said to be absolutely, positively, or irresistibly determined by God, as in the first, yet doth his will and pleasure, for the most part, interpose effectually, though by [Page 8] the mediation of Causes, either naturall, or morall, or both, for a determinati­on in this kinde also. The continuance of Herbs, Plants, and Trees, in their vegetative lives, or Beings, in respect of their species, or kindes, respectively, is determined by God, but by the intervention of their severall natures, tem­peratures, constitutions, or the like. So that those Herbs, Plants, or Trees, more generally, and in respect of their kindes, are longer liv'd, whose tem­pers and complexions are more healthfull and strong, and so better provi­ded to resist, and defend themselves against such inconveniences, which en­danger, and are destructive unto, the lives and beings of such creatures, as they. The continuance of individuals, or particulars in each kinde of these vegetative creatures, in their respective Natures or Beings, is not so deter­mined by God, but that they are obnoxious (at least many of them) to the hand, and will of man, who may at pleasure serve himselfe of which, and of how many, of them he pleaseth, being within the reach of his arme, and under his power▪ A man may cut down, and suffer still to grow, which, and how many of the Trees growing in his own ground, he pleaseth. Thus may he do also by the Herbs in his garden▪ There is the same consideration in all respects of sensitive creatures also. The lives of many of these are subjected to the wills and pleasures of men.

Concerning the Naturall Lives and Beings of men in the World, neither §. 2. is the continuance of these so absolutely, or peremptorily fixed, or determi­ned by God, but that either themselves, or others, may either abbreviate and contract them, or else enlarge and protract them to a longer period, by means proportionable unto either. By excess in sinning (and so by defect in cauti­on, and use of means for their preservation) men may draw the evill day of death neerer to them; as by righteousness, and a prudent circumspection to prevent dangers, and things destructive unto life, they may put it further from them. But thou, O God (saith David) shalt bring them downe into the pit of de­struction: bloody and deceitfull men shall not live out halfe their days Psa. 55. 23.; e. i. the half of those days, which according to the course of Nature, and Providence, and Will of God otherwise, they might have done. To like purpose Eliphaz in Job, speaking of a wicked man who stretcheth out his hand against God, and strengtheneth himselfe againct the Almighty; i. e. who sinneth at more then an ordinary rate of provocation; His branch, saith he, shall not be green, but shall be cut of before his day. God shall destroy him, as the vine his sowre grape, and shall cast him off, as the Olive doth his flower Job 15. 32, 33.. And againe afterwards: Hast thou marked the old way, which wicked men have troden? who were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood Job 22. 15, 16. It is probable he here speaks of the old World, who because of that redundancy of wickedness which was amongst them, were destroyed by a deluge of waters, which otherwise they might have escaped: according to what our Saviour speaketh to Capernaum concerning Sodom; If the mighty workes which have been done in thee, had beene done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day Mat. 11. 23.. And whereas God threateneth Ephraim (meaning, the ten Tribes) that within threescore and five years Ephraim should be broken, that he be not a People Isai. 7. 8., this judgement, according to Musculus his computation, was put in execution within twenty years after this Prophecy, and that propter enormitatem maliciae, as he faith, i. e. for the enormous heinousnesse of their wickednesse. So then, as God hath by no decree determined that men shall be wicked, especially not outragiously wicked, (which we shall further demonstrate afterwards) so neither hath he determined that abbreviation of the lives of particular men, which their vo­luntary [Page 9] excesse in wickednesse brings upon them. He hath indeed determin­ed indefinitely, and in the generall, That bloody and deceitfull men shall not live out halfe their days: but if we speake of any particular persons, who being bloody and deceitfull, came thereby to an untimely end, neither their sin, nor their suffering by an untimely end, was determined by God.

Againe, That men by a prudentiall, and providentiall care in preventing §. 3. dangers, sicknesses, and such inconveniences, which are of a known maligni­ty to the life of man, may advance their days to a greater number, then under a contrary neglect, especially as the neglect for degree might have been, they would, or could in reason have amounted unto, is evident. God himselfe in­formed David, That if he stay'd in Keilah till Saul should come thither to demand him, (which he was now ready to do) the Lords of this City would deliver him up unto him Sam. 23. 12.; in which case, he had been but a dead man. There­fore David by departing from Keilah, before Sauls comming downe to de­mand him, added many days unto his life, above what their number would have been, had he neglected the Divine Oracle, and by staying in Keilah fal­len into the hand of Saul. The men that were with Paul in the ship, by heark­ning unto his counsell for causing the Mariners to abide in the Ship, got en­largement of quarter for their lives, which upon their leaving of the ship had certainly been denyed unto them: For Paul said unto the Centurion, and the Souldiers, Except these abide in the ship, yee cannot be saved Ac [...] 27. 31.: whereas upon their staying in the ship, it so came to passe, that they came all safe to land V [...]s. 44.. The Lord Christ himselfe, by the care and faithfulnefs of Joseph in conveying him, being yet an Infant, into Egypt (according to the charge of the Angel which appeared unto him) came to see many more days in the flesh, then he was like to have done, in case he had bin found in Bethlehem, or near to it, when Herods bloudy Inquisition came forth against him. For this is the reason, which the Angell gave unto Joseph, why he was injoyned by God to remove the child Jesus into a place of safety; Herod, saith he, will seeke the young child to destroy him: which supposeth, not only a possibility, but a probability at least (if not a certainty) That if the child had remained in, or about, Beth­lehem, Herod both would have found him out, and also destroyed him. So af­terwards, we read, Luke 4. and elsewhere, That Christ by declining the pre­sent rage, and bloody intentions of the Jewes from time to time, drew out the days of his mortall Pilgrimage to that just period and [...]our, wherein, accord­ing to his ever-blessed good pleasure, he had appointed that happy meeting between his own death, and the life and salvation of the World.

True it is, the days of humane subsistence and continuance on Earth, are §. 4. in the generall, but finite, yea, and few: yet if we speake of particulars, they are not properly, determinate, or set down as so many, and no more, by any decree of God. It is, indeed, appointed [by God] unto men, once to dye Heb. 9 27.: yea, as Job calculateth, within a short time; Man, saith he, that is born of a woman, is of few days Iob 14. 1.. But I do not find it said of particular persons, that it is appointed unto them to dye precisely at such or such a time, day, or year, of their lives; or that they shall neither dye sooner, nor live longer. I deny not, but that there are some few examples in Scripture, of persons, the precise number of whose days seemeth to have been fixed by God. His graci­ous Message to King Hezekiah, being now sick unto death, was, That he would adde unto his days fifteen yeares King. 20. 6.: Yet this expression doth not necessarily im­ply, that they should be adequately and precisely so many, and no more. Nor when Job in passion reasoneth thus with God, (as our last Translation ren­dreth [Page 10] his words) Seeing his days are determined, and the number of his moneths are with thee; thou hast appointed his bounds, that he cannot passe; turne from him, that he may rest Job 14, 6, 7., &c. doth he suppose, that the bounds and limits of all mens lives are so rigidly or immoveably pitched by any decree of God, that they must of necessity live home to them, and cannot possibly live beyond them; but only this, that if God will at any time interpose by his power to cut off the life of any man, he may determine▪ and put a period to it without being resisted, or hindred, by any. According to the exigency of this sence, both Tremellius and Beza, translate that clause, and the number of his moneths are with thee, out of the Originall, thus; Numerus mensium ejus pen [...] te est, i. e. the number of his moneths is in thy power; meaning, that thou mayst make them fewer, or more, if, and thou pleasest. Doubtlesse if either David or He­zekiah had conceived the date and period of their lives to have been irrever­sibly concluded by any precedaneous decree of God, they would not have in­terceded with that affectionate importunity, which is found in their Pray­ers, for a prorogation of them. I said, saith David, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days Psal. 102. 4. And again; O spare mee, that I may recover my strength, before I go hence, and be no more Psal. 39. [...]:. These expressions clearly imply, That David apprehended as well a liberty in God, as an executive power, ei­ther presently to take away, or else to continue his life and being in the world, for a longer time. For who will sollicite a man to do that for him, which he apprehends him in no capacity or possibility to do? or for that, which hee conceives him, whom he requesteth, absolutely engaged and necessitated to do for him, whether he requesteth it, or no? Now such a liberty in God as we speak of, and as David supposeth, was wholy inconsistent, with such a pe­remptory and irreversible decree concerning the punctuall extent and durati­on of his life, which some imagine. So when he fasted and wept for the life of his child, being sick, he neither supposed God bound by any unchangeable decree, either to continue, or presently to take away the life of it, but at li­berty to do either. In the Prayer of Hezekiah, though there be no expresse Petition found for the enlargement of his life, yet there are grounds laid down which are proper to inforce such a Petition upon; and by the tender whereof unto God, it is evident, that he did sollicite for a reprieve; which is yet more apparant, from that gracious return which God made unto him of this his Prayer, by the Prophet Isaiah▪ Go (saith God unto him) and say un­to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord God of David thy Father, I have heard thy Prayer, and seen thy Tears; behold I will adde unto thy days fifteen years Isai, 38. 5.. There­fore (doubtlesse) when Job saith, (as we heard) That the days of man are de­termined, (or, paecisi, i. e. cut short, as Junius and Tremellius render it,) and that God hath appointed his bounds that he cannot passe, he doth not speake of any determinate number of days or years, set out by any decree of his, unto particular Persons for life, which by no interveniency of means, or occasions, on either hand, can either be diminished, or protracted; but of that generall councell, purpose, or decree of his, by which he hath reduced, and con­tracted the mortall Pilgrimage of man on Earth, to a very short and inconsi­derable space of time.

Nor doth it follow from any the Premisses, but that God doth frequently §. 5. interpose, and that after a very speciall and remarkable manner, sometimes for the preservation, other-while for the abbreviation and cutting off the lives of Particular men. When God will undertake, and resolvedly engage to stand by the life of man, (as now and then he doth, at least for a time,) a [Page 11] thousand shall fall at his side, and ten thousand at his right hand, and the danger not come nigh him, i. e. he shall remain as safe, and as free from evill, as if all danger of evill were far from him. He shall not be afraid [i. e. such a man need­eth not to be afraid] for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day: Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darknesse; nor for the destruction that wasteth at non-day Psa. 91. 5, 6, 7. But dayly experience sheweth, That God doth not engage him­selfe upon such terms as these, for the protection of the lives of all that are godly▪ many of these falling by the hand of death, even whilst the lives of thousands, and ten thousands round about them, are not touched there with. Nor have any Persons, though never so godly, any sufficient ground from the pas­sages mentioned, or the like, to expect absolutely, and with confidence, pro­tection of life, in the midst of all such dangers, which are there specified▪ but only conditionally, viz. if God will vouchsafe to undertake for their Pre­servation and Peace. Such Scriptures hold forth the constant power, not the uniform Will, or Pleasure, of God. On the other hand, when God taketh no pleasure (as the Scripture phrase is) in the life of a man, the little finger of death is enough to crush it; my meaning is, a very slender and inconsiderable occasion will serve his Providence for the dissolution of it. But neither of these dispensations amounts to any demonstration of any such decree in God, wherein he hath punctually and indispensably assigned to all Persons whatso­ever, a set number of years, moneths, days, houres, and moments, for their allowance of life, which neither himselfe, nor themselves, nor any other crea­ture, hath the least liberty or power, either to augment, or diminish, upon any occasion, or by any means whatsoever. It is indeed commonly reported to be a great Article in the Turkish Creed, That the lives of all men, at least of all Turkes, are so absolutely disposed of in the counsell and decree of God, that it is a thing simply impossible for men, either by running upon the mouths of Cannons, or by casting themselves into the Sea, or by rushing naked into the midst of an Host of armed enemies, or by adventuring upon any danger, upon any death whatsoever, to anticipate the date of such a dis­posall; and so on the contrary, by any Care, Prudence, or circumspectnesse whatsoever, to prevent the fatality thereof. But such Notions and Decrees as these, are fitter to make Alcoran Divinity, then Christian. I freely ac­knowledge all the Decrees of God to be absolute, and unchangeable, upon any occasion, or by any means, whatsoever▪ and none of them, in a true and proper sence, conditionall: but I am far from making the Decrees of God commensureable with his Prescience, or fore-knowledge. But of this here­after.

In order to a full and thorough explication of the subject last in hand, if §. 6. this had been any materiall part of our present designe, many Particularities, besides those insisted upon, should have been added. But the consideration of the dependance of the motions and actings of the creature upon God, in respect of their determination, is more intimous to the heart and spirit of our Grand Intendment, then of their simple existences, or beings. Therefore (to passe on to the explication of this) we have laid downe for the Argu­ment of his Chapter, this conclusion, (either in words, or substance,) that the motions, actions, or operations of second Causes, though they do as ab­solutely depend upon the first, as their existences, or beings, (as was argued in the former Chapter) yet are they not by this dependance, at least, ordi­narily, so immediately, or precisely, determined, as their beings. Not­withstanding how their beings, in respect of their natures, their Productions, [Page 12] their subsistings, or durations in being, are determined, or not determined, by God, hath been the inquiry, and decision of the preceding part of this Chapter. We come now to inquire, how, how far, and after what manner, the motions and actions of second Causes, are determined, or necessitated, to be both when, and where, and what they are, by that essentiall dependance, which they have upon God.

All second Causes whatsoever, are reducible to one of these three heads, §. 7. or kind [...], They are, either, 1. Such, which act and move without any know­ledge or apprehension at all (as being capable of neither) either of the end, for the obtaining whereof they act, or move, or of their motions or actings, in order to this end. Or 2. Such, which are capable of some kinde of know­ledge or apprehension, both of their ends, and of their actings and movings, towards these ends; but very imperfect and weak, viz. such, which extend not to the reason, or relation of these ends, nor to any deliberation about them, nor yet to the proportion or aptness of those their actings and move­ings for the obtaining of their ends. Or 3. and lastly, they are such, which know and apprehend (or at least are capable of both) not simply of those ends, in order whereunto they act and move, but of the Nature, Reason, and further tendency of these ends also, as likewise of the proportion of likeli­hood of their ingagements in any kinde, for the obtaining of their ends. The first kinde of these causes, are called, Naturall, or meerly naturall: the se­cond, Animall, or spontaneous: the third, Rationall, Voluntary, or free­working. Of the first sort, are 1. all inanimate and life-lesse creatures, as Fire, Water, Ayre, Earth, Stones, Minerals, and such like. 2. all Creatures, which are endued with a Principle of vegetation, but not of sence. Of the second, are all animall, or sensitive Creatures, not partakers of any Principle or indowment, above those of outward sensation, and a certaine estimative faculty, or phantasie, by which they 1. apprehend what is naturally good, or evill, for them, (at least in some Particulars) and 2. are acted and moved accordingly; as either to, or from, them, but without any deliberation, or consideration had, either about the one, or the other. Of this kinde, are beasts of the Field, birds of the Ayre, fishes of the Sea, and generally what­soever hath breath and life, excepting men. These are said to act, or move Spontaneously, because they act out of some knowledge of their end, without any compulsion or necessitation from without. Of the third and last sort, are only men, and Angels, whether good, or bad, in either kinde; who are there­fore called rationall, voluntary, or free working causes, because they are capable, not only of an apprehension or knowledge of such ends, for, and to­wards the obtaining of which they act and move, but also of the nature, quali­ty, and import of them, and of deliberation likewise, or consulation, about the means and wayes of their Procurement.

Now though all these severall causes, have such a dependance upon God, §. 8. that (as hath been said) none of them can move into action without a surable concurrence from him, yet are not their actions or motions thereby determi­ned (ordinarily) or necessitated unto, or upon, them. The reason why fire burns, or heats, and doth not moisten, coole, or the like, is not because God concurreth with it, when it acteth: for then Ayre or Water, should burn and heate likewise, with a like concurrence. Therefore the particular and de­terminate actions of the Fire, are not caused by, doe not flow from that con­currence of God with it, when it acteth, but from that intrinsecall form, or those naturall Properties, which he hath vested in it by the Law of Creation. [Page 13] There is the same reason of other causes of this kinde in their respective acti­ons, or effects. Nor are the motions or actings of the second kinde of causes mentioned, as of Birds, Beasts, &c. any whit more determined, then of the for­mer, by the Presence of God with them in their actions; but partly by their naturall abilities for action, or motion, partly by the naturall proportions, and disproportions, between their respective Estimatives, or Phantasies, and such and such Creatures, or Objects, whose natures are either proportioned, or disproportioned, unto them. As for example, the reason why a lamb run­neth to the dam, and fleeth from the Wolfe, is, partly the naturall sympa­thy between the phantasie of the lamb, and the dam, and the antipathy be­tweene the said phantasie, and the Wolfe; partly also that ability or nimble­nesse of motion, which God hath given unto this creature, for the conveyance of it selfe this way, or that, according as the phantasie of it is affected. The concurrence of God with it when it runneth to the dam, and when it fleeth from the Wolfe, is (doubtlesse) one and the same. So that the difference of these two motions in this Creature, doth not arise from any diversity therein, but from one of the causes now mentioned.

In like manner, the actions and motions of the third and l [...]st kinde of §. 9. causes; which we termed rationall and voluntary, are not determined. i. e. made rationall and voluntary, (much lesse, are they necessitated) by the conjuncti­on or Presence of God with them, when they act or move, but by their owne proper and free election of what they act, or move unto. Whilst it remained Acts 5. 4. (saith Peter to Ananias, speaking of his possession, whilst it was yet unsold, and remained with him in specie) was it not thine owne? i. e. Wert thou not at full liberry to have retained, and kept it for thine own private use, there being no Law of God imposing it as a duty upon thee, to sell it? And when it was sold, was it not in thy power? viz. whether thou wouldst part with the money, which thou receivedst for it, or no? The word [...] translated Power, doth not only signifie a Power of right, but of liberty also, or a freedome of will to dispose of it, as he pleased: otherwise, a Power of right had been of no ac­commodation unto him, nor any competent matter of the aggravation of his sin. Why hast thou put this thing into thy heart? viz. to dissemble and lye, pre­tending and professing to bring the whole money which thou receivedst for the possession, when as thou bringest a part of it only? God concurred with the motion of Ananias will, when he resolved to bring his money to the Apostles for publique distribution; and so likewise, when he brought it: otherwise he could not have resolved, or willed to do it. Yet this concurrence of God with him in his act of willing, or resolving, did not make it necessa­ry for him so to will, or resolve, because he had a Power, this notwithstand­ing, to have willed or resolved the contrary; I meane, either the keeping of the Possession to himself, being yet unsold; or the not-bringing the money received for it, to the Apostles. Otherwise both the act of selling it, and also of bringing the money to the Apostles, must be looked upon, not as the acts of Ananias, but of God himselfe. For whatsoever a man is necessitated to do, especially by a Principle of force, or power out of himselfe, is the act of the necessi [...]ator, not his. Yea the Apostle Paul, counteth it no flattery either of himselfe, or any▪ other man, to acquit both himself and them, of all such irregular acts, whereunto they are necessitated, though by an inward and in­herent Principle. Now (saith he) if I doe that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sinne that dwelleth in me Rom. 7. 20.. It is true, the act of Ananias his will, both for the selling of his Possession, and bringing the money to the Apostles, [Page 14] in the very instant of the Elicitation or Production of it, was necessary in this respect, viz. because now it could not be unproduced, according to the com­mon maxime; every thing that is, when it is, must of necessity be Unumquod­que quod est, quando est, ne­cesse est esse.: but it was not the concurrency of God with his Will, that imposed any necessity upon him to produce it, because then it had not been in his own power; neither had it been properly his own act, when produced.

But it may be here objected, and said; that though the specificall actions, §. 10. or motions, of all the causes mentioned, be determined (as hath been pro­ved) by the specificall natures, or properties of every of them respectively, and not by any concurrence of God with them, yet their individuall and par­ticular actions, and motions, are determined by some kinde of concurrence, or Providentiall interposall of God. As for example, that Fire (in the gene­rall) burneth that which is combustible being put to it, is from the nature of it, not from any concurrence of God with it: but that it burneth such, or such a mans house, goods, or the like, this is not simply from the nature of it, without some speciall disposall of Divine Providence. So againe that wicked and ungodly men, should (in the generall) do wickedly, as (for in­stance) plot, contrive, accomplish the death of such as are godly, proceedeth from themselves, and from the corruption of their wills, not from any con­currence of God with them, nor from any speciall interposall of his, in such actings. But that such and such wicked men, by name, should plot, and ef­fect the deaths of such and such godly men by name, and not the death of o­thers, godly also; proceedeth not so much from the wickednesse of such men, as from some speciall decree of God, together with a suteable interposall of his Providence and Power, for the effecting of it. That which Herod, and Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles, and the Jewes did, in, and about the crucify­ing of Christ, Peter saith, that the hand and counsell of God had determined before to be done Acts 4▪ 28. §. 11.. To this I answer;

1. That this particular and signall attribution of some speciall actions or events, unto God, or to the determination of his hand and counsell (other in­stances whereof are to be seene, 1 King. 12. 15. 2 Sam. 17. 14. Jos. 11. 20. Deut. 2. 30. &c.) cleerly argueth, that ordinarily actions are performed by men, and events come to passe upon other terms; I meane, without any such particular, or extraordinary interposition by God, either by way of Decree, or of Providentiall efficiency, or contribution towards them. Emphaticall and remarkable appropriations are unsavoury and impertinent, where all parti­culars are of one and the same consideration.

2. It is no where said, that the hand or counsell of God determineth before, §. 12. that such, or such evil actions, shall be done by such▪ or such particular men, or that such or such men shall do these, and these evill actions; but only that such, and such things shall be done. It is not said, that the hand or counsell of God had determined before, that Herod, Pontius Pilate, such and such of the Gen­tiles and of the Iewes, should have their hand in the crucifying of Christ; but only that these were gathered together, and levied their joynt endeavours to do whatsoever the hand and counsell of God had determined before to be done, [or, come to passe.] Notwithstanding the determination of God before hand con­cerning the crucifying of Christ, yet were Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the rest, at as much liberty to have declined all manner of compliance with the acti­on, as they could have been, in case no such pre-determination had passed in the counsell of God. For it is not here said, that God gathered Herod, or Pilate, or any of the rest together, to act in this businesse; but (as our for­mer [Page 15] Translation read it) that they gathered themselves together: Thus Calvin also translateth it: Convenerunt [...]nim, &c. i. e. They came, or met together, &c. Nor doth the passive reading of the word, were gathered together, imply any acting, much lesse any compulsive acting on Gods part, in uniting, or drawing them together about such a work. For such actions▪ which proceed from men themselves, or from their own wills, are frequently in Scripture (and may with propriety of speech enough, be) attributed unto them in terms of a Passive signification. But every man (saith Iames) is tempted, when he is DRAVVN AVVAY of his owne lust, and ENTICED Jam. 1 14. So also Paul: For of this sort are they, which creep into houses, and lead captive silly Women, LADEN with sins, LED AVVAY with diverse lusts 2 Tim. 3 6.. And again: For some are already TVRNED ASIDE after Satan 1 Tim. 5. 15.: (Besides many others). And if God, who hath so severely prohibited the shedding of bloud, or the taking away of any mans life unjustly, should any wayes incline, or dispose, espe­cially compell, men to the Perpetration of such things; should he not be divided, in, or against, himselfe? and then (according to the Processe of our Saviours Argument) how should his Kingdom stand? Mat. 12. 26. §. 13.. Therefore,

3. Some Interpreters (as Chrysostome, Oecumenius, Prosper, and others) do not refer the Decree spoken of Acts 4. 28. to the sin of those, who crucified Christ, but to the effects and fruits of his suffering, in this kind. Ac­cording to this interpretation, the sence of the place will rise thus: Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, &c. met together to do whatsoever the hand and counsell of God had determined before to be done. i. e. Whereas God had before determined to redeem and save the World by the delivering up of his Son unto death. i. e. By leaving of him to the wills and pleasures, and in the hands of such men, whom he infallibly fore-knew would put him to death, Herod, Pontius Pilate, &c. did now accordingly rise up, and though knowing nothing of the determinate counsell of God concerning that which should follow upon their wicked act, yet did that in crucifying Christ, which effected it. Not­withstanding, to speak properly, the redemption and salvation of the world, were not the effects of their act in crucifying Christ, but partly of the deter­minate counsell of God in leaving him in their hands for such a speciall Pur­pose; partly of the obedientiall humility, and voluntary subjection of Christ himself to his Fathers Will and Pleasure in that kind. So that that which the hand and counsell of God determined, was not the act of Herod, Pontius Pilate, &c. in putting him to death; but his own Providential act, or Premission, in leaving him in their hands for such a Purpose. God need not determine that before to be done, which he knew would be done without any determination of his in that behalf. See▪ v. 18. of the second, and v. 23. of the third Chapter of the Acts. But,

4. (And lastly) for the true and genuine sence and Purport of the Passage in hand, it is to be considered, 1. What the maine intent and scope of it is. 2. How the Words and Phrases in the Passage may, and must be understood, in order hereunto.

For the first, evident it is that the young converts or Christians, who are said to have uttered these words with one accord, intended hereby the magnifying of God (together with the strengthening of their own Faith) for his most gracious and wonderfull dispensation, in, and about the death and sufferings of Christ; as viz. that in order to the Redemption and Salvation of the World, he should so far dispence with the Counsels and Methods of his ordinary Pro­vidence in Protecting the innocent, and righteous, as to expose or leave his [Page 16] holy Child [or Son] Jesus, the most innocent and righteous Person o [...] all others, to the rage, malice, and cruelty of wicked men, yea so far, as to suffer death it self from them. There is no consideration able to reconcile the Providence, or Permission of God in leaving a Person of such infinite Worth, Holinesse and Greatnesse, as the Lord Christ was, in the hands of wicked men, with Principles of Reason, Equity, or Prudence (and so to render it worthy Faith) but only some great and signall designe to be accomplished and effected by it. Hence it is, that in their mention of what Herod and Pilato, the Gentiles and the Iewes had done unto Christ in Crucifying of him, they cast and fix their eye upon the hand and determinate counsell of God; i. e. Upon the speciall Counsell and Decree of God not to interpose by any Power or Providence of his, to prevent or divert the malice and rage, either of these, or of any other wicked men, that should have attempted the same thing, from crucifying the Lord of life, (though so innocent and holy a Per­son, as he was) Here is not the least intimation of any counsell or determina­tion by God, that any of the Persons here mentioned, or any others, should have acted in, towards, or about the death of Christ: but only that those things should be done (i. e. be permitted, or suffered by God to be done, as we shall shew further presently) which these men met together to effect and Per­petrate. Nor was it any wayes necessary, that God, in order to the salvation of the World by Christ, should determine or decree, that such and such men by Name, should crucifie, or put him to death; no nor yet that Christ should be actually crucified by any man, or men whatsoever: for the effecting of this great and blessed designe, it was sufficient for God to determine and de­cree, that in case any man, or number of men, should attempt his death, he would not restrain or hinder them from effecting it.

If it be objected; But did not the Redemption and Salvation of the World depend upon the actuall death, or crucifying of Christ? and if so, should not God have left this great and gracious designe of his in suspence, and at uncertainty, for matter of execution, in case hee had not Absolutely and Positively decreed the death of Christ, by one meanes or other, as ei­ther by those who now did effect it, or by some other men? To this I Answer;

No: the Salvation of the World (doubtlesse) did not depend upon the actuall or literall dying, or crucifying of Christ, but partly upon the councell and good pleasure of God, to deliver him up unto death in order to this end. [ i. e. To leave him freely unto men to crucifie him, if they would] partly upon the readinesse and perfect submission of will in Christ to suffer death, in case any man, or men, should be found, that would inflict it upon him. My grounds and reasons for this Opinion are;

1. If the Salvation of the World depends wholly and intirely upon the merit and satisfaction of Christ, in conjunction with the Will and good Plea­sure of God the Father to accept of this satisfaction in order thereunto, then did it, doth it, no wayes depend upon any thing done by other men, espe­cially wicked men, least of all upon any thing done wickedly and provo­kingly in the sight of God by them; and consequently the actuall or literall Crucifiers of Christ contributed nothing at all simply necessary to­wards the salvation of the World. Sed verum prius: ergo et posterius.

2. If the merit of Christ received no addition, was no wayes perfected, by the actings of those who Crucified him, or by the things which he suffered from them, then did not the salvation of the World depend upon his being [Page 17] actually crucified, or upon his crucifying by men, but only upon that cru­cifying, wherewith he had crucified himself before men came to lay hands upon him. Sed verum prius: ergo et posterius. That the merit of Christ was no wayes perfected or augmented by the things which he suffered from men, is evident; because he acted or did nothing herein, or under these sufferings, more then what he had done before in the inward transactions of his Soul; yea and would have done still, or againe, whether men had Crucified him, or no.

3. If the acceptation of the sacrifice of Christ, depended only upon, 1. The nature, quality, and legitimatenesse of the Sacrifice. 2. Upon the legitima­cy and dignity of the Priest offering. 3. (And lastly) upon the legitimate­nesse of the manner observed in the offering, then was not the act of those who Crucified Christ, any wayes contributing towards the acceptation of this Sacrifice: and if so, the acceptation hereof with God had been the same (and consequently, the salvation of the World, Purchased and Procured by it) whether men had interposed to Crucifie Christ, or no. Evident it is that they who Crucified Christ, neither gave legitimatenesse to the Sacrifice: nor were any legitimate Priests, upon whose actings about the Sacrifice, the acceptation of the offering any wayes depended; nor. 3. Did they, in what they did about the Crucifying of Christ, observe any legitimatenesse of order or manner, which should render the oblation acceptable with God. There­fore the acceptance of that great Sacrifice we speake of, with God, depended wholly upon Christ Himself, who 1. In respect of his Person, was a legiti­mate Sacrifice to make that great attonement for the World, that was made by him. 2. In respect of his office, was a legitimate High Priest, anointed by God to offer that great Sacrifice of himself. 3. (And lastly) by vertue of his Holinesse, Love, Zeale, and all other heavenly endowments requisite for his Office of Priest-hood, performed the oblation with a perfect obser­vation of all the requirements appertaining to the Law or manner of such an offering. In none of all these had he the least dependance upon those who put him to death: nor stood he in need of their wickednesse in Crucifying him, to make him either Sacrifice, Priest, or oblation of highest acceptance with God.

4. The Apostle expresly affirmeth concerning men, that if there be first a willing minde, it is accepted [meaning with God] according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not 2 Cor. 8. 12. His meaning cleerely is, that where there is a cleare, perfect, and upright desire of soule in any man, to perform any service pleasing unto God, but wants opportunity or meanes for the actuall or compleate performance of it, and shall go, in, or towards the Performance, as far as he hath opportunity or meanes to carry him, such a man findes the same acceptance with God under these deficiencies, which he should finde under an actuall and compleate Performance. This is that which Divines commonly expresse in saying, that God accepts the will for the deed. Now there is no reason to conceive or think, but that God should deal in a way of as much equity and grace with Christ, as he doth with other men. Therefore supposing that there was a cleere, perfect, and intire willingnesse, or readinesse of minde in Christ to lay down his life for the World, but he had wanted an opportunity actually to have done it, (as suppose no man should have appeared to take away his life from him) there is no sufficient reason to think, but that he had been accepted with God upon the same terms under, or in respect of such his willingness, or desire, on which he is now accep­ted under his actuall Death.

[Page 18]5. (And lastly) if it was the deepe humility, and perfect subjection to the Fathers Will and Pleasure, together with those other inward and graci­ous deportments of soule in Christ, in, and under his sufferings, which gave the whole and intire worth of merit and satisfaction unto them, then were his bare externall sufferings considered a part from these, no wayes merito­rious; and consequently of no absolute necessity for, or towards, the Re­demption of the World. Sed verum prius: ergo et posterius. The former con­sequence in this argument, is evident: because nothing, whether Action, or Passion, can be meritorious, without something in it, or relating to it, which should give it the weight or worth of merit. The latter consequence is no lesse evident neither. For whatever, whether doings, or sufferings, are wholly voyd of merit, though they may somewayes contribute towards the worke of Redemption, yet can they be no wayes essentiall, or of absolute necessity thereunto. For the minor; neither is this much questionable; the Scriptures themselves from place to place, placing the value, merit, or expi­atory worth of the death and sufferings of Christ, over and besides the dig­nity of his Person, in his innocency, meekenesse, humility, Perfect subjection to his Fathers Will, &c. Let these Passages be considered. Heb. 9. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Heb. 7. 26, 27, 28. with many others of like import. Now certaine it is, 1. That the excellency and dignity of the Person of Christ, was and would have been the same. 2. That the Innocency, Humility, Love, Pa­tience, Obedience of Christ were, and would have been the same also, whether he had actually and corporally suffered, or no. Therefore whatsoever was Properly, Formally, or Essentially meritorious in Christ, was in him be­fore his sufferings of a naturall death, and would have been in him, whether he had suffered such a Death, or no: and consequently the worke of Re­demption might have prospered in his hand, whether he had thus suffered, or not.

If it be demanded; but doth not this Doctrine suppose, or make, Christ to have died in vaine? yea, and contradict all those Scriptures, which ascribe the Redemption, and Salvation of men, to his Blood, Death, Crosse, and Suffering? I answer; neither: it is most free from both these erroneous im­pieties. From the former, because the death of Christ is soveraignly neces­sary upon severall other accounts; as 1. If he should not have actually yeil­ded up himself unto death, there being found those that would, and did, at­tempt it, it must needs have been conceived and concluded by men, that he was not truly, inwardly, and really willing and free to have laid down his life for the World: and consequently there had been no ground, or footing for any man to believe, either that he was the Son of God, or that he was meri­toriously qualified for the Redemption of the World. Secondly, had he al­wayes declined actuall dying, under those frequent attempts made by men to take away his life, it could not have been known (and so not upon any suf­ficient ground believed) that God the Father delivered him up to Death: and consequently his Will and good Pleasure concerning the salvation of the World by his Son, could not upon any competent terms have been believed. Thirdly, the Prophecies in the old Testament concerning the actuall suffer­ings of Christ could not have been fullfilled. Fourthly, upon the said suppo­sition as, viz. That he had an opportunity thorough the bloud thirsty ma­lice of men, to lay down his life actually, if he should not have done it, that great example of his Humility, Patience, Self-deniall, Love of the Brethren even unto bloud, &c. had been wanting in the Churches. Fifthly, (and [Page 19] lastly) upon the supposition mentioned, the actuall dying of Christ was al­together necessary in respect of the inward frame and disposition of his Soul, which rendred him freely willing to lay down his Life, in case it should be required of him, at, or after such a time, as his Father judged it meete to per­mit the execution. Now such a frame and disposition of Heart and Soule, as this, was (as was formerly argued) absolutely necessary to be found in Christ, to qualifie him for a Redeemer: and being found in him, it could not possibly but produce his actuall death, when men should attempt it, and God no wayes interpose to prevent it. Thus then you see cleerly, how the Doctrine, which denieth an absolute necessity of Christs actuall and externall Death, in order to the salvation of the World, no wayes rendreth, or supposeth this death of his to be in vaine.

Nor doth the Doctrine we now speake of contradict any of those Scrip­tures, which attribute the Redemption and Salvation of the World to his Blood, Death, Sufferings, &c. For when we are said to be healed by his stripes, 1. Pet. 2. 24. to be justified by his Blood, Rom. 5. 9. to have Redemption thorough his Blood, Eph. 1. 7. &c. It no wayes supposeth or implies, that the liter­all or materiall shedding of his Blood by men was simply and absolutely ne­cessary, either to the justification, or redemption of men, but only that a shedding of it, by himself, spiritually, in that great Act of Resignation of it to be shed by men, which passed and was transacted inwardly in his Soule, whether it had been externally shed by men, or no, was simply and absolutely necessary thereunto. There is scarce any Phrase or Idiome of speech more frequent in Scripture, then to mention and speake of an act simply, and inde­finitely, as performed and done, when the doing of it hath been fully resolved, concluded, or consented unto in the heart and soule, whether ever it be actu­ally and externally done, or no. Thus Abraham, in the same Verse is twice said to have offered up his son Isaac Heb. 11. 17.; only because he was inwardly, really, and fully willing to have offered him up literally, which yet (we know) he did not. So a man is said to forsake all he hath Luk. 14. 33., when he is inwardly and un­feignedly willing and resolved to forsake all [literally, and actually] when he shall be called to it, whether he be ever so called, or no. In this Phrase of speech God is said to have given the Land of Canaan unto the Israelites, Ios. 1. 3. when as he had only purposed or resolved to give it unto them, as ap­pears Ver. 6. So to have saved us, 2 Tim. 1. 9. only because of his full purpose to save us; upon our believing. So againe to have rejected Saul from being King, 1 Sam. 15. 23. only because he was fully purposed to reject him, upon his impenitence in his rebellious course: for evident it is, that Saul was per­mitted to injoy his Kingdome, a considerable space of time, after it was said that God had rejected him from being King. In like manner he is said, Cap. 13. 13. To have established (for so Arias Montanus translates out of the Origi­nall, viz. stabilierat▪ and our former English Translators, had established) the Kingdome of Saul upon Israel for ever, only because he was purposed to do it, and that conditionally too, viz. upon the good behaviour of himself, and his Posterity, in the Throne. It were easie to multiply instances in this kinde even unto wearinesse. In like construction of speech, Christ may be said to have given his Flesh, layd down his Life, shed his Blood for the Re­demption of the World, justification of men, &c. (and consequently, the World be said to be redeemed, and men justified by his Blood, Death, Crosse, &c.) onely because he was freely willing, unfeignedly ready and prepared to doe all these actually, when the Providence of God, and the wickednesse [Page 20] of men should afford him an an opportunity to do them. Nor can it be said, that (in such a sence) he should ever the lesse have given his Flesh, layd down his Life, shed his Blood for the salvation of the World, then now he hath done, in case the Providence of God, and wickednesse of men, should never have conspired or agreed about the taking away his Life from him. It was his Blood, as shed by himself, not by men; it was his Life, as laid down by himself, not as taken from him by men; it was his Flesh, as given or offered by himself, not as sacrificed by wicked men, which produc'd those glorious and blessed effects, the Redemption, Justification, and Salvation of the World. Now Christ, to shed his Blood, in such a sence as he shed it; to lay down his Life▪ in such a manner, as he by any act or consent of his concurred and acted towards the laying of it down; and so to give his Flesh, as he gave it, needed not the malice, violence, or bloudy injustice of men; but did all this, performed all these acts within his own sphere; yea, and had performed them, before the least drop of his Bloud was spilt by men: and consequently the Redemption and Salvation of the World were provided for by him in all things essentiall, and simply necessary thereunto, before either Herod, or Filate the Gentiles, or the Jewes interposed with any of their counsels, or ingagements, for the Crucifying of him.

Thus then we see what the Christians mean, in saying, that Herod and Pilate, with the Gentiles and People of Israel gathered together to do what­soever the hand and counsell of God had determined before to be done; viz. to act towards, in, and about the Death and Crucifying of Christ, to the ut­termost ( [...], quaecunque) of what God had before upon a speciall account and designe, determined or Decreed to Permit them to do, or rather, to Per­mit to be done, notwithstanding his Hand or Power, to have prevented them. For (to touch the second thing propounded) the word, [...], translated, to be done, doth not import any eventuall certainty, or indispensable ne­cessity of the comming to passe of those things, which Herod, Pilate, &c. gathered themselves together to do, and accordingly did, about the Crucify­ing of Christ; but only, the possibility, or (if we will) the probability of their comming to passe upon the determined Permission of God in that be­half. (For that the Permissive Decree of God, doth not import the cer­tainty, or necessity of event in things so Decreed, is afterwards proved in this Chapter Sect. 20.). It is a form of speech frequent in the Scriptures, to speak of things probable, or likely to come to passe, as if they should, or would, sim­ply and certainly come to passe: and so again to use the infinitive Mood in a potentiall sence, or signification. An instance of the former, we have, Deut. 13. 11. And all Israel shall heare, and feare, and shall do no more, any such wickednesse as this is, among you. The meaning is not, that it shall cer­tainly and infallibly thus come to passe, viz. That no Israelite, hearing of the judgment executed upon the idolatrous Seducer, would ever commit the like wickednesse afterwards; but that the hearing of such a severe course taken with such an offender, should be a probable and likely means to preserve others from the like wickednesse. Another passage of like expression and im­port, you have, Deut. 17. 13. and againe Deut. 19. 20. See also, Gen. 21. 6. Num. 14. 13. 14. Ioh. 11. 48. (to omit other the like without number) An See Franciscus Vigerus, De praecipu [...]s Grae­cae dictionis Idiotismis, p. 99. instance of the latter we have, Rom. 1. 20. [...]. i. e. That they might be, or, that they may be (as our last translators render it in their margent) or that they should be (as our former translators had it) without ex­cuse, [viz. in case they glorifie not God as God.] See also Rom. 4. 11. where [Page 21] the infinitive Mood is twice used in such a potentiall sence as we speake of. So when Christ saith unto Simon and Andrew (Mar. 1. 17.) Follow mee, [...], i. e. and I will make, [or cause] you to be [or, to become] fishers of men, his meaning is not, that upon condition they would follow him, he would compell or force them to be fishers of men, (he might have done this as well without perswading them to follow him) but that he would furnish them with such wisdome and knowledge, with such an heavenly art and skill, that if their hearts would serve them for the im­ployment, they might, and should be excellently accomplished and fitted by him, for the drawing of men out of the World unto God. See also Mar. 10. 44. Luk. 8. 35. 23. 24. And (to cite no more places upon this account, which readily might be done to a far greater number) in the next Verse (save one) to the words in hand the same speakers expresse themselves thus,— [...]. &c. i. e. And that signes and wonders MAY BE DONE by the Name, &c. So that whereas in the Scripture in debate, we have the Originall, [...], translated, to be done, as if the mean­ing were, that the hand and counsell of God had positively and conclusively determined, that all those things should be done, which now were done by Herod, Pilate, &c. about the Crucifying of Christ; it might, as properly, with as much consonancy to the Scripture Dialect and Phrase elsewhere, and (questionlesse) with farre better agreement with the truth, be rendered, MIGHT BE DONE. And then the sEnce of the whole Passage imports no more but this, that Herod, Pilate, &c. were gathered together to do the utter­most of what God had long before, even from eternity, graciously and sa­pientially determined to permit and suffer them to doe, in, and about the Death and Crucifying of Christ. So then here is nothing in this Scripture to prove, that God peremptorily decreed or determined before hand the Cru­cifying of Christ by Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, or the Jewes, or by any other Persons; but only that in order to his great and blessed designe of saving the World, he thus Decreed, that either these, or any other (in case these had not done it) should be at liberty to Perpetrate this great wickednesse, and that he would not by his hand or Power interpose to hinder them, in case they should attempt it; which he from eternity foresaw, and certainly knew that they would.

This sence of the place is fully confirmed from all these and such like ex­pressions in Scripture: Who was DELIVERED up [meaning by God] for our offences Rom 4. 25.. So again, He that spared not his own Son, DELIVERED HIM UP for us all, &c. Rom. 8. 32.. And again: Him being DELIVERED [ [...], given out, viz. out of the protecting or rescuing Hand of God] by the deter­minate counsell and foreknowledge of God, yee have taken, and by wicked hands have Crucified, &c. Acts 2. 23.. Such passages as these evidently shew, that God went no further in any of his Determinations, or Decrees about the actuall Cru­cifying of Christ, but only to a delivering of him up. i. e. to a leaving of him un-guarded, unprotected, for wicked men to doe with him (thus far) even what they list; not to any necessitating of any person, or persons whatsoever, to lay violent hands upon him.

If it be objected, but how doth it stand with the Wisdome of God to de­termine §. 14. events before hand, without determining meanes, or instruments, which shall infallibly produce, or give being unto them? Or doth he deter­mine any thing, the effecting whereof he leaveth in the Liberty, and Power of men? So that they may chuse, whether it shall be effected, or no? I Answer,

[Page 22]1. (In the generall) that God never determineth any thing, but what he either provideth meanes himself, or else knoweth himself sufficiently provi­ded otherwise, to bring to passe; viz. according to the tenor, manner, and form of his Determination. But

2. Whatsoever God determineth to do, or to be done, in case, or upon such or such a supposition, though his determination it self be absolute, and independent upon any condition whatsoever, yet the event, or the thing determined, upon such terms, is suspended upon the condition included in the determination. As for example, it cannot be denied, but that God had determined to destroy Niniveh within fourty dayes after warning given here­of Jona. 3 4. by the Preaching of Jonah. For doubtlesse if he had not purposed or de­termined the thing, he would not have ingaged his Prophet to Preach, and as­sert it in his Name. But because the tenor and forme of this his determina­tion was conditionall, importing only a purpose in him to inflict the judge­ment determined, in case they humbled not themselves within so many dayes after the denunciation of this judgement as determined by him, their humili­ation and repentance intervening within the time limited in the determina­tion or Decree, the judgement determined was not executed; nor did the tenor of the determination import any other, then the non-execution of the judgement determined in such a case. A like instance we have, 1 Sam. 2. 30. Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed (i. e. I purposed, or de­termined) that thy house, and the house of thy Father, should walke before me, (viz. in the Office and Dignity of the Priestood) for ever. But now the Lord saith, be it far from me: for them that honour me, I will honour: and they that despise me, shall be lighty esteemed. The purpose or determination of God for vesting the Priest hood for ever (i. e. during the use and continuance of it in the World) in Elie's house, was absolute, not alterable, or changeable, by any intervention, one, or more, of what nature, or kinde, soever. But what then was the tenor or forme, of this determination, or purpose? not catego­ricall, or simply assertive, as, viz. That the Priest-hood should remaine in this house or family, for ever, how much soever it should at any time dege­nerate from it self in sin and wickednesse, but Hypotheticall, and Provisi­onall, thus; the Priest-hood shall remaine for ever in Elie's House, provi­ded that this house remaines faithfull, and observant of the Law of their God concerning this dignity. This purpose or determination of God, I call absolute, and unchangeable, because neither Death, nor Life, nor Angels, nor Principalities, nor Powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, by any interposition whatsoever, could, or should have hindered, the said duration or continuance of the Priesthood in Elies house, in case it had remained faithfull. The Scriptures abound with instances of like consideration with these. See 1 Cor. 6. 9. 10. Gal. 5. 21, &c.

§. 15. 3. God may leave the execution or fullfiling of his determinations (such as they may be) at the free liberty, and in the power of men, and yet have assurance and certainty enough, that they will be executed and fullfilled. For being infinite in wisdom, and so able to discerne and comprehend the most secret, subtile, and tickle Proportions and Connexions between causes and effects Cognitio illa Dci Sapientia­lis omnino certa est, et infallibi­lis; sed non in­fallibilitate sci­entiae quae su­mitur ab ob­j [...]cta, sed ab in­tell [...]ctu Divi­no, perf [...]ctissime & infallibiliter jud [...]cante e­tiam de falli­bilibus & con­tingentibus. Arrib. Op. Con­ciliat. lib. 1 ca. 9. Effectus causa vum creatarum vide [...] qu [...]dem Deus in ipsi [...] causis, multo melius quam nos. Aqu. Sum. part. 1. Qu. 14. Art. 7. Quccun (que) igitur pissunt per creaturam fieri, vel cogitari. vel dici; & etiam quaecunqu [...] ips [...] fac [...]r [...] po [...]st, omnia cognoscit Deus, etiamst actu non sunt. Ibid. Art. 9. Divina essentia est ratio cognoscendi intuitive quodcunque intelligibile, etiamsi nullum existeret in se. Rada. Contr. 30. Art. 3., such as are altogether undiscernable both unto Men, and Angels, [Page 23] (as between the will of a man attended with such and such Principles, and Notions of things in the understanding, for her guide in her elections, and againe, with such and such objects, circumstances, and occasions about her, and between all possible or imaginable elections, or actions, in such a case) God (I say) thorough the infinitenesse of his wisdome being able to pene­trate, calculate, and compute, all, and all manner of relations, and aspects, between all and all manner of causes and effects whatsoever, is able infallib­ly, without all possibility of error or mistake, to foresee, not only all mens actions and wayes, what they will be from the beginning of the World to the end thereof, being conscious to his own Modell, Platforme, and intentions for the government of the World; but likewise what they would have been, had himself been pleased to have carried the government of the World (I meane, in circumstances and occasions relating to it) otherwise. He did not only foresee, that Saul would come down to Keilah, which he did; but also that the Lords of Keilah would have delivered David into Sauls hand, in case he had stayed there till Sauls comming, and demanding of him; which yet they did not, because they were prevented of the opportunity, by Davids departure from them before. 1 Sam. 23. 11, 12. So that in this sence God may be said to determine, what will, or shall, be done in the World by men; not by determining, or decreeing to bow, or bend their wills by any immediate or physicall influx, or acting of his Power upon them, much lesse by necessitating or compelling them to their respective elections; but by determining or decreeing, either to suffer them to remaine so, and so, af­fected or inclin'd, and under the Power and guidance of such, and such Prin­ciples, which he certainly foreseeth that they will drinke in; or else to put new Principles of light into them, by the influence whereof he also cleerly foreseeth that the tenor and frame of their wills and affections will freely alter, and change; and with all, to give being to such and such, circumstan­ces, providences, and occasions, which have such or such an aspect upon, or reference unto, them, in such, or such, a Posture. Upon these terms, the hand and counsell of God might and did absolutely determine, the giving up of his Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Crosse, and yet not deter­mine, either that Herod, Pontius Pilate, or any other Person, or Persons, by Name, should have acted this his determination, knowing certainly, 1. That these men would act it freely, and without being any wayes determined, yea or in the least degree excited, by him hereunto: 2. That in case these had not acted it, there were enough in the World besides that would. But

4. Concerning those actions of men, with their Consequences, Pro­ductions, §. 16. and Events, which are so emphatically and signally (as hath been said) attributed unto God; the reason of this attribution (I conceive) is, partly because the conjunction of such Principles in men, and Providences about men, between which the actions we speake of are begotten and produ­ced, is somewhat particular and rare; partly also (and chiefly) because the event and consequence of such actions, are some speciall designe and intend­ment of God, as is cleerly to be seen in the instances already pointed at, Deut. 2. 27. compared with v. 30. Jos. 11. 20. 2 Sam. 17. 14. 1 King. 12. 15. & Act. 4. 28. compared with Rom. 4. 25. & 8. 32. &c. Therefore,

5. Concerning the ordinary and constant, motions, and actions, of other §. 17. Creatures, in the World, though the least of them commeth not to passe without the knowledge, and fore-knowledge of God (in such a sence, as foreknowledge is attributable unto him) nor without his Prudentiall disposall [Page 24] of them to their (or rather his) respective ends, yet can they not be said be to de­termined by him in any other sence, or consideration, then this; viz. as he was the Author of such and such determinate Natures, Properties, and Beings, in the Creation, which by his ordinary concurrence with them for support and action, are apt to move or to act after such, or such a manner, determinately. The regular and respective motions, shinings, influences, of the Sun, Moon, and Starres, the flowing of Rivers from their Fountaines together with the decurrency of their Waters into the Sea, with a thousand things besides of like consideration, are no otherwise determined by God, then as hath beene said.

6. Concerning the particular motions, actions, and exertions of such Crea­tures, §. 18. or Causes, which though meerly naturall, do not move, act, or exert uniformly or without variation, but with a latitude and disproportion in their motions and effects, there is ground (I conceive) to judge, that God doth (at least, sometimes, though not so frequently, as is commonly pre­sum'd) Providentially interpose, beyond his ordinary concurrence, to oc­casion or bring to passe such a variation. As for example, that the same ground, with the same labour, cost, and skill of the Husbandman bestowed on it, doth not yeild a like proportion of increase one year, which it doth ano­ther; so againe, that the same fruit-bearing Trees, are barren one year, and well-bearing another; that the Seas are Pacifique and commodious for Pas­sage at one time, in such parts and places of them, as when such, and such Ships, with such and such Persons in them, passe thorough them, where they are turbulent and dangerous at another time, when such and such other Ships, and Persons in them, passe the same way, (with many more particulars of like consideration) the reason (doubtlesse) of the variety and diversity of occurrences, or effects, in this kinde, is not alwayes to be resolved, either di­visim, or conjunction, only into the native Properties of the Causes, whether mediately, or immediately producing them, or into the ordinary and stand­ing concurrence of God, with these Causes, for, or in producing them; but there is somewhat a more particular hand of the great Ruler of the World, which formes and fashions them in such different shapes; and that in order to such and such ends, which though sometimes apprehensible enough, yet for the most part are very hard for men to call by their Names. Only this remaines true, that in such occurrences and events, as those now specified, notwithstanding that great diversity found between them, yet ordinarily all Particular Causes interessed in the Production of them, act in a regular and due conformity to their respective Natures, and Properties, and are not forced or turned out their way by any immediate Power or interposall of God. And that which he doth in order to a diversification, when the dif­ference is Preter-naturall, and signally from him, consists either in a multi­plication of, or a substraction from, the number of Causes, which accord­ing to the course of nature, and ordinary Providence, would have joyned in raising the effect, or else in suspending, either in whole or in part, or in augmenting the operating vertue, of one cause, or more present with those, which together raise and produce the effect. Which suspension and augmen­tation, though in a sence they may be called miraculous, yet are they not direct or perfect miracles, partly because they are not so obvious to any of the outward senses, partly also, because, though they be unusuall and rare, compared with the co [...] of ordinary Providence, yet are they frequent in such kindes of dispensations, which are either signally penall, or muni­ficent.

[Page 25]7. Concerning such occurrences and casuall events, wherein, or whereby, §. 19. any creature suffers losse, either of being, or of well-being, in what kinde, or degree soever, neither are these determined by God, though he takes speciall knowledge of them both before, and when they come to passe, and contrives them accordingly to their most appropriate ends. When our Saviour reach­eth his Disciples, that a Sparrow shall not fall to the ground (i. e. be taken, kil'd, or hurt,) without his Heavenly Father; his meaning is not to assert a particular Decree or determination in God, concerning the death, or hurt, of every Sparrow, that either dieth, or receiveth harme; but to shew, that God is vigilant and carefull in his Rule and Government of the World; and taketh exact notice how his Creatures suffer, or are diminished. It is more proper (of the two) and neerer to the truth, to say and hold, that God determineth the preservation, or keeping alive of those Sparrowes, which fall not to the ground, then that he determineth the falling to the grounds of every one that so falleth. The reason is, because the object of Gods determinations or De­crees, is only that which is good, whereas things indifferent, and things that are evill, are the object of his knowledge, as well as that, which is good. But of this more hereafter. So when any mans Person, House, or Goods, are con­sum'd, or hurt, by Fire, there is no competent ground to say or thinke, that any of these were determined by God, or that they might not have been pre­vented. For certaine it is, that he Decreed not, either the negligence or care­lesnesse, nor yet the malice, of those, who thorough either the one, or the other, were the Authors of such accidents.

If it be said, yea but the permission of such accidents as these, is good: §. 20. otherwise God would not permit them to be. And if so, then such a Per­mission may be the object of Gods Determination and Decree. And if God Decreeth the Permission of a thing, doth not this include, or suppose, a ne­cessity that it shall, will, or must come to passe? If so, it is as much determined or necessitated by Gods, Permissive Decree, as if it had been directly and pe­remptorily decreed by him; To this I answer,

It is indeed the judgement of some learned men, that the purpose or in­tent Dr. Twisse. of God to permit or suffer such, or such a thing to be done, or such or such an accident to come to passe, supposeth a necessity (at least a syllogisti­call or consequentiall necessity) of the comming of it to passe. But that the truth lieth on the other side of the way, appears by the light of this con­sideration. If whatsoever God hath Decreed, or intendeth, to permit to come to passe in any case, upon any terms, or any supposition whatsoever, should by vertue of such an intention or Decree, necessarily come to passe, then all things possible to be, (or at least ten thousand things more then ever shall be) must be, yea and this necessarily. For (doubtlesse) God hath Decreed, and intendeth, to leave naturall Causes, generally, to their naturall and proper Operations, and Productions; yea and voluntary Causes also, under a Power, and at liberty, to act ten thousand things more, then ever they will do, or shall do. For example; God intendeth, and hath Decreed, to permit, that fire shall burne, what combustible matter soever it shall take hold of, or that shall be cast into it; that one sparke of it falling into a bar­rell of dried Gun-powder, should suddainly fire it, &c. but it doth not fol­low from hence, that therefore every thing that is combustible in the World, shall be burnt with Fire; or that every barrell of dry Gun-powder shall be blown up with sparkes of Fire falling into them. So (in the instance for­merly mentioned) God had Decreed to permit the Lords of Keilah to de­liver [Page 26] up David into Sauls hand, in case he had stayed in their City, till Sauls comming to demand him: this is evident from the Text 1 Sam. 23. 12.. But it did not follow from this Permissive Decree of God, that therefore these Lords must necessarily deliver up David into Sauls hand: for we know they did it not. So likewise God hath Decreed to permit any man to destroy the life of an­other Vitae alienae Dominus est, quisquis con­temptor est suae. Sen. whom he meets with (I meane, in respect of a naturall Power to doe the execution) but it followeth not from hence, that therefore every man must necessarily murther, or destroy the life of his Brother that commeth in his way. So that evident it is, that no Decree of God whatsoever, which is simply and purely Permissive, doth import any necessity at all of the perpe­tration, or comming to passe, of the thing so Decreed. God permitted Adam to eate of every Tree in the Garden of Eden (the Tree of the knowledge of good and evill, only excepted Gen. 2. 16. 17.) and therefore certainly had Decreed, or Inten­ded this Permission: yet was not Adam any wayes necessitated by any vertue or influence of this Decree upon him, to eate of every of these Trees; nor is it in the least degree credible, that ever he did eate of every of them, nor yet of any one of them, but only that, which was prohibited unto him, his ejecti­on out of this Garden following so suddenly after this Patent, or Permission, granted unto him. The reason why no Decree of God, that is purely and barely permissive, either induceth or supposeth any necessity of the com­ming to passe, of what is only so Decreed, is this. First, because no such De­cree doth any wayes interesse God to any manner of interposall, either by his wisdom, power, or providence in what kinde soever, towards the effecting or bringing to passe of what is so decreed. So that such events, which are no otherwise Decreed by God, then thus, are in the same posture of contingen­cy, in the same possibility of being, or not being, wherein they would have been, had there been no such Decree at all concerning them. Secondly, nei­ther doth any such Decree in God suppose a futurity of such a concurrence of Causes simply requisite and necessary for the bringing of things, so De­creed, to passe, which will actually bring them to passe. Though God hath Decreed, that a spark, or coale of Fire, falling, i. e. in case it shall fall, into a barrell of Gun-powder, shall fire it, yet it doth not follow from hence, that he hath Decreed that any such sparke, or coale, shall fall into it; without which notwithstanding the effect Decreed, viz. the firing of this powder, will not come to passe. Or if it be said, that God hath Decreed that such a spark, or coale, shall fall into the said barrell of powder, now is not the De­cree barely permissive, but operative and assertive, and such which ingageth the Decreer to interpose effectually for the bringing of the thing Decreed to passe. But such Decrees as this, in matters of that nature, we deny to be in God.

If it be yet further objected; yea but all events, and whatsoever commeth §. 21. to passe at any time, in any place, or with relation to any person whatsoever, are fore-seene, and fore-known by God. And if so, then is there an absolute and unavoydable, necessity of their comming to passe: otherwise the fore­knowledge of God shall be but conjecturall, obnoxious to error and mistake, not certain, or infallible. To this I answer;

1. By concession; viz. that the knowledge of God (for fore-knowledge, if we speake properly, is not competible to him Quia ca, quae nobis fu­tura sunt, vi­det, quae tamen ipsi semper prae­sto sunt, praesci­us dicitur, quanvis ne­quaquam futu­rum praevideat, quod praesens videt. Greg. Mor. l. 2. c. 23.) is all light, and there is no darkenesse in it at all: all possibility of error or mistake are ten thousand times further from it, then the Heavens are from the Earth. But,

[Page 27]2. I answer further (by way of exception) that notwithstanding the cer­tainty of the knowledge of God concerning things, that dayly and hourly come to passe, and that will come to passe hereafter, yet there is no more, no other necessity of their comming to passe, in respect of such his know­ledge, then there would, or should, have been, in case no such knowledge were, or had been, in him. For certaine it is, that no knowledge, as such, hath any influence at all upon the object, or thing known, to cause it to be, or not to be Non ideo pec­cavit Adam, quia Deus hoc suturum nove­rat; sed praesci­vit Deus, quasi Deus, quod ille erat propria vo­luntate factu­rus. Hieronym. Dial. 3. contra Pelag. Deus praescientia sua non cogit facien­da, quae futura sunt. Aug. de llb. Arbit. l. 3. c. 4..

If it be replied; yea, but if God knowes, that such and such things will come to passe, is there not a necessity of their comming to pass: or otherwise, must not the knowledge of God prove abortive, and be accompani­ed with error?

I answer, no: if the events supposed to be knowne by God before their §. 22. comming to passe, be contingent, or at least such, in the Production where­of Futura con­tingentia, etiam ut subsunt di­vinae scientiae, non sunt simpli­citer necessaria. Rada. Contr. 30. Art: 5. Scientia Dei non tollit con­tingentiam ab eo, quod est sci­tum. ibid. the wills of men must some wayes or other, interpose, if ever they be pro­duced, (of which kinde of events only we now speake) the certainty of the knowledge of God may be salved, and yet no absolute necessity of the com­ming to passe of such events be supposed. The reason is, because at the same time, when God seeth, or knoweth, that they will come to passe, he seeth and knoweth also, that there is no necessity they should come to passe, but that they may well be prevented. In which respect, in case they should not come to passe, the knowledge of God should suffer no defeature, or disparage­ment.

If yet it be said; yea but when it is supposed, that God knoweth that such, §. 23. or such, an event will come to passe, if it should be supposed withall, that he knoweth it may not come to passe, or that it may come to passe otherwise, then according to this knowledge, doth not this suppose or imply a conscious­nesse in God of the weakness or deficiency of his knowledge?

I answer, no; but rather the contrary; viz. a consciousnesse in him of the strength and perfection of his knowledge. For he that knoweth not that contingent and free-working Causes, which way soever they shall act in or­der to any particular event, might yet act otherwise, or suspend their actings, is certainly defective in knowledge. And if God did not as well know, that there is a Possibility of the non-futurity, or of the not comming to passe of such contingent events, which he knoweth will come to passe, as well as he certainly knoweth that they will come to passe, he should be defective in his knowledge concerning the Nature and Property of contingent and free­working Causes: in as much as this is their Nature and Property (as hath been said) to be at liberty in reference to particular actings, to act one way, as well as another, or else to suspend their action. Indeed if it should be said, or thought, that any event WILL not, or SHALL not, come to passe, which God knoweth before hand will come to passe, this would im­port an obnoxiousness unto error in the knowledge, or fore-knowledge, of God. But to say, or think, that such an event, whose future comming to passe God knoweth, MAY, notwithstanding this knowledge of his, not come to passe, reflects no dishonour or disparagement at all upon his know­ledge Cum ista, Antichristus crit, stat haec, Antichristus potest non fore. Rada. Contr. 30. Art. 6. Et paulo post; non pugnat igitur quod Deus sciat, Petrum esse peccaturum, & tamen quod ipse possit non pec­care, vel possit non esse pecca­turus.; but rather gives an honorable and high testimony of excellency and perfection unto it. For he that certainly knowes what contingent and free-working Causes will do, notwithstanding their freedom and liberty either to do, or not to do, or to do otherwise, must needs be excellent in knowledge in­deed, and one who needeth not count it robbery to be equall with God.

Concerning the acts of the wills of men, which are called (I know not how Properly) supernaturall, I meane such, which have an essentiall con­nexion with their eternall happiness and glory, how, or how far they are, determined by God, and how, and how far, not, we shall be better fitted with an opportunity to demonstrate in the Process of our Discourse.

In the meane time, the reason why the great Commander and Lord of §. 24. nature, leaveth his whole Militia, ordinarily to move, and act, according to their native Properties and inclinations respectively, without counter mand­ing them, or turning them out of their way, are these (with their fellowes:) First, Nature with all her traine and retinue of particular Causes, together with all their furniture of Principles for Motion, and Action, being the workmanship of his own hand, if he should ordinarily, or frequently inter­pose to change her Lawes, or innovate her course, he should seeme to pull down that, which himself hath built up; and to dislike that Portraicture and resemblance of himself, which he hath drawne with admirable and un­imitable art and skill in the regular and standing Progress of Nature, and se­cond Causes. Secondly, being conscious to himself, with what excellency of Wisdom, Goodness, and Power, the great Body of Nature with all the Parts and Members of it, was at first rais'd, built, fram'd, and temper'd by himself, he knows there is no need for him either to add to, or to take from, or to alter any thing (ordinarily) in her course. He hath sufficient security that his hand-maid left unto her self (only with his ordinary and regular concur­rence, without which she can neither move, nor be) will no wayes mis-be­have her self in order to his ends, and those concernments of his glory, where­with she is intrusted. So that for him to check, or controule her in her way, would be but a kinde of condemning the innocent, which is, when practised amongst men, an abomination to him. Thirdly, (and lastly) if he should customarily, and of course over-rule Nature or second Causes, in their re­gular Proceedings, he should overlay his own market for miracles and works of wonder, and bring down the price of the glory and esteem of them to a very low rate. In the dayes of Solomon, Silver was but as Stones, nothing esteemed 1 Kings 10. 21. 27., by reason of the abundance and commonness of it. Miracles are the rarities of Heaven; and the reserve of Nature, when her testimony concerning the Glory and Power of her Lord and Master is despised by Men.

IT is not to be denied, but that the Scriptures do attibute [...], or §. 1. fore-knowledge unto God in severall places; as Acts 2. 23. Rom. 8. 29. 11. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 2. &c. Though evident it is, that in some, if not in all, of these places, the word rather imports a Pre-approbation, then a simple Pre­science, or fore-knowledge; according to the known signification of the simple word, [...]: which, though properly it signifieth knowledge, yet in Scripture language (according to that idiome of speech, wherein the consequent is put for the antecedent, not unusuall in the Scriptures) fre­quently [Page 29] imports, approbation, As Mat. 7. 23. Rom. 11. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 19. But as many other things are oft in Scripture attributed unto God, which ac­cording to the proper and ordinary signification of the words, are no wayes comperible to him, as Hands, Eyes, Eares, Greife, Repentance, &c. So is Pre-science or fore-knowledge also. Notwithstanding as there is a ground in Reason, one, or more, for all those other metaphoricall and improper attributions, which are in any kinde made unto God, so is there for this of Pre­science also. Only care and caution must be taken, that our Table proves not a snare unto us; my meaning is, least those things which are metapho­rically spoken of God for the accommodation of our understandings, and to inrich us with such conceptions, apprehensions, and knowledge of him, as we are well capable of, according to the truth of his Nature, and Being, be not so interpreted or understood by us, as to occasion any such fancies or imaginations in us, which are unworthy of him, and inconsistent with the truth of his Being.

That Pre-science, or fore-knowledge, are not Formally or Properly in §. 2. God, is the constant assertion, both of Ancient and Moderne Divinity. The Quid est proe­scientia, nisi scientia futuro­rum? Quid au­tem futurum est Deo, qui omnia super graditur tempora? Si e­nim in scientia res ipsas habet, non sunt ei fu­turae, sed prae­sentes; ac per hoc, non jam praescientia, sed tantum scientia dici potest. Aug. l. 2. ad Simpl. vide plura. ib. Nec zelus, nec ira, nec peniten­tia, nec proprie miscrecordia, nec praescientia esse potest in Deo. Greg. Moral. l. 2. c. 23. learned Assertors of the Protestant Cause are at perfect agreement with their Adversaries the Schoolemen, and Papists, in this. Nor is it any wonder at all, that there should be peace, and a concurrence of judgement about such a point as this, even between those, who have many Irons of contenti­on otherwise in the fire, considering how obvious, and neere at h [...]d, the truth herein is. For 1. if fore-knowledge were Properly and formally in God, then might Predestination, Election, Reprobation, and many other things be Properly and Formally in him also; in as much as these are, in the Letter and Propriety of them, as competible unto him, as foreknowledge. Nor can there be any reason given so [...] a difference. But unpossible it is, that there should be any Plurality of [...]ings whatsoever, in their distinct and Proper natures, and formalities, in God, the infinite, simplicity of his na­ture and being, with open mouth gain-saying it. Secondly, if fore-know­ledge were Properly, or Formally in God, there should be somewhat in him corruptible, or changeable. For that which is supposed to be such a fore­knowledge in him to day, by the morrow, suppose the thing, or event fore­known, should in the interim actually come to passe, must needs cease, and be changed; in as much as there can be no fore-knowledge of things that are present, the adequate and appropriate object of this knowledge, (in the Pro­priety of it) being res futura▪ somewhat that is to come. Thirdly, (and lastly) there is nothing in the Creature univocally and formally the same, Quid est prae­scientia, nisi scientia futuro­rum? Aug. l. 2. ad Simpl. q. 2. with any thing which is in God. The Reason is; because then, there must either be somewhat finite in God, or somewhat infinite in the Creature: both which are unpossible. But if Prescience or fore-knowledge, being Pro­perly and Formally in the Creature, should be Properly and Formally also in God, there should be somewhat in the Creature, univocally and formally the same, with somewhat, which is in God. Therefore certainly there is no fore­knowledge, properly so called, in God.

If it be objected, that this argument lieth as strong against the Propriety §. 3. of knowledge, as of fore-knowledge, in God; in as much as knowledge, is every whit as Properly and Formally in the Creature, as fore-knowledge; I Answer,

True it is, there is no knowledge neither in God, according to the precise and formall notion of knowledge, or in such a sence, wherein it is found in [Page 30] men. And this the first and last of the three Reasons mentioned, doe infal­libly demonstrate. Knowledge in the Creature is a Principle or habit, really and essentially distinct from the subject, or soule, where it resideth: yea and is capable of augmentation and diminution therein, and of separation from it. Whereas that which is called knowledge in God, neither differs really, or essentially from his nature, or from himself, but is really one and the same thing with him (as will further appeare in the following Chapter) nor is it either capable of growth, or of decay, or of separation. Only in this respect, knowledge, of the two, is more properly attributeable unto God, then fore-knowledge, viz. because fore-knowledge, in the proper notion, or for­mall conception of it, includes, or supposeth a liablenesse to a change or ex­piration ( viz. upon the comming to passe of the thing fore-knowne, which must of necessity come to passe in time) whereas knowledge imports nothing, but what may be Permanent and Perpetuall, and so is (of the two) more ap­propriable unto him, who changeth not.

But though neither knowledge, nor fore-knowledge, can in strictnesse and §. 4. formality of notion be ascribed unto God, yet since both the one and the other are frequently in Scripture attributed unto him, necessary it is that we make inquiry into the Grounds and Reasons of such attributions. For it is no wayes credible but that the Holy Ghost in all such expressions, did intend to informe the World of somewhat, and that according to truth, concern­ing God. Now the method and way (in generall) whereby to discover, upon what grounds or Reasons the Holy Ghost attributeth such things unto God, which yet are not Formally or Properly competible to him, and con­sequently what it is in God, of which, by such expressions he desireth to im­part the knowledge unto us, is this; to consider the Respective natures, the different manner of operation, the divers effects, or ordinary consequents, of those things, in the Creature, whet [...]r they be Actions, Passions, Habits, Parts, or whatsoever, which are upon such terms attributed unto God. For still we shall finde something or other proceeding from God, or done by him, which holds proportion and correspondeth with some, or other, one, or more, of the ordinary effects or consequents, of those things in the Crea­ture, which are so attributed unto him. And the intent of the Holy Ghost in ascribing such things unto God, which are proper only to the Creature, is, to make known to us, that the Divine Essence, or God himself, hath that eminently, after a transcendent and most perfect manner, in his nature or being, which alwayes inableth him, and (in respect of some particulars,) upon occasion rendereth him actually willing, to expresse himself in such kinde of actions or effects, wherein the Creature is wont to expresse it selfe upon occasion, out of, and by means of, such Principles, or instruments of action (being in the Propriety, or Formality of their respective natures, in them) which are ascribed unto God. As for example, to give the World knowledge, that the Divine Nature can, and upon just occasion will, yea and doth many times, expresse it selfe after such a manner, and with such a kinde of effect, as men use to expresse themselves out of anger, as viz. by Reprove­ing, Expostulating, Withdrawing themselves, Striking, Punishing, and the like, the Holy Ghost oft ascribeth the Passion, or Impression of Anger, unto God. There is the same consideration of all those other Creature­affections, as of Love, Zeal, Grief, Sorrow, Repentance, Delight, Mercy, Compassion, &c. And so also of all those organicall parts or members of an humane body, as Eyes, Eares, Hands, Heart, &c. which are so frequently [Page 31] in the Scriptures attributed unto God. These respective attributions give the light of this knowledge of God unto the World, that the Divine Nature, though most singly, simply, most undividedly, and indivisibly One, is yet able out of the infinite perfection of it, to act all that variety, and diversity of action and effect, which the Creature is wont to act, out of such affections, and by means of such organs, or members, respectively.

To come in to the particular in hand. The Scripture is wont to ascribe §. 5. knowledge unto God, to inform the World, that, what kinde of contentment soever men reape, or receive, by meanes of any knowledge of things, which they have, and that what regular use, or advantage soever they make, or are capable of making in any kinde, of such Knowledge, God receiveth the like contentment by, maketh, when, and as he pleaseth, the same or the like use of the infinite perfection of his nature or being. For example: men of know­ledge, and of understanding, so far as their knowledge extendeth, are free from errors, mistakes, and other inconveniences, in reference to the things known, whereunto men that are ignorant are exposed. Again, men that have knowledge of things, are hereby according to the measure and extent of this knowledge, inabled to manage and order their affaires to their best advantage, either in a way of profit, or of Repute and Honor: yea and being otherwise furnished with opportunity and meanes for such a purpose, to communicate and impart the same light of knowledge unto others, which shineth in, and to, themselves. In like manner, knowledge, yea the knowledge of all things, 1 Joh. 3. 20. is in Scripture asserted unto God, not because he knoweth them after the same specificall manner, or upon the same specificall terms, upon which men know or understand, the things known by them (for as the Lord seeth not as men seeth 1 Sam. 16, 7, so neither doth he know, as man knoweth) but because, from, and by means of, the infinite perfection of his Nature, 1. He injoyeth him­selfe with a scientificall contentment, (I mean, with such a kinde of con­tentment, as knowing men injoy, or might injoy, by means of their know­ledge): and, 2. Because by the same means, he is inabled to manage, order, and dispose of all things, to the best advantage and improvement for his own glory, and for what other end besides he pleaseth: and, 3. (and lastly) because he hath an opportunity also thereby, to impart the knowledge of what things soever he pleaseth, unto his Creature.

By what hath been said, it is no matter of difficulty, either to conceive, §. 6. or to declare, in what sence, or upon what ground, one, or more, the Scrip­tures attribute prescience also, or fore-knowledge, unto God. For look what regular conveniency, opportunity, or advantage in any kinde, the fore­knowledge of things in men, affordeth unto them, the like doth the infinite perfection of the Divine Nature exhibit and afford unto him. Men who have the certaine fore-knowledge that such and such things will come to passe at such, or such a time, if they any wayes relate unto them, or be capable of being wrought to such a Relation, besides the inward contentment of such knowledge, have an opportunity thereby, not only of making known before hand unto their friends, or others, that at such a time such things will come to passe (for this they may do, whether the things fore-knowne, doe any wayes concerne them, or no) and by this meanes gaine the repute of being Propheticall, or otherwise very understanding and discerning men; but also of contriving and ordering other things in the meane time, so, and after such a manner, that the things fore-knowne, when they come to passe, shall come to passe with more conveniency or advantage unto them, then otherwise [Page 32] they could have done. Upon such considerations as these, the fore-knowledge of things, yea of all things, that are future, is by the Scriptures ascribed unto God; viz. Because thorough the infinite perfection of his Essence and and Being; he, 1. Injoyes a delight or contentment answerable to that, of fore-knowing men, by means of this their knowledge. 2. He is able to impart before hand at what distance of time he pleaseth, either to his Saints (his Friends) or others, such particularities, of what is hid in the womb of time, as himself judgeth meete to be upon such terms as these revealed. 3. (and lastly) he is able also providentially to dispose of all such things to the best advantage, both for his own glory, and the benefit of those, who shall be found worthy of this great interest in him.

From the Rule that hath been given, and the explication made according §. 7. thereunto, for a right understanding, how, and in what sence, and upon what grounds, both knowledge, and fore-knowledge, are in Scripture trans­ferred unto God, a cleere light shineth, whereby to discover, how, and up­on what gounds also, Desires, Purposes, Intentions, or Decrees, in one kinde or other, are by the same authority vested in God: as likewise how they differ both from his knowledge, and fore-knowledge. That Desires, Intentions, Purposes, and Decrees, as well as Knowledge, or fore-knowledge, are only an­thrope-pathetically ascribed unto God, not formally, the former part of this Chapter (I presume) hath given the tantamont of many demonstrations. So that cleerly and distinctly to understand, how, and in what sence they are in Scripture, attributed unto him, inquiry must be made, and consider­ation had, how they are wont to affect, or ingage men; after what manner, and upon what terms men are usually acted, and drawn forth by them. Only before we come to the Explication hereof, this is to be remembred, by way of caution, that though there alwayes be (as hath been said) a Ground or Reason, one, or more, for that attribution of humane actions, affecti­ons, members, &c. which the Scriptures so frequently make unto God, which Reason is still founded in a certaine Proportion or Similitude found between the Nature of God, and the nature of man, in respect of the things so attributed unto him; yet is it not necessary, that all things accompany­ing, or relating unto those affections, or impressions in men, which are at­tributed unto God, should be parallel'd in him, or have something in his nature corresponding to them. It is a sufficient ground or reason for the at­tribution, if the humane affection, or impression attributed unto him, be, Similitudo non currit quatuor Pedibus. Ne­que illa quae important in­trinsecam per­fectionem, sunt tribuenda Deo proprie & for­maliter, nec de­bemus consue­tum modum lo­quendi omnino cavere, cum de Divinis loqui­mur, si seclus [...]s imperfectioni­bus, & non ali­ter, humana transferamus ad Deum. Arrib. Op. Concil. l. 3. c. 9 in respct of any one particular appertaining to it in men, parallel'd, or analogized in the Nature of God; the Proverbiall maxime well admonish­ing, that similitudes are not wont to run on all foure; no, nor alwayes on three, not yet on two: they do service enough, if they stand well on one. To exemplifie our Caution in a particular or two: Anger, as it is incident unto, and sometimes as it is inherent in, men, is obnoxious to be attended with unseemely behaviour, inconsiderate and unjust actions, &c. Yet it doth not follow from hence, that because God is said to be angry, therefore there is that in his nature, which renders him obnoxious in either of these kinds. It is a sufficient ground of the attribution of this Passion, or affecti­on, unto him, that out of the perfection of his simple Essence, or Nature, he doth any thing upon occasion, which is proper or frequent, for men, being angry, to do; as that he sharply expostulates, or reproves, that he smites those who provoke him, with any severe stroke of judgement, or the like, &c. So again▪ expectation in men is alwayes attended with an appre­hension [Page 33] that the thing expected will indeed come to passe; no man expect­ing that, which he knows certainly will never come to passe; yet it doth not follow from hence, that because expectation is ascribed unto God, therefore he must not know but that the thing expected by him, will come to passe. It is a sufficient ground of ascribing expectancy unto him, that out of the perfection of his simple essence, or nature, he sometimes deporteth himself, as men under expectation are wont to do, though it be but in some one par­ticular; as that he apprehendeth a probability or likelihood, in respect of means, motives, and ingagements, that the thing, which he is said to ex­pect, will come to passe; notwithstanding he certainly knoweth withall, that what he is said in this kinde to expect, will, all that probability or like­lihood notwithstanding, never come to passe. Instances hereof we have, Esa. 5. 2. 4. 7. Mat. 21. 37, 38, 39. &c. Take yet one example more for the better understanding of the premised Caution. Purposes and intentions, where they are in the letter, and in their Propriety▪ as in men, are alwayes found in conjunction with a supposall, that the things purposed or intended, shall, or will, be effected; no man ever intending or purposing that, which he certainly knows before hand never shall, or will, be effected. But it doth not follow from hence, that when Purposes or intentions are attributed unto God, they must needs be thus attended; I meane, with a supposition, or expectance, that the things said to be purposed or intended by him, shall, or will, come to passe. Therefore that saying of M ^r. Rutherford, Excercit. p. 224. Tenentur omnes credere Deum omnipotentem sua intentione excidere non posse (i. e. All men are bound to believe, that God being Omnipotent, cannot faile of his intention) is lesse considerate; yea, and defective in truth, without the help of some further explication. If instead of intention, he had said, Decree, thus: All men are bound to believe, that God, being Om­nipotent, cannot faile, or fall short in any Decree, so as not to be able to put it in execution, Reason and Truth had greeted each other in such a saying. But God may be said (as we shall see further anon) to purpose or intend things, in case he affordeth means that are proper, and sufficient to bring them to passe, especially if he commands them to be used accordingly; this being a dispensation of like consideration and nature with the deportment of men, who are wont to provide a sufficiency of means (at least so apprehen­ded by them) for the effecting of what they purpose or intend. So that to Rea­son thus: God intendeth not the salvation of all men, because he certainly knoweth that all men will not be saved, no wise man ever intending that, which he certainly knows before-hand shall never be effected, is to reason weakly, and upon a false supposition; viz. that purposes and intentions are attribu­ted unto God in respect of all particulars, or under all circumstances▪ where­with they are accompanied in men: whereas such attributions are sufficiently salved (as hath been shewed) in the Analogy and Similitude of one Particu­lar only.

Yet before we can conveniently come at our intended explication, how, §. 8. and in what respect, or sence, Desires, Purposes, Intentions, and Decrees, are by Scripture assignment transferred upon God, necessary it is that the difference between them in point of Signification and Propriety of import, together with the signification of some other terms of neer consideration with them, be examined, and cleerly stated. For that these words, Desire, Purpose, Intention, and Decree, doe not precisely signifie one and the same thing, is out of question: nor are they ascribed unto God in one, and the [Page 34] same signification, or respect: though it is true, there is a word, frequently also ascribed unto him (I mean, the word, will) which in the latitude of the signification of it, comprehendeth them all; yea and some other too be­sides these. For what God more properly may be said to Desire, he is in a more generall terme, often said to, will: so againe, what in more propriety and strictnesse of expression, he might be said (and sometimes is said) to Purpose, Intend, Decree, and to command or perswade unto, he is very fre­quently said to WILL. So that this word, Will, when it is attributed unto God, must be differenced in point of sence and signification, pro subjecta materia, according to the different exigency of the context, and matter in hand, in such places, where it is respectively used, (as we shall shew presently.) But to the foure terms mentioned;

First, to desire, according to the Precise and strict import of the word, as §. 9. it is appropriable unto, and found in, men, signifies only an act of appetency in the heart, or soule of a man, towards somewhat that is absent, whether in respect of simple Being, or of Place only, and with all apprehended by the Desirer, as connaturall and suteable unto him, either in respect of his own Personall conveniency and accommodation only, or the accommodation also of some others, whom he wisheth well unto. How it differs from the other three, will plainly enough appeare in the Progresse. Secondly, to purpose, or intend (for between these I conceive there is very little difference, if any at all, in Point of signification) properly signifieth such an act of the heart or soule, by which they resolve or ingage themselves to interpose and act towards the effecting or bringing to passe, of the thing purposed or intended (being alwayes such a thing, which is apprehended good and con­venient for them) so far as they judge it meete, and agreeable to Principles of wisdom, and good discretion. If there be any difference between them, it lieth (I conceive) rather in point of strength or degree, then in nature and kinde; a purpose, being an intention, in sieri (as the Schoolemens expressi­on is) i. e. in the making; and an intention, a purpose in facto esse, i. e. com­pleatly made. But they are taken promiscuously the one for the other, and so may be, without any inconvenience, as far as yet I apprehend. For the fourth and last of the foure words mentioned, Decree; this properly impor­teth such an act of the heart or soule, by which men resolve, determine, and conclude, to act to the uttermost of their strength and might, for the bring­ing to passe, of the thing decreed, which is still presumed to be somewhat, that is of grand concernment unto them for good.

Now though the difference between, desires, purposes, intentions, and §. 10. decrees, be discernable enough, by their respective descriptions that have been given, compared together; yet will it (I conceive) appeare to more satisfaction, by a dictinct assignement of their respective operations or ef­fects, which they produce in men. For, if the Tree be knowne by the fruit, the difference of Trees, may be knowne by the difference of the fruits also. First then, the simple desire of a thing, and as such, doth not ingage a man to act at all towards the effecting or procurement of it: a purpose or intenti­on, ingageth unto action in this kinde, but under Proviso's, and with limi­tation. A Decree (strictly and properly so called) doth not simply ingage unto action, for the bringing to passe of the thing decreed, but ingageth home, without any Exception, Reservation, or Proviso, whatsoever, save only that of sufficiency of Strength or Power, for matter of execution. A desire, if it be intense, and raised to any height or strength, and the nature [Page 35] of the thing desired be such, that the procurement of it lieth, either in whole, or in part, within the Power of the Desirer, and withall opposeth not (in his apprehension) either the Injoyment, or Procurement, of somewhat more desireable unto him, alwayes advanceth into a purpose, or intention, of obtaining the thing so desired. Otherwise, if it be either languishing, faint, and low, or the thing desired be no wayes, in no kinde attainable by any thing the desirer can do; or if his ingagement for the obtainment of it, be con­ceived by him, as likely to prejudice him in any other matter of greater mo­ment; in all these cases the desire subsists within it self, and advanceth not, nei­ther into intention nor action.

Secondly, desire, when it is boild up to a consistency, or fixed substance §. 11. of a Purpose, or Intention of obtaining the thing desired, by means of this super-added act, or further impression upon the soul, being in conjunction with it, it ingageth the Desirer, being now a Purposer and Intender likewise, to act, and give out himself in the use of meanes for the obtaining of the thing desired and intended, as far, as he judgeth it meet, and well-standing with the rules of wisdom and discretion, for him to goe. Only this is to be remembred, that there is no man (at least no considering man) that so far desireth any thing, as to intend or purpose the obtaining of it, but that he so far ingageth himself in the use of meanes for the procurement there­of, as he judgeth reasonable and sufficient for such an attainment. If men do not advance such a Proportion of means, which (in their own ap­prehensions at least) is sufficient to compasse what they purpose, or intend, it argues a vanity, or nullity rather, in their intentions. But on the other hand, there is no ground or reason to conclude from the non-assecution, or non-obtaining of a thing, yea though a man hath a sufficiency of Power in some kinde to obtain it, that he did not really and unfeignedly Purpose and intend the effecting of it. A man takes a long journey to a person of quality, and in great place: the end and intent of his journey, is to obtaine a suite or courtesie at his hand. In his addressement to him, he demeans himself with all respects of honour and observance: useth many Reasons and Argu­ments of great weight to perswade and overcome him. The Person sued unto standeth off, and refuseth to gratifie the Petitioner, unlesse he will submit to such and such terms, which are very inconvenient and dishonour­able to him. The Petitioner being a man of Conscience and Honour, re­fuseth the terms, and so returns ungratified in his motion. In this case, though he might with making a breach upon his Conscience and Honour, have obtained that, which he sued for, yet his non-obtaining it upon such terms, doth no wayes argue, but that he really desired it, yea and purposed and intended the obtaining of it, if it might have been procured upon meete and honourable terms. Many Cases of like consideration might be put.

Thirdly and lastly, to Decree (in the strict and formall signification of §. 12. the Word; for otherwise, Purposes, and Decrees, sometimes interchange significations) importeth such an act of the minde and will of a man, where­by he doth not simply, or only Purpose or Intend the effecting of what he desireth, but this upon such terms, with such strength of intention an [...] reso­lution, that it carrieth him against, and above, all possible intervention of any disswasive circumstance whatsoever, one, or more, to the effecting there­of. So that a Purpose or Intention, and a Decree, in strictnesse of notion re­spectively, may be distinguished by their objects, thus: A Purpose, or In­tention, [Page 36] respecteth that which is desireable, yet not simply and absolutely desireable, but upon such and such terms, under such and such circumstan­ces: a Decree respecteth that which is simply and absolutely desireable, and from the Prosecution whereof a man ought not to be taken off by any consi­deration whatsoever. We speak now of regular Purposes and Decrees, and such which are conceived and taken up by men according to Principles of sound judgement and understanding.

By the tenor and manuduction of these things, which are evident and §. 13. unquestionable, we may come readily, and steadily to conceive and under­stand, how, and in what sence, Desires, Purposes, Intentions, and Decrees, are, and may be, ascribed unto God. First it is considerable, that Desires, and Purposes or Intentions, are never separated in God: he never desireth any thing, but what he purposeth or intendeth to effect. The reason is, because whatsoever he apprehendeth suteable to him, and of tendency to his glory, which is the adequate object of his Desire, he alwayes interesseth himself to effect. Matters relating unto his glory, being the only object of his Desires, unpossible it is that any of these should be so weake, or faint, as not to advance and rise up into a purpose and intention, and consequently, into action; es­pecially considering, 1. That there is nothing which concerns his glory, but which lieth within the compasse of his Power to effect, and 2. That by reason of his infinite wisdom, being in conjunction with a Power every wayes commensureable to it, he is able so to manage all the concernments of his glory, as not to prejudice himself in any, in, or by the Prosecution of others. But,

Secondly, though desires, and purposes, or intentions, cannot be separated in God, yet intentions or purposes, and decrees, may. God doth not alwayes decree the effecting, of what he purposeth, or intendeth to effect, though he alwayes purposeth and intendeth to effect, what he decreeth. The reason why he doth not alwayes decree to effect, what he purposeth or intendeth to effect, is; because he judgeth it meet to act only to a certain degree of efficiency, for the effecting and obtaining of some things; by which if he cannot effect or obtain them, he judgeth it not meet to act any further, or higher, in or­der thereunto. But because he never acteth for, or towards, the effecting of any thing, but with a due and full sufficiency of means (the whole course and compasse of his efficiency in this kinde taken together) he may well and truly be said to purpose and intend, whatsoever he ingageth himself to effect, though with the lowest degree of efficiency, wherein at any time, and in refe­rence to any end, he appeareth.

If you aske me, but what are the things in Particular, or any of them, §. 15. which God may be said to Purpose or Intend, and yet not to Decree? I Answer,

1. In generall; they are all such things, for the Procurement and effecting whereof he vouchsafeth means, and these sufficient (for he never starveth his ends for want of means, as hath been often, in effect, said) and yet the things themselves many times are not obtaine [...], nor ever come to passe: in which respect he cannot be said to Decree them, because his Decree (accord­ing to the Proper notion of the Word, formerly opened) carrieth all before it against, and above, all opposition and contradiction whatsoever, and never fai­leth to bring forth.

2. (In Particular) the Faith, and Repentance of all men, the honest and upright lives of all men, and consequently the Peace, Happinesse, and [Page 37] salvation of all men, are some of the Principall of the Particulars inquired after. For, 1. Evident it is, that God interposeth and vouchsafeth means for the effecting and procurement of all these, (of which more hereafter) in which respect (according to the grounds laid) he must needs be said to pur­pose or intend them. And yet 2. Every whit as evident it is, that these things are not effected or obtained, nor ever will: in which respect they cannot be said to be Decreed by God, according to the Proper notion of a Decree, oft specified.

To draw up a full and cleer account from the Particulars argued, (with §. 16. as much brevity as may be) how, in what sence, and upon what grounds, Desires, Purposes, Intentions, and Decrees, are attributed in Scripture unto God; First (in the negative) that none of them are attributed unto him up on any such ground or supposition as this, viz. as being Properly or Formal­ly in him, i. e. after such a manner as they are in men; really distinct, and separable from his Nature or Being, hath been already asserted, and that (I suppose) with a nemine contradicente. Therefore secondly, in direct pursu­ance of our Preparatory instructions formerly also delivered in order to the businesse in hand, the said four Particulars must be acknowledged, as attri­buted unto God upon this ground; viz. Because the infinite Perfection of his Nature and Being, enableth, yea and leadeth him to act, and give out himself after some such manner, and with such a kinde of efficiency (rea­sonable allowance being made for the great disproportion between him, and the Creature) as the said Particulars ( Destres, Purposes, Intentions, and Decrees) being found in men, are wont to ingage them unto. So that 1. God is said to desire, or will, such and such things, because the goodnesse of his Nature leadeth him, to act and give out himself, and to vouchsafe means, for the bringing of them to passe; it being an essentiall Property of desire in men, 1. When it is cordiall and strong (as all Gods Desires are, as twas formerly Proved:) and 2. When men have opportunity to act for the obtain­ing of the thing desired (which God alwayes hath:) 3. And lastly, when their acting for the obtaining of the thing desired, is not like to hinder them from obtaining another thing more desireable then that (a case never inci­dent unto God, in respect of any thing desired by him, as hath also lately been shewed) it being (I say) in this case, and under these circumstances, an essentiall Property of desire in men, to ingage them unto action for the obtaining of the thing desired. Because whensoever men act, or endeavour themselves in any kinde to bring a thing to passe, they are alwayes presum'd to desire the thing, or the comming of it to passe; therefore God also, ac­cording to Scripture Dialect and Phrase, may be said to desire, what­soever he any wayes interposeth himselfe, or giveth means, to bring to passe.

Secondly, there is the same consideration and ground also, of Purposes §. 17. and Intentions attributed unto him. He is therefore said to Purpose and Intend such and such things, because his Goodnesse, Wisdom, and Power, i. e. The infinite Perfection of his Nature, which eminently containeth all these; enableth and induceth him to act for, or towards, the attainement of them, after such a kinde of manner, and upon such terms, according to which, men (I meane, sober and well advised men) are wont to act and ingage them­selves for the assecution of such things, which they Purpose and Intend. How, and upon what terms such men are wont to act in order to the obtain­ing of things Properly Purposed and Intended by them, and not absolutely [Page 38] Decreed, was lately declared; viz. so far, and to such a degree of ingage­ment, as they judge convenient and meet, consideration being had, of the value, worth, and consequence, of the things Purposed and Intended by them, in case they be obtained. Therefore to conclude Gods non-intendments from his non-attainments, is a reasoning of no value; and supposeth a non-dif­ference between his Purposes or Intentions, and Decrees; between which notwithstanding (as hath been shewed) there is a very emphaticall and signall difference. The reason why God ingageth not himself to the actuall assecution of all things purposed and intended by him, shall (God willing) be argued in due Time and Place.

Thirdly and lastly, God is also said to Decree such and such things, be­cause §. 18. the infinite Perfection of his Nature and Being, inclineth him to act and ingage himself for the effecting of them, after such a manner, and upon such terms, as men are wont to ingage themselves for the actuall Perform­ance and bringing to passe, of what they decree. What this manner, and what these terms are, we have already shewed. What men properly deter­mine, or decree, they ingage to the uttermost of their might to put in execution and perform, if no lower rate of ingagement will do the deed. In like manner, God, is, and well may be, said to Decree such things, the exe­cution and effecting whereof he suspendeth upon no condition, or conside­ration whatsoever, one, or more: but declareth himself as one resolved to give being unto them in their respective seasons, whatsoever Angels, Men, Devils, or any other Creature, shall either doe, or not doe. In this sence, and upon this ground, he may be said to have decreed, that all men once shall die; that all men shall be raised from the dead; that men dying in the Lord, or in the Faith of Jesus Christ, shall be everlastingly blessed; that men dy­ing in their sins, or in unbeliefe, shall be eternally accursed; to omit other Particulars without end of like consideration. Only I desire to re-minde the Reader of this: that though we have in our present discourse exactly differenced Purposes or Intentions, from Decrees, according to the strict import­ance of the words, and precise Notion of the things themselves, yet may not this difference be alwayes so observed, either by other Writers, or by the Scriptures themselves, but that the terms may be sometimes put indif­ferently the one for the other: yea and the things themselves be expressed and held forth by such Words and Phrases of speech, which will equally admit of either signification; yet as to the Scriptures, hardly (I presume) can any instance be found, where either the context, or the subject matter in hand, will not cleerly determine the case; I meane, whether it be a Purpose, or a Decree, according to the regular Notion of either, (as they have been distinguished) which the Holy Ghost there intends.

Before we passe from the subject in hand, it will not be amisse (I sup­pose) §. 19. to take a more perfect knowledge, of what was intimated before; viz. That all the foure Particulars, Desires, Purposes, Intentions, and De­crees, yea and more then these, in their respective attributions unto God, are frequently in Scripture expressed by THE WILL of God. Joh. 5. 21. Christ is said to quicken whom he will, i. e. whom he desireth, or intendeth, to quicken. See also. Joh. 6. 38. 17. 24. Whereas it is said, Joh. 6. 39. And this is the Fa­thers WILL that hath sent me, &c. and again, ver. 40. And this is the WILL of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Sonne, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; evident it is, that the Decree, or decreeing WILL of God is meant. See also Eph. 1. 5. 9. 11. and elsewhere. The [Page 39] Apostle Paul, speaking thus of God, who WILL have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2. 4. and Peter, that he is willing that all should come to Repentance, 2 Pet. 3. 9. speak plainly not of Gods decreeing WILL, but of his purposing or desiring. WILL? But of these Scriptures more hereafter. Other significations of this word, will, when attributed unto, or spoken of God, which are divers, besides those spe­cified upon the present occasion, we shall not now insist upon.

For a close to this Chapter, let us from the grounds Pre-asserted herein, §. 20. take into consideration, the difference between the knowledge, or fore-know­ledge of God, and the Intentions, or Decrees of God. Therefore (not to re­peate, but to build upon, Premised Principles and Discussions) First, as the knowledge, and fore-knowledge of God are differenced by their objects, the ob­ject of his knowledge being far more large and comprehensive, then the object of his fore-knowledge, the one extending to all things whatsoever, Past, Present, and to Come, yea to all possibilities of things; the other, only to things that are future, and yet to come; so likewise both the knowledge and fore-knowledge of God taken together, are plainly distinguished from his Intentions and Decrees, by the greater latitude and extent [...] object; yea, the object of the fore-knowledge of God, which (as ha [...] said) is far narrower, then the object of his Knowledge, is yet far larger [...]nd more com­prehensive, then the object either of his Intentions, or Decrees. The object of his Decrees extendeth only to such things, which (as was formerly argued) himself purposeth to effect, or give being unto, without any Exceptions or Proviso's concerning any possible interventions whatsoever. The object of his Intentions or Purposes, extendeth to such things only, which he desireth and intendeth to give being also unto, but with condition and limitation▪ So that the utmost border and extent of the respective objects of the Purposes, and Decrees of God, reacheth but unto such things only, about the Production and Procurement whereof himself intends Operativenesse and Positivenesse of action, or efficiency: whereas the limit of the object of his fore-knowledge, extendeth unto all things whatsoever, that are future, and taketh in, as well such things which his soul abhorreth, and therefore will not lift up his hand unto, I mean, the sinfull actions of the Creature, as those, which himself in­tendeth to call and bring into being.

If you demand a reason, why I make this difference between the object of §. 21. the knowledge and fore-knowledge of God on the one hand, and the object of his Intentions and Decrees on the other, extending the one to all things fu­ture, without exception; restraining the other, to such future things only, wherein God himself means to be active; my Reason and Answer is this (ac­cording to fore-laid grounds;) men generally do know, and commonly fore­know, many things, for, or towards the Production or procurement where­of, they intend no contribution of aid, strength, or means in any kind, viz. when they are such, that their comming to passe, and their not comming to passe, are but of equall and indifferent concernment to them, as knowing how to make the same benefit or use, of the one, and of the other. Whereas some other things there are, the effecting whereof, or at least the attempt­ing and endevouring whereof, is of speciall concernment unto them. Now things of this latter consideration, are the object of mens Desires, Intentions and Decrees, and they purpose to be active about the bringing of them to passe, whereas matters of the former, are the object of their knowledge, and fore-knowledge, only; and (haply) of their Providence, if as well their [Page 40] coming to passe, as their not comming to passe, be contriveable by them in­to any matter of benefit, or advantage. In like manner, the sins, and wicked wayes and actions of men, may be called the object of the Knowledge, and fore-Knowledge, yea and of the Providence of God, as well as his own most just and holy dispensations, because through the infinite Perfection of his Nature and Being, he is inabled, 1. To declare, or Pre-declare as he plea­seth; and 2. Both inabled and actually resolved, to dispose, and Pre-dispose, of them to the best advantage for his own glory, as well as if he formally knew, or fore-knew them: whereas notwithstanding he neither was, nor is, nor ever intendeth to be, operative, in, or about the bringing of them to passe, in as much as their non comming to passe would have been of the same consequence unto him for the advancement of his glory, as their coming to passe, is, or can be. For (doubtlesse) God is not so poorely or meanely provided, in, and of himself, for the exaltation of his Name and Glory, as to stand in need of the dunghill of sin to make a foot-stoole for him whereby to ascend into his Throne. If the goodnesse and righteousnesse of men be no­thing unto God, profit not him Psal. 16. 2. Job. 35. 7. 3., much lesse can the sins of men claime part and fellowship in such a businesse. So then the sins of men, being only known and fore-knowne by God, and contriveable to his glory, but no wayes requisite or necessary hereunto; may well be look'd upon as the object (I meane, the partiall object) of the knowledge, and fore-knowledge, yea and of the Pro­vidence of God, but not of his Desires, Intentions, or Decrees. Whereas his own dispensations, with their Naturall and Proper fruits and consequents being intrinsecally, and with a direct tendency, of sovereigne and high con­cernment for his glory, may safely, and with the best consistency of reason and truth, be looked upon, as the object, not of his knowledge or fore-knowledge only, but of his Desires, Intentions and Decrees also.

ANd this is life eternall, that they (or, that men) know thee the only true §. 1. God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, (saith the Lord Christ, himself in that most solemn supplicatory addresse unto his Father, recorded, Joh. 17. yet not for his Fathers instruction, but his Childrens.) What know­ledge Vers. 3. of himself it is, either for kinde, quality, or degree, which Jesus Christ here joyneth with the knowledge of God, as, together with it, constituting and making up one intire cause or meanes of salvation, unto the Creature; or with what kinde of necessity he supposeth the conjunction of that know­ledge of himself, which he intendeth, with the knowledge of God, to be necessary to that great end and purpose, as whether with an absolute, or an expedientiall and accumulative necessity only, we shall not for the present inquire, much lesse, determine. This (I presume) will be granted upon de­mand only, without Proofe; that as the true knowledge of Christ doth ne­cessarily include, or presuppose, the like knowledge of God; so doth such a knowledge of God, as our Saviour here describes, the knowing of him to be the only True God, comprehend in it an implicite, or vertuall know­ledge [Page 41] of Christ also. This might be brought into a cleer light by the help­ing hand of the Scriptures, but that the contemplation of it is a little eccentricall to our present designe. However, let those who doubt, consult these Oracles (with their fellowes) Joh. 14. 1. Joh. 5. 23. Psal. 9. 10. Jer. 9. 23, 24. Heb. 11. 6. Rom. 1. 19, 20, 21. besides many others.

But what is it to know God, or God the Father, [...]. the §. 2. only True God? First, to know God, or the Father, the only True God, may admit of a double construction, or meaning: either, 1. As if the truth of this Proposition, God, or God the Father, is the only true God, were the terminus, or intended object of the knowledge here spoken of: or 2. As if God the Father his Being the only True God, were presupposed to this knowledge, and some further Particulars concerning him, the object hereof. The former sence hath both most men, and (doubtlesse) most reason also, to plead for it. For when God, is perfectly known to be the only true God, there is very little, or nothing more left to be known concerning him. Therefore, 2. to know God, or God the Father, the only, or the alone true God, is (I conceive) 1. To know [viz. upon substantiall and demonstrative grounds] that his Nature or Being every wayes answers the true and regular Notion of a God, i. e. That he is infinitely Gracious, infinitely Wise, infinitely Just, infinitely Powerfull, infinitely Blessed, infinite in all manner of Ex­cellency and Perfection; and all this in the most absolute simplicity of Es­sence, without any Plurality, Multiplication, or Composition in what kinde, or of what things, soever: and on the other hand, that there is nothing in him, in one kinde or other, in one consideration, or other, which reason duly inform'd, and judging like it self, can think unmeete or unworthy to be found in a true God. This is to know God, or God the Father, to be a True God. 2. To know him to be the only true God, implies further a like know­ledge that there is no other Nature or Being whatsoever, but his, or that wherein he partakes, that in Excellency or Perfection in any kinde is equall unto His, or either Formally, or Vertually, the same with His.

That God is perfect, is one of the Philosophers [...], of those common §. 3. impressions of light, or inbred Principles of Reason, wherewith Nature (in their language) or God himself (in the Dialect of Christians) upon the account of Christs Merit and Mediation (in which respect it is attributed unto him also, Joh. 1. 9.) enlighteneth every man that commeth [or, [...], as he commeth, or, comming] into the World. The united light of which Principles, or Impressions, is said ver. 4. to be that life of men, i. e. The means of that life of men, or the means whereby men were to attaine that life, which is there said to have been in Christ [viz. as in a fountaine of merit, or as in a designed purchaser] for them. For the meaning of the latter clause of this Verse, [...], which our English render­eth, and the life was the light of men, is (I conceive, with submission) this, or to this effect; viz. that that life and salvation, which Christ, in reality of designe, and with semblable acceptance in the [...] of God, had from the begining purchased by his Death for men, did, or do [...] (as it were) in the first breake, or dawning of it, appeare, and discover it self in those Principles of naturall Light, Reason, Judgement, Conscience, Understanding, &c. which are found in the generality of men upon their comming into the World; these being granted and given unto them by God for that great and blessed end and purpose, viz. that by them they might be made capable of attaining that life and Salvation, which was procured & purchased for them by Christ [...] and in­tended [Page 42] to be really conferr'd upon them, upon their believing, and continu­ance therein unto the end: though it is true, that men generally as they grow up in the World, convert these Principles of light and understanding to other uses, and not to those, for which they are given them; as viz. to make provision for the flesh for the fulfilling of the lusts thereof, and not to the ob­taining of that life and happinesse, which is in Christ for them; as foolish Children, which fall to play, or quarrell amongst themselves, by the oppor­tunity of that Candle, which their Parents allow them for their studies and books. Yea men generally doe not only mis-spend those Talents of light we speake of, about the impertinencies of this present World, but partly through an un-manlike oscitancy and inconsideratenesse, partly out of an inordinate Propensity to comport with the World without any feare or sence of danger hereby, suffer their judgements and understandings to be cor­rupted, adulterated, imbased and abused by many false and foolish Prin­ciples and Notions, which turne them quite aside from a regular and due prosecution of that Life and Salvation, which is in Christ for them, and might have been obtained by them; yea and subject them to a sad incapacity of the things of their Peace, when they are proposed with the greatest Evidence and Power unto them. Insomuch that though the Life, which was in Christ, is said to be the light of men; yet it immediately followeth, that the light shineth in darknesse, [i. e. The Doctrine of Life and Salvation is cleerly Preached to an ignorant World] and the darknesse comprehended it not. [i. e. That ignorance, or incapacity rather, of the things of eternall life, which men have voluntarily contracted and brought upon themselves, is fo exceed­ing great and strange, that they understand little or nothing of this Doctrine so Preached unto them.] But this occasionally only, and by the way. As to the Worke in hand; doubtlesse there was never any man touch'd with any competent sence, or enlightened with any tolerable Notion of a Deity, that ever put it to the question in himself, whether God was perfect, or no. All men (saith Aristotle in his Metaphysiques) without any demur or delay, ascribe that unto God, which they conceive to be most perfect. And indeed, that very Sence and Notion of God, which Nature prompteth her Children with (though many of them are dull of hearing in this kind) doth not admit of any thing look'd upon as defective, or imperfect, within the Verge of it.

Therefore having so firme, and so generally-approved a foundation to build upon, as the perfection of God, let us see what it affordeth unto us by way of §. 4. evident deduction, toward the advancement of our great design, the magnifying of God in his gracious intendments of salvation unto all men, without exception, in, or by the Death of Christ.

First, if the Nature, Essence, and Being of God be most perfect, then must it needs be most simple, most intirely, absolutely, and perfectly one, not admitting any Plurality, or Composition whatsoever. The reason of this is plaine: because all Plurality and Composition, whether of Parts, or of Natures, suppose imperfection. For if any one of these Parts, or Natures, were perfect, absolutely or infinitely perfect, it were able to do whatsoever is necessary, yea or possible to be done (for without this there is no simple or absolute perfection) and then what need were there of any thing more to be added unto it, or joyn'd with it? That a man hath Eares, as well as Eyes, and Eyes, as well as Eares: and so, Hands, as well as Feet, and Feet, as well as Hands, cleerly proves, that no one of these members are simply and ab­solutely perfect, i. e. can do or performe, and this with a like comelinesse [Page 43] and conveniency, whatsoever is necessary to be done and performed by man: for then all the rest should be superfluous. They may all be perfect in their kinde, i. e. with a determinate and limited perfection, and in order to such, or such, a particular action and service, and yet one stand in neede of another (as the Apostle speaketh:) but if any one of them were simply and absolutely per­fect, i. e. could doe all things whatsoever, upon the same terms of convenience, which both it self, and all the rest can do together, certainly all the rest were needlesse. So if an Angel could understand by his meere Essence or Substance of his Nature, without any endowment or gift of understanding distinct there-from; or could perform any other action, or do any execution imme­diately by his Essence, without the intervening of those Naturall endow­ments or qualities of Strength, Power, Activenesse, &c. all these endow­ments and appendices to his Nature and Essence, would be meerly superflu­ous. The necessity which the Angels have of Wisdom, Knowledge, Rea­son, Strength, &c. over and besides their meere Essences and Beings, plainly declareth and sheweth, these Essences and Beings of theirs to be unperfect (I meane, in respect of a simple and absolute perfection) and that they stand in neede of such additionall Properties and Endowments, as we speak of, to make them perfect even in their own kind. Nor is it indeed possible for God to make any such Creature (or to speak somewhat more properly, no such Creature can possibly be made) which shall be able to act or worke imme­diately by its Essence, or otherwise then by the mediation of some Vertue, Property, or Quality, in one kinde or other, inherent therein; it being the glorious and incommunicable property and prerogative of the Divine Es­sence or Being it self, so to worke. So then this absolute and infinite simpli­city of the Nature of God supposed, as without which he cannot be absolutely and infinitely perfect, it plainly followeth,

First, that all those attributes of God (commonly so called) as Wis­dome, §. 5. Knowledge, Justice, Mercy, Goodnesse, Power, &c. and so all those Passions and Affections, as of Anger, Griefe, Repentance, Love, Hatred, &c. Deo idem est esse, & fortem esse, vel sapien­tem esse, vel justum esse, & si quid de illa simplici multi­plicitate, vel multiplici sim­plicitate dixe­ris, quo substan­tia ejus signifi­c [...]tur. Aug. de Trin. l. 6. c. 4. And again, all those Parts, or Members, as Eyes, Eares, Hands, Feet, Mouth, &c. which are so frequently attributed unto him in the Scriptures, are all one and the same thing in God, though they be very different things in men: nor is any one of them, nor all of them together, any other thing, but only his single, simple, and pure Essence. But therefore all this variety and diversity, both of Attributes, Affections, and Parts, is attributed unto him, because by meanes of this one simple and single Essence, being infinitely perfect, he can, when he pleaseth, and pleaseth, when he judgeth meet, give forth himself, and act all that variety and diversity of action, which these different Principles are wont to produce in men. As for example; a man that hath wisdom, is able to act, and doth act when he pleaseth, in a regular proportion, or due order unto his ends. So a man that hath knowledge, whe­ther of things past, present, or to come, being wise withall, manageth and disposeth his affaires according to the exigency of such knowledge, and with the best advantage, that such knowledge affords unto him. A man that is just, doth things that are just and equall: and so he that is angry, frowns, threatens, or strikes: he that loves, doth good unto, and kindly by those, who are loved of him: he that hates, acts to the prejudice or hurt of the person hated, when he hath opportunity; and so in the rest. Now because God out of the infinite perfection of his Nature, though it be (as hath been said) most singly and simply one, is yet able to act, and doth act, when he [Page 44] pleaseth, all this variety of action, acts as wise men act, as men that have knowledge of things act, as men that are angry, as men that love, as men that hate, are wont to act, &c. Therefore all these Principles of action, as Wis­dom, Knowledge, Anger, Love, Hatred, &c. are by the Holy Ghost ascribed unto him. Suppose there were in Physique such a simple, as (for example) an Herb, Root, Drug, Mineral, or the like, which had such a precious or soveraigne vertue in it, that the use of it were a certaine cure of all diseases, as Gout, Stone, Feaver, Apoplexy, &c. and further, that there were particu­lar Medicines or Receipts besides appropriated to every disease respectively, and were all of them sufficient to cure their appropriated diseases; in this case, that simple we speak of, might be said to have the severall vertues of all those other Medicines or Receipts, in it, because it is able to do alone, as much, and as many things (in a medicinall way) as all those taken toge­ther: yet can it not be said to have the vertue of any one of them in the spe­cificall or formall Nature of it, but only eminently, i. e. in respect of that soveraigne Property, which, though it be simply and formally but one, yet answereth in value, worth, and variety of operation, unto all the severall vertues, and healing properties in all those other Receipts. In like manner all that great variety of Faculties, Powers, Properties, Vertues, Endow­ments, Excellencies, and all Principles of action whatsoever, that are scat­tered in their proper and distinct Natures amongst the Creatures, may be attributed unto God, though not so much as any one of them be properly and formally in him; viz. because there is that soveraign and super transcendent perfection in his Nature, being but simply, and most singly one, which for Power and variety of action in every kind, answereth them all▪ yea and far ex­ceedeth them also.

Secondly, from the simplicity of the Nature of God, as it hath been ar­gued §. 6. and explained, it cleerly followeth, that love and hatred, and so mercy and justice, or severity, in God, towards his Creature, do not argue any dif­ferent affection, or inclination in him towards it (the simplicity of his Na­ture not admitting of any such difference) but only a different dispensation (answerable to the different effects, or expressions, of such Principles in men.) So that there is no inconvenience nor untruth in it at all, to affirme that God at one and the same time, may both hate and love, and so again, love and hate, the same Person; viz. in respect of severall dispensations of a con­trary Nature and import. As for example; when he severely punisheth a god­ly Person, for some sin, or sins, committed, and yet withall continues such a measure of his Grace or good Spirit unto him, whereby he is inabled still to believe in God, and to love him, his fore affliction notwithstanding; in respect of this latter dispensation, God may be said to love; and in respect of the for­mer to hate him.

If it be demanded; but can God in any sence be said to hate a Person that is godly? I answer, that hatred in God, importing, not matter of affection, but of dispensation only agreeable to the effects of hatred in men; to deny that God can in any sence be said to hate a godly Person, is to deny that he can punish him for sin, or act to the prejudice of his Comfort and Peace in any kinde, howsoever he provoketh him.

If it be yet said; but the Scripture will not justifie or warrant any such as­sertion as this, that God ha [...]eth a godly Person. I answer,

1. By concession, that the Scripture doth not indeed (to my best remem­brance) justifie or warrant such a saying, by way of example, or samenesse of expression. But

[Page 45]2. (By way of exception) I answer, that the Scripture warranteth many things by way of reason or ground, which it doth not warrant, either by Example, Precept, or otherwise then by ground, as is famously known in the case of Infant-Baptisme, and of womens admission to the Lords Table. Now where ever, either the Perfection or Simplicity of God is asserted in the Scriptures, whether expresly, or by way of consequence (as both the one and the other frequently are) there is a sufficient ground laid, to warrant, both truth, and also aptnesse enough of expression in such a saying as this, that God may be said both to Love, and to hate the same Person, yea, and both these at one and the same time (as hath been sufficiently ex­plained.)

Thirdly and lastly, from the Simplicity of the Nature of God, the Truth § 7. of that common maxime in Divinity, Quicquid est in Deo, Deus est, i. e. whatsoever is in God, is God, is fully demonstrable: and consequently that neither from eternity was there any thing, neither for the present is there any thing, nor ever shall be any thing in him to eternity, inferior to himself, any thing which is not God. And if so, then both the justification of men from eternity, and so the condemnation of men from eternity, are but idle fancies, with which some men, partly through weaknesse, partly through inconsi­deratenesse, commit spirituall fornication. Yea, though I will not say that any of the Persons, who hold either of these opinions, doe blaspheme; yet the opinions themselves narrowly examined, will not be found innocent from this great offence: in as much as both the one and the other, do apparantly give the honour of the glorious God in his incommuicable attribute of eter­nity, a parte ante (as Divines call it) to weake and contemptible Crea­tures, men: they make these co-eternall with God, and to subsist from Eternity. For that which is not, can neither be justified, nor con­demned.

If it be demanded (in favour of these opinions) but had not men some §. 8. kinde of being, or subsistence, from eternity? were they not in the Mind of God, and present with him, after some such manner, as the Idea, or modell of an house is in the mind of the Architect, before there be so much as a stone of it laid?

To this I answer (according to the tenor of what hath been lately argued and proved concerning the simplicity of the Divine Essence) that if they had any being from eternity, it could be none other then the Divine Being it self: for there were no plurality of beings from eternity. All beings, with­out beginnings, may be numbred by the figure of one, and this unmultiplied. Therefore if God justified any from eternity, it must be himself: if he con­demned or reprobated any from eternity, it must be himself likewise. No [...] can men be said to have been in the mind of God from eternity, after any such manner, as the Idea or Platforme of an house is in the mind of the Artificer, before he begins to build: because such an Idea is no part of the Artificer, nor yet of his mind, but is cleerly separable from both; whereas there was nothing in God from eternity but his own Essence, and that which is altogether inseparable from him. Or if it should be granted, that men were in God, or in the mind of God, from eternity, after such a manner as is contended for; yet could it not be said that men, men themselves, i. e. those Creatures, which consist of bodies and souls, and have sinned on Earth, were either justified or condemned from eternity, but only their Idea's or repre­sentations in the mind of God. Yet how, or in what Sence, or Notion, [Page 46] these should be said, to be either justified, or condemned, when as they never sinned, nor are capable of sinning, is out of the reach of my understanding to conceive.

If it be yet further demanded, but were not men (and all things besides) §. 9. in some consideration, or sence, in God, from eternity; and may it not be said, that in this sence, whatever it be, they were some justified, and some con­demned? I answer,

1. (By concession) that men, and all things besides, were in God from eternity tanquam in fonte, seu radice, vel causâ productivâ, i. e. as in the fountaine, roote, or Productive cause of their respective beings. There is no­thing capable of receiving an existence, or actuall being, but what had a Po­tentiall or seminall Being in some Productive cause or other, one, or more, before. Therefore if this Universe, with all the Parts and Members of it, had not been in God, as in the Productive Cause, doubtlesse they had never been produced, or received being. But

2. I answer further (by way of exception) that men, considered in that being, which they had in God from eternity, were no wayes capable, either of justification, or of condemnation, or of any such difference or distincti­on between them, as these two acts, or conditions, infer. For as God him­self, the common roote, or producent cause of all men, was one, singly, simply, and most undividedly one, from eternity, so were all men singly, and simply one in him; all alike holy, all alike innocent, and free from sin: and consequently all alike beloved of him, all being yet nothing but himself. It cannot be said of the Roses, which in the winter time were vertually and seminally in one and the same roote, that some of them flourished and pro­spered, others, were blasted or eaten up with Wormes, whilest they were to­gether in the roote; though afterwards, when they come to receive actuall Production, and to subsist extra causas, respectively, this difference may very possibly befall them.

Yea, but were not some men justified, and others condemned, in the Coun­sell, §. 10. Purpose, and Decree of God, from eternity? I answer;

(If the meaning of the Question be only this, whether God from eter­nity did not Purpose, or Decree, to justifie some men, and condemne others) that God from eternity did Purpose and Decree, to justifie in time all those, who should in time believe; and to condemne all those, who living to years of discretion, should die in their unbeliefe: yet these Decrees, though in their respective executions they make a great difference indeed between Per­sons, and Persons, yet in their making or enacting by God, they made none at all. This Decree of God, whosoever believeth, shall be justified, doth nei­ther make, nor suppose, any one man, any whit neerer, either to believing, or to justification, then another: nor on the other hand doth this Decree, He that believes not, shall be condemned, either make, or suppose, one man neerer, either to unbeliefe, or condemnation through unbeliefe, then another. A Law that is made for the punishing of Murder, or Adultery, with death, relates no more, in the intention of the Law-makers, at the time of the mak­ing or enacting of it, to one man, then to another. i. e. they intended no more the punishment, or death, of one man, then of another, (personally con­sidered;) much lesse did they intend to make any man, or to permit any man to become, a Murtherer, or Adulterer, by the enacting of such a Law, but the contrary: yet this Law, when it comes to be put in execution for the crimes made punishable by it, and voluntarily committed by men, makes as great [Page 47] a difference between men, and men (and somewhat greater) as is between the living, and the dead.

If the meaning of the Question last propounded be, whether God did not §. 11. from eternity Decree the justification of such and such particular men by Name; and so the condemnation of others, after the same manner; I answer, that (doubtlesse) he did from eternity Decree, equivalently, though not formally, the justification of all those particular Persons by Name, who in time come to be justified; and so again, the condemnation of all those by Name, who in time come to be condemned. My meaning is, that no par­ticular Person, whatsoever his Name be, who comes to be justified, but his justification flowes from that Decree of God from eternity, wherein he de­creed to justifie all those by their Names, who should believe. For had not God made such a Decree as this (and make it he must from eternity, if he made it at all) certainly no man could ever be justified upon such terms. In like manner God from eternity Decreed the condemnation of all such par­ticular Persons, whatever their Names be, who living to maturity of years, should die in unbeliefe. In this sence and consideration, and in this only (as far as yet I apprehend) God may be said to have Decreed, both the justification, and the condemnation of particular men, and women, from eternity. viz. because he made two such Decrees from eternity, by the one of which, all particular Persons come to be justified, who ever are justifi­ed; and by the other, all particular Persons to be condemned, who are condemned. But we shall have opportunity to argue the unsoundnesse of both the opinions, especially of the latter, upon other grounds: in re­ference whereunto we supersede any further inquiry into them for the present.

Secondly, if God in his Nature, or Essence, be simply, absolutely, and §. 12. infinitely perfect, then must he needs be a most pure and simple act, with­out any potentiality at all: i. e. he must needs be actually, Et de praesenti (as they say) and so have been from eternity, whatsoever he is capable of being, or whatsoever it is possible for him ever to be. The reason of this, is, because all potentiality, or possibility of being any thing more, or any thing be­sides, what a Person, or thing, is, for the present, argueth imperfection: which is cleerly proved thus. Whatsoever it is possible for a Person (or thing) to be, which at present he is not, must needs be something, which will either add unto his being, and make it better: or else take away from his being, and so make it worse: or else be a thing meerly indifferent, and so of no concernment unto him at all. So then, if a man be capable of being any thing, which yet he is not, for the bettering of his condition, it is a cleere case that his present condition, or being, is unperfect: for he is as yet destitute of that, which should add perfection unto him. If he be capable of any thing, or of being any thing, which yet he is not, to the making of his present con­dition worse, here the case is yet more cleere, that such a mans condition is not perfect. For to be obnoxious to the deprivation or losing of any good, which a man injoyeth for the present, manifestly argueth weaknesse and imperfection. Thirdly and lastly, if a man be capable of being any thing, which yet he is not, suppose it be without any relation at all to his conditi­on, either for the better, or the worse, yet this also plainely argueth im­perfection. For it supposeth, that a man hath something, hath a capacity, which is a meere superfluity to him, and doth him no good, yea which he knoweth not how to improve for his good; and this as apparantly as either [Page 48] of the former, argueth imperfection. So that certaine it is, that if the Na­ture and Being of God be absolutely, and infinitely perfect, he must needs be a pure and meer act, all in present and actuall Being, whatsoever it is possible for him ever to be.

This most intire and compleat Actuality of the Divine Nature and Being, §. 13. is (I presume) generally subscribed by all Reformed Divines. God (saith Zanchie) is a most pure, and most simple act, and no wayes capable, or in any possibility, of being any thing, more or lesse, then what he is Cum igitur Deus purissimus sit, & simpli­cissimus Actus, & nullo modo in potentia ad aliquid, evin­citur, Deum nullo modo mu­tabilem esse. Zanch. De Nat. Dei. l. 2. c. 4 qu. 1. Praeterea cum tria sint eo­rum omnium, quae sunt, gene­ra; supremum, est tantum actus simpli­cissimus, sine ulla potentia passiva. Ibid. ca. 6. Et paulo post; Adhae [...], Deus Actus est purissimus, sine ulla potentia pass [...]va. Ergo nullum habet, aut habere potest, suae perfectionis finem.. And from this Actuality of God, he infers both his absolute immutability, and infinity of his Perfection. It is affirmed (saith Peter Martyr) as with one mouth, of all that are godly, that God is not changed; in as much as this would be a certain signe as well of imperfection, as inconstancy, in him Apiis omnibus, uno propemodum ore, dicitur, Deum nequa­quam mutari, quando quidem id cum imperfectionis, tam etiam inconstantiae certum esset indicium. Pet. Mart. loc. Class: 1. cap. 11. Sect. 23. Imo purus & simplex est actus, nec unquam sistitur felicissima ejus actio. Ibid. Class. 2. c. 7. Sect. 1. Deus est purus Actus, non habens aliquid de potentialitate. Aqu. Sum. part. 1. qu. 3. art. 2.. The reason why God is not changed, nor capable of any change whatsoever, is because he is a most Pure, Absolute, and Compleat Act, i. e. He is for the present whatsoever it is possible in any respect for Him to be: So that, notwithstanding his omni­potency it self, He hath no Power to make the least alteration or change in Himself, either in Nature, Will, or Action. Upon the account of this Authors credit, who interesseth all the godly in the Assertion and Belief of Gods unchangeablenesse, (and consequently, of that perfect actuality, which we assert) I judge it needelesse to make any further levy of Testimonies in this behalf.

Only (I conceive) it may be worthy our paines to vindicate this Doctrine §. 14. of this Actuality of God, from the incumbrance of an Objection, or two. First, if God be so Pure, Meere, and Perfect an Act, that no mutation in any kinde is incident unto Him, how can He be said to act, or do any thing to day, which He did not yesterday, or before, yea from eternity? as for example, to give Faith unto a Person, or make him a Believer to day, who was an Unbeliever yesterday? Or doth God worke no more, no otherwise, in, or upon a man, when he is made an actuall Believer, then he did, whilest he was yet an Unbeliever? And if God changeth his action, or manner of action, or acteth at all, where he acted not before, is he not somewayes mu­table, and consequently, no such Pure, or Compleat Act, as hath been asserted.

I answer, 1. What Mutations, Changes, or Differences soever be at any time found in Men, or in other Creatures, whether in their Natures, Qua­lities, Motions, Actions, or in what respect soever, most certaine it is that God is uniformly and unchangeably the same in His, both Nature, [or Es­sence] Properties, and Actings. God (saith Peter Martyr) defers his assist­ances, as seemeth good unto Him, and moves the hearts of Men at a certaine time, whereas He moved them not before: which notwithstanding we question not but He doth without any change of Himself Deus auxi­lia sua diffe [...]t, prout illi vide­tur: et homi­num co [...]da mo­vet certo tem­pore, cum [...]a antea non mo­verit. Quod tamen ab eo absque sui mu­tatione fieri non dubitamus. P. Mart. Loc. Class. [...]. c. 2. Sect. 8.. The Essence or Being of God being altogether unchangeable, and His Operations or Actings be­ing really and formally the same with His Essence, unpossible it is that the one should be more changeable, then the other. Therefore,

2. When a man believeth to day, who believed not yesterday, or before, §. 15. though God now inclines and moveth His heart to believe, which he did [Page 49] not before, yet he doth it not by any new act, or exertion of himself, but by that first great eternall act of His, quo totum Ens, & omnes ejus differentias profudit (as Aquinas speakes) i. e. by which he poured out (as it were) from himself at once, the whole and intire body of entity or being, with all, and all manner the differences of it. For we are not to conceive, that upon the multiplication or new production of Entities or Beings, the acts of God are multiplied, for, or in, their production; but that whatsoever is produ­ced by him, or receives being from him (as all things that have being, do) when, or at what time soever they receive this being, they receive it by vertue of that one creative act of his, by which at once ( in the beginning, as the Scripture phrase is) he gave being to all things, Past, Present, and yet to Come. Nor are we to conceive, that when Moses reporteth the History of the Creation, thus; And God said let there be light Gen. 1. 3.: and afterwards ( viz. after a dayes space) that he said, Let there be a Firmament Gen. 1. 6.: and again, (after the same distance of time) Let the waters under the Heaven he gathered together into one place, Gen. 1. 9. &c. that he spake these things at three se­verall distinct times, or that he waited the just space of a day between speech, and speech; but that Moses his intent in this description, or relation, was, to declare, by what successive spaces or distances of time, that one Creative Word of God which he spake at once, took place, and gave being to the se­verall, and respective parts of the Universe. So that (for example) when, by way of Preface to the second dayes worke, he writeth thus: And God said, let there be a Firmament, &c. His meaning only was to signifie, what that one creative Word of God, once, and at once, spoken, did produce, or give being unto, towards the compleating of the Universe, the second day after the Creation was begun; not that God rested, or kept silence, for a dayes space, and then fell to work again.

This truth, I mean, that all temporary and successive effects in the World, §. 16. whether produced by the intervening and concourse of second Causes, or without, are produced by the impression and vigour of that one great act of God we speak of and not by any new act, exercised or exerted by him in order to their severall and particular Productions, is frequently insinuated in the Scriptures themselves; yea, and is demonstrable by ground of reason; and nothing but what hath been the judgement of severall learned men, and of Augustine (by name). The context of Moses, Gen. 2. 4. tenoureth thus: These are the generations of the Heavens, and of the Earth, when they were created; IN THE DAY, that the Lord made the Earth and the Heavens, and every plant of the field, BEFORE IT WAS IN THE EARTH, and every herb of the Field, BEFORE IT GREVV. Here he plainly affirmeth, that God created the Earth and the Heavens in the same day, and every Plant of the Field, BEFORE it was in the Earth, &c. Cleerly implying, that though the Earth, and the Heavens, received their respective beings on two severall dayes successively, yet that which God acted, or did, towards their Productions, was done by him in one and the same day, i. e. at once: and again, that although no Plant of the Field, was actually produced, before it was in the Earth (for no Plant was made out of the Earth, and afterwards by God put into it) yet that on Gods part, and in respect of what he con­tributed towards their actuall Production, they were produced before, viz. by that one Creative act we spake of. Consonant to this deduction from, as also to the exposition lately given unto, the context of Moses, is this passage of Augustine. When thou hearest that all things were then made, when the day [Page 50] was made, conceive, if thou beest able, that six or seven fold repetition which is made, [or to be made] without any intervalls of delayes or spaces of time; or if thou beest not able so to conceive of it, leave it for those to conceive, who are able; and go thou forward with the Scripture, which forsaketh not thy in­firmity, but walketh a Mothers pace slowly with thee; and which so speaketh▪ that with her height shee laughs at the proud, with her depth, shee amazeth the considerate; with her Truth, shee feeds the strong or well-grown; and with her affability, nourisheth little ones Et cum au­dis tunc facta omnia, cum factus est dies, illam senariam, vel septenariam repetitionem sine intervallis mora [...]um spa­ciorumque temporalium factam, si possis, appre­hendas; si au­tem non possis, haec relinquas conspicienda valentibus; tu autem, cum Scriptura non deserente infir­mitatem tuam, & materno in­cessu tecum tardius ambu­lante, proficias, quae sic loqui­tur, ut altitu­dine superbos irrideat, pro­funditate attentos terreat, veritate magnos pascat, affabilitate, parvos nutriat. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 5. c. 3.. The same Author, elsewhere: For God (saith he) made all time with all corporall Creatures, together, or at once: which visible Creatures are signified by the Name of Heaven and Earth Fecit enim Deus omne tempus simul cum omnibus creaturis corporalibus, quae creaturae visibiles, nomine coeli & terrae significantur. Aug. lib. 1. de Gen. contra Manich. c 3. Quod futurum est, jam factum est. Idem. Soliq. cap. 26.. This to have been his positive and cleer judgement, many other passages in his writings give plenary and pregnant testimony; and more particularly his 105 ^th. Tractate upon John, and his Books upon Genesis. But to returne to the Scriptures. Those words, Psal. 115. 3. He [God] hath done whatsoever he pleased, in the best sence and interpretation of them, and that which is closest to the letter, are thus to be understood; viz. that whatsoever God wil­leth, or hath willed, should at any time come to passe, he hath already done [viz. all that he meaneth, or which is any wayes necessary for him, to do, towards the effecting of it.] In this sence also that of the Apostle ( Rom. 8. 30. with many other places of Scripture of like Phrase and consideration) is to be understood. Moreover, whom he hath predestinated, them also hath he called: and whom he hath called, them hath he also justified; and whom he hath justified, them hath he also glorified. God is said to have [already] cal­led, justified, glorified, [all] those, whom he did foreknow (ver. 29.) i. e. pre­approve ( viz. as lovers of God, Vers. 28.) and so predestinated to be con­formed to the Image of his Sonne, because he hath already done, whatsoever is requisite for him to doe, for the procurement, and effecting of them in due time.

By the way, lest the Table of this Doctrine should prove a snare of error §. 17. or mistake unto any, foure things are diligently to be minded. First, that that one great Act of God, by which he gave Being, in time, unto the World, and unto all things, that either have been, or ever shall be produced, or done, in it, was not exercised, or acted by him in time, but from, or in, eternity. The reason hereof is, because being really and formally one, and the same thing with his Essence and Being, (as learned men generally acknowledge) it could not be of any later, or other, edition, then so. Secondly, that this act, though acted or put forth by him from eternity, is not therefore to be con­ceived, as an act that is past, or finished long since, but as permanent, and continued in him, or by him (yet without any succession, or continuity of time) according to that of our Saviour, My Father WORKETH HITHERTO, and I worke Joh. 5. 17.. There is nothing perishable, or changeable in God: what he worketh once, he worketh alwayes; though the Products or Effects of his working, alter and change, rise and fall. The late learned Bishop Davenant asserteth these Propositions as true, in the opinion of all Divines: 1. That God can Will nothing in time: [if so, then that Will of His, by which the World was at first Created, and by which all things are in continuance and succession of time produced, must needs be from, or in, eternity.] 2. That God cannot but have that Will which he hath: [if so, then that [Page 51] will, by which he created the World, and gave being unto all things that were to receive being in time, is unchangeably permanent in him. [...] 3. And lastly, that God cannot have any will, which for the present he hath not Deus potest nihil velle ex tempore; Deus non potest non habere volitio­nem, quam ha­bet. Non potest habere volitio­nem quam non habet. Davenant. Animadversions upon a Treatise, intituled, Gods love to man-kind. Pag 484.; [if so, then that Will of his, by which he operateth or worketh Faith in Peter, in time, as, for instance, to day, was in him from eternity: and consequent­ly, God wrought as much towards the making of Peter a Believer, before he did beleeve, as he did, when he was actually brought to beleeve.]

A third thing to be considered for a right understanding of the point in §. 18. hand, is; that that Act of God we speake of, though from eternity, and the effects or productions of it in time, yet is it not to be conceived as prece­daneous in time, to these effects, or productions themselves. Though God (for example) willed that will from eternity, which was efficacious to make Peter a Believer in time, yet is not the act of this Will in God to be looked upon, or conceived, as preceding in time that act of Peters will, by which he became, or was made, a Believer. The reason hereof, is, because there is no succession, nothing sooner, nothing later, nothing before, nothing after other in order of time, in eternity; nor yet in those things, which are measured by eterni­ty, as by their proper and adequate measure, as all the Acts of God are. This is the constant and known Doctrine of the ablest and best Divines as well modern as more ancient In Deo non est vicissitudo temporum. P. Mart. Loc. Class. 3. c. 1. sect. 6. Aeternum est, quod principio et fine caret, ut Deus. Ʋrsinus. Expl. Cat. qu. 58. [ Quod autem principio & fine caret, non potest habere medium, nec prius, aut posterius] Aeternitas, neque habet, neque habere possit prius aut posterius. Zanch. de. Nat. Dei. l. 2. c. 3. Qu. 1. Thes. 1. Et paulò post: Illa vere dicuntur aeterna, quae principio et fine carentia, eadem semper sunt, ab omni successione libera. Vid. plura húc spectantia in seqq. In ipsa aeternitate nulla spacia temporis cerno▪; quia spacia temporis, praeteritis & futu­ris rerum motibus, constant. Nihil autem praeterit in aeter­no, et nihil futurum est. Ita quod praeterit esse, desinit: et quod futurum est, nondum esse coepit. Aeternitas autem tantum modo est: nec fuit, quasi jam non sit: nec erit, quasi jam non sit. Aug. de vera. Rel. cap. 49. Aeternitas ipsa Dei substantia est, quae nihil habet mutabile: ibi nihil est prae­teritum, quasi jam non sit: ibi nihil est futurum, quasi nondum sit: sed non est ibi, nisi est: non est ibi fuit & erit, quia et quod fuit, jam non est: et quod erit, nondum est: sed quicquid ibi est, non [...]isi est. Idem. in Psal. 101. Praesens au­tem tempus, si semper esset praesens, nec in praeteritum tran­siret, jam non esset Tempus, sed aeternitas. Idem. Confess. l. 11. c. 14. Et si aliquid semper vivat, tamen si mutabilita­tem patiatur, non propriè aeternum appellatur, quia non semper ejusmodi est; quanvis immortale, quia semper vi­vit, recte dici potest. Aug. lib. qu. 83. qu. 9. Carere initio, & fine, & omni mutabilitate, dat aeternum esse. Rich. de S. victore. l. 2. de Trin. c. 9. In illo [Deo] nec praeterita, nec futura reperiri queunt, sed cuncta mutabilia immutabili­ter durant: et quae in scipsis simul existere non possunt, illi simul omnia adsistunt: nihil (que) in illo praeterit, quod transit: quia in aeternitate ejus, modo quodam incomprehensibili, cuncta volumina saeculorum transeuntia manent, currentia stant. Greg. Moral. l. 20. c. 23.. That priority or pre­cedency, which the Act of God hath before the act of Peter, by the mutuall co-incidency, or joynt concurrence whereof Peter is made a Believer, is only a priority in Worth, Dignity, Excellency, Eminency, &c. not in time. God doth not will the conversi­on of Peter, before he is converted, nor the glorification of Peter, before he be glorified; though he willed, or rather, willeth, both the one, & the other, from eternity. The reason of the seeming strangenesse of these things to our ap­prehensions, is our ignorance and un­acquaintednesse with the Nature of of eternity: which being nothing else but God himself, considered as his own measure (in point of duration) and in this respect exceeding difficult to be rightly and fully apprehended and con­ceived by us, men in the meane time being generally averse from intense and deep speculations, it is no great marvell, if it seemes a kinde of un­couth mystery unto them. But that which we here affirm, viz. that that act, or operation of God, by which Peter is made an actuall Believer, though it were in God, and put forth by him [Page 52] from eternity, yet was not, in order of time, before that act of Peter him­self, whereby he Believed, but only in a kinde of transcendent excellency, or dignity (proper to eternity) is nothing but the avouched Doctrine of many learned and judicious men; yea and cleerly follows from the very Nature of eternity, as it is generally defined and described by our Reformed Divines themselves, yea even those that are esteemed most Orthodox. But if (saith Austin, speaking unto God) there was no time before Heaven and Earth, why do men aske, what didst thou, THEN? [meaning, before Heaven and Earth were made]: For th [...]re was no, THEN, where there was no time. Neither dost thou precede times, in time: for if so, thou couldst not precede [or be before] all times. But thou precedest all times that are past, with the statelinesse [or tran­scendent height] of thine eternity, which is alwayes present; and art above all times that are future, because they are yet to come, and when they are come, they will be past: but thou art the same, and thy yeares faile not Si au­tem ante coelum & terram, nullum erat tempus, cur quaeritur, quid tunc faciebas? Non enim erat Tunc, ubi non erat tempus; nec tu tempora tempore praecedis; alio­quin non om­nia tempora praecederes. Sed praecedis omnia tem­pora pr [...]ter­ita, c [...]lsitudi­ne semper praesentis ae­ternitatis: & superas omnia futu­ra, quia & illa futura sunt, & cùm venerint, praeterita erunt: tu autem idem ipse es, & anni tui non deficient. Aug. Confess. l. 11. c. 13.. Consonant hereun­to is the saying of Boetius, a Philosopher. Nor ought God (saith he) be conceived by us, as more ancient then his Creatures, in respect of any quantity of time, but ra­ther in respect of the propriety of his simple Nature Ne (que) Deus conditis rebus antiqu [...]or videri debet temporis quantitate, sed simplicis potiûs proprietate naturae. Boet. de Consol. Philos. l. 5. pros. 6.. Fr. Arriba a late Writer, and acute, throughly versed in the learning of the Fathers and Schoolemen, hath notably cleered this point, and fully answered all Objections, which (as far as I am able to apprehend) can be brought against it. I shall present the Reader with two or three passages from him▪ relating unto it. When the Holy Scripture (saith he) and our Schoole-Doctors with it, say and teach, that things which are eternall, are before things made in time, they speake truly, not of a priority FORMALLY so called, such as that is, which is found in those things, un­to which the consideration of what is before, and what is after, doth belong (which I have often said cannot agree to eternity) but they speake of a kinde of EMINEN­TIALL priority, in respect of which, those things which never faile, but are al­wayes the same indefinently, are truly said to be before things that are temporall [or in time] not indeed formally, but eminently. For speaking properly of this eminentiall priority, or of an eternall permanency, that which is indefinently, [i. e. without end, or ceasing] is before that, which sometimes is, and sometimes is not Dum Scriptura sacra, simul (que) Doctores Scholastici, dicunt, aeterna esse priora temporalibus, vere loquuntur, non de prioritate forma­li, qualis est illa quae reperitur in [...]is rebus, quibus convenit ratio prioris & posterioris (quod saepe dix­imus aeternitati convenire non posse) sed loquuntur de prioritate, sub quadam eminentiali ratione, qua­tenùs illa quae nunquam deficiunt, & quae indesinenter sunt, verè dicuntur priora temporalibus, non quidem formaliter, sed éminenter. Proprie enim loquendo de ista prioritate eminentiali sive de aeternâ permanentiâ, illud quod indesinenter est, priùs esse dicitur quam illud, quod aliquando est, aliquando verò non est. Fran. de Arriba. Operis Con. l. 3. c. 15. Sect. 7.. In another place, he expresseth himself thus: Our former Doctrine sup­posed, it manifestly followes from thence, that those words of Christ, Joh. 8. Before Abraham was, I am; and that of Paul, Eph. 1. He chose us in him before the World was made, with many other like places of Scripture every where obvious, are to be taken, according to the manner of our understandings, as meant of this eminentiall priority, not of an antecedency in respect of time, not of any priority, pro­perly and formally so called Ex praesuppositâ Doctrinâ manifeste de­ducitur, illa verba Christi, Antequam Abraham fierit, ego sum, &illud Pauli ad Eph. 1. Elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutione, &plurima alia Scripturae Sacrae similia loca, qua passim occurrunt, accipienda esse, nostro modo intelligendi, de istâ eminentiali antecedentiâ ad tempus, non verò de Ante­cedentiâ propriè & formaliter sumptâ, &c. Ibid. Sect. 11.. The same Author elsewhere hath these words: [Page 53] In as much as the proper and formall reason [or Nature] of mutability, where­in the ratio [or Nature] of time consisteth, is intrinsecall [or essentiall] unto time, and to the differences of it, as Past, Present and to Come, and consequent­ly imperfection must needs be intrinsecall to them also [mutability alwayes including imperfection] evident it is, that fuit, and erit, was, and will be, where­by that which is past, and that which is to come are signified▪ cannot [with truth] formally, or properly, be attributed unto God Cum Tempora, ejus (que) diffe­rentiis▪ qua­les sunt prae­sens, praete­ritum, & futurum, sit intrinseca formalis ratio mutabilitatis, in qua consistit ratio temporis, & con­sequenter sit illis intrinseca imperfectio, non debet tribui Deo formaliter, fuit, vel erit, quibus praeteritum & futurum significantur. Ibid. c. 14. Sect. 7.. This then is a third thing to be diligently considered and remembred, to prevent all misprision about the point in hand: no act of God is before any act of the Creature, in respect of time.

The fourth, and last thing of like necessity to be considered for the same §. 19. end, is this: No act of God, nor Co-operation of his with his Creature, im­poseth any necessity upon any free-working cause (I mean, upon any cause, which is free, in the nature or constitution of it to work, or not to work, and to work variously) to act so, or so, determinately; nor yet supposeth any necessity, or infallibility of any act, or effect, producible by such causes, before, or untill they be actually produced. Nor is this any thing but the received Doctrine of Orthodox and approved Divines. God (saith Austine) so administreth, or governeth all things which he hath Created, that he suffer­eth them to exercise and act their own proper motions Sic ad­ministrat omni [...] quae creavit, Deus, ut etiam ipsa prop [...]os ex­ercere & a­gere motus sinat. Aug. de Civit. l. 7. c. 30.. This saying of Austin is frequently cited and made use of by our best Reformed Divines as P. Mar­tyr Loc. Com. Class. 1. cap. 14. Sect. 2., Polanus Symph. Cathol. cap. 6. Thes. 5., and others, in their explications of the Providence of God, and the manner of his concurrence with second Causes in their motions. Now if God, notwithstanding any influence of his upon, or any Co-operation with, his Creature in their motions or actings, yet so far comports with them, as to leave them to their native Principles, Properties and Propensions, in their actings, doubtlesse he doth not necessitate, or determine with any strong or ir­resistible hand, the wills of men in their respective actions, or elections; it being the innate and most intrinsecall property of these to determine them­selves, or make their elections freely. There is every whit as much (if not much more) in this passage of Anselm. And when (saith he) we deny that there [he means, in eternity] is any thing either past, or future, which hath been, or is to be hereafter, in time, we do not affirme that what hath been, or is to be hereafter, is in no sence, or consideration there: we only say, that these things are not there, after the manner, or in the consideration of things, either past, or to come, but indefinently and as present, with such a presentiality which is pro­per to eternity. And in this there appears no contrariety at all Et quan­do negamus fuisse, vel futurum ibi esse aliquid. quod in tem­pore suit, aut erit, non asserimus id quod fuit, aut erit, nullo modo ibi esse: sed tantum praeterito vel futuro modo dicimus non ibi esse, quod ibi indesinenter est suo praesenti modo: in his verò nulla videtur adversari contrariet [...]s. Sic uti (que) sine ullâ repugnantiâ dicitur, aliquid esse multabile in tempore, antequam sit, quod in aeternitate manet immutabiliter, non antequam sit, vel post quam est, sed indesinenter, quia nihil est ibi secundum tempus. Nam hoc ipsum est ibi aeternaliter, quia temporaliter aliquid est, & antequam sit, potest non esse, sicut dixi. Anselm. Opusc. de Concord. c.▪. So then, THAT MAY, WITHOVT ANY REPVGNANCY OR CONTRADICTION, BE SAID TO BE CHANGEABLE, OR ALTERABLE IN TIME, BEFORE IT IS, WHICH REMAINES UNCHANGEABLE AND UNALTERABLE IN ETERNITY; not be­fore it is, or after it is, but indesinently, because here (viz. in eternity) there is nothing according unto time, [or any the differences hereof.] The same Au­thor, [Page 54] to the same purpose, and in the same Tract, where the recited passage is extant, writeth thus. For as, although in eternity, there is nothing which was, and is now past; or that shall be hereafter, but only that which is, and yet in time something hath been, and something shall be, without any repugnancy: so may it be proved without any inconvenience, that what cannot be changed or altered in eternity, may yet in time, before the being of it, be changed or altered, by the liberty of the wills of men. Though there be nothing there [in eternity] but what is present, yet presence there, is not a presence in time, like unto ours, but an eter­nall presence [which neither admits any thing past, nor to come] in which all times are contained. So that, as the present time comprehends every place, and what soever is in any place; so is all time, and all things that are, or are done in time, comprehended and shut up in the present [or, now] of eternity Sicut e­nim quam­vis in aeter­nitate non fuit, aut erit aliquid, sed tantum est, et tamen in tempore fuit, et erit ali­quid, sine re­pugnantiâ; ita quod in aeternitate mutari ne­quit, in tem­pore aliquā ­do per libe­ram volun­tatem, ante­quam sit, esse mutabile, probatur abs (que) inconvenientiâ. Quanvis ibi nihil sit, nisi praesens, non est tamen illud praesens temporale, sicut nostrum, sed aeternum, in quo cuncta tempora continentur. Siquidem quemadmodum praesens tempus continet omnem locum, & quae in quolibet loco sunt, ita aeterno praesenti simul clauditur omne tempus, et quae sunt in quolibet tempore. Ibid.. He that speak­eth such things as these, cleerly supposeth, that no act of God whatsoever, how unchangeable, how potent soever, imposeth any necessity upon the wills of men, to act so or so, to will this, or that, determinately, before they have acted, or willed: but that Judas (for example) notwithstanding any act of Predestination in God concerning him, was at as much liberty at the first, whether he would betrary his Lord and Master, or no, as any other of his fellow-Apostles, or any other man; yea and that, at any time, before he did betray him, he was, notwithstanding any act of God in suspending, or with­drawing his grace from him, at liberty, whether he would have proceeded to the actuall betraying of him, or no? The Jewes (saith Gaudentius, an Author much more ancient then the former) were willing to doe the evill, which they did. And certainly, had they been unwilling, they had not done it. Doubtlesse it is no lesse then high sacriledge so much as once to thinke, that God, who is not on­ly Good and Just, but Goodnesse and Justice it self, should either command, or con­straine, that to be done, which himself condemneth Voluerunt Iudaei facere malum, quod fecerunt. Et uti (que) si noluissent, non fecissent. Certè ingentis sacrilegii est vel cogitare, quod Deus, qui non solum bonus & justus, sed ipsa bonitas est, & ipsa justicia, vel jubeat aliquid, vel cogat fieri, quod ipse damnat. Gaudentius Serm. 3. ad Neophy [...].. So that (in this Authors sence also) the wills of men are left free by God, either to will, or not to will, things that are sinfull.

Nor is this contrary to the Doctrine of our later and best Reformed Di­vines, §. 20. when they speake like themselves, and drive out of the rut, or worne path, of common Credulity and un-manlike preoccupation. For God (saith Peter Martyr) indeed drawes all things [along with him] but yet he yeilds [or gives way] after such a manner, that he troubles, or disturbes nothing [in its course.] So things, though in respect of their natures, they incline indifferently to either side, yet they are by God bowed [or, brought over] more [or, rather] un­to one Trahit enim Deus quidem res omnes, sed ita quodam­modo ce­dit, ut nihil turbet. Ita res quanvis naturâ suâ aequè propendeant in utran (que) partem, tamen à Deo inclinantur magis in alteram. P. Mart. Loc. Com. Class. 1. c. 13. Sect. 4.. It is cleere from the instance, which he immediately subjoynes, that he here speaketh of the wills of men: and consequently that the import of the passage cited, is, that God acts no further, no otherwise towards the deter­mination of the wills of men, but only by swaying, or inclining them, more, or rather, to the one side, then the other; and consequently leaveth them free, not only from all co-action, or force, but from all necessitation also, in [Page 55] their actions, or elections. For he that is only swayed, or bowed, more, or rather, to one thing, then to another, hath, this notwithstanding, a liberty or power left him, whether he will conclusively pitch upon that, whereunto, or to­wards which, he is swayed and bowed, or no. The minde of the same Au­thor, in the same discourse is delivered in these words. God (saith he) will alter, or change the will of a man, being evill: he makes use of Admonitions, Ser­mons, Chastisements: for these are the Organs and Instruments of the Providence of God, &c. Vult [Deus] mu­tare malam hominis vo­luntatē: ad­hibet admo­nitiones, Ser­mones, casti­gatiōes. Haec enim sunt or­gana & in­strumenta Providentiae Dei, &c. Ib. Sect. 16.. If Admonitions, Sermons, &c. be the Instruments and Means, which God useth to change the evill hearts and wills of men, certainly he doth not change them by an irresistiblenesse of Power, nor in any way whereby the change is necessitated; because then there could be left no place for any use­fulnesse, or serviceablenesse at all of his Instruments, in, or about the change. Nothing can be instrumentall, in, or about the producing of an action, or effect, but only in a way of, and according to, such an efficiency, which is proper to the nature of it. Charms and Spells written in Paper, and hung about the neck, are not instrumentall in the Cures which are wrought by Sa­tan, there being no Property, or Quality in them, which holds any propor­tion of causality with such effects, as the Cures of Diseases are: nor can such Cures be truly said to be wrought by them, though (haply) they would not be wrought without them. In like manner the nature and property of Ad­monitions, Exhortations, Chastisements, &c. being to perswade, or worke the hearts of men to a change, contingently only, and not in a way of necessita­tion, much lesse of compulsion, unpossible it is that these should be instru­mentall in the Hand of God, in changing the hearts of men, unlesse it be sup­posed that this change is wrought by him contingently, and with a possibility at any time, before it be effected, that it should not be effected; and this not only in respect of his liberty, whether he will go through with the worke, and effect it, or no, but in respect of the liberty of the will it self, whether it will be perswaded to a change, or no. But concerning the uselessnesse of ex­hortations, &c. in case conversion be wrought by an irresistible, or necessitating hand, we shall have occasion to speake more at large hereafter. To the point in hand, Polanus, another Reformed Divine, as Orthodox by re­pute, as Mr. Calvin himself, prefixes this title to his fifth Thesis in the sixth Chapter of his Symphony. God so worketh by the meanes of Nature, [...]hat he worketh nothing contrary to their Nature: and therefore the Providence of God constraineth not the will of the Creature Deus sic agit per me­dia naturae, ut nihil con­trà eorum naturam; ac proinde Pro­videntia Dei non coget voluntatem Creaturae.. The Nature of the will is to work, I mean, to assent, and dissent, freely, contingently, and without any neces­sitation, either from within, or from without. Therefore if God worketh nothing contrary to the Nature of the will, the will still consents unto him upon such terms, that she is at liberty to dissent, any thing that he worketh to procure this consent notwithstanding. Besides, if God worketh nothing contrary to the Nature of second Causes, then he must needs (according to the common expression of Divines) as with necessary Causes, work necessari­ly, so with contingent Causes, worke contingently. Take the acknowledgement of the same Truth from Ursine also another late Writer, no lesse Orthodox then the two former. The will of man (saith he) even moved of God, is ABLE not only TO RESIST, but also to assent unto, and obey God in his Moti­on, by her own, and proper Motion: which doing, she doth not only suffer, but acteth also, and raiseth up, [or springs] her own actions; although shee hath the POVVER of assenting and obeying from the Holy Ghost Potest enim volūtas mo­ta à Deo non tantùm re­pugnare, sed etiam adsen­tiri & obse­qui Deo mo­venti, suo ac proprio mo­tu: quodfaci­ens, non tan­tùm patitur, sed etiam a­git & ciet ipsa suas actiones; et si vim assentiendi et obsequēdi non ex se habet, sed ex Gratia Spiritus sancti aceipiat. Ʋrsin. Catec. Part. 1. Qu. 8. Et paulò post: voluntas humana regitur non tantū, ab alio, sed etiam à se. Deus enim sic movet homines. ut tam [...]n non vi rapiantur, sed et ipsi se moveant.. A little after these [Page 56] words, he saith: for God so moveth men, that yet they are not ravished by force or might, but they move themselves also. No man can more cleerly assert the perfect contingency, or non necessity of the actings of the wills of men de­terminately, under the movings and actings of God, then this Author hath done in the words presented. He that saith, the will moved by God, is able not only to resist, but also to obey God in his Motion, doubtlesse meaneth, or sup­poseth, that the will is able to resist him, in, or under those very Motions, under which, and by meanes whereof, she is able also to consent unto him, and obey him. Besides, saying that the will receives POVVER of assenting and obey­ing from the grace of the Holy Ghost, doth he not plainly imply, that she re­ceives from hence no necessitating impressions unto these actions? A man that is unavoidably carried, or acted, in, or towards an action, can in no tolerable construction, be said to receive Power for the performance of this action; in as much as the conferring of a Power to do that which a man was not able to do before, doth no wayes infer the taking away of that Power (such as it was) which this man had before, not to act. Notwithstanding my sence and judgement in the point is, that the will receives from the grace of the Holy Ghost, not only a Power of consenting, and obeying God in his gra­cious movings, but ( Sensu sano) these actings themselves. But of this here­after. It is (I suppose) needlesse, (and would be more tedious, then dif­ficult) to make the Pile of Testimonies from our best and most approved Authors, for the confirmation of the Truth last asserted, any whit greater. He that is afraid to Believe the Truth, unlesse he hath an arme of flesh to en­courage him, may finde many more quotations from severall Authors of best acceptance with himself, for his encouragement in this kinde, drawn toge­by me in my late Answer to Mr. Jenkyn, from p. 67. to p. 74. But for the Truth of this Assertion (hitherto managed, and credited by the authority of men) that no Act of God, is either destructive to the contingency of, or imposi­tive of any necessity, or infallibility in the event, upon the actions of the wills of men, it hath been in part already, and may in place more convenient in the progresse of our present discourse, be further evicted and confirmed, by dint of argument and demonstration. In the meane time my request to him, that shall (haply) undertake to answer these Discussions, is, that he will not needlessely trouble either himself, his Reader, or me, with producing the Authors, lately either named, or referenced, or any others, as asserting the contrary to what I have argued and proved from them, in other places; For I can more willingly grant, then question, that they have many inconsist­ences, (in other parts of their Writings) with those things, which I have quoted from them. So that for any man to quote them in oppositum, is to gain nothing to their cause, but what is already granted to their hand; only it may prove the easing of the Truth from the burthensomnesse of their Au­thority in other Points, in as much as the speaking of contradictions, is a plaine confession of our ignorance, or doubtfulnesse (at least) of the Truth.

We have now done with those foure Cautions, so necessary (as was said) §. 21. for the keeping our apprehensions and understandings upright under the re­ception of this great Truth (absolutely necessary to be believed, for the vin­dicating and cleering the perfect actuality, and immutability of God) viz. that, how, or after what manner soever God acteth, or is interessed in the successive and new Productions of Actions, or Beings in the World, that which he doth in this kinde, he doth it not by any new Influx, Operation, [Page 57] or Exertion of himself, but by that one great Creative Act, wherein he gave out himself from eternity. This Opinion, because it may seeme strange un­to many, yea and nothing lesse, then a truth, though we have already suf­ficiently, (I trust,) established it upon the foundations of the Scriptures, we will further shew to have been cleerly held and asserted by very judi­cious and considering men: and secondly add a Reason or two for the proofe of it.

For the first; no man (I presume) will deny that great light of the Church, §. 22. and Agent for Christ, in his Dayes, Austin by name, to have been a judi­cious considering, and learned man. How full of the Opinion (now as­serted) he was, his Writings in many passages declare, I shall insist only upon some few. So then (saith he) day was made, in what day God made Hea­ven and Earth, and every greene thing of the Field, before they were upon the Earth. Before, seven dayes were reckoned: here, one day is spoken of, in which day God made Heaven and Earth, and every greene thing of the Field, and every Herb; by the name of which day, all time may well be conceived to be signified. For God made all time, with all Creatures that should be in time, together, or at once, Factus ergo est dies, quo die fecit Deus coelum & terram, & omne vi­ride agri, antequam essent super terram, & omne pabu­lum agri. Superius sep­tem dies nu­merabantur, nunc unus dicitur dies, quo die fecit Deus coe­lum & ter­ram, & omne viride agri, & omne pa­bulum, cujus dici nomine, omne tempus significari bene intelli­gitur. Fecit enim Deus omne tempus simul cum omnibus creaturis temporalibus, &c. Aug. De Gen. contra Manich. l. 2. c. 3. &c. If God made all time, and all things that were to be in time, to­gether, he must needs make all things by one and the same Act. Elsewhere the same Author demands; And how [or, after what manner] did God say, Let there be light in time? or in the eternity of his Word? If in time, it must be mutably, [or, with the change of himself]: and if so, he must speake it by the Creature: because he himself is unchangeable. Not long after he inquires fur­ther about the same Point, thus: Or whether doth not this belong to the nature of that Word of his, of which it is said: In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For when it is said of him, All things were made by him, it is evident enough, that the Light also was made by him, when God said, let there be Light, which if so, that which God said, Let there be Light, is eternall [or, from eternity] because the Word of God, God with God, the only Sonne of God, is co-eternall with the Father; although God speaking in, [or, by] his eternall Word, the Creature was made in Time Et quomodo dixlt Deus, Fiat lux: utrum temporaliter? an in verbi aeternitate? Et si temporaliter, uti (que) mutabiliter, &c. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 1. c. 2. Et paulo post: Et utrum hoc ipsum ad naturam pertineat verbi ejus, de quo dicitur, In principio erat verbum, & verbum erat apud, Deum, & Deus erat verbum. Cum enim de illo dicitur, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, satis ostenditur & lux per ipsum facta, cùm dixit Deus, fiat lux: Quod si ita est, aeternum est quod dixit Deus, fiat lux: quia verbum Dei Deus apud Deū, filius unicus Dei, Patri co-aeternus est: quanvis Deo hoc in aeterno verbo dicente, creatura temporalis factae est. Cum enim verba sint temporis, cum dicimus, quando & aliquando, aeternum tamen est in verbo Dei, quando fieri debeat aliquid; tunc fit quando fieri debuisse in illo verbo est, in quo non est quan­do, & aliquando, quoniam illud totum verbum aeternum est.. From this peece of discourse, these three things are evident. 1. That the Authors judgement was, that God did not give being unto things, by any multipli­ed, or distinct acts, or workings, but by one and the same most simple word, the efficacy and force whereof extendeth it self to the production of all par­ticular Creatures or Beings, when, and at what time, or times, the Speaker pleaseth. 2. That this Word was not spoken by him in time, but in, or from, eternity. 3. (And lastly) that notwithstanding the Word was spo­ken from eternity, yet the Effects or Productions of it, receive their re­spective Beings in time. The same Author; in the progresse of the same Tractate, relating (as it seemes) to the last-recited words, demandeth thus (upon occasion of Moses his reducing the works of Creation to one Day, [Page 58] Gen. 2. 4. whereas in the former Chapter he had digested them into six) Is not this that, which we endevoured to shew in a former booke, that God MADE ALL THINGS TOGETHER, or, at once An fortè hoc illud est, quod in libro superiore moliebamur ostendere, si­mul Deum fecisse om­nia; quando­quidem nar­rationis illa contextio cū sex dierum ordine cun­cta creata & consummata memorâsset, nunc ad unum diem omnia rediguntur? &c. Idem. de Gen. ad. lit. l. 5. c. 3.? And presently after, glancing by the way at those words, (as the Latin translation readeth them) Ecclesiasticus. 18. 1. He that liveth for ever hath created all things together; he plainely affirmeth, that the reason of this expression ( Gen. 2. 4.) In the day that the Lord Created Hea­ven and Earth, &c. was, that we might understand, how that this day was seven times repeated [or mentioned] before, that so seven dayes might be made up Ita jam non ex alio Scripturae Sanctae libro profertur testimonium, quod omnia simul Deus creaverit, sed vicina testificatio paginae consequentis, & ex hac re, nos admonet dicens, cùm factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum & terram, & omne viride agri; ut istum diem septies intelligas repetitum, ut fierent septem dies. Ibid.. To save the labour of transcribing, the Reader may please to peruse from the same Pen, another testimony, as full and pregnant to the point in hand, as any of these, in the 16 ^th. Sect. of this Chapter. So that Augustine was grounded, and strongly built upon this foundation of Truth, that no multipli­cation of effects, argueth any Plurality or Multiplication of Acts, or Exerti­ons in God, in, or for, the Productions of them.

Let the judicious Reader consider, whether the same Truth lieth not large §. 23. also in these words of Ambrose. There is not in God (saith he) any Accident, Motion, or NAVV WILL, or temporall counsell: nor is his thought varied ac­cording to the inequality of mutable things Non est in Deo ac­cidens, mo­tus, aut no­va volun­tas, aut tem­porale consi­lium: nec cogitatio e­jus cum re­rum muta­bilium inae­qualitate variatur. Ambr. De vocat. Gent. cap. 10.. If there be no motion, or new will, in God, he cannot be conceived to advance, or put forth any action, or operation in, or from himself, for the effecting of any thing in time, which he did not put forth from eternity. Nor is this saying of Bernard lesse con­scious of the same opinion, (be it Error, or Truth;) God cannot deny himself, nor not do the things, which he hath already done, as it is written, Who hath done the things, which are yet to come Non potest seip­sum nega­re Deus, neque non facere, quae jam fecit, ut Scriptum est, Qui fecit, quae futura sunt. Bernard Serm. 68. super Cant.. In this citation from the Scripture, who hath done the things yet to come, he followeth the Translation of the Septua­gint (as the ancient Writers more generally did) who make the Scripture so to speak, Esa. 45. 11. In saying that God hath done the things, that are yet to be done, (or, to come) he cleerly supposeth, that God by one and the same simple act, which is really the same with his Essence, or Being, giveth Being to all things whatsoever, that either have been, are, or shall be hereaf­ter. D' Arribâ, an Author formerly mentioned as one that profited more then many of his fellowes in the learning of the Fathers and Schoolemen, is more cleer and distinct in the businesse, then any of the former; yea, and as­serts the opinion, now contended for, as confessed with one mouth by all Di­vines. Secondly, (saith he) I suppose that, which all Divines with one mouth confesse and teach, (though many of them, conversing too much with temporall things, very hardly comprehend [or, understand] what they most truly herein affirme) viz. that although the things, which are properly Created by God, be mul­tiplyed, and distinguished in themselves, [one from another] not only in respect of their proper and respective [Natures, or] Beings, but also in respect of the [severall] times and places, in which they receive the beginnings [or first] of their Beings by a true Creation, yet the act of the Divine will, or the command or decree, of God, by vertue whereof things are Created, and begin to be, are [Page 59] not therefore multiplied, or distinguished between themselves Secūdò sup­pono illud, quod uni­versi Theo­logi uno ore confitentur, & docent, li­cet multi eo­rum tempo­ralibus as­sueti, difficil­limè compre­hendant sen­su, quod ve­rissime enū ­ciant, hoc sci­licèt, quod quanvis res, quae propriè creantur à Deo, multiplicentur & distinguantur inter se, non solum penes proprias entitates, sed etiam penes tempora & loca, in quibus per veram Creationem existere incipiant, non proptereà Di­vinae voluntatis actus, sive imperium & decretum Dei, cujus virtute res creantur, & incipiunt esse, mul­tiplicantur, & distinguuntur inter se, &c. Fr. de Arrib. Op. Concil. l. 3. c. 8. Sect. 6.. This supposi­tion of his, he further explaines, and argues, in that which followes. It were easie to multiply testimonies from this Author, yea and not hard to do the like from many others (of more credit, haply, then this) for the confirma­tion and countenance of the matter in hand. But (for authorities) I shall con­clude, with that confident (though briefe) assertion of an approved Au­thor of our own (formerly touched;) For in all Divines opinions, (saith the late Bishop Davenant) these Propositions are true; God can will nothing in time; God cannot but have the will, which he hath; He cannot have any will, which he hath not Deus potest nihil velle ex tempore; Deus non potest non habere volitionem, quam habet: non potest habere volitionem, quam non habet. Davenant. Answ. to Mr. Hoord. p. 484.. If God can will nothing in time, nor have any will which he hath not, then must needs that act of His will, by which he gives Being unto all things, be from eternity: nor doth any thing, which is produced, or re­ceiveth Being in time, receive this Being, by vertue of any presentaneous, or new act of the Divine interposall, or concurrence, other then that, which was exercised and put forth by him from eternity.

Give me now leave to add a Reason, or two, (briefly) for the further §. 24. cleering and asserting of this Doctrine. First, it is a known maxime in Modus o­perandi con­sequitur mo­dum essendi. vid. Thom. 1. part. qu. 89. Art. 1. in cor. Reason; that every thing must needs Act, in proportion, or according, to the manner of the Being of it. Now the Being of God, being most absolutely perfect, the manner of his Acting or Working, must needs be most perfect also. So then all repetition, or multiplication of actings in the Creature, for the obtaining of such ends, which it desireth, arguing imperfection (a Principle upon which the Apostle himself builds, Heb. 10. 1, 2. For the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of them, can never with those Sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they have ceased to be offered, &c.) it must needs be agreeable both to Reason and Truth, to conceive, that God, by rea­son of the infinite perfection of his Being, must needs reach and com­passe all his ends (and consequently give Being to whatsoever he intended should be at any time) by one and the same simple Act, or Dictate of his Will.

Secondly, the Being of God being an eternall Being, the formall consi­deration §. 25. whereof, (as all the diligent surveyours of Eternity unanimously agree) standeth in an incommutability, i. e. in an absolute and utter impos­sibility of admitting the least alteration or change of Being, unpossible it is that he should act any thing in time, other then what he acted, in, or from eternity; because any new acting in time, supposeth an alteration or change in that Being, which so acteth. To act that afterwards, which a man acted not before, infers a manifest alteration or change in his Being, as viz. from the Posture, Habit, or Condition of a Man at rest, to the State or Posture of a person in action. So that if it should be conceived; that God produ­ceth or giveth Being to those various and multiplied effects, which succes­sively receive Being, and are produced in the World, by a multiplicity or plurality of Acts, it must be conceived withall, that all this multiplicity of [Page 60] acts was levied and raised by him from eternity. But that God from eterni­ty did not multiply productive acts according to the number of things pro­duced in time by him (for if he multiplied them at all, it must in reason be according to this proportion, or number) is evident from hence; because these supposed multiplied acts must be conceived to have been exerted and put forth by him, either together, and (as it were) at one and the same in­stant, or else successively, one after another. Successively raised they could not be; because all succession, and divisibility, are wholly inconsisten [...] ▪ with eternity Ratio e­ternitatis ab aevo & tem­pore, distin­ctam dicit rationem: aeternitas autem nec habet prius & posterius, nec ea compatitur. Aqu. part. 1. qu. 10. art. 2. Deus totum suum esse simul habet, in quo ratio aeternitatis consisti [...]. Idem. Contra Gent. l. 1. c. 15. Ibi [in aeternitate] nihil est praeteritum, quasi jam non sit, nihil est futurum, quasi nondum sit. Aug. super Psal. 101., in which there is nothing before, or after other. Together, and at the same instant they could not be raised, it being repugnant to a cause that is most singly, simply and indivisibly one, without all manner of com­position of parts, or otherwise, as God, or the Divine Essence is, to exercise a Plurality of acts together, especially really distinct, and differing one from another, as the acts we speake of, in case they were supposeable in God, must needs be.

If any man shall yet demandingly object, But how can these things be? §. 26. How is it possible to conceive, that God by one and the same act, and this acted from eternity, should give Being to all that infinite variety of Crea­tures, Motions, and Actions, which are produced successively in the course and current of time? I answer, 1. It is very possible to conceive, that an in­finite Power may do any thing, which imports Perfection. Now as it im­ports a Degree of Perfection in men, as in point of Wisdom, Strength, Power, &c. by one and the same action, or ingagement of themselves, to bring se­verall ends to passe; so doth it argue nothing but pure and meere perfection, that God by one act, or word speaking, should bring forth a World of such and such a duration, so furnished in all respects, in every part of this dura­tion of it, as seemed best to Himself, with Creatures, Motions, Actions, and Events of all kinds.

2. To aid and ease our imaginations a little, in conceiving the manner how that great wonder we speake of, may be; Augustine (I remember) some­where in his Writings findeth a kind of shadow, or resemblance of it, in the art (as he calleth it) or Principle, by vertue whereof, or out of which, a man Prayeth, or Speaketh, in respect of the severall Syllables, Words, or Sen­tences, which in Praying, or Speaking, he uttereth successively by meanes of such a Principle. The art, or skill of Praying, is but one and the same Principle in a man; yet by vertue of it, even whilest it remaines fixed and un­moved in the mind, the man produceth words successively, as he pleaseth, such and such words in the first place, such and such other, in the second, &c. In like manner, God by one and the same eternall Act, eternally permanent in him, may expresse and utter himself unto the World by the producing of such and such things in every kinde, according to all variety of times and sea­sons, as himself pleaseth.

This for answer to that great and difficult Objection against the perfect actuality of God, raised from the successive Production of things by Him.

Another Objection seeming to war against the same Property, and Per­fection §. 27. in God, is this. If God be a pure, and compleat Act, admitting no [Page 61] kinde of Potentiality in his Nature, or Being, how then can he be a free Agent? much lesse, the first of all others, as he is commonly affirmed to be? And if it be unpossible for him to act otherwise, then as he acteth, or to give Being to any other things, then what are produced by vertue of that one act, which he put forth from eternity, must he not needs [...]e conceived to act out of the necessity of his Nature, and not out of the liberty, or freedom of his Will?

To this I answer more briefly, 1. To act out of the necessity of Nature, imports not only the ignorance, or nescience of what is so acted, but an ut­ter incapacity in him that acteth, to reflect (with understanding) upon his action. And therefore no intellectuall nature, can be truly said to act out of the necessity of their natures, but out of the liberty of their wills, because they are capable (at least) of knowing what they act, and by denying, or withholding the consent of their wills, may prevent, or forbeare any action, that passeth from them. Nor doth that of the Apostle, Rom. 7. 19. The evill which I would not, that I doe, any wayes imply the contrary. Because his mean­ing is not, that when he did that which was evill, and which he hated, his will for the present did not consent to the act: for had not his will now con­sented, unpossible it is that such an act should have been done by him: but the evill which he would not, or, which he hated, [viz. in the standing, and habituall frame of his heart, and out of the case of surprizall] this he did [viz. through Tentation, or Being prevented with humane infir­mitie.]

2. God is said (and truly) to be Agens liberrimum, the most free Agent of all others, 1. In respect of the exercise of his Act, or execution of what he willeth: he is obnoxious to no disappointment in what he willeth to ef­fect, by any Wisdom or Power whatsoever; whereas all other Agents, are liable, in what they intend to put in execution, to suffer a check and failer, from him. 2. He is the most Free Agent, in respect of the elicite Acts of his Will (such are his Purposes, Decrees, Intentions, Desires, &c.) two wayes, 1. As these are not occasioned or raised in him by meanes of any neces­sity, or dependance which he hath upon any of their Objects, or the things Purposed, Decreed, Intended or Desired by him, but proceede out of the meere goodnesse of his will; whereas the elicite acts of created wills are (for the most part, if not alwayes) begotten by some necessity or other of the things wi [...]led, lying upon him that willeth, as not being compleate in the injoyment of himself, without the willing, or obtaining such things. 2. As these acts of his will arise and flow from their Principle or Fountaine, with a greater enlargement thereof, and more strength of exertion, then the like acts proceeding from the wills of any other Agent, or Agents whatso­ever.

3. (And lastly) the immutability of his Will, or the determination of it to things actually and de facto willed by him, is no impeachment to the liberty or freedome of his Will; but only supposeth, or demonstrateth it to be another kinde of liberty or freedom, much more excellent and perfect, then that which is found in the wills of Men or Angels. That liberty of will, which is competent unto, and found in, these, includes a Peccability, or Potentiality unto sin, which argueth weaknesse, or non-perfection: where­as the unchangeable rectitude of the Will of God, excluding all possibility of sinning, excludeth no degree at all of liberty or freedom from it, but only [Page 62] weaknesse, imperfection, and defectibility, which are the indelible characters of created wills Non habet liberam vo­luntatem is, qui consilium mutare non potest impeditus à causâ externâ, & si mutare velit. Deus autem consilium suum non mutat, nec mutare potest, non propter impedimentum causae externae▪ nec propter naturae, aut facultatis defectum: sed quia non vult, nec velle potest, consilii sui mutationem, propter immut [...]bilem rectitudinem voluntatis suae, in quam ne (que) error, ne (que) ulla mutationis causa potest cadere. Ʋrsinus Expl. Catech. part. 1. qu. 8..

Having thus cleered this foundation of Truth, the perfect Actuality of §. 28. the Divine Essence or Being, let us consider what we may safely, and with evidence of deduction, build upon it. If then God be a pure and meere act, without all Potentiality, or Possibility of change, in one kinde or other, then those volitions, or acts of his Will, which (with the Scriptures) we call Election, Reprobation, Predestination, &c. are not to be conceived as acts that are past, Caven­dum est, ne falsâ qua­dam imagi­natione, act­um volunta­tis Divinae quasi praeter­itum cogite­mus. Scotus in. l. Distinc. 40. or like to the Volitions, Purposes, or Intentions of men, which being once fulfilled and put in execution, die, and cease to be in them; but are to be looked upon, as being really and in Truth one and the same thing with his Essence and Being (which is unchangeably permanent) only with relation to the effecting of such things in time, which answer, and hold proportion with, the actings of men, when they Elect, Reprobate, or Pre­destinate. So that (for example) when God prevailes by his Word and Spirit with men in time to believe, and during this their believing, continu­eth the same gracious means towards their further establishment, and edi­fication, he is said to have elected them; not because he had formerly passed any act of Election concerning them, which is now at an end, and ceaseth; but because he doth by them, or to them, as men use to do by Trees, when they have chosen them out of the Forrest, for building, they fell, saw, hew, and every wayes prepare and fit them for such places in the building they in­tend, for which they are most proper and usefull. Againe, when God, upon mens neglect, refusall, or abuse of the meanes of grace vouchsafed unto them, shall withdraw these meanes to such a degree, that they fall to open pro­phanesse, loosenesse, &c. he is now said to have reprobated them, not be­cause he had at any time before passed an act of Reprobation against them, which was now put in execution, and consequently, expired, and over; but because he now acteth, (or rather forbeares to act) in relation towards them, as men are wont to act in reference to what they dis-allow, refuse, or reject, whether things, or persons. Hence it is, that the Apostle Paul professeth his care of doing those things, which might exempt him, not from under any decree of Reprobation, which had already passed against him, but from fall­ing under any such displeasure of God, which putteth men into an estate of Reprobation, i. e. Alienateth the heart, will, and care of God from them▪ But I keep under my body (saith he) and bring it into subjection; lest that by any meanes, when I have Preached to others, I my self [...], should be [or rather, become, or, be made] a cast away [or reprobate 1 Cor. 9. 27. [...]] as the word in the Originall properly signifieth, and is elsewhere so tran­slated Rom. 1. 28. 2 Cor. 13, 5, 6, 7. 2 Tim. 3. 8. Tit. 1. 16..

Nor doth that expression of Paul, concerning Gods chusing men in Christ §. 29. before the foundation of the World (Eph. 1. 4.) import any Act in God, that is past, and now ceaseth to be in him, but only the standing counsell and good pleasure, which is eternall in him, (being nothing else but himself, and his Divine Essence) of giving life and salvation unto all those, who believe in Jesus Christ, by the means which he graciously purposeth also to vouchsafe [Page 63] unto them, and accordingly vouchsafeth, for this end. The Reason why the Scriptures usually expresse the Acts of God, which are eternally permanent in him, by Verbs of the Preter perfect tense, and in Phrases importing time past, is (as Anselme long since well observed) because, there being no words used, or known amongst men, which signifie that kinde of Permanency, or Presence, which is proper to eternity, words signifying the time past, are taken up by the Holy Ghost to expresse matters of that consideration and import, rather then others, which signifie either the time present, or to come▪ because that which is past, being unchangeably past, and in no possibility of being any other, then past, holds better agreement with, and is more like un­to that, which is eternally, [and so, unchangeably] present, then either that which is present in time, or future; in as much as that which is present, is not unchangeably present, but will shortly be past; and that which is fu­ture, is not unchangeably future, but will in time be present, and after this, past Ʋnde cognosci po­test eum [A­postolum] propter indi­gentiam ver­bi significan­tis aeternam praesentiam, usum esse verbis praeteritae significationis, quoniam quae tempore praeterita sunt, ad similitudinem [...]terni praesentis, omnino immutabilia sunt. In hoc siquidem magis similia sunt [...]terno praesenti tempora­liter praeterita, quàm praesentia: quoniam quae ibi sunt, nunquam possunt non esse praesentia, sicut tem­poraliter praeterita, non valent urquam praeterita non esse: praesentia vero temporis omnia quae transeunt, fiunt non praesentia. Ansel. Opusc. de Concord. c. 1..

Secondly, if God be a Perfect, Pure, and compleat Act, all in present §. 30. Being, and Doing, which is any wayes possible for him either to be, or to do, then must his Counsells and Decrees concerning men, and particularly those lately mentioned, Election, Reprobation, Predestination, &c. of necessity respect them, and relate unto them, not as individually or personally con­sidered, or as such, or such men, by Name▪ but in a specificall consideration, or as Persons so, or so, qualified; or, of such, or such a condition. So that (for example) God cannot be said to elect, or to have elected, Peter, simply considered as Peter, or as a Person consisting of that individuall body and soul, of which Peter consisteth; but as an individuum, or Person of such, or such a Species, Sort, or, kinde of men. The reason why an election of men in a meere personall consideration, must needs be inconsistent with the perfect Actuality of God, is, because it evidently supposeth a mutability, or pos­sibility Concerning the unchange­ablenesse of God, See more cap. 10. Sect. 40, &c. of this Discourse. of change in him, as viz. in point of affection, as from hatred unto love; which an election of them according to a specificall consideration doth not. For if God (for example) shall be supposed to have chosen Peter, simply and meerly as Peter, and not as a Believer, or as a godly or righteous Person; and if it shall be supposed withall, that Peter before his conversion, was a wicked and ungodly man (as the greatest part of men are before their conversion, especially at some distance of time from it) it will follow, that God in time comes to love that Person, which sometimes he hated; which evidently supposeth a mutability or changeablenesse of affection in God, ac­cording to a change made in the Creature. The Scripture saith expresly of God, that he hateth all workers of iniquity Psal. 5. 5.. Therefore whilest Peter was a worker of iniquity, most certaine it is that God hated him. But upon this Peters conversion, it must be supposed that God layd aside his affection of hatred towards him, and put on the affection of love in stead thereof; which imports a Palpable and plaine change in him.

If it be said, that such an Election as I Plead for, viz. of men under a specificall consideration, supposeth such a mutability in God, as this: because §. 31. [Page 64] according to the notion and tenor of this Election, God must be supposed one while to hate Peter, viz. during the time of his non-conversion, and whilest he is a worker of iniquity, and another while to love him, viz. when he is regenerate; I answer, no: the Election asserted infers no mutability or change in God at all. The reason is, because it doth not make the persons of men, meerly, and simply as such, the Precise and formall object of election; but considered as the individua [...]ls of such a determinate Species, Sort, or Kinde of Men, or rather the species it self of such and such Men. Now as it is as truly, as commonly, said in Logique, that though all the Individualls of a Species be corruptible, may change or die, yet the Species it self re­maines incorruptible, and cannot be changed: so in the case in hand, the Love of God in Election, (and there is the same reason of his hatred in Reproba­tion) being Primarily and directly pitched and set upon a certaine Species of Men, and not upon the Persons of Men, save by accident, and indirectly only, and in a consequentiall way, hence it followes, that the Proper and formall Object of Gods Love, (and so of his hatred) being unchangeable, his love it self cannot be said to be changed, nor yet his hatred, though the persons of Men change never so often, from good to evill, or from evill to good. Though all the righteous Persons on the Earth should apostatize, and turne wicked, yet the Species or Kinde of righteous Men would be still the same, the same in Nature, Definition, Worth, Lovelinesse, and in what­soever is essentiall or proper unto the Species. And as God loved this Gene­ration, or Species of Men with this love of Election, before the foundation of the World, (as the Apostles Phrase is) and consequently whilest as yet no individuall Person thereof was in actuall Being, in like manner, were all the righteous Persons in the World dead, or degenerated into wicked men, the Love of God towards the Species would be still the same; yea and towards all particular Persons of Men that should at any time rise up in this Species. According to this notion of Election, it argues no mutability, or change at all in God, either in respect of his love, or hatred, that one while he loves, and another while hates, one and the same Person: because it suppo­seth no Person of Men, to be any otherwise, or in any other consideration, the object of his Election, or of his elective Love, but only as righteous; nor any Person of Man the object of his Reprobation, or reprobating hatred, but only as wicked, or ungodly. As it argueth no change or alteration in the Heavens, or in the Climates thereof, that a Man removing himself by travell out of a cold Climate, where he felt the inconvenience of cold, into an hot, partakes here of the accommodation of warmth: it only argues, a change in the Man in respect of his Residence and Place: so neither doth it argue any change at all in God, nor of any affection in him, in case a Man passing from sin, where he liv'd under the hatred and displeasure of God, un­to righteousnesse, injoyes in this condition the Love and Favour of God. This only imports a change in such a Man, but no change at all in God, or in any affection of his. He now loves, but where, and what, he loved before, and hates still, as before he hated. Nor doth this Notion or Doctrine of Election, and Reprobation, any wayes suppose, either righteousnesse to be the cause of the former, or sin, of the latter; as opportunity may be given in the Processe of the Discourse more fully to shew.

Thirdly, if the Actuality of God, or the Divine Essence, be so absolute §. 32. and full, as Proof hath been made, then can there be no such Act, or Decree in him, as the Reprobation of Men, personally considered, from eternity: [Page 65] The Reason is, because all men being in the loynes of Adam, whilest he was yet standing, just, and righteous, were partakers of the same condition of righteousnesse with him; and consequently of all Priviledges, amongst which the Love and Favour of God are predominant, equitably belonging to this condition. So that all Men, whilest they were found in this condition or estate of righteousnesse, were the objects of Gods Love, who is frequently in Scripture said to love the righteous Psal. 146. 8., to blesse the righteous Psal. 5. 12., with his fa­vour to compasse the righteous, as with a Shield, Ibid. &c. Therefore all this while, I meane during their innocency and integrity in Adam, there was none of them, that could possibly be the Objects of Gods hatred, or (consequently) of his Reprobation. So that if any of them be reprobated, it must be after­wards, and in time: for upon the said supposition, which is manifestly true, viz. that they were all the Objects of his Love, whilest they were righteous and innocent, it could not be from eternity. And besides; if God loved them, personally considered, it is impossible, that without a change in his affecti­on, which is absolutely inconsistent with the Perfect actuality of his Na­ture and Being, he should ever hate them, or reprobate them, under the same consideration, or under any other, then as changed personally from righteous­nesse unto sin, from innocency, unto transgression. In which case God may be said to hate them, though he loved them formerly, without the least shadow of a change, either in himself, or in his affection, as was lately proved.

Fourthly, and lastly, from that compleat Actuality of the Divine Essence, §. 33. which hath been argued and asserted, it plainely followes, that all Gods Counsells, Purposes, and Decrees, are absolute, unchangeable, irreversible, upon any terms, suppositions, or conditions whatsoever. Any change, or possibility of change, in any of these, supposeth a change, or possibility of a change in him; either of which are diametrally inconsistent with a com­pleat Actuality, which excludeth all Potentiality, and capacity of change in what kinde soever. It is true many of the Purposes and Decrees of God have conditions essentially included in them, and which are parts of them; but taking the whole body or systeme of the Decree, they are all absolute, ir­revocable, indispensable. It is one of the great Purposes and Decrees of God, that if Men believe, they shall be saved. Here is a condition, viz. be­lieving, essentially included in the Decree. But this condition doth not make the Decree conditionall, in reference to execution; nor any whit lesse abso­lute, then those Decrees are, which have no condition at all framed into them. For let the World stand, or fall, let Men, Angels, and Devils, inter­pose, and oppose their utmost, this Decree of God shall stand, and be put toties quoties in execution; if men believe, they shall be saved. There is the same reason of all others, which are of like tenor and frame. And thus from the Perfection of the Divine Nature, we have evinced, 1. The Simplicity thereof: 2. The most Pure and absolute Actuality thereof; and from both these, in a way of lawfull, cleer and evident deduction, inferred severall con­siderations and conclusions for the support and strengthening of our maine building in this Discourse: We have only one thing further to argue from the Infinite Perfection of the Nature of God. Therefore

Thirdly, (and lastly) if God in his Nature and Essence be absolutely §. 34. and infinitely Perfect, then can He act nothing, Order, Decree nothing, to the Prejudice, or hurt of any Creature whatsoever, but only in a way of righte­ousnesse and equity, i. e. upon the consideration of some demerit, or sin Pre­ceding. [Page 66] For not only to act, but to be able to act, unrighteously, or to in­tend evill, to, or against the innocent, argues imperfection, and that in a ve­ry high degree. Because as Job reasoneth and demandeth on the one hand, who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane? and concludeth, not one Job. 14 4.; so may we on the other, who can bring an uncleane thing, out of that which is Perfectly cleane? Surely not one. If the Nature of God be infinitely Perfect, there can be nothing in it, there can nothing proceede from it, or be done by it, that is unjust, nothing unequall, nothing hard, nothing that any wayes bendeth, or inclineth to the hurt or damage of the Creature, being yet in­nocent. And if so, then can there be no such purpose, no such Decree in him, as men commonly call, Reprobation, or an irreversible Decreeing, or Ordaining of men (much lesse far the greatest part of Men) to eternall de­struction, from eternity; no nor yet any such Preterition of men, whether we conceive it under the Notion of an act, or of a meere Negation, which, even Lenitate verbi tristiciam rei mitigante. Cic. Offic. in the sence of those Men, who think to qualifie the harshnesse of the matter, with the softnesse of such a terme, tendeth every whit as infallibly, as una­voydably to the everlasting ruine and misery of the Creature, as a Positive Reprobation could do. And indeed the exchange of the word, Reprobation, for a Preterition, no more easeth God, or vindicates the honour of his Grace, Goodnesse, Love, Bounty, towards the Creature, then it would the justice or clemency of a Judge, to pleade on his behalf, that though he sentenceth guiltlesse men unto death, yet he takes speciall care that execution shall not be done upon them with hempen, but with silken Halters. For as not to feede a mans enemy, when he is an hungry; or when he is thirsty, not to give him to drink, is interpreted by God, to be an avenging of a mans selfe (Rom. 12. vers. 19. compared with vers. 20.) in like manner for God to leave Men in such a condition, or upon such terms, in, and under which it is simply un­possible for them to escape the vengeance of eternall fire, is constructively, and (as we use to say) neither better, nor worse, then, to Ordaine, or Decree him in a Positive way to the suffering of this vengeance.

But here it is commonly pleaded on Gods behalf, and said; yea but it is no §. 35. unrighteous thing, no unequall or hard thing in God, to Reprobate, or Pre­destinate to destruction, and that from eternity, which, or how many of his Creatures he pleaseth, without any consideration of sin at all. This is his lawfull and just Prerogative, as he is the absolute Lord of his Creatures: and if he useth it in reference to such, or such of them, who can say unto him, why dost thou so? Or however, if he be conceived to have looked upon Men, as lapsed in Adam, and so, sinfull, when he Passed by so many of them, and left them in the hand of eternall ruine, without all possibility of an escape, is there so much as any appearance of unrighteousnesse, or hardnesse, in this? I Answer,

1. As some men importunely officious unto Kings and Princes, and de­sirous to make their faces to shine above their native lustre, in the World, have attempted to vest such Prerogatives (as they call Prerogative) in them, as a lawfulnesse of Power to impose what taxes they please upon their Sub­jects, to take away any mans estate they have a minde unto, to exempt such Malefactors from death, which by the Law of God ought to die, with many the like, which have proved snares of dishonour, and of danger unto them otherwise; in like manner some men desirous to commend themselves unto God, as men zealous for his glory more then others, study and invent No­tions and Senses of some Scripture expressions, to bestow upon him in the [Page 67] name of Prerogatives, which they presume are much for his honour and glo­ry in the World: which yet upon due consideration are found most unwor­thy of him, and of a broad inconsistency with his glory indeed. For what relish or savour of honor or glory unto God can there be, in bringing him upon the great Theater of the World: speaking thus; I will cast out of my favour, and devote to everlasting burnings, to torments Endlesse, Easlesse, Intolerable, Insupportable, thousand thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousands, of my most excellent Creatures, Men, Women and Children, though they never offended me, otherwise then Children may offend many thousands of yeers before they are born: yea, though I thus in the secret of my Counsell intend to leave them irrecoverably to the most exquisite tor­ments that can be endured, and these to be suffered by them to the dayes of eternity, without all possibility of escaping, though they shall do the ut­termost they are able to please Me, and to reconcile themselves unto Me; yet will I in words speak to their hearts, Proclaime and Professe my Self un­to them, to be a God mercifull and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in Goodnesse and Truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sinne Exod. 34. 6, 7.; I will entreate them with bowells and great com­passions, and Professe my Self aggreived in Soul because of their impeni­tency; I will allure them to Repentance with all my great and Precious Pro­mises of Pardon of sin, of life, and glory, and all the Great things of the World to come; yea I will most seriously and solemnly Protest and Sweare unto them by the greatest Oath that is, even by my own Life and Being, that I desire not their Death Ezek. 33. 11. Can Men indued with reason and understanding, or that know in the least what belongeth to matters of honour and glory, re­sent or savour any thing in such Proceedings as these, that is like to make a Prerogative, worthy the Name, Glory, and Super-Transcendent Holinesse and Excellency of God? Most certaine it is, that there is nothing in God, nothing that proceeds from him, but what is, both Divisim and Conjunctim, and that according to the Principles of Reason, and that light of understand­ing which Himself shineth in the hearts and consciences and inward Parts of Men, just matter of Praise, Honour, and Glory unto Him: (of which more ere long.) But,

2. That Prerogative, or Prerogative-Will (as some call it) which §. 36. God stands upon in the Scriptures, and claimes to Himself, as a Roy­alty annexed to the Crown of Heaven and Earth, either in the ninth to the Romans, or elsewhere, in reference to the condemnation and eternall de­struction of his Creature, standeth not in any Liberty or Power claimed by him to leave what Persons he pleaseth to inevitable ruine, only upon conside­ration of Adams sin; (much lesse before or without any such consideration) but to make the Lawes, Terms, and Conditions, as of life, so of death, as of Sal­vation, so of Condemnation, and these indifferently, and equally, respecting all Men, not such as Men are apt to think meet and fitting for him to doe, but what Himself Pleaseth, i. e. Such as the Counsell of his own Will adviseth and leadeth Him unto. For He is said, not to act, or Worke, all things, or any one thing, simply according to his own Will, but to work all things accord­ing to the Counsell of his own Will Eph. 1. 11.. So that in whatsoever God acteth, or wil­leth, we are to look, not only for Will, but Counsell, i. e. Wisdom, and Ten­dency unto ends worthy of him; and these discernable enough (as was lately said) by Men▪ to be such, if they were diligent and impartiall in the consi­deration of them. As for example; the Jewes thought it most equall, rea­sonable, [Page 68] and best becomming God, that he should constitute and ordain the observation of Moses his Law, to be the Law of Justification, Life and Sal­vation unto Men: and the neglect, or non-observation of this Law, to be the Law of condemnation, and of death. God here interposeth with his Preroga­tive, and declares to them, that his Will and Pleasure is otherwise; and that he Constitutes and Ordaines Faith in his Son Jesus Christ, to be the Law of Justification and Life, whether joyned with the observation of Moses Law, or without it; and on the other hand, unbelief, to be the Law of condemna­tion and of death, though in conjunction with the strictest observation of Moses Law. This Prerogative indeed God Himself pleads, and asserts to Himself, with a majestique and God-like authority, speaking thus to Moses: I will have mercy, on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion, an whom I will have compassion Rom. 9. 15.: as if he should say, Men shall not prescribe unto Me Lawes or Terms of shewing Mercy: I will not be advised or obliged by them, whom, i. e. what manner of persons, or how qualified, I shall justifie and save: I mean to follow, and to keep close to the Counsell of mine own Will, in these great and most important affaires, which concern the Life and Death, the Salvation and Destruction of my Creature. The same prerogative The Apostle also vindicateth unto him afterwards in the same Chapter, in the similitude of a Potter. Hath not the Potter power over the Clay, of the same lump to make one Vessell unto honour, and another unto dishonor Rom. 9. 21.? meaning that God had a like equitable Power, or Prerogative over the great masse of Man-kind in Adam, to make what Lawes of Life and Death unto them he pleased, and to appoint who, or what manner of persons, should be saved, and what manner of persons should be condemned, which the Potter hath over the lump of Clay which is before him, to make what Vessells he pleaseth for ho­nour, and what again he pleaseth for dishonour. But of this passage, as also of that, vers. 18. we shall speak more at large towards the close of the Dis­course, where we intend an intire Explication of the 9 ^th to the Romans from the beginning of vers. 6. to the end of the 23. In the mean time let this be taken along by way of caution, about what hath been delivered in this Secti­on; viz. that though the Jewes thought it most equitable, and most be­seeming God, to justifie Men by the works of the Law, rather then by Faith in Jesus Christ, which notwithstanding was the Counsell and good pleasure of God about Justification; yet this Counsell and good pleasure of God, especially being from time to time so signified unto them by God Himself, as it was, might very well, had they not been negligent, or willingly blind, have been apprehended and submitted unto by them, as a way and means of Justification, far more rationall, more full of Wisdom and Equity, and every wayes more honourable unto, and better becoming God, then that way and Method of their imagination. I mean, by the observation of Moses Law.

3. Though it be not to be denied, but that God hath an absolute Sovereign­ty §. 37. and Lordship over his Creature, i. e. a lawfull power to dispose of it, as he pleaseth, yet it is an horrible indignity and affront put upon him, and no lesse then a constructive deniall of his Infinite Grace, Goodnesse, Mercy, Bounty, Love, &c. to affirm, that he exerciseth, or administreth this Soveraignty and Power upon the hardest terms, and most grievous unto his Creature, that can ligh [...]y be imagined, yea and no wayes conducing unto his own glory: which notwithstanding they affirm (in effect) who maintain, that from eternity He left, or purposed to leave, the far greatest part of his most excellent Creatur [...], Men, to everlasting Misery and Ruine, without [Page 69] any possibility of making an escape therefrom. Suppose that God should grant an absolute Power unto Parents over their Children, as that if they pleas'd, they might slay them, or dispose of them to be stain, (which some learned Men are not far from supposing that God did grant unto Parents un­der the Law Vi. Ludov. Cappell. de voto Jepthae. Dia­trib.) or else to expose them to the wide World as soon as they are borne, to suffer all the extremities that are incident to flesh and blood; can it be imagined, that persons of loving, kinde, and [...]ender dispos [...]tions by Nature, would ever marry out of a desire to have Children, that they might shew their Prerogative or absolute Power over them, either in disposing of them unto death, or exposing them unto misery, as soon as they should be borne? Or are such Intentions or Desires as these, any wayes consistent with sweetnesse, goodnesse, and tendernesse of disposition? How prodigi­ously then, and portentuously inconsistent must it needs be with the Grace, Goodnesse, Mercy, Bounty, Love, of God, which are all Infinite, to create, millions of Men-creatures with a desire or intention to declare his Preroga­tive over them, in leaving them irrecoverably, irrevocably, unavoydably to the [...]aslesse, endlesse, torments of Hell?

4. Suppose such a Preterition or Dereliction of the Creature as this, §. 38. could be reconciled, or argued into some tolerable consistency, with the Grace, Goodnesse, Sweetnesse, Love, Bounty, and Mercy of God, yet the Wisdom of God will not bear them, as being most disadvantagious unto him in point of glory; or at least, compara [...]ively disadvantagious, I mean, in respect of that other most wise, just, and equall disposition of them, where­in, and according unto which, he is asserted to have predestinated, or pur­posed so many of them, be they fewer, or be they more, as should truly be­lieve, unto life and glory; and the residue, be they fewer, or be they more, viz. all those who should not believe, being capable through years, of be­lieving, and otherwise competently rationall, unto destruction. Such a Predestination of men from eternity as this, the Scriptures cleerly and fre­quently hold forth; yea those that are contrary minded in the present con­troversies, subscribe hereunto: and without controversie, such a Predestination as this, is fairly and fully consistent with the glory of his Wisdom, and highly commends and magnifies, either all, or the greatest part, of his At­tributes, without the least disparagement or obscuration unto any. Where­as that doom-full preterition, that blood, which many wring out of the Scriptures in stead of Milke, hath no rationall or intelligible comport at all with any of them; but casts a kinde of spirit of obscurity and contristation upon them all. Nor did any of those (I verily believe) who have been the rigidest and most confident assertors of it, ever so much as undertake to shew, how, or wherein, it gratifieth, or complieth with any of them; no, nor have they all been able with any tolerable satisfaction to Men of unpar­tiall and free judgements, to discharge it of those imputations of Malig­nancy against the glory of the Divine Attributes, which the Dis-assertors of it have charged upon it.

5. (And lastly,) the Scriptures are so far from countenancing or as­serting §. 39. any such exercise of prerogative in God over his Creature, which consists in a most severe and dreadfull dereliction of them from eternity, to unavoydable and endlesse misery, that they still present Him as a Creator of far another Spirit, yea of a Spirit directly contrary to that, which such a dereliction notoriously imports. These frequently commend Him as a Creator very Gracious, Loving, Mercifull, and Bountifull towards all [Page 70] the works of his hands, and towards Men above all; in so much that our Saviour himself recommends him unto his Saints, in his deportments even towards the worst and most unworthy of Men, as an absolute pattern for them to imitate in doing good, and shewing mercy even to their enemies. But I say unto you, love your enemies, blesse them that curse you, doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That yee may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven: for he maketh his Sun to rise on the evill, and on the good, and sendeth raine on the just, and on the unjust Mat. 5. 44. 45.. If it shall be supposed, that God from eternity hath irreversi­bly doomed to eternall destruction those evill and unjust ones, on whom he maketh his Sun to rise, and sendeth Raine, it must be supposed withall, that he intends the greatest evill unto them that can be imagined, even whilest he doth these good things unto them. If so, then must they who imitate him in such wayes, be the most accursed Hypocrites and Dissemblers under Heaven; making shew of Love and Kindnesse in their outward deportments, whilest, War and Blood are in their hearts, towards men; yea and doing good unto them, with a purpose and desire of bringing so much the greater evill and destruction upon them thereby. But the Scripture every where abounds in giving testimony to the Love and Goodnesse of God towards all his Creatures. The Apostle Peter styleth him [...], a Faithfull Crea­tor, [...] Pet. 4. ult. and willeth Christians to commit their Soules unto him in well doing, upon that account, viz. as one, or as a God, that would faithfully perform and discharge the Relation of a Creator unto them. In calling him, a Faith­full Creator, he cleerly intimates, that there is a kinde of naturall tie or in­gagement upon every Author of Being, whether unto persons, or things, which promiseth unto those who receive Being from them in any kinde, a regular and due care in them for their preservation and good. The relation of a Parent, Father, or Mother, promiseth unto the Child, a regular care, desire, and endevour in the Parent, for the comfort and well being of it. By vertue of this Promise it is, that (as the Apostle inform us) Parents stand bound to provide, and lay up for their Children 2 Cor. 12. 14.. And Parents, who do carefully perform such ingagements as these unto their Children, may well and properly be called, Faithfull Parents. So the Relation of a Mother promiseth unto the Infant born of her, and that with much asseveration, and naturall solemnity of protest, all care and tendernesse for the well being of it. In respect of this solemn promise it is, that God himself demandeth; Can a Woman forget her sucking Child, that shee should not have compassion on the Sonne of her Womb Esa. 49. 15.? implying that such Women are very unnaturall and unfaithfull that can. Yea, God himself speaking thus of the Ostrich, shee is hardened against her young ones, as if they were not hers, (Job. 39. 16.) cleerly implies, that this Creature only excepted, there is an universall tendernesse and care in all others, towards their young ones. In like manner every Crea­ture hath a very great and rich assurance from that very relation wherein it stands unto God, as a Creator, that upon a regular deportment of it self, to­wards him, and such as any wayes becomes a Creature, towards the Creator or Maker of it, it shall receive protection, preservation, and every good thing from him. Yea the Scripture plainly implieth, that there must be a very great breach on the Creatures part in point of degeneration and unwor­thinesse, before God lookes upon himself as discharged from that care for the preservation and well being of it, which he promised (as it were) unto it, in his being the Author of Being unto it. Consider that passage in the [Page 71] Prophet Esay: For it is a People of no understanding: therefore he that MADE them, will not have mercy on them; and HE THAT FORMED THEM, will shew THEM NO FAVOVR Esa. 27. 11.. Doth not this cleerly imply, that had not this People been very enormously and intolerably corrupted, and degenerated (as it were) into the spirit and actions of bruite beasts, suffering the glory of the Work of God in their Creation utterly to sink within them, had they but quitted themselves like a People of any competent reason or understand­ing, the relation of a Creator in God towards them, would have wrought so effectually in him on their behalf, that he would have shewed them mercy and favour in delivering them. The Creature must depart and go astray very far from the Creator, and grow (in a manner) quite out of kinde, before the Creator will, or can, cease to know, love, and respect it, as his Crea­ture. Hence it is that we finde God himself so frequently mentioning, and insisting upon his Relation of a Creator unto his People, when he seekes to satisfie and comfort them, as touching his love towards them, and care over them. Thus saith the Lord that MADE thee, and that FORMED thee from the womb, which will help thee, Feare not, O Jacob, my Servant, Esa. 44. 2. &c. So again: Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb; And even to your old Age I am He, and even to hoare haires will I carry you: I have MADE, and I will beare, even I will carry and will deliver you Esa. 46. 3, 4.. Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and HIS MAKER, Esa. 45. 11. &c. Once more, (to passe by many other places of like import) But now, O Lord, thou art our Father▪ we are the Clay, and thou our Potter, and we are all the work of thy Hand Esa. 64. 8.. As in the former passages, God strengthened the Faith of this People by re­membring them that he was their Creator, and Maker, and consequently bare the affection and love of a Creator towards them; So in this last, they them­selves declare how effectually that consideration, viz. of the Relation of a Creator in God towards them, had wrought upon them to the strengthening of their Faith in his Love towards them, and care over them; and accordingly plead the same in their requests to him.

Nor is it prejudiciall in the least to that demonstration, which we intend §. 40. to make from the said passages (with their fellowes) viz. of the love and care of God, as a Creator, to all the Works of his Hands, to pretend, that in these places and the like, God speaks only to his Church, and his Elect ones. For, 1. The Relation of a Creator in God is uniform, one and the same, to­wards the Elect (Believers) and towards Reprobates, or Unbelievers; the one being the workmanship of his hands, as well as the other: and therefore as promising to the one, as to the other, (if they understood, or considered, the voyce of this promise.) 2. If God, notwithstanding the Relation of a Crea­tor in him, were likely to have reprobated his Creatures from eternity, e­specially had this people believed that he had de facto, so reprobated mil­lions of them, it had been a very slender support and incouragement to their Faith, that he should remember them of his relation unto them, as their Creator. For might not they, upon such a supposition as this, have replied unto him; Lord, why dost thou so much inculcate into us the considerati­on of thy Being our Maker, and Creator, as if there were any thing in this to comfort us, or to relieve our Faith concerning thy love to us, or care for us? Do we not know that thou art a Creator to many thousand thousands in the World, whom notwithstanding thou hatest, and casted'st out of thy Love without any cause given on their parts, from eternity? Therefore [Page 72] what assurance of grace and favour with thee can we receive upon any such account as this, that thou art our Maker and Creator? So that evident it is, that God himself doth acknowledge a gracious tie and ingagement upon him, as a Creator, to love, respect, and take care for his Creatures, untill they voluntarily renounce and disclaime their relation unto him, as his Creatures, by walking rebelliously against him, or suffering the God of this World, to deface the glory of his workmanship in them. And whereas he compareth himself in tendernesse and care over his Creature, unto an Hen, which ga­thereth her Chickens under her wings, they who make him like unto the Ostrich, which leaveth her Eggs in the Earth, and forgetteth that the foote may crush them, or that the wilde Beasts may break them, and is hardened against her young Iob 39. 14, 15. ones, as if they were not hers, (which astorgy God himself imputeth to want of wisdome and understanding in her) have the greater sin, representing him altogether unlike unto himself.

Other Scriptures there are exceeding many, which testifie aloud, the grace §. 41. and love and goodnesse of God, as a Creator, towards his Creatures. The Lord (saith David) is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works Psal. 145 9., erga omnia opera ejus (as Piscator) i. e. are extended and shewen unto all his Creatures. But had he intended from eternity to abandon the far greatest part of the best of his works, Men, to the vengeance of eternall Fire, could his tender mercies (in any tolerable sence) be said to be over these? Especially can those men justifie David in such a saying as this, who conceive and teach, that whatsoever God doth in a providentiall way for such Men, so abandoned, as in causing his Sun to rise, or his Raine to fall, upon them, in filling their hearts with food and gladnesse, in giving them Health, Wealth, Liberty, Peace, &c. he doth all with an intent to harden them, and so to bring that heavy destruction upon them with the more severity and terror in the end, whereunto they were predestinated and appointed from the beginning? Will Men call Health, Peace, Liberty, Meats, Drinks, &c. given with an intent to become snares unto Men, and to bring inevitable damnation upon them, the tender Mercies of God? The holy Man Job, being conscious to himself of no signall departure from God by unrighteousnesse in any kinde, looked upon that dispensation of God in so severely afflicting him, as very strange, and that only upon this account, that he was his Creator. Thy hands have made me, and fashioned me together round about [meaning, that he was the sole Author of Being unto him] yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I be­seech thee, that thou hast MADE me as the Clay: and wilt thou bring me into the dust againe Job 10. 8. 9.? If Job thought it strange, that God being the Author of Life and Being unto him, should without any grand offence or provocation given him, handle him with so much severity (as he conceived) in the outer Man, how incredible would the Doctrine of those Men have been unto him, who teach, that God from eternity hath irreversibly consigned over to the mercilesse torments of Hell fire, millions of millions of Men, who never offended, or provoked him in the least? The same Author doth elsewhere also notably assert the universall Love, Care, and Respects of God as a Creator towards men, alledging the consideration of these, as a grand in­gagement upon him, to deale justly and equally with his Servants. If I did despise the cause of my man servant, or of my maid servant, when they contended with me, what then shall I doe, when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb Job 31. 13, 14, 15.? Cleerly intimating a tender care and regard [Page 73] in God towards Men, even the poorest and least considerable of them. After the same manner, Elihu also advanceth the poore into equall respects with Princes, before God: viz. because they, as well as these, are the works of his hands. How much lesse to him, who accepteth not the persons of Princes, nor re­gardeth the rich more then the poore: FOR THEY ARE ALL THE WORK OF HIS HANDS Job 34. 19., cleerly implying, that that relation, wherein every Man standeth towards God, as his Creature, is a pledge of security unto him, that God tenderly Loveth and Respecteth him; (excepting only the case be­fore excepted.)

From the Scriptures lately produced, (unto which double their number, confederate in the same Truth with them, might be added) it manifestly appeares, that such an hatred or rejection of the Creature by God from eter­nity, as is commonly taught, and received amongst us, is broadly and wholly inconsistent with that Love, Tendernesse, and Respect, which the Relation of a Creator to a Creature every where imports: and consequently, is not to be looked upon as any Prerogative worthy of him.

THe Premises considered, me thinks it is one of the strangest and most §. 1. importune sayings, that (to my remembrance) I ever met with from the Pen of a learned and considerate Man, which I finde in the Writings of a late Opposer of Universall Attonement: I know (saith he) no Article of the M. S. R. Gospell, which this new and wicked Religion of Universall attonement doth not contradict. That which he calls a new and wicked Religion, the Doctrine of Universall Attonement, I shall, God assisting, and granting life and health for the finishing of this Present Discourse, evince both from the maine and cleer current of the Scriptures themselves, as likewise by many impregnable & undeniable Demonstrations and Grounds of Reason, to be a most ancient and Divine truth: yea to be none other, but the Heart and Soul, the Spirit and Life, the strength and substance and brief sum of the glorious Gospell it self. Yea, I shall make it appeare from ancient Records of best credit, and from the con­fessions of moderne Divines themselves, of best account adversaries in the point) that Universall Attonement by Christ, was a Doctrine generally taught and held in the Churches of Christ for three hundred yeares together, next after the Apostles. And if I conceived it worth the undertaking, or were minded to turne the streame of my Discourse that way, I question not but I could make it as cleer as the Sun shining in his might, that there is no Article of the Gospell (as this Mans dialect is) I mean, no great or weighty point of the Christian Faith, can stand with a rationall consistency, unlesse the Doctrine of Universall Attonement, be admitted for a Truth. Yea, upon a diligent and strict iniquiry it will be found, that, if any Man holds such a li­mited R [...]demption, as is commonly taught, and believed amongst us, and yet withall [...]es holily and like a Christian, he acts in full contradiction to such a Principle, and happily denies that in practice, which erroneously he holds in judgement. God in such cases as these, makes Grapes to grow on Thornes, [Page 74] and Figgs on Thistles: nor doth there want any thing, but Sence and Visibi­lity of the disproportion between the cause and the effect, to make the lives and wayes of such persons, miraculous. Neither doth any thing, nor all things, that I could ever yet meet with, either from the Tongues, or Pens of the greatest Patrons of particular Redemption, deliver me from under much admiration, that consciencious and learned Men, professing subjection of judgement to the Scriptures, should either deny universall, or assert particular, Redemption; considering that the Scriptures, in particularity, plainnesse, and expresness of words & phrase, do more then ten times over deliver the former, whereas the latter is no where asserted by them, but only stands upon certaine venturous consequences and deductions, which the weake judgements of Men, so much accustomed to error and mistake, presume to levy from them; together with such arguments and grounds, which upon examination, will be found, either to have no consistency with the sound Principles, either of Reason, or Religion; or else no legitimate coherence with the cause, which they pretend unto. Let us first hearken unto the Scriptures lifting up their voyces together for the Redemption of all Men by Christ, without excepti­on: we shall afterwards in due processe of Discourse, give a faire considera­tion to those inferences and consequences of Men, wherein the strength of their Scripture Proofes standeth for the support of the contrary Opi­nion.

And first it is considerable, that the Scriptures doe not only speak to the §. 2. heart of the Doctrine asserted, in great variety of Texts, and Places, but also in great Veyns and Correspondencies, or Consorts of Texts, each Consort consisting of severall particulars of like Notion and Phrase. I shall recom­mend only foure of these companies unto the Reader: which when we shall have pondered, in some, or all, the particulars, respectively relating unto them, we shall add, to make full measure, the contributions of some single Texts besides.

The first Division or Squadron of Scriptures, which speak aloud the uni­versality §. 3. of Redemption by Christ, are such, which present the gift and Sa­crifice of Christ, as relating indifferently unto the World. The name of this kinde of Scriptures, for the number of them, may be, Legion; for they are many. Some of the principall and best known of them, are these. So God loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten, &c. Joh. 3. 16. That THE WORLD through him should be saved, vers. 17. This is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of THE WORLD. Joh. 1. 29. My flesh, which I will give for the life of the World. Joh. 6. 51. And he is the propitiation for our sinnes; and not for ours only, but also for the sinnes of the WHOLE WORLD. 1 Joh. 22. And we have seene and doe testifie that the Father sent the Sonne to be the Saviour of the WORLD. 1 Joh. 4. 14. For I came not to judge the WORLD, but to save the WORLD. Joh. 12. 48. For God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD unto Himself, &c. 2 Cor. 5. 19. To omit many others.

The second post of Scriptures, standing up to maintaine the same Doctrine §. 4. with uniformity of expressions amongst themselves, are such, which insure the Ransome of Christ, and the Will, or Desire of God for matters of sal­vation, unto ALL MEN, and EVERY MAN. Some of these are: who gave Himself a Ransome for ALL. 1 Tim. 2. 6. Because we thus judge, that if one died for ALL, then were all dead: and that he died FOR ALL, that they who live, &c. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15.—that he by the Grace of God, should taste of Death FOR EVERY MAN. Heb. 2. 9. who will have AL [...] MEN to be saved, &c. 1 Tim. 2. 4.— not [Page 75] willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to Repentance. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Therefore as by the offence of one the judgement came upon all Men to condemnation: even so by the righteousnesse of one, the free gift came upon all Men to the justification of life. Rom. 5. 18. with some others.

A third sort or party of Scriptures, confederate with the former (for sub­stance §. 5. of import, and between themselves, for matter of expression) are such, which hold forth and promise salvation indifferently, to Him, and to whoso­ever, will, or shall believe. Of this sort are these (with their fellowes.)— and HIM that commeth unto me, I will in no wise cast out. Joh. 6. 37.—HE that believeth in me, shall never thirst, vers. 35. HE that believeth, and is Baptized, shall be saved. Mar. 16. 16.— That WHOSOEVER belie­veth in Him, should not perish, &c. Joh. 3. 16.— That through his Name, WHOSOEVER believeth in Him, shall receive remission of sinnes. Acts 10. 43. Even the Righteousnesse of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ UNTO ALL, and upon all, that believe—For all have sinned. Rom. 3. 22, 23. It were easie to make this pile also much greater.

A fourth association of Scriptures, all pregnant with the Doctrine we §. 6. assert, consists of such places, where Christ is said to have died for those, who yet may perish, yea and actually do perish: and again, where such Men are said to have been bought by him, and to have been sanctified by his blood, who yet through their own negligence and wilfulnesse in sinning, bring destructi­on upon themselves, and perish everlastingly. Places of this kinde are fa­mously known. Destroy not Him with thy meat, FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED. Rom. 14. 15. And through thy knowledge shall the weak BROTHER PERISH, FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED. 1 Cor. 8. 11.—even denying the Lord that BOVGHT them, and bring upon themselves swift DESTRVCTION. 2 Pet 2. 1. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the World, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again intangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them, then the beginning. 2 Pet. 2. 20. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose yee, shall He be thought worthy, who hath troden under foote the Sonne of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? Heb. 10. 29. Then his Lord after he had call­ed him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt be­cause thou desiredst me. Should not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant? And his Lord was wroth and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him. So likewise shall my Heavenly Father doe also unto you; if yee from your Heart forgive not every one his Brother their trespasses, Mat. 18. 32. 33, &c.

Let us begin with the Texts of the first of the foure Orders mentioned, §. 7. where the Death of Christ is presented as relating unto the World. From the tenor and import of all the Scriptures of this Denomination and Tribe, it will be made evident, that Christ died for all Men, without exception of any; the word, World, in these places, being necessarily to be understood in the proper and comprehensive signification of it (I mean, for all Men and Wo­men in the World, in, and according to, their successive generations) and not for any lesser or smaller number, as for some of all sorts, for the Elect, for those that shall believe, or the like. We shall (for brevity sake) argue only some of these places, and leave the light of their interpretations, for a discovery of the sence and meaning of the rest.

The first proposed (of these) was that place of Renowne, Joh. 3. 16. So §. 8. [Page 76] God loved the World, that He gave, &c. Evident it is, from hence, that Christ was given (viz. unto Death) for them, or for their sakes, whoever they be, that are here meant by, the World. There are but three significations of the Word, that (to my Remembrance) I ever heard of, as competitors in this place. First, some by the World, here understand, the elect, dispersed up and down the World. By the Elect, they meane, all those, and those only who shall in time actually be saved; whom they call, the Elect, because they judge them to have been chosen by God from eternity out of the generality of Man-kinde, with an intent to be by him in time, with a strong hand, and power irresistible, 1. Brought to believe; 2. Caused, or made to persevere believing, unto the end; and 3. Hereupon eternally saved; the residue of Men being absolutely rejected, and left to that unavoydable and heavy doome, of perishing everlastingly. But that this is not the sence of the word, World, in the Scripture in hand, will appeare by the light of these conside­rations.

1. The word, [...], here translated, World, was never known to have any §. 9. such sence or signification in the Greek Tongue; nor was it, nor is it to be found in any Author, who wrote in this language, before, or about the time, when John wrote his Gospell, in such a signification, nor yet in any neere to it. Now the Gospell, as is generally acknowledged, and that upon suffici­ent grounds, being written in the Greek Tongue chiefly for the Gentiles sake, (amongst whom this Language was known and understood far and neer) that they might be brought to believe, and so be saved by it, it is no wayes likely, that the Evangelist should use words, especially in such Master­veyns, and maine passages of it, as this is, in an uncouth, unknown, and unheard signification.

2. Nor can it be proved, that it is to be taken in the sence now opposed, §. 10. in any other place of the Scriptures themselves; but in very many places it signifies the Universall Systeme, Body, or generality of Men in the World (we shall not need to instance for the proof of this; places being so frequent and obvious) as also for that part of the generality of Men, which is oppo­site, and contradistinguished to the Saints; i. e. to the Elect (in their sence of the word, Elect, who yet would have these signified by, the World.) This latter signification of the word, World, is evident in these Scriptures. We know that we are borne of God, and that the whole WORLD lieth in wickednesse 1 Joh. 5 19.. Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the World cannot receive Joh. 14. 17., &c. If yee were of the WORLD, the WORLD would love her own: but because yee are not of the WORLD, but I have chosen you out of the WORLD, therefore the VVORLD hateth you Joh. 15. 19. §. 11.. (to omit many others.)

3. If by the World (in the Scripture in hand) be meant the Elect (in the sence of the assertors of this signification) then it will follow, that God out of his great love gave Christ unto those, or for those, who stood in no need of Him; at least, either to preserve them from perishing, or to invest them with a Right or Title to eternall life; which yet are here laid down as the two only, or at least as two maine ends of that great gift. For if exemption from perishing, or salvation, be absolutely, and without all consideration, awarded or decreed by God unto Men before, or from eternity, they have a full Right and Title unto them▪ or unto the possession and enjoyment of them, by vertue of this award or decree, without the intervening of any thing else whatsoever. For what better Right or Title can there be to the injoyment of any thing, then a decree of Heaven? or the award of him, who hath an [Page 77] unquestionable Right and Power to dispose of all injoyments what­soever, as, and to whom, he pleaseth? But more of this consequence here­after.

4. The structure it self of the sentence, and tenor of the words, riseth up §. 12. against this sence of the word in question. For 1. If by the word, World, we understand, the Elect, we destroy the very Grammar of the place, and make it an uncouth and harsh sentence, such (doubtlesse) as cannot be parallel'd, in any Author, nor yet in the Scriptures themselves. Read we then the place thus, So God loved His Elect, that He gave His only begotten Sonne, that who­soever▪—I demand how, or in what regular sence that Universall distribu­tive particle, whosoever, or [...], every one that, shall be understood? It is a thing generally known to those that understand any thing in the Rules of Grammar, yea the vulgar dialect of those that speak Reason or common Sence, confirmeth it, that partitive or distributive Particles of Speech, alwayes suppose a difference (at least in possibility) between the things parted, or distributed, and this in reference to what occasioneth the distribution. As for example; Suppose a great King having many Sons, should expresse him­self thus: I so love my Children, that which soever of them shall be dutifull unto me, I will bestow Principalities, Dukedomes, or other great matters upon them▪ should he not plainly imply a possibility (at least) that some of them might not prove dutifull unto him? In like manner, if the word, World, in the Scripture in hand, should signifie, the Elect; the distributive, whosoever, must needs im [...]ly, that some of these [ Elect] might possibly not be­leeve, and so perish; because beleeving, and not perishing thereupon, occasion the distribution here made.

2. Though our Saviour, in this Period of Scripture, mentioneth only the §. 13. benefit intended by God in the gift of his Son, to those that shall believe, viz. non-perishing, and the obtaining of everlasting life; yet he plainly im­plies, and supposeth withall, the misery and losse, which they should cer­tainly suffer, who shall not believe. Except this he supposed, we shall alto­gether misfigure our Saviours Mind and Scope in the place, and make him speak, more like a Man void of understanding, then himself. For then the taste and savour of his words, would be this: God so loved the World, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth, or not believeth, in Him, should not perish, but, &c. Therefore certaine it is, that he in the place in hand, as well insinuates the condemnation, or perishing of those, who shall not believe, as asserts the salvation or non▪ perishing of those, who shall be­lieve. And besides, it is contrary to Reason, especially in seriousnesse of dis­course, in a positive and strict manner to suspend that upon the perform­ance of such or such a condition, which may be had without any such perform­ance. This then being granted, that our Saviour here supposeth the certaine perishing of those, who shall not believe, the place, according to their sence, who by, the World, will needs understand, the Elect, must run thus: So God loved the Elect, that whosoever of them believed, should not perish: but on the contrary, that whosoever of them should not believe, should perish. Which (according to their Principles, against whom we now argue,) is, as if a man should say, which soever of my sheep, is no sheep, but a goate, shall have no pa­sture with his fellowes.

3. They who by the World, here understand, the Elect, must, if they will §. 14. not baulk with their Principles, suppose that Christ speaks at no better Rate of Wisdom, or Sence, in this Scripture, then thus: So God loved the World, [Page 78] that He gave His only begotten Sonne, that whosoever did that, which was not possible for them to decline, or not to do, should not perish, but, &c. Who ever, being serious and in his wits, required that in the nature of a condition from any Man, especially in order to the obtaining of some great and im­portant thing, which he, of whom it was required upon such terms, was ne­cessitated, or had no Liberty or Power, but to performe? what Father ever promised his Son his Estate, either in whole, or in part, upon condition, that whilest he rode upon an Horse, he should not go on foote? or upon condi­tion, that he would do that, which a force greater he was able to resist, should necessitate him to do? So that the whole tenor and carriage of the verse, ren­ders the interpretation of the word, World, hitherto encountred; a meer nullity in Sence, Reason, and Truth.

5. The Context and words immediately preceding, will at no hand endure §. 15. that sence of the word, World, against which we have declared hitherto. This little word, for, FOR God so loved, &c. being causall, importeth, not on­ly a connexion of these words, with what went before, but such a connexion or Relation, as that which intercedes between the cause and the effect. So that the words in hand must be looked upon as assigning or exhibiting the Cause, or Reason of that effect, which was immediately before mentioned. This being granted (as without breach of conscience it can hardly be denied) it will appear as cleer as the light of the Sun, that by the word, World, (in the place under Contest) cannot be meant the Elect only. The tenor of the two next foregoing Verses (for together they make but one intire sentence) is this: And as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse, even so must the Sonne of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him, or, every one be­lieving in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life. So that the effect here mentioned and expressed, is the Salvation and everlasting happinesse of what Person, or Persons soever of Men, or of Man-kinde, that shall be­lieve in Christ. The Reason or Cause hereof our Saviour discovers, and as­serts, in the words in hand: For God so loved the World, that He gave, &c. If now by, the World, we shall understand, only the Elect, the Reason or Cause here assigned of the pre-mentioned effect, will be found, inadequate to it, and insufficient to produce it. For Gods Love to the Elect, and his giving his Son for their Salvation only, is no sufficient cause to procure, or produce the Salvation of WHOSOEVER shall, or should, believe on him. For certaine it is, that there is Salvation in Christ for no more, then for whom God intended there should be Salvation in him. If there be Salva­tion in him, for none, but for the Elect only, then is it not true, that who­soever believes in him shall be saved. For certaine it is, that no Mans be­lieving puts any Salvation into Christ for him: therefore if it were not there for him, before he believed, yea or whether he beleeved, or not, neither would it be there for him, though, or in case, he should believe.

6. (And lastly) that by the word, World, in the Scripture in hand, is not meant, the Elect, nor any thing equivalent hereunto, is evident also from the Context, in the Verse and words immediately following, where our Saviour goeth forward in his Doctrine, Thus. For God sent not His Sonne into the World, to condemne the World, but that the World through him might be saved Ioh. 3. 17.. This Particle, for, being (as we lately noted) Causall, or Racioci­native, plainly sheweth, that he useth the word, World, or speaks of the World in this Verse, where he speaks of the condemnation of it, in the same sence, wherein he spake of it in the former, and the meanes of the Salvation [Page 79] of it: otherwise he should not argue ad idem, i. e. to the point in hand. Now then to make him here to say, that God sent not his Sonne into the World, [i. e. to take the nature, or to live in the condition, of the Elest,] to condemne the Elect, but that the Elect, &c. is to make him speak, as never man (I suppose) spake, but not for excellency of Wisdom, or gracefulnesse of expression, but for weaknesse in both. To say, that God sent not his Sonne into the World, to condemne his Elect, were but to beate the Aire, or to fight against a shadow; I mean, solemnly to deny that, which no man was ever likely to imagine, or affirm. For [...]ow, or by what way of apprehension, should it ever enter into any mans thoughts, that God should send his Sonne into the World, to condemne those, whom out of his infinite love he had from eternity decreed to save with a strong Hand, out-stretched Arme, and Power omnipotent and invincible? Or are not these the Elect, in their notion of Election, with whom we have now to do? Therefore certainly, the World, in the Scripture before us, doth not signi­fie, the Elect.

A second interpretation of this word asserted by some, is, that by the §. 16. World, is meant genus humanum, or Mankinde, indefinitely considered, i. e. (if I rightly understand the minde of those, who thus interpret) as neither im­porting all, nor any of the individiuums, or persons contained in, or under, this species, or kinde, but only the specificall nature of Man, common to them all: as when the Jewes said of the Centurion, that he loved their nation Luke 7. 5., their meaning was not, either that he loved all that were Jewes, without ex­ception of any; nor yet that he loved any particular person of them, more then another; but only that he was lovingly disposed towards them, as they were such a particular Nation, as viz. Jewes. But that this Interpretation, either falls in (in substance) with the former, and so is already condemn'd with the condemnation thereof; or else, with the third and last, which (as we shall hear presently) findeth in this Scripture a Love in God towards all the individuall Persons of Man-kinde, without exception of any; or else, that it vanisheth into nothing, and hath no substance at all in it, may be thus demonstrated. If by Man-kinde, indefinitely considered, be neither meant a speciall or determinate number of the persons of Men (which the former interpretation asserteth) nor yet the universality, or intire body of Men, consisting of all the particular Persons of men, which either have been, now are, and shall be hereafter, (which the third Interpretation avoucheth) then is it only the nature of Man abstractively considened, which we may (with the Schoolemen) call, Humanitas, Humanity, or the specificall na­ture of Man, not the persons of Men, some, or all, which God precisely loved with that love, out of which He gave His only begotten Sonne. If so, then it undeniably followes, that Christ was given out of as much Love to one per­son of Man-kinde, as to another, or (which is the same) not out of any love to any at all. For certain it is, that Humanitas, or the specificall nature of Man, is not the person of any Man. And so, according to this Interpre­tation, God should love the Reprobates, as much as the Elect, and consequent­ly give His only begotten Sonne [to Death] as well for the one, as the other. Besides, if it were the humane Nature indefinitely considered (in the sence pre-declared) which God is here said to have loved, with that love, out of which He gave His only begotten Sonne, from hence also it must needs follow, in as much as the Reprobate (so called) partakes every whit as much in this nature, as the Elect, that Christ was given as much for the one, as for the other. Again, if by, the World, be meant the humane Nature (in the sence [Page 80] distinguished) the distributive Particle, whosoever, with the following words, will be found incongruous, and no wayes answering the former part of the Verse, either in sence, or regularnesse of construction. For the humane Na­ture, is but simply one and the same nature, or thing, nor doth it containe any Plurality, of Species, or Individuall humane Natures under it; whereas a distribution cannot be, but of some generall, which containeth many par­ticulars under it. And upon the supposall of such a sence of the word, World, to make the construction Regular in the latter part of the Verse, the tenor of the whole must run thus: So God loved the humane Nature, that He gave His only begotten Sonne, that what humane Nature soever believed in him, should not perish, &c. If this construction be ridiculous, so must that inter­pretation needs be, which produceth it. Lastly, (to answer the illustration of this interpretation, from Luke 7.) the Jewes, who said the Centurion lo­ved their Nation, did not suppose, that he loved only a handfull or small number of their Nation, and hated all the rest with an irreconcileable hatred; nor did they say, that he so loved their Nation, that whosoever of this Nation should trust him, he would be a signall Benefactor unto them, or the like: nor did they by, their Nation, understand the Jewish Race, Lineage, or De­scent, abstractively considered, and without reference to any Person, or Per­sons, whatsoever, of this Nation (for, their Nation, in this sence, was wholly uncapable of any fruit or expression of his love, or of having a Synagogue built to it, or for it). So that this instance no wayes parallel's or fits the interpretation of the word, World, for the illustration, or confirmation whereof it is brought. But the plain meaning of the Jewes, saying, that the Centurion loved their Nation, was this, that he was ready and willing to do any office or service of love to any Person, or Persons of their Nation, be­cause of their Nationall Relation, rather then to any other (upon such a consideration) when he had opportunity. The two pretenders being non­suited, a sufficient way (I presume) is made for the admission of the right heire. Therefore,

The third (and last) interpretation of, the World, (in the Scripture un­der §. 17. debate) is, that by it is signified Universum genus humanum, the whole compasse of Man-kinde, or all and every individuall person subsisting at any time in the humane Nature, without exception of any. This exposition stands with the ordinary and best-known signification of the words, and with­all gives Smoothnesse, and Regularity of construction, unto the period or sentence, which both the former (as upon examination hath been found) take from it: is of perfect accord with the Context: and besides, magnifies the Love of God in the freenesse, fulnesse, and extent of it incomparably above, and beyond, either of them. For,

1. The word, World, [...], very frequently and familiarly both in the §. 18. Scriptures themselves, and in other Authors, signifieth the generality of Man-kinde, or of Men: in the Scriptures especially, when it relates unto persons, it seldome or never signifieth any thing else, but either the gene­rality of Men simply and absolutely, or else that generality of Men, which comparatively comprehendeth all Men, I meane, the whole number of wicked and unregenerate Men, who in respect of their vast multitudes, and inconsiderable number of the godly (in comparison of them) are by John termed, the whole World; And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD lieth in wickednesse 1 Joh. 5. 19.. Or lastly, the promiscuous generality of persons, good and bad together, be they fewer, or more, where a Man con­verseth, [Page 81] or hath opportunity to come amongst, or speake unto. Severall in­stances were lately given of the second signification of the word, from the Scriptures. Instances of the first signification also there are many. Yee are the light of the World Mat. 5. 14.. And the World knew Him not Joh. 1 10.. And I speake to the World those things which I have heard of Him Joh 8. 26.. But I have chosen you out of the World Joh. 15. 19.. Whom thou hast given me out of the World Joh. 17. 6.. God forbid: for then how shall God judge the World Rom. 3. 6? As by one Man sin entred into the World Rom. 5. 12.. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the World—and the weake things of the World 1 Cor. 1. 27.. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voyces in the World 1 Cor. 14. 10. The word being never used in the Scripture for the Elect or godly party in the World, considered by themselves, or apart from others, but either for the wicked of the World alone, or apart by themselves, or else for both godly and wicked taken together; and as mixed, one with another, it were very strange that our Saviour should use it in that by-sence, (and unheard of else-where) in so eminent a place and passage of the Gospell, as that in hand, and nor in the fa­miliar and best known signification of it.

2. This interpretation of the word, accommodates the whole Verse, or §. 19. Sentence, with cleernesse of sence, and regularnesse of construction, as is evident unto those, who understand what the one, and what the other of these meane. For by it the Genuine and Proper use and import of the distribu­tive Particle, whosoever, is fully salved, (which is destroyed by either of the former,) and such a distribution of a generall made by it, which suppo­seth a possibility of a difference between the Particulars contained under it, and into which the said generall is distributed, according to the exigency of those things, in Reference whereunto the distribution is made. As for ex­ample: here is a distribution made of this generall, the World [i. e. of all Mankinde] by this distributive Pronoune, whosoever: the occasion of this distribution is to shew, who, or what particulars contained under this gene­rall, i. e. what particular Persons of Man-kinde, shall not perish, but have everlasting life; and withall, by a tacit antithesis, or in a consequentiall way (as hath been already noted) to shew, what other particulars contain­ed under the same generall, shall perish, and not have everlasting life. The former, are said to be such, as shall believe on the only begotten Sonne of God: the latter are cleerly implied to be such, who shall not so believe. Now if it should be supposed, that there was, or is, no possibility that any such dif­ference should be found between the Particulars, into which the generall is here distributed, as believing, and not believing, the distribution would be altogether needlesse, and vaine; yea and would dis-sence the whole sentence. These things are plaine and sensible to every understanding, that knows what belongs to common sence, or regularity of Syntaxis.

3. This exposition of the word, World, makes a cleane joynt, a rationall §. 20. and pleasant coherence, between this Verse, and that which followes; as also betweene this, and the two Verses immediately precedent. The words of the two preceding Verses, are these: And as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse, even so must the Sonne of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Now certaine it is, that Moses did not lift up the Serpent, with an intent of healing to be conferr'd by it upon such, or such, a definite or determinate number of per­sons; nor with an intent, either on his part, or on Gods Part, that none should looke upon it, but only such a parcell, or determinate number of Men; but with an intent, not only that whosoever in the event did looke upon [Page 82] it, and could not but looke upon it, might looke upon it; but that whosoever would, might look up unto it, and that whosoever, being stung with the fiery Serpents, did look up unto it, should be healed thereby. This is evident from the story. Make thee (saith God to Moses) a fiery Serpent, and set it upon a Pole: and it shall come to passe, that EVERY ONE THAT IS BITTEN, when He looketh upon it, shall live Numb 21. 8. Now then, all Men without exception being stung with that fiery Serpent, sin, unlesse Christ should be lift up [upon the Crosse] with an intent on Gods Part, and in Himself, 1. That every Man, without exception, might believe in Him, and 2. That every Man that should believe in Him, should be saved by Him, He could not be said to be lifted up, as [i. e. upon the same terms of an Universall accommo­dation, on which] Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse. Therefore our Saviour, to give the World a satisfying account how it comes to passe, that the Son of Man [meaning, himself] should be lifted up upon such terms [ viz. for the Universall benefit of Salvation unto all Man-kind] he assigns the Love of God to the World, as the reason or productive cause of it. For God so loved the World, that, &c. Therefore by, the World, he must needs mean all Man-kinde, or the generality of Men, that were bitten, or stung with sin; unlesse we will say, that God gave His Son for the Salvation of those, whom He loved not.

The tenor of the following Verse is this. For God sent not His Sonne into [...]. 21. the World, to condemn the World, but &c. In these words, our Saviour confirms his former Assertion, touching the love of God to the World, in giving His Sonne for the Salvation of it, by rejecting that Reason or Motive, of his send­ing Him into the World, which Men might imagine did occasion this His sending by God, and besides which, there could none other well be imagined, but only that which he had asserted; viz. an Intent or Purpose in Him [in God] of condemning the World by Him. Now to make Christ to say, that God sent not His Sonne into the World, to condemn Man-kinde, or the gene­rality of Men, as having sinned against Him, is to make Him say that which is savoury, and comfortable, and that which opposeth, or is apt to prevent, such a sad imagination▪ as was very incident to the minds of Men through a consciousnesse of the guilt of sin, viz. That if God ever did, or should, send His Son amongst them, it would be to judge, or condemn them. But to make Him say, that God sent not His Sonne into the World to condemn the Elect, i. e. those few whom He infinitely loved, and to whom He had peremptorily, and without all possibility of reverse, decreed non-condemnation, before this sending of Him, is to make Him speak at an extreme low rate of Sence or Reason, and to labour (as the Proverb is) in lifting a feather; in as much as no such thought or imagination as this was ever like to beare upon, or trouble any mans spirit. In as much then as no other interpretation of, the World, in the former Verse, but only that, which hereby understandeth the generality of Men-sinners, will accommodate this Verse, in respect of the connexion be­tween them, with any tolerable sence, evident it is, that that must needs be the true interpretation thereof.

By the way, when Christ saith, For judgement I am come into this World, §. 22. &c. Ioh. 9. 39.. He no wayes opposeth what he here saith. viz. that God sent him not into the World to cond [...]mn [...] the VVorld. For in the former place, he speakes, not of the intent, but of the event; in this, not of the event, but of the intent of his sending, or comming, into the World. Christ was not sent into the world with any intent on Gods part, nor came with any intention of his own, to make those which see, to become blind; meaning, either to augment, or to [Page 83] discover to their shame, the spirituall blindness and ignorance in such Men, who being ignorant presume of their knowledge, by one means or other; but with an intent to heale the blindnesse of all, to their Comfort, Peace, and Glory. Therefore if any man through a foolish and proud conceit of his own know­ledge, and wisdom, shall stumble at, or reject the Gospell and Doctrine of Christ as foolishnesse, and so discover himself to be blind, ignorant, and fool­ish, in the end; this is meerly adventitious and accidentall, in respect of the Antecedent, Primary, and direct intention of God, in sending Christ into the World, as Calvin himself affirmeth Quod autem alibi docet Chri­stus, se in judi­cium venisse, quod vocatur Petra scandali, quod dicitur po­situs in multo­rum ruinam, id accidentale est, vel (ut ita lo­quar) adventi­tium. Calv. in Joh. 3. 17..

If it be demanded, but did not God intend, that whosoever should stumble at, or reject Christ, should (in such a sence) be made blinde? I answer, yes doubtlesse: God did intend to punish all manner of sins with judgements suiteable to them. But his intention of making those blind (in the sence de­clared) who should reject Christ or his Doctrine, was not that intent or pur­pose, out of which he sent Christ into the World (which was the genuine and naturall product of his love) but such an intent, which his perfect hatred of sin, especially of sin committed against the Law of Grace, formed in him.

4. The interpretation of the word, World, now under assertion, magnifies §. 23. that Divine Attribute, the love of God, incomparably more, and above ei­ther of the former. They who by the World, understand the Elect only (which is the substance also of the second interpretation, unlesse it chuseth rather to resolve it self into this third, as was lately proved Sect. 16. of this Chap.) allow a very small, narrow, and inconsiderable sphere, for so noble, active, and diffusive a Prin­ciple, as the love of God is, in comparison of those, who extend it to the whole circumference of Mankind. The whole element, and vast body of the Aire, in all the dimensions of it, Height, Depth, Length and Bredth, make but a proportionable sphere for the Sun, wherein to display the ful­nesse of the glory, and to expresse the activity of his abundant light: nor will the whole Universe of Creatures, take the whole number and intire host of them, a primâ ad ultimam, & ab ultimâ ad primam, make a Theater any whit too large, capacious, or extensive, for the abundant riches and fulnesse of the love of God to act like themselves upon. They who present the love of God in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ, as contracted to the narrow com­passe of the Elect, i. e. of those only, who shall in the end be saved, and Preach this for the Gospell, unto the World; do by Men, in respect of their spirituall accommodation, as God should do by the World in their tempo­rall, in case he should keep his Sun in a continuall eclipse, suffer ten parts of the light of it to be perpetually obscured.

5. This interpretation we now plead, is of faire and full consistency §. 24. with those things, which the Scriptures so frequently and constantly teach and affirme, concerning the Nature of God, his Mercy, Sweetnesse, Love, Goodnesse towards all his Creatures, his equall and unpartiall administra­tion of rewards and punishments in the World, his non-acception of Per­sons, his ardent, serious, and compassionate desires, that none should perish, but that even the vilest and wickedest of Men should returne from the evill of their wayes, and be saved, his not▪ delighting in the death of those, who do perish, with much more of like consideration and import. There is an obvious and manifest agreement betweene the exposition we contend for, and all such veynes of Scripture expression, as these: whereas the other interpetations are at an absolute, and manifest defiance with them.

[Page 84]6. (And lastly) the sence now argued for is attested by Calvin himself §. 25. upon the place, (with severall other Protestant Divines.) Both (saith he) are here distinctly delivered unto us; namely that Faith in Christ is of a saving nature UNTO ALL: and that Christ therefore brought life, because his Hea­venly Father would not have MAN-KINDE to perish, VVHICH HE LOVETH. And more plainely afterwards: He useth a note of Universality, both that he may invite all to the participation of life, and that he may cut off matter of ex­cuse from unbelievers. The word, World ( which he used before likewise) importeth as much. For though there will be nothing found in the World worthy the favour of GOD, yet he sheweth Himself PROPITIOVS [or favourable] UNTO THE VVHOLE WORLD, in that He calls all men without exception to believe in Christ▪ which is nothing else but an entrance into life Ʋtrum­ (que) hic distin­ctè nobistra­ditur: quod scilicet fides in Christum omnibus sit vivifica: & quòd ideò vitam attu­lerit Chris­tus, quia coe­lestis Pater, genus huma­num, quod a­mat, perire nolit. Et posteà: Ʋniversa­lem notam apposuit, tum ut pro­miscuè om­nes ad vitae participati­onem invi­tet, tum ut praecidat ex­cusationem incredulis. E­odem etiam pertinet no­men mundi, quo prius u­sus est. Ta­metsi enim in mundo nihil reperietur Dei favore dignum, se tamen toti mundo propitium ostendit, cum sine exceptione omnes ad Christi fidem vocat, quae nihil aliud est quam ingressus in vitam, Calv. in Joh. 3. 15, 16.. In the former of these passages the interpretation we stand for, is largely enough asserted: but in the latter, we have it with measure heaped up, pressed downe, and running over. For here, he doth not only say, that GOD sheweth Himself propitious, or favourable unto the WHOLE WORLD, but further that he calls all Men to Faith in Christ, and invites all Men to participation of life. Therefore (doubtlesse) his judgement was (at least whilest he had this Scripture before him for his steerage) that there was life and Salvation in Christ for all Men, and that upon such terms, that all might partake of it, as well one, as another: and consequently, that he died for all Men; in as much as there can be no life in him, for those to partake, for whom he died not, no more then there is for the Divels. Gualter another Protestant Author of ap­proved learning and worth, avoucheth the same sence. And this (saith he) he more cleerly expresseth, when being to name those, who GOD so loved, he doth not mention Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, Moses, David, the Prophets, the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, or holy Martyrs, but the World, which our Evan­gelist in his Epistle affirmeth to lie whol [...]y in wickednesse, and of which Christ himself more then once affirmeth the Devil to be the Prince Et hoc quidem clariùs exprimit, quando eos nominaturus quos ita dilexerit Deus, non Abrahami, aut Isaaci, aut Jacobi, Mosis, Davidis, Prophetarum, Mariae Virginis, Apostolorum denique & Sanctorum martyrum meminit, sed mundi, quem totum in malo jacere Evangelista noster testatur, & cujus Principem esse Diabolum ipse Christus non uno loco affirmat. Gualter. Homil. 20. in Johan.. So that this Writer, by the World, doth not understand, the Elect only, or the World of the Elect, whereof the Devil is no where affirmed by Christ to be the Prince, nor which is any where affirmed by John to lie wholly in wickednesse; but, the World at large, and which comprehendeth Reprobates, as well as the Elect. But of all our Reformed Divines, there is none speakes more expresly and professedly to the minde of the interpretation held forth, then learned Musculus. By the World (saith he, speaking of the Scripture in hand) he understands the Universe of Man-kinde: so that here his love of the World, and his love of Men, is the same. And elsewhere thus: After the same man­ner it is in this Redemption of Mankinde, whereof we speak. That Reprobates, and desperately wicked Men partake not of it, IS NOT THROVGH ANY DEFECT OF THE GRACE OF GOD: nor is it meete, that, for the Sons of Perdition sake, it should lose the glory and title of an UNIVERSALL RE­DEMPTION, since IT IS PREPARED [or procured] FOR ALL, [Page 85] and all are called to it Sic Deus dilexit mun­dum, &c. Per mundū enim intelli­git Ʋniver­sum genus humanum; ut hîc [...] idem sit quod [...]. Musc. Loc. De philan­thropiâ Dei. Ad eum modum ha­bet & Re­demptio ista generis hu­mani, de quâ loquimur, quòd illam homines re­probi, ac de­plorate impii non accipi­ant, ne (que) de­fectu fit gra­tiae Dei, ne (que) justum est ut illa prop­ter filios per­ditionis, glo­riam ac ti­tulum Ʋni­versalis Re­demptionis amittat, cū sit parata cunctis, & omnes ad il­lam vocen­tur. Idem Loc. De Re­dempt. Gen. humani.. Nor were there Men wanting in the Synod of Dort it self, who though Ante-Remonstrants by profession, yet frequently by ex­pression did plainely close with that Doctrine, which they would be thought to oppose concerning the particular in hand. Our English Divines lay down this Thesis: GOD out of compassion to Man-kinde being fallen, sent His Sonne, who gave himself a price of Redemption, for the sinnes of the WHOLE WORLD. In the explication of this Thesis, they say; That price which was paid for all, and which shall certainly benefit all that believe, yet shall not benefit all Men, &c. And presently after: So then Christ died for all Men, that all and EVERY ONE, by the mediation of Faith, may through the vertue of this ransome, ob­taine remission of sinnes, and eternall life Deus lapsi generis humani mi­seratus, misit filium suum, qui seipsum dedit pretium Redemptionis, pro peccati [...] totius Mundi. Et po­steà: Illud precium, quod solutum est pro omnibus, & quod omnibus credentibus certò proficiet ad vi­tā aeternam, non proficit tamen omnibus▪ &c. Paulò post: Sic ergo Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, ut omnes & singuli, mediante fide, possint virtute [...] hujus remissionem peccatorum, & vitam aeternam con­sequi. Syn. Dord. Sentent. Theol. Mag. Brit. de Artic. 2. Thes. 3.. Evident it is, that these Men, by Gods love to the world, understand his love of compassion to all Man kinde in as much as nor a part, or some, but the whole, and all particulars of Man­kinde, were fallen. Besides, saying that all, and every one, may through the mediation of Faith, obtaine forgivenesse of sinnes and eternall life, through the vertue of Christs ransome, they cleerly imply, that Remission of sinnes and Salvation are purchased by Christ for all, and every Man, upon the same terms, after the same manner, and with the same intention, on Gods Part, in as much as he intends the donation of remission of sinnes unto no Man, notwithstanding the vertue of the ransome of Christ, but through the media­tion of Faith; and through this mediation, he intends, yea and promiseth it unto all Men, without exception; yea so (say our Countrymen) that all, and every one, may through the said mediation, obtaine it. Nor were these Men altogether without company in that Synod, in such expressions. Immediately after the Suffrage and Sentence of the Ministers of Geneva upon the second Article, I finde one (I suppose of those who were sent from Geneva) delivering himself thus: There is a certaine common love of GOD towards all Men, wherewith he loved all Man-kinde being fallen, and seriously willeth, or desireth the Salvation of all. Afterwards (speaking of the condemnation of unbelievers) Such an event as this (saith he) is not of it self intended by GOD, but accidentally followes through the default of Men. Yet again: if this Re­demption be not supposed as a common benefit, bestowed upon all Men, that indiffer­ent and promiscuous preaching of the Gospel, which was committed to the Apostles to be performed in all Nations, will have no true foundation Est communis quaedam Dei [...], quâ dilexit totū genus humanū lapsū, & serio omniū salut [...]m voluit. Et paulò pòst (loquens de damnatione incredulorū,) Hic autē eventus per se non intenditur à Deo: sed per accidens hominis culpâ sequitur. Et posteà: Si haec redemptio tanquā commune beneficiū, omnibus hominibus impensū, non supponatur, indiffe­rens & promiscua praedicatio Evangelii Apostolis commissa, apud omnes gentes obcunda, nullū verū funda­mentum habebit.. Doubtlesse that which is bestowed upon all Men by God, was by him intended for all Men in the purchase, or procurement of it; and this out of love to all those, on whom it is bestowed, and for whom it was purchased. It were easie to multi­ply quotations of like import with these, from many convened in that Sy­nod, who are supposed to have condemned that Doctrine, which holds forth Universall Redemption by Christ, for an error. But the certaine truth is, that if this was their intention, or attempt, the truth was at many turns too hard for them, and prevented them, and gain'd many a testimony from her Adversaries.

For the Fathers, they who shall please to peruse and ponder the Commen­taries §. 26. or Exposition of Austin (the chiefe of the Latine Fathers) and of Chrysostome (the chief of the Greeke) upon the place, will easily perceive that their sence of the word, VVorld, was the same with that, which hath been avouched. Is not Christ, life (saith the former) and yet Christ died: but death died in the death of Christ, because life being dead, flew death: the fulnesse of life devoured death: death was swallowed up in the Body of Christ Nonne vita Chri­stus? & ta­men mortuus est Christus: sed in morte Christi, mors mor­tua est, quia vita mortua occidit mor­tem: pleni­tudo vitae deglutivit mortem: absorpta est mors in Christi cor­pore.. In all these Passages evident it is, that the Father speakes of that Death, which had equally seized upon all Men, or whereunto all Men without exception of any, where alike obnoxious. Therefore affirming this death to be dead by the Death of Christ, to be devoured by the fulnesse of Life, &c. He suppo­seth it equally dead, devoured, removed, or taken away, in respect of all Men. A while after, having rehearsed these words; For GOD sent not His Sonne to judge the VVorld, but that the VVorld should be saved by Him, he infers thus: Therefore as much as lieth in the Physician, He came to save, or heal the sick. He slayeth Himself, who will not observe the Precepts of the Physician. He came a Saviour unto the World. Why is He called the Saviour of the World, but that He should save the World Ergo quantum in medico est, sanare ve­nit aegro­tum. Ipse se interimit, qui praecepta Medici observare non vult. Venit Salvator ad Mundum. Q [...]are Salvator dictus est Mundi, nisi ut salvet Mundum? &c. Aug. in Johā. tractat. 12.? Doubtlesse he that speaketh these things, had not yet dream'd of any other signification of, the World, in the Scripture in hand, but only that, which we have asserted: nor did he imagine that Christ was given, or sent into the World upon any other terms, then those, which equally and indifferently respected the healing of all that were sick, or the saving of all that were lost: otherwise why should he insert this Provisi­onall Clause, as much as in the Physician lieth (meaning Christ.) This plain­ly importeth, that he came to heale such sick ones, who notwithstanding slew themselves by neglecting His Precepts: yea and that he could do no more, then he did, in, or by his Death, to save those from perishing, who do pe­rish; and consequently, that he died as much for these, as for those who are saved.

Nor doubtlesse had the other (I mean Chrysostome) any other Notion of §. 27. the World, in the said Scripture, then the former. For describing those, whom God is here said to have loved, he gives no other description of them, then which agreeth as well to the Reprobate, as Elect, affirming them to be such, who come from the Earth and Ashes, who are full of an infinite number of sinnes, who injured, or offended Him without ceasing, very wicked [or deserving no Pardon.] And afterwards: but we neglect [or, despise] Him, being naked, and a stranger, who died for us. And who then shall deliver us from the punishment [or, judgement] which is to come [...]. Chrys. Homil. 27. in Johan. [...]; Ibid.? Cleerly implying, that those for whom Christ died, may notwithstanding suffer and undergoe the wrath or punishment, which is to come. It were easie to levy many more quotati­ons, both from the Authors already mentioned, and from many others, as well ancient as Moderne, of a full and cleer concurrence with the interpretation given. But I take no pleasure in quotations from Men: nor doe I know any great use of them, unlesse it be to heale the offence, which truth is alwayes [Page 87] apt to give to prepossessed and prejudicate minds. The use which more com­monly is made of them, is a grand abuse; being nothing else, but the inter­posing or thrusting of the credits and authorities of Men, between the judge­ments of Men, and the truth, that so the one should not easily come at the other. However, we have (I trust) made it fully evident by many demon­strations, in full conjunction with the judgements of learned Men, that the Scripture in hand casteth the light of that love of God, out of which he gave his only begotten Sonne to Death, with an equall brightnesse upon all Man­kinde; and consequently, that this Death of his faceth the whole Posterity of Adam, with the same sweetnesse and graciousnesse of aspect.

The Scripture last opened, speaking so plainely and fully (as we have §. 28. heard) the point in hand, might well be accepted as a sufficient security, that all its fellowes mentioned with it, as (in effect) they speak, so likewise they intend and meane, the same thing. Yet because prejudice is froward, and hard of satisfaction, let us unpartially examine one or two more of the company; we shall finde Universall Attonement, as well at the bottome, as at the top, as well in the heart, as in the face, of them. The former of the two, shall be that of the Apostle Paul; To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of Reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. 19.. That by the World, which God is here said to have been in Christ Reconciling unto Himself, cannot be meant the Elect only, but the universality of Men, is cleer upon this account. First, it is not here said, that God in Christ did actually, or in facto esse, Reconcile the World unto Himself, but, that he was Reconciling the World, &c. i. e. God was, and is, and ever will be (for the unchangeable Perpetuation of the Acts of God, are usually expressed in the Scriptures by Verbs signifying the time past, for the reason specified in the last Chapter) in, i. e. by, or through Christ, following and prosecuting his great and Gracious designe of Reconciling the World unto Himself. Participles of the present tense active, import the currency, or carrying on, not the consummation, or ending of an action, or endevour. Secondly, by the Reconciling the World unto Himself, in, or through Christ, which is here ascribed unto God, must of necessity be meant, either such an act or endeavour in him, by which he gaines, or rather seeks and attempts to gaine, the love and friendship of the World, which was, and is, full of hatred and enmity against him; or else, such an act, by which he went about to Re­concile Himself, i. e. to render and make Himself Propitious, and Benevo­lous unto the World. Now take either of these Sences, it is unpossible that by the word World, should be signified, only the Elect, or indeed any thing, but the ge­nerality of Men.

If we take the Act of God, here termed the Reconciling the World unto Him­self, §. 29. in the former sence (which doubtlesse is the true sence of it, as cleerly appears from the next Verse, and subsequent Clause in this), by the World, cannot be meant, only the Elect, because God doth not by Christ, or in Christ, held forth and Preached in the Ministry of the Gospell, seeke to bring over these only unto him in love, or to make only these his friends: neither doth he send the word of Reconciliation (as the Apostle calleth it) i. e. the gracious message of the Gospell, by which this Reconciliation is to be actually made, only unto them; but, Promiscuously to the generality, or universality of Men, without exception of any. G [...]e and Preach the Gospell to every Creature under Heaven Mar. 16. 15.. And therefore Paul did but keep to his Commission, when (as he saith) he Preached Christ, warning EVERY Man, and teaching EVERY [Page 88] Man in all wisdome, that he might present EVERY Man perfect in Christ Jesus Colos. 1. 28.. And 2. Evident it is, that in the Ministry and Preaching of this word, God doth as well, and as much, and after the same manner, perswade the obstinate, and many of those who never come to believe, as he doth those who are overcome, and Perswaded hereunto. It is said concerning the an­cient Jewes, that the Lord God of their Fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending, because he had compassion on his People, and on his dwelling place. And yet it followes: But they mocked the Messengers of God, and despised his words, and mis-used his Prophets, untill the wrath of the Lord arose against his People, till there was no remedy 2 Chro. 36. 15, 16.. So that God is every whit as serious, as urgent and pressing in the Ministry of his Word and Gospell, upon those who remaine obdurate and impenitent to the last, as he is upon those, who in time come to repent, and to believe on him. And Paul, Acts 17. Preached the same Sermon, used the same addressement and application of the word, to those who mocked, which he did to those who believed Acts 17. 32. 34.. Evident therefore it is, that God as well seekes and attempts the Reconciling of such unto Himself, by Christ, who in fine Perish, as well as he doth those, who are saved. And that he doth vouchsafe as well the same inward, as outward means, at least remotely, unto both, shall be Proved in due place.

Again, 2. If we shall take the latter sence of the Phrase, wherein God is §. 30. said to be Reconciling the world unto Himself, and understand hereby such an act, whereby He renders or seekes to render Himself Loving, Gracious, and Propitious unto the World, neither yet can the word, VVorld, signifie any thing, but the generality or universality of Men; or howsoever, not the Elect in Particular. The reason is, because God cannot, in any tolerable sence or construction of words, be said to reconcile Himself unto those, with whom is not angry, or offended; or to render Himself Loving and Propitious unto those, to whom his love is so great already, that by reason of it he Peremp­torily resolves to give unto them absolutely the greatest and most desireable of all good things, even no lesse then eternall life it selfe, which includes in it the richest and fullest injoyment of God Himself, whereof the Creature is capable. Now we know this is the Posture, or Relation, wherein the Elect stand before, and unto, God (at least as is generally held and maintained by those, that are contrary minded in the present Controversie) viz. as Per­sons, with whom God is so far from being angry or displeased, that He is pleased by absolute Purpose or Decree to confer eternall life upon them. Therefore certainly God cannot be said by any Act whatsoever to Reconcile Himself, or render Himself Propitious unto these. But now, by the VVorld, understand the great bulk or body of Men in the World, with whom God is, and may truly and properly enough be said to be displeased for their sins, so he may be said to Reconcile Himself unto them; at least if by a Reconcile­ing, we meane such an act, by which He takes a course, or useth meanes, to bring Himself into a complacency, or love of friendship with them, as when a Father useth meanes to recover his son of the Phrensie, or Plague. It is true, a Father loves his son with a benevolous affection, or with a love of pity (as we commonly call it) even whilest he is under a Phrensie, and hath the Plague upon him: but he takes no pleasure in his company, doth not delight to converse with him, as with a friend; bestowes nothing upon him at the present, but only in order to his recovery; and in case by all that he doth for him in this kinde, he cannot recover him, he never proceeds to settle his in­heritance upon him. But when, and whilest, he doth that, which is proper [Page 89] to recover him out of such distempers, he may be said (in this sence) to do an act whereby to Reconcile Himself to his Son; viz. to make way for Him­self to take pleasure in his company, and to converse with him, and to deale furthe [...] by him, as a Friend. In like manner it is as true, that God cannot properly, or according to the usuall sence or signification of the word, be said to doe any act, whereby to Reconcile Himself to the World in generall (much lesse to his Elect, in Particular) because he alwayes bares a benevo­lous affection to it (as appeares, Joh. 3. 16. the Scripture lately opened; So again, Tit. 3. 4. and elsewhere) he was never so far angry or offended with it, but that he seriously and affectionately sought the good of it; yet in such a sence, or consideration, wherein, notwithstanding his affection of be­nevolence or commiseration towards it, he is said to be angry with Men for their sins, and to hate them for their wickednesse, and to resolve to destroy them everlastingly, if they repent not, he may be said to doe such an act, whereby to reconcile Himself unto it, as viz. when he doth that, by which he is like to take Men off from their sins, and to bring them to Repentance: and consequently to cause his own anger and hatred towards them for their sins, to cease. But however, this is not the Primary or direct sence of the Phrase in the Scripture in hand (as was formerly intimated) but only that which followes upon it. For God by seeking to Reconcile the World unto Himself in the former sence, takes a course likewise to Reconcile Himself unto it, in the latter. But take either the one interpretation, or the other, there is no Colour or Pretence, by the VVorld, to understand the Elect only.

If it be objected and said; yea but God is here said to be in Christ Recon­ciling §. 31. the World unto Himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them. Doth not this imply that God Reconciles none unto Himself, but those only; to whom he doth not impute their Trespasses, or sins? Now it is certaine that God doth impute their sins unto all Men, his Elect only excepted: Therefore he Reconciles none unto Himselfe in Christ, but these only. To this I answer,

1. By concession; It is true, God doth actually, and in the event Reconcile none unto Himself, by Christ, i. e. He brings no Man to Faith and Repentance, but withall he forgives him his sins; or (which is the same) he imputes not his Tres­passes unto him. But

2. By way of exception, I answer further, that it was no part of the A­postles intent in this place to speak of any spirituall or inward Act of God, by which Particular Men are actually, and de facto converted, or Reconciled unto Him, and consequently obtaine forgivenesse, or a non-imputation of their sinnes; but only concerning that great and gracious dispensation, or act of Grace, together with his Counsell or Project therein, in which, or whereby He did (as it were) posture Himself, and take a standing with the best ad­vantage, to save the World. For this end and purpose, I meane, for the saving of the World, or of Men, upon such terms as he was willing, and as only became Him, to save them, it was necessary, 1. That He should Recon­cile them unto Himself. It was no wayes convenient for God, as neither con­sisting with His Wisdom, or Holinesse, to take those into part and fellow­ship with Himself in His own Blessednesse and Glory, who should hate Him, and be full of enmity and hard thoughts against Him, and would not ad­mit of terms of a Reconciliation with Him. 2. To effect this Reconcili­ation, and to bring Men over unto Him in love, who generally through a [Page 90] consciousnesse of guilt, contracted by their evill workes, and because of that contrariety between His holy Lawes, and their lusts and vile dispositions, hated Him, it was necessary that He should take a course, and have a meanes suiteable and proper, and which every wayes became a God of infinite Wis­dom. Now this course, or means, the Apostle here expresseth to be, the non-imputation of their sins unto them: i. e. The tender, Offer, or Promise of the forgivenesse of all their sins, upon their Reconcilement. God by the Pro­posall and tender of such an incomparable Grace, Favour, and Blessing as this unto Men, upon such sweet and gracious terms, makes account to Re­concile the World unto Himself, to bring off His Creature, Man, from their hatred and hard thoughts, to a love and honourable esteeme of Him. 3. (And lastly) to put Himself into a way, or capacity, of making so rich and glo­rious a Proposall, as this of forgivenesse of sins, unto the World, He put Himself (as it were) into His Christ; or (as our Apostles expression is) he was in Christ; meaning, that that which God did, or intended to doe by His being in Christ, as Mediator, was, immediately, and in reference unto a further end, that by meanes of His Death, he might offer free Pardon and Forgivenesse of sins unto the World; mediately, and as more Principally intended, that He might, by meanes of this offer, Reconcile the World unto Himself: i. e. Prevaile with Men to repent of their sins, and turne in faith and love unto Him. Evident it is from the very letter of the Context, that the Apostles intent in this Scripture, was only to expresse and declare the tenor or Purport of the Gospell, or (as He calls it) of that Word of Reconciliati­on, the Ministry whereof He saith (in the end of the Verse) was committed unto Him▪ Doe but reade in the former Verse to this, and you will cleerly see it: And all things are of GOD, who hath Reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the Ministry of the Reconciliation; To wit, that GOD was in Christ Reconciling, &c. As if He should say, He hath given un­to us the Ministry of that Reconciliation, the tenor, substance, or purport whereof is this, viz. or to wit, that GOD was in Christ Reconciling, &c. So that here is nothing at all affirmed, or intended to be spoken concerning men actually or effectually Reconciled, or brought home unto God, or what their Priviledges are, in one kinde or other; but only to shew, how, or by what meanes God hath projected or contrived the Reconciling of Men to Himself, which is expressed to [...]e (as hath been said) by the message, or Doctrine of forgivenesse of sins, sent and Preached unto them by Christ.

Nor are the best and most confessedly-Orthodox of our Reformed Di­vines, §. 32. Dissenters from the interpretation given of the Scripture in hand, e­specially as concerning the sence and import of the word, World. GOD (saith M [...]s [...]ulus upon the place) inhabit [...]ng his Sonne Christ, and directing him in all things, Reconciled unto Himself, not us only, but even THE WORLD, i. e. ALL MAN-KINDE, which was, is, or shall be, from the beginning of THE WORLD to the end thereof, by giving his Sonne unto Death for all Men. And soone af­ter: It is most true which the Apostle saith; that GOD Reconciled the World unto Himself in Christ, not imputing their sinnes unto them, as concerning the worke it selfe of Reconciliation, being PREPARED, or made ready FOR ALL MAN-KINDE, and sufficient for them Deus Christum fi­lium suum inhabitans, & in omni­bus dirig [...]ns, non nos mo­dò, sed & mundū, i. e. omne genus humanum, quod inde ab initio ad finem us (que) mundi fuit, & est, & erit, sibi Reconciliavit, dum filium in mortem pro omnibus dedit. Verum est omninò, quod dicit Apostolus: Mundum sibi in Christo Deus Reconciliavit, non imputans eis peccata ipsorum, quantum attinet ipsum Reconciliationis opus, toti generi humano Reconciliando para­tum ac sufficiens.. Calvin also, though not altogether [Page 91] so expresly as the former, yet with cleernesse enough secondeth the same in­terpretation, writing on the place, thus: But the fuller and richer sence [...]s, that GOD was in Christ, and then, that he Reconciled the World unto Himself. And a little after. To what purpose then did GOD appeare in Christ unto Men? for Reconciliation, that they who were strangers, might be adopted for Sons Sed ple­nior, est sen­sus et uberi­or, quòd Deus in Christo erat: deinde, quòd ejus interces­sione Recon­ciliabat sibi mundum. Quorsùm ergo apparuit Deus hominibus in Christo? in Reconciliationem, ut sublatis inimicitiis, qui alieni erant adoptentur in filios.. If this were the end of that Reconciliation, for which God appeared in Christ un­to Men, that they who were strangers, might he adopted for Sons; it must needs follow; that the end which God Propounded unto Himself in this Reconcilia­tion, was the adoption of all Men without exception, in as much as all Men were strangers unto Him. Among the ancients, Chrysostome expounds the word, [...], World, (in the Text in hand) by the word, [...] [...]., which pro­perly signifies, the inhabited parts of the World, or the persons of Men where­soever inhabiting in all the World: in which sence it is used, Acts 17. 31. and in very many places besides in the Scriptures.

A third Text of that squadron of Scriptures yet in hand, and the last §. 33. (of this Character) that we shall insist upon, is that mentioned from, 1 Joh. 2. 2. And he is the propitiation for our sinnes: and not for ours only, but also for the sinnes of the whole World. Some, to keep the light of that Truth, which we have now under assertion, from shining out of this Scripture, in their eyes, and in the eyes of others, have essayed (amongst them) a threefold deprava­tion of the sence and import of these words, the whole World. By the whole World (say some) John meanes, the Elect living in all parts of the World: Others, Men of all sorts and conditions; others, Jewes and Gentiles. Some, to avoid the like danger, (I meane, of being convinc'd of the Truth) and suspecting (as they have cause enough) the security of those interpretati­ons, take sanctuary under the wing of this distinction, Christ (say they) is a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole World, i. e. of all Men in the World, in point of sufficiency, but not by way of intention, on Gods Part. Yet let us af­ford the honor of a triall to the three Interpretations mentioned.

For the first, which, by the whole VVorld, understands, only the Elect, this §. 34. hath been resolved into smoke already, Sect. 9. 10, 11. &c. of this Chapter: where, if the Reader please to look back, he may see it smoking still. The other two being confederate with it, (for both the one, and the other are the same, in substance of matter, with it, and differ only in terms of explicati­on) must needs fall with it. For both they, who by the whole VVorld (in the Scripture in hand) understand, Men of all sorts and conditions, by these Men (of all sorts and conditions) understand the Elect only: and they also, who interpret, Jewes and Gentiles, understand no other, either Jewes, or Gen­tiles, but the Elect only. So that all the three interpretations, are interpre­tatively, but one and the same. And therefore, as in case Abrahams Son by Sarah had been sacrificed, Isaac could not have escaped; no more can any one of the three Interpretations mentioned stand, if any one of them fall, there being but one and the same faint spirit of life in them all.

That which their Respective Assertors plead for their legitimacy, is of no §. 35. value at all. For their Plea is, that the word, World, and the whole World, do in severall other places, signifie, sometimes, the Elect only; sometimes▪ Men of all sorts, ranks, and conditions; sometimes likewise, Jewes and Gen­tiles; [Page 92] and hereupon they conclude, that they may admit of the same sence and signification, both in the Scripture in hand, and in all the other Scrip­tures usually brought upon the Theater of Discourse, for the same end and purpose with it. But the mouth of this Plea is easily stopped. For

1. The determinate signification of a word in one place, is no argument of the same sence or signification of it in another place. Elohim, Gen. 1. 1. signifieth him, who is by nature [...] (Joh. 17. 3.) a true God, subsisting in three Persons; but this is a weake Proofe, that it is to be taken, or that it may be taken, in the same sence, Psal. 82. 6. where the Prophet introduceth God speaking thus, to, and concerning the Rulers of the Earth: I have said, yee are Elohim, or Gods. That the word [...], signifieth, 1 Pet. 3. 3. (as it is translated) adorning, is no argument at all, that it so signifieth, Joh. 3. 16. or in twenty places besides, where it is used. Nay in one and the same pe­riod or sentence, where the same word is twice used, it doth not follow, that because it is used, and must necessarily be taken in such, or such a sence (de­terminately) in one of the places, therefore it must be taken in the same sence likewise in the other. As for example, where Christ saith to the Scribe, Let the dead bury their dead (Mat. 8. 22.) because in the first place, by dead, are meant persons, spiritually dead, or dead in sinnes and trespasses, it no wayes followes from hence, that therefore it signifieth such as are spiritually dead, in the latter place. So likewise in that passage of our Saviour; whoso­ever drinketh of this water, shall thirst againe; but whosoever drinketh of the wa­ter, that I shall give him, shall never thirst, Ioh. 4. 13, 14 &c. by [ Water] in the first place, he cleerly meaneth, that common and materiall element commonly known by the Name of Water; but in the latter, Water analogically only, and spiritually so called, viz. the gift of the spirit, as himself interpreteth ( Joh. 7. 39. and Joh. 4. 14. compared.) Therefore to heape up a multitude of quo­tations from the Scriptures, wherein the word, World, or the whole World, doth, or may signifie, either a certaine species, or determinate kinde of persons living up and down the World, or, Men of all sorts and conditions, or Jews and Gentiles; and from, either an Evidence, or Possibility, of any, or all of these significations in these places, to infer either a Necessity, or Possibili­ty, of a like signification of the words, either in the Scripture in hand, or in those other places argued in this Chapter, is but to beate the Aire, or build up­on the Sand.

2. If the said words, either may be taken, or necessarily must be taken, §. 36. (in the places so multiplied) in any of the said significations, it is a signe, that there is a sufficient ground of reason in the Contexts, respectively, to in­force either the Necessity, or Possibility of such significations. Now then to infer, or suppose, either a like Necessity, or Possibility of the same signifi­cation, where there is no sufficient ground in the Context to inforce either (which is the case in hand) but many sufficient grounds to overthrow such significations (as hath been in part already, and shall, God assisting, be out of hand further manifested, as concerning the Texts insisted upon, in this, and the following Chapter) is as if I should prove that such or such a Man must needs be a Prisoner at London, because he is a Prisoner in Yorke; or that he hath the liberty of the Tower of London, because he may walke where he plea­seth within the Liberties of Yorke Castle. The signification of words in one place, is not to be adjudged by their signification in another, unlesse both the Contexts stand uniformly, and impartially affected towards this signi­fication.

[Page 93]3. That neither of the two Texts already opened, will at any hand endure §. 37. any of the three significations of the word, World, lately mentioned, as pre­tended unto, hath been argued into the cleerest evidence. That the Text in hand no whit better comports with any of them, then they, appeareth thus:

1. If any of the said three significations of the whole World, should be here admitted, the Apostle (or rather the Holy Ghost by the Apostle) must be supposed to speak after no better rate of reason, then this; Christ is the pro­pitiation not for our sinnes only, but also for the sinnes of some few particular Men besides, whom you know not; or, of some few Persons, as well of the Gentiles, as of the Jewes. For none of the three interpretations amounts to any thing more then this, as is evident. They who interpret, that Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of Jewes and Gentiles, by Jewes and Gentiles doe not meane the two great divisions of Men in the World commonly distinguished by these Names, in all the Particulars of either division, (for this is the fence and interpretation which we contend for) but that small, and (com­paratively) inconsiderable remnant of both, who in conclusion come to be actually saved. There is the same consideration of the two other interpreta­tions. Now what weight, or worth of Notion, or savour of sence there should be, in informing the Christians here written unto, that Christ was the propitiation for some few Mens sins besides theirs, or as well as theirs, I yet un­derstand not.

2. The naturall and plaine inclination of the Context, leads to the inter­pretation §. 38. and sence of, the whole World, contended for. For the Apostle doth not simply say, that Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of the whole World, but he saith it by way of an emphaticall antithesis, or addition, to this saying, that He was the propitiation for their sinnes. And he is the propitiation for our sinnes: and not for ours only, but also for the sinnes of the whole World. This last Clause, but also for the sinnes of the whole World, is cleerly added by way of augmentation or further strengthning to the ground of their Faith, and com­fort. Now evident it is, that there will be little or nothing found in it tend­ing to any such end, as the further enlargement of their comfort, or strength­ning to their Faith, above what the former Clause presented, but rather, that which will be prejudiciall and insnaring unto both, unlesse these words, of the whole World, be taken in their comprehensive signification; I mean for all Men in the World (without exception.) For to say thus unto a Believer, or to a Professor of the Faith of Christ, who is doubtfull about the grounds of his Faith, and but weake in the comfort of i [...] (which was apparantly the condition of those, to whom Iohn Writes this Epistle, and in consideration whereof, that very Clause we now speak of, was added to the former) Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of the Elect, or of some few particular Men, must needs rather add to their doubtings, then their Faith, and augment their feares, rather then their comforts; yea and would take from, rather then add to, that ground of consolation, which He had administred in the former Clause; And He is the Propitiation for our sinnes. For when I am in suspence, and doubtfull in my spirit, whether Christ died for me, or be a propitiation for my sinnes, or no, how should it any wayes tend or conduce to my establishment, for me to know, or consider, that Christ died for his E­lect, or for some particular Men, both of Iewes and Gentiles, and for some only? Hath not such a Doctrine, or consideration as this, fuell in it to in­crease the burnings of my feares within me, instead of water to quench, or [Page 94] allay them? Or can I be ever a whit the more strengthened to believe that Christ died for me, by believing, that He died for some Particular Men? or must not my feares in this kinde, I meane, whether Christ died for me, or no, needs be the more provoked and enraged within me, by considering, that Christ died for some few Particular Men only? Or doth such an assertion as this, that Christ died for some Particular Men, though never so substantially proved, though never so effectually believed, any wayes enable, or dispose me to believe, that I am one of those Particular Men, for whom he died? Nay rather must not a rumination or feeding upon such a Notion, or con­ception as that, falling in conjunction with the weaknesse and doubtfulnesse of my Faith, together with the sence and conscience of my many corrupti­ons and infirmities otherwise, of necessity involve and perplex me with so much the more grievous and inextricable fears, that I am none of those Par­ticular Men, none of those few, for whom alone Christ died? Therefore any of those restrained interpretations of, the whole VVorld, which we have opposed, do most manifestly oppose the plaine scope and drift of the Holy Ghost, which was (as hath been proved) the strengthening or incourage­ment of their Faith, upon rich and excellent terms: whereas the true interpre­tation of the words, and that which we plead, hath the fairest and fullest con­sistance with such an intent, which can lightly be imagined. For the consi­deration, that Christ by his death became a propitiation, or made a full attone­ment for the sinnes of all Men, without exception, as it tends to magnifie the unsearchable riches of the Grace of Christ, on the one hand, and so is proper to strengthen the hand of every Mans Faith; so on the other hand, it throws down every Mountaine, and fills every Valley, removes all obstructions, takes away all impediments, cleers all scruples, and so prepares a plain and smooth way for every Man to come unto Christ by believing; yea and cuts off all occa­sion [...] of relapses, or faintings in Faith afterwards.

How it comes to passe, and how it may well stand with the justice of God, that, notwithstanding the Death of Christ for the sins of all Men, yet all Men are not saved, shall be taken into consideration in due Time, and Place.

Concerning the distinction mentioned, of Christs dying sufficiently for all §. 39. Men, but not efficaciously, or intentionally, (on Gods Part) as it was first hammered out by workmen of no great credit with us for spirituall building (the Schoolemen I meane) so is it built upon a false foundation or supposi­tion, as viz. that intentions are attributable unto God upon the same terms See also Cap. 7. Sect. 5. And cap. 8. 33. in every respect, wherein they are competible unto Men; the contrary where­of hath been undeniably proved, Cap. 3. Sect. 7, 8. &c. where likewise it was particularly argued and made good, that God is, and very properly may be, said to intend, whatsoever He vouchsafeth proper and sufficient meanes to ef­fect, especially with a command to improve or use them accordingly, whe­ther the thing be effected, or no. So that to affirme and grant, that Christ died sufficiently for all Men, and yet deny, that he died intentionally for all Men, is to speak contradictions, and to pull down with the left hand, what a Man hath built up with his right. Certainly he that levieth and imploy­eth a proportion of meanes sufficient and proper for the bringing of any thing to passe, must needs, in one sence or other, in one degree or other, be sup­posed to intend the bringing to passe of such a thing. Nor is it any dishonour at all unto God, nor in the least unworthy of him, that he doth not alwayes attaine his ends, or things intended by him; no more then it is, that sin should [Page 95] be committed in the World, notwithstanding his opposing it by his Autho­rity, Law and Threatnings; though in strictnesse and propriety of speech, it is most true, that God never failes of his intentions or ends, if by intentions and ends we meane only such things, which are absolutely and positively in­tended by him. But in this sence the actuall salvation of Particular Men, un­der any other consideration then as believers, is none of his intentions. So God loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Sonne [not simply or abso­lutely, that the World, i. e. every Man, no nor yet, that any Man] should be saved, or have everlasting life; but that whosoever believeth should have it. So that the absolute and positive intentions of God concerning the salvation of Men, are no [...] concerning the salvation simply of Men, or of any Man, as such, but of Believers: and of such intentions as these he never faileth, or suffers dis­appointment. But of this, we spake liberally in the third Chapter.

Besides, if Christ died sufficiently for all Men, either God intended this §. 40. sufficiency of his Death, for, or unto, all Men, or not. If not, then was the glory, or sovereigne worth of this death of his, besides the intentions of God; God did not intend any such compleatnesse of merit or satisfaction in his death, as were in it. But this (I presume) tempteth no Mans thoughts, or belief. If then God did intend the sufficiency of his Death, for, or unto, all Men, why may it not be said, that he intended his Death it self accordingly? and so, that Christ died intentionally (on Gods Part) for all Men? The word, sufficiently, is no terminus diminuens, no terme of diminution. There­fore the argument followes roundly: if God intended the sufficiency of Christs Death for all Men, then he intended his Death it self for all Men; and conse­quently Christ Died, not sufficiently only, but intentionally also, for all Men. And so the distinction vanisheth.

Thirdly, how can he, who payeth nothing at all for a Man, nor intends to §. 41. pay any thing, be notwithstanding said to pay that, which is sufficient for him? Suppose a Man be in debt, and in danger of imprisonment for it, can a suffici­ent payment be said to be made for him, whether any thing at all be payed for him, or in order to the keeping of him from imprisonment, or no? when nothing at all is paid for a Man, that is a great Debtor, but that he remaines as much a Debtor, and in as great danger, as before, can that which is suffi­cient or enough for him, or for his discharge, be said to be paied for him; unlesse (haply) it be in a sence very delusory and deriding, in which sence (doubtlesse) Christ did not pay any Ransome for any man? Suppose a man should pay a great sum of money only for the redeeming of John, and Peter, being Captives; by which money, he might, if he had pleased, have ransomed me also, and a thousand more, being in the same condition of captivity with them, can this man by reason of the payment of such a sum as this upon the terms specified, be said to have payd that which is sufficient to Ransome me? Or is that sufficient to Ransome me, which was only paid for the Ransome of another?

Fourthly, if there were a sufficiency in the Death of Christ for all Men, or §. 42. for the Salvation of all Men, and God not intend it for all Men, but for a few, a number inconsiderable only, then will the Death of Christ be found rather matter of dishonour or disparagement, unto him, than of honour. Suppose a Man were possest of a very great estate in Gold, Silver, and other the good things of this life, whereby he is able to relieve the necessities of all his Neighbours round about him, who are generally poore, and that to such an extremity, that without relief from him, they must inevitably perish; in [Page 96] case this Man should resolve to relieve only two or three of these indigent Persons, with this his abundance, and rather throw the rest of it into the midst of the Sea, then minister unto any more of them, though they be many thousands, and these every whit as necessitous and as well-deserving as the other; would not this great estate, in such a case, and upon such terms as these, be a blot rather, and reproach, then an honour or matter of repute, to this Man, and declare him to be of a very unnaturall, ignoble, and inhumane spirit? In like manner if God shall have satisfaction, merit, and attone­ment before him abundantly sufficient to save the whole World from perish­ing everlastingly, and shall purpose rather to let it be like water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up, then dispose of it towards the Sal­vation of any more, then only a small handfull of Men (comparatively) leaving innumerable soules to perish irrecoverably, and without mercy; would not this abundance of merit and satisfaction upon such an account as this, be, in the eyes of all considering men, an obscuring vail over the Mer­cy, Love, Goodnesse, and Bounty of God, and occasion the Creature to judge of him, as a God rather envying, then desiring, the Peace and Welfare of men? And if God so deeply abhorred the fact of Onan, in spilling the seed upon the ground, lest he should give seed unto his [deceased] Brother, that he slew him for it Gen. 38 9. 10, how dare men present Him so neer unto communion in such a fact, as the spilling, interverting, or non-consigning of the far greater part of the merit of the Death of Christ unto men, lest they should be saved, would render Him?

Fifthly, if Christ died sufficiently for all men, and not intentionally, as viz. §. 43. not for Reprobates (so called) then he died as much for the Devils them­selves, as He did for far the greatest part of men. Because His death, in re­spect of the intrinsecall value and worth of it, was sufficient to have redeemed the Devils, as well as men. Yea if the sufficiency of the Price paid by Christ, be a sufficient ground to beare such a saying as this, that He died sufficiently for all men, He may be said to have died, not only for Reprobates, as Re­probates; and so for Unbelievers, as Unbelievers [ viz. sufficiently] but for the Devils also, quatenus Devils: in as much as there is no defect imagin­able in the price we speak of, in respect of the absolute and inherent dignity, value, or worth of it, but that all these, even under the considerations men­tioned, might have been redeemed by it, as well as the Elect. But that Christ died for Reprobates, as Reprobates, and for Devils, as Devils, in one sence or other, were never yet (I conceive) the sayings, or thoughts of any Man; nor (I suppose) ever will be; certaine I am, cannot reason­ably be.

Sixthly, (and lastly) as yet there hath no sufficient ground been shewed, §. 4. 4 either from the Scriptures, or from Principles of Reason for the distincti­on under Contest; nor (I believe) ever will be, or can be. Therefore they who distinguish between Christs dying for al men, sufficiently, and intentionally, opposing the one to the other, affirming the former, and denying the lat­ter, do not only go about to set Lambs together by the eares, which will not fight, but also speak things most unworthy of God, and which render him a far greater deluder or derider of his poore Creature, Man, then a Bene­factor or well-willer to him, in all his Declarations and Professions of love un­to him, in the gift of His Son Jesus Christ to make his attonement, and procure Redemption for him.

Upon consultation had with the Premisses, with other considerations [Page 97] (haply) of like import, some of the greatest and most learned opposers of Universall Redemption, Piscator, and Beza by Name, have stigmatized the aforesaid distinction (at least that member of it, wherein Christ is said to have died sufficiently for all Men) as harsh, Barbarous, Homonymous; yea the former of the two, as absolutely false. That expression (saith Beza) Christ died for the sinnes of all Men, sufficiently, but not efficaciously, though in a recti­fied sence it be true, yet is it extreamly harsh, and no lesse ambiguous then Bar­barous. For the particle, FOR, imports either the Counsell of the Father, ac­cording to which Christ suffered, or else the effect it self of his sufferings, or rather both; whereas neither of them belong to any, but the Elect Illud, Christus mortuus est pro omnium hominū pec­catis suffici­enter, sed non efficaciter, et­si recto sensis verum est, durè tamen admodum & ambiguè non minùs quàm Barbare, di­citur. Illud enim, Pro, vel consiliū Patris, ex quo passus est Christus, vel ipsius passionis effectum, vel potius utrun (que) designat, quorum neutrum ad alios, quàm ad Electos spectat. Beza. ad Acta Coloq. Monpelg. part. 2. p. 217. vid: eundem in Thesibus cum, D. Fayo in Scholâ Génevensi disputatis de efficaciâ Sacrificii Jesu Christi. c Exprimitur enunciatum fal­sum: nempe Christum pro singulis (pro singulis ais) mortuum sufficienter. Nam Christus pro solis Electis mortuus est sufficientissimè, pretio Redemptionis persoluto, nempe pretioso sanguine suo, sanguine ni­mirum illo filii Dei. At pro Reprobis nullo modo mortuus est Christus, sive sufficienter dicas, five efficaci­ter. Pisc. Contra Schaffman. p. 123.. Piscator to his Antagonist thus: The proposition layd down, is false, viz. that Christ died suffici­ently for every Particular or single Man (this is thy Assertion;) For Christ died most sufficiently for the Elect, paying the price of their Redemption, I meane, His precious Blood, that blood of the Sonne of GOD. But for Reprobates Christ died neither in one kinde, nor other, NEITHER SVFFICIENTLY, nor effi­caciously ^b.

THE first of these Scriptures there mentioned, was this: Who gave Him­self §. 1. a Ransome for all [or, for all Men] to be testified in due time 1 Tim. 2. 6.. Let the Context adjoyning to this Scripture be narrowly sifted, and then, if we shall but grant that the Apostle speaks either Sap, Sence, Savour, or any thing congruous to the judgements or understandings of Men, we shall not be able to deny but that it carries the Doctrine asserted, with an high hand of evidence in it. Evident it is, that the Apostle in this Verse goes on with the confirmation, or further Proof of that Reason of his, layd down Vers. 4. for the making good what he had said, Vers. 3. That which he had said in this third Verse is this: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of GOD our Saviour. This is good, meaning, the Performance of that duty, whereunto he had exhorted Verse 1. and 2. viz. that Supplications, Prayers, Intercession, giving of Thanks, should be made for ALL Men; For Kings, and for ALL that are in Authority, &c. Now then most evident it is, that by, ALL MEN, (in this first Verse) for whom Prayers, &c. are to be made unto God, is not meant, some of ALL sorts of Men, nor yet ALL the Elect, or the like, but ALL of ALL sorts of Men whatsoever (except haply those who have barr'd up the way of our Prayers for them, by that unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, as Iohn intimates 1 Joh. 5. 16.,) For that which followeth Verse 2. cleer­ly evinceth it; For Kings, and for ALL in Authority. Certainly if this be good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD, that we should Pray for ALL of one [Page 98] sort or degree of Men in the World, especially for ALL in Authority (in which sort or ranke of Men there are many as unworthy and uncapable of our Prayers, as in any other) it is good and acceptable in his sight likewise, that we should Pray for ALL in ALL other ranks or sorts of Men whatsoever. For there is nothing imaginable to cause a difference in this Point. So then, to prove that it is good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD to pray for ALL Men without exception, the Apostle layeth down this ground Verse 4. That God will have ALL Men to be saved. If now by ALL Men in this Reason, we shall understand only some of ALL sorts of Men, or, ALL the Elect only, we shall shorten the arme of the Apostles Argument so far, that it will not reach half way towards that conclusion, for the proof whereof it is brought, and so shall make him reason very weakly, and (indeed) ridiculously, as viz. after this manner: It is good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD that we should Pray universally for ALL Men without exception of any, because God will have all his Elect to be saved, or some out of every sort of Men. There is little savour of an Argument in this: whereas the rationality and strength of the Apostles arguing, rightly understood, is pregnant and full of convicti­on. It is good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD that we should Pray for ALL Men without exception, because his Will is to have ALL Men, without exception, saved. The strength of this Argument lieth in this ground, or cleer Principle in Reason; viz. that a conformity unto his own Will, in the will and endeavours of men, is, and must needs be, good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD▪ Now then to prove that Gods Will, is, that ALL Men with­out exception should be saved, the Apostle brings this reason (in the words in hand) viz. that Christ Iesus gave Himself a ransome for ALL Men. So that [...], ALL Men here, in this reason, must of necessity be of the same extent, with the same word in the Doctrine or Conclusion, which was to be proved: otherwise we shall make the Apostle stumble at that stone in argu­ing, at which only Novices, or Liers-in-waite to deceive, are wont to stumble, as viz. when there is more put into the Conclusion, then into the Premisses. That which here lay upon the Apostles hand to prove, was (as hath been undeniably evicted) that Gods Will is to have ALL Men, without excepti­on, saved. Now to prove this by such an argument or assertion as this, that Christ gave Himself a ransome, either for ALL his Elect, or for some of ALL sorts of men, as for some as well Gentiles, as Jewes, and for no others, is as if I should undertake to prove the bountifulnesse of a Prince towards all his Subjects, being many, by such an argument as this, that he sent by a speciall servant of his very great rewards to two or three of them, but resolved to doe nothing at all for any more of them. Therefore universality of Redemp­tion by Christ is the most unquestionable Doctrine of the Apostle in this Scripture.

The next specified in the said Catalogue or Inventory, was; Because we thus §. 2. judge, that if one died for ALL, then were ALL dead: and that he died for ALL, that they who live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him, who died for them, and rose againe 2 Cor. 5. 14. 15.. We see the Apostles judgement here is very cleer, that Christ died for ALL: he once cleerly supposeth it; if one died for ALL. i. e. since one died for ALL (the Particle, if, being racionantis, not dubi­tantis, as in twenty places besides) meaning, Christ: and once plainly assert­eth it, and that he died for ALL; i. e. We also judge that he died for ALL. That which is commonly given in by way of answer, to this, and other Scrip­tures, both of the former, and latter import, by those who looke another [Page 99] way in the controversie in hand, is not much considerable. But that which it is, is this: they pretend that both the word, World, and such terms of uni­versality, as these, All, All Men, every Man, &c. are in many places of Scripture used, and accordingly are to be taken and understood, in a restrained signification; as sometimes for many, or greater numbers, of Men; sometimes for some of all sorts; sometimes for Jewes and Gentiles, or the like. From whence they would infer, that therefore such Terms and Expressions as these, are in the Scripture in hand, and in the others formerly cited for our purpose, to be taken in some of these limited significations; and not in the rigor or extent of what they properly signifie, as viz. for an absolute and unlimited universality of men. For to this we answer,

1. (By way of Concession) most true it is, that these Notes or Terms of universality, All, All Men, every Man, &c. are in many places of Scripture necessarily to be taken in some such limited and restrained signification, as is affirmed. But then,

2. I answer further (by way of exception) foure things. First, that neither §. 3. the terms we speak of, nor any other words or expressions in Scripture, are, in any other case, or upon any other pretence whatsoever, to be taken out of their proper and best known significations, but only when the tenor of the Context, or some circumstance of the place doth necessitate and inforce such a construction of them. Now evident it is by what hath been formerly ar­gued upon the Scriptures alledged, that there is no necessity at all in respect of any the respective Contexts, nor of any circumstance in any of them, to understand the said terms of Universality any otherwise, then in their most proper [ i. e. in their most extensive and comprehensive] signifi­cations.

2. (That which is more then this) we have evidently proved that the very tenor of the severall Contexts, wherein the aforesaid places are found, doth absolutely enforce and necessitate us unto such a proper and comprehensive signification of the said terms of universality, as hath been contended for: so that there can be no Reasonable, Regular, or Grammaticall sence or con­struction made of those Places, unlesse such a sence of these terms be ad­mitted.

3. To reason thus; these, or these Words, or Terms, are to be taken in §. 4. this, or in that sence, in such, and such places of Scripture; Therefore they must, or they may, be taken in the same sence in such and such other places of Scripture, is to reason our selves into a thousand errors and absurdities. As for example; evident it is that in that Scripture, Joh. 18. 16. where it is said, that Peter stood at the doore, by the word, doore, is meant a doore of wood, or some such materiall. But would it not be ridiculously erroneous to infer from hence, that therefore it is to be taken, or may be taken, in the same sence, Joh. 10. 9. where Christ saith, I am the Doore. So again: when Paul saith, that Christ sent him to the Gentiles to open their eyes, Acts 26. 18. evi­dent it is, that by the word, eyes, he means their inward eyes, their Minds, Judgements, and Understandings: but from hence to conclude, that there­fore when David saith, that the Idols which Men make, have eyes, (Psal. 116. 5.) the word, eyes, is to be understood, or may be understood, here also in the same sence, is to conclude that which common sence it self abhorreth. So that the weaknesse of all such arguings or pleadings as this; the words, All, All Men, every Man, are in these and these places of Scripture, to be taken in a limited sence, for some of All sorts of Men, for Jewes and Gentiles, [Page 100] or the like; therefore they are to be taken in the same sence in all others, where they are found, is notorious, and most unworthy considering men. Though whilest a man is a Prisoner, he cannot goe whither he desires, but must be content with the narrow bounds of his Prison; it doth not follow from hence, that therefore when he is discharged, and set at liberty, he must needs continue in his Prison still, especially when his necessary occasions call him to another place, whither also he hath a desire otherwise to goe See more upon this ac­count in the preceding Chapter. Sect. 35. 36. and likewise Sect. 19 of this..

We have, as concerning the former Scripture, evidently proved, that the §. 5. terms, ALL Men, must of necessity be taken in their most proper, free, and unlimited significations: and shall (God assisting) demonstrate the same in those yet remaining. Let us (at present) because the place in hand is pregnant and full to our purpose, evince above all contradiction, that the word, ALL, or ALL Men, in it, cannot with the honour of S ^t. Pauls intel­lectualls, be understood otherwise. Because we thus judge (saith he) that if one died for ALL, then were ALL dead: and that he died for ALL, that they who live, &c. Observe that clause of distribution, that they who live: we judge that Christ died for ALL, that they who live, i. e. That all they (without ex­ception) who recover, and are, or shall be, delivered from this death by Christ, for them, should not live, &c. So then, if by the word, ALL, or ALL Men, for whom the Apostle here judgeth or concludeth, that Christ died, we shall understand the universality of the Elect only; for ALL Men, i. e. for All the Elect, and for these only, we shall grievously misfigure the faire face of a worthy sentence, and render it incongruous and inconsistent with all Rules and Principles of Discourse. For then the tenor of it must rise, and run thus: we judge that Christ died for all the Elect, that all the Elect, who shall live, and be recovered from death by Christ, should not live, &c. Doth not the eare of every mans reason, yea of common sence it self, taste an un­couthnesse and unsavourinesse of sound, in such a Texture of words, as this? Yea doth not such a carriage of the place, cleerly imply, that there are, or may be, some of the Elect themselves, who shall not live, or be restored from death by Christ, and consequently shall not be bound, upon any such ingagement, to live unto him? Doubtlesse, if by the word, ALL, the Apostle had meant ALL the Elect, and these only, he would not have added, that they who live; but rather, that they, or these, might live. For these words, that they who live, cleerly import a possibility at least, yea a futurity also, i. e. That it would so come to passe, that some of those ALL, for whom Christ died, would not live; and consequently would be in no capacity of living from themselves to live unto him. The uncouthnesse and sencelessnesse of such interpretations as these, was somewhat more at large argued in the next pre­ceding Chapter, Sect. 12. 13, &c. But now let us take the word; [...], ALL, in the proper and due signification of it, viz. for the generality or univer­sality of men, the sence will run cleer, and have a savoury and sweet relish with it. Because we thus judge, [i. e. upon cleer Grounds and Principles of reason, argue, and conclude] that if one died for All Men, then were All Men dead, [i. e. Obnoxious unto death, dead in Law, as good as dead; other­wise they should not have had any need, that another should die for their pre­servation] and that he died for All Men [i. e. we further also judge, and con­clude, that he died for All Men, with this intent, or for this end, amongst others] that they who live [i. e. That whosoever of those, for whom he thus died, shall be saved by this death of his for them] should [in consideration [Page 101] of, and by way of signall thankfulnesse for such a Salvation] not live unto themselves [i. e. only or chiefly minde themselves, whilest they live in the World, in their carnall and Worldly interests] but unto him, who died for them, and rose again [▪i. e. Promote his interest and affaires in the World, who so notably ingaged them hereunto by dying for them, and by resuming his Life and Being after his Death, is become capable of their love and service to him in this kinde.] In such a carriage of the place as this, there is spirit and life, evidence of Reason, Commodiousnesse of Sence, Regularnesse of Con­struction, no forcing or straining of Words, or Phrases, or the like: whereas in any such exposition, which contracts the signification of the word, [...], ALL Men, either to the Elect, or to any lesser number of Men, then ALL, there will be found an universall disturbance in the sentence, nothing orderly, smooth, or clear.

By the way, the Apostle in saying that Christ died for All Men, that they §. 6. who live, should not live unto themselves, &c. doth not intend to confine the duty of thankfulnesse for Christs Death, only unto the Saints, or those that are put into an estate of Salvation by it, as if wicked Men and Unbelievers ought him no service at all upon that account; but only shewes, that Christ expects or lookes for no such deniall of themselves for his sake at the hands of any, but of theirs only, who come actually to taste and partake of the great benefit and blessing of his death. Thus then we see, that the word ALL, or ALL Men, though in some place, or places, it may, yea of necessity, must, signifie only some men, or some parts of all men, yet in others (and particularly in those two lately insisted upon) it must with the like necessity, signifie ALL Men, without exception.

4. (And lastly) for the word, World, which was the terme of contention in the former head of Scriptures, though I deny not, but that in some places it signifies only some part of men in the World, and not the intire universali­ty of Men, as Luke 2. 1. Acts 19. 27. and frequently elsewhere; yet that it any where signifies precisely that part of the World, which the Scripture calls the Elect, I absolutely deny: neither hath it yet been, nor (I believe) ever will be proved; and the rather, because the Holy Ghost delights still (as some instances have been given Cap. 5. Sect. 10., and more might be added without num­ber) to expresse that part, or party of men in the World, which is contrary unto the Saints, and which are strangers and enemies unto God, by the, World. This by way of answer to that exception or pretence against the exposition given of the Scriptures alledged; viz. that the word World, and those generall terms, ALL, and every Man, are sometimes used in a restrained signification.

Concerning the exposition given of the Scripture last argued, were it not §. 7. clear and pregnant enough by the light wherein it hath been presented, fur­ther countenance might be given unto it, by shewing what friends it hath amongst our best and most approved Authors. Among the Ancients, Chry­sostome is generally esteemed (and that worthily) the best Interpreter of the Scriptures. His sence of the place under debate, is plainly enough the same with ours. For (saith he, writing upon the place) He (meaning, Christ) had not died [or, would not have died] for All, had not All died [or, been dead.] In which words he cleerly supposeth, that Christ died for as many, as were dead: and consequently for ALL, without exception, in as much as ALL without exception, or difference, were dead. A little after, thus: For it ar­gueth an excesse of much love, both to die for SO GREAT A WORLD, and to die for it being so affected [or disposed] as it was [...].. Amongst our later Di­vines, [Page 200] Musculus is not the least, if not equall to the greatest. Yet he also gives the right hand of fellowship to the interpretation given, upon the place. But Christ (saith he) died, not only for his friends, but for his enemies also; NOT FOR SOME MEN ONELY, BVT FOR ALL without exception. This is the unmeasurable [or vast] extent of the love of God Christ­us verò non pro amicis tantum, sed & inimici [...]; non pro qui­busdam tantùm, sed pro omnibus Mortuus est. Haec est immensa Divinae dilectionis amplitudo.. But the cause we plead needs no such Advocates, as these, being potent enough with its own evi­dence and equity, and therefore we shall retaine no more of them.

A third Text of Scripture presented upon the same account with the for­mer, §. 8. was;— that he by the Grace of God should taste death, [...], for every Man Heb. 2. 9.. This clause importeth that universality of attonement made by the Death of Christ, which we maintaine, more significantly (if more may be) and with lesse liablenesse to any evasion, or shift, then any of the for­mer places ingaged in the warfare. To shew that the Lord Christ, though cloathed with a body of flesh, wherein he was capable of dying, as well as other men, yet did not suffer death simply through the malice or power of his enemies, but upon an account far superior unto these, the Apostle attributes his death to the Grace of God, [i. e. The love, and gracious affections of God] not towards some, or a few, no nor yet towards all men [ collectively taken, or in the lump] but towards all men distributively taken, i. e. towards every particular and inviduall man. [...] (saith the Holy Ghost) for every man▪ i. e. to procure eternall Redemption and Salvation for every man, with­out the exclusion of any. I cannot apprehend what can reasonably be said to alienate the minde or import of this Scripture from our present cause. Evident it is (and you shall finde our best interpreters of the place affirm­ing the same) that the Apostle in these words, that through the Grace of God he might taste death, &c. assignes a Reason, (or two rather) of what he had said a little before, concerning the Incarnation and Humiliation of Jesus Christ (whom he had in the former Chapter asserted to be the Son of God) to prevent, or heal any scandall or offence, that either had already, or might afterwards arise in the minds of these Hebrewes, through the unlikelyhood, strangenesse, ot incrediblenesse of such a thing. It is a saying among Phi­losophers, (and all men have experience, in part, of truth in it) that a know­ledge of the Reasons or Causes of things, causeth admiration, and so all troublesomenesse of thoughts about them, to cease. So then, the Apostles drift and intent in the words mentioned, being to satisfie the Hebrewes con­cerning such a strange, wonderfull, and unheard of a thing, as 1. That the Son of God should be made Man; and 2. That being made Man, he should suffer death; it is no wayes credible, but that he should, 1. Assigne such a cause, as would carry the greatest weight of satisfaction in it; and 2. expresse himself in such Perspicuity and Plainnesse of words, that they might not lightly mistake his meaning, lest, if by occasion of his words, they should first apprehend the Reason or Cause assign'd by him, to be more weighty or considerable then he intended it, and afterwards should come to understand that it was far lighter and lesse considerable, their scandall and offence, in stead of being healed, or prevented, would be more strengthened and in­creased; as usually it comes to passe in such cases. Now evident it is, 1. That the Apostles words in this place, that he through the Grace of God should taste death for every Man, in the plainest, the most obvious and direct sence and signification of them, hold forth the Doctrine which we maintaine for [Page 103] Truth, here being no restraint at all, nor the least whispering of any limi­tation to be put upon that terme of universality, [...], every Man; and 2. As evident it is, that the Death of Christ for all Men, without the exception of any (which is the Doctrine we assert) and the Grace of God so intending it, amount to a far more weighty consideration, and satisfaction, touching those great dispensations spoken of, (the Incarnation and Humiliation of the Son of God) then his dying only for a few, or for a select number of men, and the Grace of God commensureable hereunto. Therefore there is not the least question to be made, but that the large, and not the limited sence, was the Apostles sence in the words now under debate. And when the Holy Ghost expresseth himself (as we have heard) that he through the Grace of God should taste death FOR EVERY MAN; for any man to come and interpret thus, for every Man, i. e. for some men, or for a few Men (which, if not for forme, yet for matter and substance, must be their interpretation, who op­pose the exposition given) is not to interpret, but to correct, and to exercise a magisteriall authority over the Scriptures.

Nor had Pareus himself the heart to decline the interpretation asserted, §. 9. though he seemes somewhat desirous by some expressions, to hide this his in­genuity from his fellowes, to avoide their offence, Whereas (saith he) the Apostle saith, for every Man, it respects the amplification [or extent] of the Death of Christ. HE DIED NOT FOR SOME FAVV: the efficacy [or vertue] of it appertaines unto ALL. Therefore there is life prepared [or made ready] in the Death of Christ for ALL afflicted consciences, Quod dicit, [...], ad fructum mortis Chri­sti amplifi­candum per­tinet. Non pro paucis aliquibus mortuns est: sed ad omnes efficacia ejus pertinet. Om­nibus igitur afflictis con­scientiis in morte Chri­sti vita parata est, &c. &c. The truth is, that there can be no solid ground of Peace or Comfort to any afflicted conscience whatsoever, without the supposall of Christs Death for every Man (without exception; as hath been argued in part, Sect. 38. of the former Chapter; and might be further evicted above all contradiction.) Amongst the Orthodox Fathers, Chrysostome, who (as we heard) avouched the exposition given of the former Scripture, stands by his own judgement and mine, in his explica­tion of this. That he through the Grace of God should taste Death for every man; not only (saith he) for the faithfull [or those that believe] but for ALL THE WORLD. He indeed died for ALL Men. For what if all Men doe not be­lieve? yet He hath done His part [...]. [or, fully performed that which was proper for Him to do.]

The Scripture next advancing in the forementioned troope, was, Who will §. 10. have ALL MEN to be saved (speaking of God) and to come unto the know­ledge of the Truth 1 Tim. 2. 4.. Whereunto (for conformity in import) we shall joyn the last there specified, which is this: The Lord is not slack concerning his pro­mise (as some Men count slacknesse) but is long suffering to us-ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to Repen­tance 2 Pet. 3. 9.. Concerning the former of these places, we cleerly evinced (in the first Section of this Chapter) from the unquestionable tenor and carriage of the whole Context, that by, ALL Men, cannot possibly be understood, either some of all sorts of Men, or Jewes and Gentiles, or all the Elect, or the like; but of necessity, All of All sorts of Men, simply and universally, without the exemption of any, whether Jewes, or Gentiles. Any other inter­pretation or sence of the words, [...], All Men, but this, renders [Page 104] the Apostle palpably impertinent and weake (that I say not ridiculous) in his arguing in this place. This I plainly demonstrate in the said Section: I now add, that if it may be said, that God will have All Me [...] to be saved, be­cause he will have some of All sorts of Men to be saved; it may more pro­perly and truly be said of him, that he will have all Men to be destroyed, (at least in their sence, who hold an irreversible reprobation of Persons Person­ally considered, from eternity) because not simply some, but a very great part of All sorts of Men now extant in the World, will in time perish, and that according to the Decree or Will of God▪ the tenor whereof is, that all Persons dying in impenitency and unbelief, shall perish. Yet the Scriptures do no where say upon any such account as this, either in terminis, or in sub­stance, that God will have All Men to perish, and not to come to the knowledge of the Truth. Which is somewhat more then a [...]opique argument, that God is not therefore said to will that all Men should be saved, and come to the know­ledge of the Truth, only because he will have some, some few of all sorts of Men to be saved, and come to this knowledge: but simply because his will is to have all Men without exception [ viz. as they are Men, and whilest they are yet capable of Repentance] to be saved, and in order thereunto to come to the knowledge of the saving Truth, i. e. the Gospell. Nor doth it follow, that the Will of God is changeable, in case he should Will the same Man, as this day to be saved; and as on the morrow to perish, but only that such a Man is changeable (as we shall further shew, God willing, in due time.) Now then if it be the Will of God to have All Men, without exception, saved, &c. most certaine it is that Christ died, and that intentionally on Gods Part, for ALL Men, without exception: because it is not imaginable that God should be willing to have those saved, for whom he was unwilling that Salvation should be procured.

The latter of the two Scriptures lately brought upon the Theatre of our §. 11. present Discourse, acts the same part with the former. There it is said of the Lord (Christ) that he is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to Repentance. If so, then certainly there neither was, nor is, nor ever shall be any, for whom Christ was not willing, did not intend, to die, and to purchase Repentance. So that his Death was intentionally for All Men, as well in respect of himself, as of God the Father. Besides those slimme eva­sions and shifts of making bondmen of Christs Free-men, I meane, of an arbi­trary and importune confining the expressions importing a simple and ab­solute universality (in such Scriptures as these) to petty universalities, as of the Elect, of Species, Sorts, or kinds of Men, &c. (the nakednesse whereof hath been detected over and over Cap. 5. Sect. 9. 10, 11, &c. Sect. 34. 35. &c And again, in this Chapter, Sect. 3. 4.) our adversaries in the cause in hand are wont to take Sanctuary from such Scriptures, as the two now in debate, under the wing of this Distinction. It is true, say they, God Wills that all Men should be saved, and so that all should come to Repentance, voluntate signi, with his Signified or Revealed Will; but this doth not prove, but that voluntate beneplaciti, with the will of his Pleasure, or Purpose, he may be willing that many, even far the greatest part of men, should perish. But to shew the vanity, or at least the impertinency of this Distinction to the businesse in hand;

1. I would demand of those, who leane upon the broken Reed of this §. 12. distinction, in opposition to the cleer and direct sence given of the two Scrip­tures last mentioned, what they meane by their voluntas signi, the signified or revealed Will of God; and wherein the opposition or difference lieth [Page 105] between this, and that other Will of God, which they terme the Will of his good Pleasure or Purpose. If by his signified or revealed Will, they meane only the Precepts or Commandements of God concerning such and such du­ties, which God would have practised and done by Men, (which is all the account that some of the greatest Opposers in the Point in hand, give of it) I doe not understand, how, or in what respect God can be said to will the Sal­vation of all Men, or that none should perish. For, 1. Salvation actively taken, is an act of God himself, not of men: and consequently cannot be said to be a duty injoyned by him unto men, and therefore not to be willed neither by him, by way of Precept or Command. 2. Salvation, Passively taken, is not an act, but a state or condition; and consequently is no matter of duty; and so cannot be said to be willed by God, in such a sence.

If by the signified or revealed Will of God (in the distinction now under §. 13. canvasse) be meant the Declaration which he hath made in his Word con­cerning the finall or eventuall Salvation and Condemnation of men, evident it is that neither in this sence can he be said to will the Salvation of all Men: be­cause he hath declared and signified unto the World, that few (comparatively) will, or shall, in fine be saved.

If it be pleaded, that in this sence God may be said to will the Salvation of all Men with his signified or revealed Will, because he injoynes Faith and Re­pentance unto all Men, which are the means of Salvation; and he that in­joynes the means, may (in a consequentiall way) be said to injoyn the end, in the same injunction; I answer;

1. If God injoynes Faith and Repentance unto all men, it argues that he Preacheth the Gospell unto All men: and consequently that they who have not the letter of the Gospell Preached unto them by Books, or Men, (as many Heathen Nations have not at this day) yet have the spirit, substance, and ef­fect of the Gospell Preached to them otherwise, as viz. by the Creation▪ and gracious Government of the World, which is (as I have shewed else­where Divine Authority of the Scriptures &c. p. 184. 185 &c. Again p. 332. 333, &c.) purely Evangelicall, and corresponding with the Scriptures. But how this will stand with our adversaries judgement in the cause depending, I understand not.

2. It is the sence of one of the greatest Patrons of the adverse cause, that §. 14. the precept or injunction of God, is not properly the Will of God Mandatum Dei non est v [...] ­luntas Dei pro­prie dicta; quia illo non tam significet quid ipse vult fieri, quam qu. d no­stri officii sit sa­cere. D. Twiss [...]. Vindiciae Gra▪ tiae, &c. p. 171.; because (saith he) he doth not hereby so much signifie what himself willeth to be done, as what is our duty to doe. I confesse that no signification whatsoever, whether of what a man willeth, or decreeth to be done, or of what is the duty of another to do, can properly be said to be the will of the signifier: but yet that will, wherewith, or out of which, God willeth or Commandeth us to do▪ that which is our duty to do, is as properly his Will, as that whereby he willeth, or decreeth things to be done. My Will, or desire, that my Child should obey me, or, that he should prosper in the World, is as properly my Will, as that, whereby I Will, or purpose▪ to shew the respects of a Father unto him in providing for him; being as proper, naturall, and direct an act of that Principle or Faculty of willing within me, whereby I Will the latter, as that act it self of this Facul­ty, wherein I will the latter, is. For the Principle or Faculty within me of willing, how numerous or different soever the acts of willing, which I exert by vertue of this faculty, may be, is but one and the same. And this faculty being naturall, there can be no such difference between the acts proceeding from it, which should make some to be more proper, and others, lesse; though some may be better, and others worse. But this difference can have no place [Page 106] in the acts of the Will of God. Therefore if the precept, or preceptive Will of God, be not properly his Will; neither can any other Will of his, or any other act of his Will, be properly such. If so, then that Will of God, or act of Will in God, whereby he Willeth or injoyneth Faith and Repentance, and conse­quently, Salvation, unto All men, is as properly his Will, as that whereby he willeth the Salvation of any Man. Therefore if there be any secret or unre­vealed Will in God, whereby he willeth the destruction of any man, at the same time when he willeth the Salvation of All men (be it with what kinde of Will soever) these two wills must needs enter-feere, and contradict the one the other. Nor will that distinction of the late mentioned Author, salve a con­sistency between them, wherein he distinguisheth, between the Decree of God, and the thing Decreed by him; affirming, that the thing which God Decreeth, may be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the thing which he command­eth; though the Decree it self cannot be repugnant to the Command R [...]m a Deo decretam cum re a Deo man­data, pugnare posse dicimus; decretum vero Dei cum man­dato pugnare posse non dici­mus. Twissus. ubi supra.. The vanity of this distinction cleerly appeareth upon this common ground; viz. that Acts are differenced, and distinguished by their Objects. Therefore if the Object of Gods decreeing Will, or the thing Decreed by him, be con­trary to the thing preceptively willed, or commanded by him, unpossible it is, but that the two acts of his Will, by the one of which he is supposed to will the one, and by the other, the other, should digladiate, and one fight against the other. Therefore certainly there is no such paire, or combina­tion of wills in God, as the distinction of voluntas signi, and beneplaciti, (as applied in the question in hand) doth suppose. It is unpossible that I should inwardly and seriously will, or desire, the Death of my child; and yet at the same time seriously also will and injoyn the Physician to doe his best to reco­ver him.

Again, if God injoyn Faith and Repentance unto All men, with a declara­tion §. 15. that he injoyneth them in order to their Salvation, or with a promise, that upon their obedience to this injunction of His, they shall be actually saved▪ then can he not at the same time will, with a secret will, the condem­nation of any. But most evident it is, that unto whomsoever he injoyneth Faith, or Repentance, he injoyneth them in order to their Salvation, and with promise of actuall Salvation, upon their obedience to this injunction. Mar. 16. 16. Acts 3. 19. Joh. 20. 31. &c. Therefore unpossible it is, that he should secretly intend, will, or purpose the destruction of any, to whom he injoyns Faith and Repentance. The consequence in this argument is so rich in evidence, that it needs no Proof. If a Prince should inwardly and re­solvedly determine to put such or such a Malefactor to death, and yet by Pro­clamation, or otherwise, promise him his Life, or a Pardon, upon condition he would reform his course, would this be a strain of Divine Perfection, or like unto one of the Wayes of God?

There is a sence (I confesse) wherein the distinction now in considerati­on, §. 16. may be admitted. If by the signified or revealed Will of God be meant nothing else, but such Declarations or Manifestations made by God, which when made by men, are signes of a Will, Purpose, or Desire in them, suit­able to their respective tenors and imports, (which is cleerly their sence of this member of the distinction, who were the first coyners of it, I mean, the Schoolemen Aqu. Sum. Part. 1. Qu. 19 Art. 12. in Cor.) there is no inconvenience in granting a revealed will in God, distinguished from, or opposed unto, a will of good Pleasure or of Purpose, in him. This sence makes no opposition of Wills in God, nor yet between things willed or purposed by him: but only sheweth, or supposeth, [Page 107] that the will and good Pleasure in God, extendeth not to the actuall Procurement of obedience from men unto all those Lawes or Commands, which he judgeth meet to impose upon them; or (which is the same) that God hath not posi­tively decreed that all Men shall, or shall be necessitated by him, to live in subjection to all those Lawes, which he hath appointed unto them. This sence is orthodox, and unblameable: but holds no intelligence with that opi­nion, which supposeth one will in God, according unto which he willeth all Men to be saved; and another, according unto which he willeth the far grea­test part of men to be damned, and both antecedent. For otherwise, two such wills as these, are fairely and cleerly enough consistent in him. God, ac­cording to the distinction of the Will of God into Antecedent, and Cons [...]quent, (first set on foot by some of the Fathers, Chrysostome, and Damascen by name, and since made use of by the Schoolemen) may with the former, be said to will the Salvation of all Men; and yet with the latter be said also (in a sence) to will the condemnation of far the greatest part of them. His An­tecedent Will (the distinction being admitted as it ought to be, having so cleer a foundation in Scripture) respecteth men simply as men; his Consequent Will relateth to them as considerable under the two opposite qualifications, or immediate capacity, of life, and death; or of Salvation, and Condemnati­on; the one of these being Faith persevered in unto Death, the other, finall impenitency or unbelief▪ According to the former of these wills, God is said to will the Salvation of all Men, partly because he vouchsafeth a sufficiency of means unto all Men▪ whereby to be saved; partly also, because he hath passed no Decree against any man, which either formally, or consequenti­ally, or in any consideration whatsoever, excludeth any man personally con­sidered, from Salvation, before he voluntarily excludeth himself by such sinfull miscarriages and deportments, which according to the revealed Will of God, render him utterly uncapable thereof. According to the latter of these wills, as he peremptorily willeth the Salvation of all those, who are faithfull unto Death; so doth he as peremptorily will the condemnation of all those, who shall not be found in the Faith of Jes [...]s Christ, at their end. These latter, through their own deplorable and voluntary carelessenesse and negligence, proving to be in number far the greater part of men, God, up­on this supposition, and in a consequentiall way, may be said to will the con­demnation of the greatest part of Men, and the Salvation only of a few (com­paratively). But of these things more hereafter.

In the meane time evident it is from the Scriptures argued, that Christ d [...] §. 17. intentionally for All men, (without exception) considered as men; an [...] that there was nothing more procured, nor intended to be procured, thereby, for one man, then another, personally considered, or simply as men. Only this was intended in this Death of Christ (in the generall) that whosoever, whether few, or whether many, should with a true and persevering Faith be­lieve in Him, should actually partake of the benefit and blessing of this his Death in the great reward of Salvation: and on the other hand, that who­soever, whether few, or whether many, should not believe in him with such a Faith, should (upon this account) be excluded from all Participation in the great blessing of Salvation purchased by his Death, notwithstanding the purchase was as much made, and intended to be made for them, as for those, who come actually to inherit; even as the marriage-feast in the Parable, was as much provided, prepared, and intended for those, who upon their invita­tion came not, as it was for those, who came, and actually partooke of it; [Page 108] unlesse we shall say that the King, who made this Feast, intended it not for those, whom notwithstanding he solemnly invited to it, and with whom he was highly displeased for their refusall to come, being invited. Mat 22. 3, 4 &c. And that the Death of Christ, and the gracious intentions of God therein, did, and doe, equally and uniformly respect All men, is abundantly manifest from that Declaration made by the Lord Christ Himself on this behalf, (former­ly opened;) So God loved the World, that he ga [...]e his only begotten Sonne, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16.. Those words, that whosoever believeth on Him, should not perish, &c. evidently import un-differenced and impartiall intentions on Gods Part towards men in the gift of His Son.

The last Scripture of the Division yet in hand, was this: Therefore as by §. 18. the offence of one, the judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousnesse of one, the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto the justifica­tion of Life. Rom. 5. 18. Evident it is, that the Apostle in this Passage compareth the extent of the condemnation, which came by the sin of Adam, with the extent of the Grace of justification, which came by Christ, in re­spect of the numbers of Persons, unto whom they extended respectively; and finds them in this point commensurable, the one unto the other. The Per­sons upon whom the gift of justification cometh by Christ, are made equall in number unto those, upon whom the judgement of condemnation came by A­dam. For as the offence of Adam is here said to have come upon ALL MEN un­to condemnation: so also is the gift of justification of Life, [i. e. of such a justi­fication, upon which, and by means whereof, men are saved] which comes by Jes [...] Christ, said to come UPON ALL MEN likewise. Now to say, that ALL MEN, in the former clause, is to be taken properly and signifies ALL MEN, indeed, without exception of any (which all Expositors grant with­out exception of any) but in the latter, unproperly and with limitation, yea with such a limitation, which comparatively, and a few only excepted, ex­cludes ALL MEN, there being not the least ground or reason in the Context to vary the signification of the words, or to make them to signifie more in the one clause, and fewer in the other, is to exercise an arbitrary dominion over the expressions of the Holy Ghost, and to invent and set up significations and sense [...] of words at pleasure.

Nor doth it at all ease the matter, to say or prove▪ that in other places of §. 19. Scripture, this word, [...], All men, signifies not all without exception, but only a great number, or all of one particular sort or kinde of Persons; be­cause,

1. If it can be proved that in other places of Scripture it so signifies (I meane, not All without exception, but only some greater number, or num­bers of men) it seemes then there is a reason why it should, or must, so sig­nifie in these places: otherwise it could not be proved that there it so signi­fies See more of thi [...] Sect. 3. & 4. of this Cap. as also, cap. 5. sect 35. 36.. But here is no reason at all to be given why it should be taken out of the proper and native signification, or signifie any lesser number, then All Men simply. Now to refuse the proper signification of aword, where there is no other reason why it should be refused, but only because it is to be refused where there is a reason (and so a necessity) to refuse it, is as if one should perswade a man that is an hungry, to forbeare Meat whilest he may have it, because he must forbeare it, when he cannot get it. When the Context or Subject matter doth require a by, lesse proper, or limited signification of a word or Phrase, this signification is put upon them by God. But when [Page 109] there is no occasion or necessity, either in respect of the one, or of the other, why such a signification should be put upon them, now if it be done, the doing of it is arbitrary, and from the lawlesse presumption of men. How much more when men shall do it, not only without any sufficient ground or rea­son, but against reason? which is the case of those, who by [ All men] in the latter clause of the verse in hand, will needs understand only some men, and these but very few, comparatively. For,

2. Though one and the same word, or Phrase, is sometimes to be taken §. 20. in a different signification in one and the same Period or sentence (as elswhere is observed) yet this is no where to be done, but where there is a manifest and pregnant reason for the doing of it, as in these and the like places, Let the DEAD bury their DEAD; Mat. 8. 22. So again: Whosoever drinketh of this WATER, shall thirst againe: but whosoever shall drinke of the WATER that I shall give him, shall never thirst more; Joh. 4. 13, 14. There is a plain reason, why by the dead, in the end of the former of these places, should be meant such as were naturally, or corporally dead; viz. because such only are to be buried, with that kinde of buriall, whereof our Saviour had occasion to speak, as appears from the former verse. Again, why by the dead in the beginning of the said passage, should be meant those that are spiritually dead, and not those that are corporally dead, there is this reason (every whit as plain, as the former) viz. because those that are naturally or corporally dead, are not capable of burying those that are dead, either with one kinde of buriall, or other. So why the word, WATER, (in the latter of the passages mention­ed) should in the first place signifie materiall or elementary water; in the latter, spirituall water, or the Holy Ghost; reasons are obvious and neere at hand: we shall not need to name them. But why the words, [...], all men (in the place of the Apostle under debate) being twice used, should be conceived so far to vary in their significations, as in the former clause, to signifie, All men without exception; in the latter, very few men; no like reason (nor indeed any competent) can be given.

3. Though, All men, doth in some places signifie only a greater number §. 21. of Men, not All men simply or universally; yet it never signifieth a small number of Men, either in opposition to, or in comparison with, a greater; least of all with the greatest number that is; as they must make it signifie in the Scripture in hand, who will have no more signified by it (in the latter of the two clauses, where it is used) then only those, who come in time to be actually saved by Christ. For these are a very small number ( few there be, saith Christ, that finde it; speaking of the straite gate, which leadeth unto Life) in comparison of those, upon whom condemnation came by Adam.

4. If condemnation should come upon all Men simply, by the offence §. 22. of Adam, and righteousnesse only upon some Men, and these but a few nei­ther, comparatively, by the obedience and gift of Christ, then where sin aboun­ded, Grace should not superabound (as the Apostle saith it did;) nay, sin should superabound, and Grace be confined to a narrow compasse (com­paratively.) To say, that the superabounding of Grace above sin, here spoken of, is to be considered in the intensivenesse of it, [ i. e. in its prevalen­cy over sin, where it is vouchsafed,] not in the extensivenesse of it, as if it extended to more Persons, is thus far acknowledged for a saying of truth; Grace doth not extend to more Persons, then sin (at least, not to more Per­sons of Men) because sin extendeth unto all, and Grace cannot extend to [Page 110] more then all. But if we shall straiten and limit Grace, in respect of the ex­tent of it, to a small number of Persons, as viz. unto those only who are, or shall be actually saved, the glory of the superabounding of Grace above sin, in respect of the Prevalency of it, where it is (in such a sence) given, will be fully match'd, or rather overcome and swallowed up, by the prevailing extensiveness of sin above Grace.

5. The Apostle, both before, and after (as viz. Verse 15. and Verse 19.) §. 23. computeth the condemned ones of Adam, and the justified ones of Christ, by one and the same numericall expression. He tells us in both places of many dead by Adam, and of no fewer then many justified and redeemed by Christ. Now what the Holy Ghost makes equall, for Men to dis-equalize, especially to such a Proportion or Degree, that the one number shall be inconsider­able, and as nothing, in comparison of the other; is to lift up themselves above their line, and so take hold of vanity in stead of Truth. The Apostles expression Verse 15. is somewhat more emphaticall. For if through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the Grace of God, and the gift by Grace, which is by one Man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. If it shall be supposed that many more millions of Men are dead through the offence of Adam, then are justified or made alive by the Grace of God in Christ, Pauls glorying over the Grace of God in Christ, as much more abounding to the justification of many, must fall to the ground. For if by the offence of Adam, all became dead; and a few only be made alive by the gift of the Grace of God in Christ, who will not judge, but that the offence of one much more abounded to the death of many, then the Grace of GOD to the Justification or Life of many?

6. (And lastly) the Apostle having said, Verse, 20. That where sinne abounded, Grace superabounded, he adds (Vers. 21.) that as sinne hath reign­ed unto Death, so did Grace reigne through righteousness unto eternall Life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now evident it is from Verse 14. and Verse 12. that sinne reigned over all Men without exception, unto Death: therefore Grace must have a proportionable reigne unto life [i. e. must by a strong and over-ruling hand put all Men into a capacity or estate of life and salvation:] If so, it undeniably followes that Christ Died for all Men without exception of any: because otherwise, all Men could not be put into an estate of Grace or Salvation by Him.

Nor was this interpretation counted either hereticall, or erroneous, by the §. 24. most Orthodox Expositors of old; Chr [...]sostome himself commenting upon the place, makes the Apostle to speake thus: If all Men were punished through the offence [or, his offence, meaning Adams] they [i. e. these all Men] may doubtlesse be justified from hence [...]., [ i. e. by that over-abundance of grace and righteousnesse, as he there speaketh, which is given in Christ.] The former part of his commentary is more full and Pregnant to this purpose: but be­cause the transcription would be somewhat long, I leave it to be read in the author himself. Nor are there wanting amongst our late Reformed Di­vines, sirnamed Orthodox, Men of eminent Learning, Piety and Worth, who subscribe the said Interpretation. That our Reparation, [Restauration] (saith Mr. Bucer upon the place) is made by Christ, and that it is more effica­cious then the sinne of Adam, and that it is of LARGER EXTENT, is that which the Apostle argueth in this, and the following Section Repara­tionem nostri factam per Christum, & esse Adae noxâ [...]ffica ciorē, & pa tere latius, est id quòd Apostolus hâc, & sequenti Sectione—pertractat. Intelligit gratiam Christi bominum generi profuisse amplius, quàm nocuerit lapsus Adae.. Again, upon those [Page 111] words; Sed non ut [...], and thus: The Apostle here meaneth, that the Grace of Christ did more profit MAN-KINDE, then the sinne of Adam damnified it. Doubtlesse if all Men without exception were brought into a condition of misery by the sin of Adam, and but an handfull only (in comparison) made happy by the Grace of Christ; the Grace of Christ cannot be said to have profited Man-kinde, more then the sin of Adam damnified it. Yet again upon Verse 16: For whereas the World was lost [or, undone] by the one sinne of Adam, the Grace of Christ did not only abolish this sinne, and that death which it brought [upon the World] but likewise tooke away an infinite number of other sinnes, which we the rest of Men added to that first sinne Cum e­nim ex uno Adae peccato orbis perdi­tus sit, gratia Christi non hoc solū pec­catum, & mortem quā intulit, abo­levit, sed si­mul infinita illa sustulit peccata, quae reliqui ho­mines primo illi peccato adjecimus.. The commen­surablenesse of the Grace of Christ with the sin of Adam, in respect of the number of Persons, gratified by the one, and damnified by the other, cannot lightly be asserted in terms more significant. Nor do the words follow­ing import any thing contrary hereunto, wherein the Author addeth, that the said Grace of Christ bringeth all that are of Christ into a full or Plenary justi­fication. For by a full or Plenary justification, it is evident that he meanes an actuall justification, yea (as he explaines himself a little after) that ju­stification, which shall be awarded unto the Saints at the great day of the Resurrection; to the obtaining of which, it is acknowledged, that Men must re­ceive a new being from Christ by Faith. In what sence Christ abolished the — in (que) ple­nam justifi­cationem, quotquot ex Christo sunt, adduxit. sin of Adam, together with that Death, which it brought into the World; and so in what sence he is said to have brought Righteousnesse, Justification, and Salvation unto all Men, remaines to be unfolded in due Place. Upon the 17 Verse the aforesaid Author yet more cleerly attests the substance of our Interpretation, where he gives an account, how the Grace of Christ m [...]y be said to be of larger extent, then the sin of Adam, notwithstanding it be true, that this grace took away nothing, but what (in a sence) was the fruit and effect of his sin. If we consider, saith he, that every particular Man by his trans­gressions increaseth the misery of Man-kinde, and that whosoever sinneth, doth no lesse hurt his Posterity, then Adam did all Men; it is a plaine case, that the Grace of Christ hath removed more evils from Men, then the sinne of Adam brought upon them. For though there be no sinne committed in all the World, which hath not its originall from that first sinne of Adam, yet all particular Men who sinne, as they sinne voluntarily and freely, so do they make an addition of their own proper guilt, and misery. ALL WHICH EVILLS, since the alone BE­NEFIT OF CHRIST HATH TAKEN AVVAY, it must needs be that it hath taken away the sinnes of many, and not of one only. Manifest therefore it is that more evills have been removed by Christ, then were brought in by Adam Verum si considera­mus singulos mortalium, suis quo (que) transgressio­nibus malū generis hu­māi auxisse, & non mi­nùs, quicun­ (que) peccant, suis posteris nocere, at (que) nocuit omni­bus Adam; in aperto est, gratiam Christi plu­ra depulisse ab hominibus mala, quam Ad [...] noxa intulerit. Nam licet nihil in orbe peccatū sit, quod ex illo primo Adae lapsu non trahat originem; tamen singuli qui peccant, ut suâ quo (que) l [...]berâ voluntate peccant, ita suum quo (que) adjiciunt reatum, suam adferunt perniciem. Quae omnia mala, cum beneficium Christi solum sustulit, certe jam multorum peccata sustulit, non unius Adae. Manifestum est igitur plura per Christum mala submota esse, quàm Adam obtulerat.. And yet more plainely and expresly to the Point in hand (if more may be) up­on Verse 18. The sence whereof he gives thus: As by the fall of one, sinne pre­vailed over all, so as to make all liable unto condemnation: so likewise the righte­ousnesse of one so far tooke place on the behalf of all Men, that all M [...]n may ob­taine the justification of life thereby Infert hic Apostolus, repetit, & summat, quae tribus praemissis collationibus disseruit: haec scilicet. Sicut ex unius lapsu peccatum in omnes invaluit, ut red­diderit omnes condemnationi obnoxios: sic etiam unius justiciam in omnes homines obtinuisse, ut just ficatio vitae omnibus contingat.. By this time I suppose Bucer hath said [Page 112] enough, both to assert the Interpretation of the Scripture in hand, that hath been given, as also the universality of Redemption by Christ.

The said Scripture calls for the sence and exposition asserted, with such a §. 25. loud and distinct voyce, that Gualter also (another Divine of the same rank and quality with the former) could not but hearken to it. As by the offence of one (saith he▪ compleating the Apostles sentence, and rendring his sence therein) condemnation was propagated unto all Men; So also by the righteousnesse of one, Justification of life was propagated [or imparted] unto ALL MEN. Againe thus: As by the offence of one Adam, the judgement or guilt came upon all Men to condemnation; so also by the righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ the Gift or Benefit of God, abounded unto ALL MEN to Justification of life Itaque qu [...]madmo­dum per unius offen­sam in omnes homines pro pagataest cō ­demnatio: sic etiam per unius justiciam in omnes homines propagata est Justificatio vitae. Sicuti per unius Adami offensam ju­dicium sive reatus venit in omnes homines ad condemnationem: sic etiam per unius Jesus Christi justi­ciam, donum sive beneficium Dei redundavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vitae..

Any Man that shall reade with a single eye what Calvin himself hath writ­ten upon the said Contexture of Scriptures, cannot judge him an adversary to the Premised Exposition. Paul (saith he, upon Verse 15.) simply teach­eth that the amplitude [or compasse] of the Grace purchased by Christ, is greater, then of the condemnation contracted by the first Man Sed simpliciter majorem gratiae per Christum acquisitae amplitudi­nem esse do­cet, quàm contractae per primum hominem damnatio­nis.. Not long after: The sum of all comes to this, that Christ overcomes Adam: the righteousness of Christ, vanquisheth Adams sinne: Adams malediction [or curse] is overwhelmed with Christs Grace: the Death which proceeded from Adam, is swallowed up by that Life which comes from Christ Huc au­tem summa tendit; quia Christus A­damum su­perat. Hujus peccatum, illius vincit justicia: hu­jus maledi­ctio, illius obruitur gratiâ: ab hoc mors profect [...], illius vitâ absorbetur.. Doubtlesse if the curse brought upon Men by Adam, prevailes and remaines still untaken off, upon far the greatest part of Men, it is not over-whelmed with the Grace of Christ: nor is the Death, which proceeded from him swallowed up by the Life of Christ, if still it reignes and magnifies it selfe over, and against, far greater numbers of Men, then the Life it self of Christ preserves, or delivers from it. Upon Verse 18. he Pre­senteth his thoughts in these words: He [Paul] makes Grace COMMON UNTO ALL MEN, because it is exposed unto [or laid within the reach of] All Men: not because it is in the reality of it extended unto all Men, [i. e. not because it is accepted or received by all Men; as the words following plainely shew.] For (saith he) though CHRIST SVFFERED FOR THE SINNES OF THE WHOLE WORLD, and through the Goodnesse, or Bounty of GOD be offered unto all Men, yet all Men doe not take, or lay hold, on Him Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia om­nibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur reipsa. Nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis toti­us mundi, at (que) omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt.. So that if Calvin would but quit himself like a Man, and stand his own ground, he would Remonstrate as stoutly as Corvine, or Arminius him­selfe.

WE shall not need (I conceive) to insist upon a Particular examina­tion §. 1. of these Scriptures, one by one (the Method observed by us in handling the two former Partees) because they are more apparantly uniform and consenting in their respective importances, then they. In which re­spect, a cleer and thorough Discussion of any one of them, or a diligent Poyse­ing of the common tendency and import of them all, will be sufficient to evince their respective compliances with the cause in hand. The Prospect of these Texts, is this.— And him that commeth unto me, I will in no wise cast out. Joh. 6. 37.—HE that believeth in me, shall never thirst, Verse 35. HE that believeth, and is Baptized, shall be saved, Mar. 16. 16.— that WHOSO­EVER believeth in him, should not perish, &c. Joh. 3. 16.— that through his Name, WHOSOEVER believeth in him, shall receive remission of sinnes, Acts 10, 43. Even the righteousnesse of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, UNTO ALL, and UPON ALL, who believe; for ALL have sinned, &c. Rom. 3. 22, 23. (to omit very many others of like tenor and import.)

In all these Scriptures, with their fellowes, evident it is that Salvation is §. 2. held forth and Promised by God, unto all, without exception, that shall be­lieve; yea that it is Offered and Promised unto all Men upon the condition of believing, whether they believe, or no. So that upon such Declarations of the gracious and good Pleasure of God towards the universality of Men, as these, the Ministers of the Gospell, or any other Men, may with truth (and ought of duty, upon occasion) say to every Particular Soul of Man under Heaven, If thou believest, thou shall be saved, even as Paul saith that he preach­ed Christ, admonishing EVERY MAN, and teaching EVERY MAN in all wis­dome, that he might present EVERY MAN perfect in Christ Jesus Colos. 1. 28.. Yea, this Apostle, speaking of God Himself, saith, that he admonisheth all Men every where to repent Acts 17. 30.. Now if the Gospell, or God in the Gospell, offereth Sal­vation unto all Men, without exception, and insureth it accordingly upon their believing, certainly he hath it to bestow upon them, in case they doe See more of this Cap. 8. Sect. 31. believe: otherwise he should offer or Promise that unto them, which he hath not for them, nor is able to confer upon them, though they should believe. If he hath Salvation for them, or to bestow upon them, upon their believing, he must have it in Christ: because he hath no other treasury or store-house of Salvation, but only Christ. Neither is there Salvation in any other, &c. Acts 4. 12. If God hath Salvation in Christ for all Men, Christ must needs have Bought and Purchased it for them with his Blood, in as much as there is no Salvation, no not in Christ Himself, without, or otherwise then by, Re­mission of sins; nor any Remission of sinnes, in or by Him, without shedding of blood. Therefore all those Scriptures, wherein God Promiseth and ascer­taineth Salvation unto all Men (without exception) upon their believing, are Pregnant with this truth, that Christ layd down his Life for the Salvation of all, and every Man.

If it be here replied and said; but though God in the Gospell offers Salva­tion §. 3. unto all Men, and Promiseth Salvation unto all Men upon condition [Page 114] of their believing, respectively, yet knowing certainly before hand that none will believe, but only such and such by Name, as viz. those, for whom there is Salvation Purchased by Christ, he may upon a sufficient ground, and with security enough, Promise Salvation unto all men upon condition they will be­lieve; I answer,

Though God by meanes of the certainty of such his knowledge, may, without danger of failing in Point of Promise-keeping, or of being taken at his word to his dishonour, Promise Salvation unto all Men (without ex­ception) upon the terms specified, though it should be supposed that Christ hath not Purchased Salvation for all Men; yet upon such a suppositi­on as this, he cannot, either with honour otherwise, or with truth, make any such Offer, or Promise. Not with honour; because for a Man, that is generally and certainly known to be worth but only one thousand Pounds in estate, to offer or Promise an hundered thousand Pounds to any Man that shall be willing to serve him, or to doe such or such a courtesie for him, though he knew certainly that no Man would accept his offer in either of these kinds, yet would such an Offer or Promise be matter of disparagement to him in the sight of wise and understanding Men, yea render them little other then ridiculous. In like manner, it being supposed by our Antagonists in the cause now under Plea, that God hath declared it unto all the World in his Gospell, that Christ hath died but for a few Men (in comparison) and consequently that himself hath Salvation only for a few; in case he should Promise Sal­vation unto all Men without exception, upon what account, service, or con­dition soever, must needs turne to dishonour in the highest unto him, and re­present him unto his Creature extremely unlike to himselfe. Suppose the Devill had certainly known (as very possibly he might) that the Lord Christ would not have fallen down and worshipped him, upon any terms or condi­tions whatsoever, would this have excused him from vanity, in Promising him all the Kingdomes of the World upon such a condition, when as all the world knew that not one of these Kingdomes were at his disposall.

Again, 2. neither can God, nor any Minister of the Gospell, say, with §. 4. truth, to every Particular Man, if thou believest, thou shalt be saved, unlesse it be supposed that there is Salvation Purchased, or in being, for them all. Because the truth of such an assertion cannot be salved by this, that all Men, or every Particular Man, will not believe. The truth of a Connex or Hypo­theticall Proposition, of which kinde this is, If thou Peter, or thou John be­lievest, thou shalt be saved, doth not depend upon any thing that is contin­gent, no nor yet upon any thing that is extra-essentiall to the terms of the Pro­position it self (such as is, as well the non-believing, as the believing of Par­ticular Men) but upon the essentiall and necessary Connexion between the two Parts of the Proposition, the Antecedent, and consequent. If this Con­nexion be contingent, loose, or false, the Proposition it self is false, though in every other respect it should be accommodated to the best. As for ex­ample: in this Proposition, If Isaac were Abrahams Son, then was he tru­ly godly; both the Parts, considered apart, are true: for true it is, 1. That Isaac was Abrahams Son: and 2. That he was truly godly; yet the Proposi­tion is absolutely false; because there is no necessary or essentiall Connexi­on between, being Abrahams Son, and true godlinesse: therefore the one cannot be truly inferr'd, or concluded from the other. In like manner, when I shall say thus unto a Man, If thou believest, thou shalt be saved, it is neither his non-believing, nor the certainty of my knowledge that he will not be­lieve, [Page 115] that either maketh, or evinceth such a Proposition to be true: because neither of these relates to the Connexion of the parts thereof, nor containe the least reason or ground, why the latter should follow upon the former. The Mans not▪ believing, is no reason at all, why upon his believing he should certainly be saved; no more is my knowledge, how certaine soever it be, that he will not believe. But to verifie such a Proposition or Saying, there must be a certaine and indissolveable Connexion between such a Mans Sal­vation, and Believing, in case he should believe. Such a Connexion as this there cannot be, unlesse there were Salvation for him, which he might have and injoy in case he should believe. Now certaine it is, that if Christ Died not for him, there is no more Salvation for him, in case he should believe, then there would be, in case he should not believe; there being no Salvation for any Man, upon any terms or condition whatsoever, unlesse Christ hath Purchased it for him by his Death. Nor doth Christs Purchasing Salvation for any Man, depend upon such a Mans believing: no more doth his non-Purchasing Salvation for him, upon his not-believing. So that unlesse it be supposed, that Christ hath Purchased Salvation for a Man, whilest He re­maines yet an unbeliever, and though He should alwayes remaine an unbe­liever, it cannot be supposed that He Purchased Salvation for him, though He should believe: and consequently there can be no truth in this Proposi­tion, or Assertion, spoken to a Man who shall not believe, If thou believest, thou shalt be saved; it being certaine (upon the aforesaid supposition of Christs non-dying for him) that he should not, could not, be saved, no not though He should believe.

If it be replied; yea but the truth of this saying, to any Man whatsoever, §. 5. If thou believest, thou shalt be saved, is sufficiently salved upon this account, that Christ Died sufficiently for all Men, though not intentionally: so that in case any Man whatsoever shall, or should, believe, there is Salvation ready for Him in Christ.

I answer, that the vanity, or meere nullity rather (in respect of the co­incidence of the Members) of this distinction, wherein Christ is affirmed to have Died sufficiently for all Men, but denied to have Died intentionally for all Men, hath been demonstratively, and at large evinced formerly Cap. 5. Sect. 39, 40, &c.. I here on­ly add, that if there be Salvation ready in Christ for all and every Man, in case they should believe, then must this Salvation be found in him, either natu­rally, and in respect of his meere Person, or by way of Purchase and Pro­curement, i. e. by means of his Death. No Man (I presume) will affirm the former, as viz. that there is Salvation in Christ for any Man, in respect of his meere Nature, or Person: or howsoever, Himself plainely denies it; verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corne of Wheat fall into the ground, and die, it a­bideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much Fruit Joh. 12. 24.. If there be no Sal­vation in Him for Men, but by Purchase, and this with his Blood, then hath He no more Salvation in Him, then what He thus Purchased: no Man hath any thing more by Purchase, then what he hath Bought, or Purchased. Therefore if Christ hath Salvation in Him for all Men without exception, He must have Purchased, or Bought it for them, with His Blood. If so, He must either Purchase more, then He intended; or else intend to Purchase Salvation for all and every Man. And what is this, without any Parable, but to die intentionally for all Men? Therefore the distinction of Christs dying sufficiently for all men, but not intentionally, is ridiculous, and unworthy from first to last of any intelligent or considering Man.

Nor is that distinction (because it relates to the subject matter of our pre­sent §. 6. Chapter) so emphatically insisted upon by Mr. Rutherford, of much better import. That eternall life (saith he) should be offered unto all, and every individuall Man, upon condition of Faith; and that life should be offered unto all and every individual Man, out of an intent on Gods part to give life unto them, in case they believe, are two sayings widely different Longe dis­serunt ista, vi­tam aete [...]nam omnibus [...]ff [...]r [...]i & singulis, sub conditione si l [...]i; & omnibus & singulis off [...]r [...]i vitam ex Dei intentione dandi illis vitam, si credider [...]nt. Sam. Rhe [...]or­fortis. Exercit. Apolog. p. 3 [...]9.. For doubtlesse the latter hath every whit as much truth in it, yea every whit as much cleare and pregnant Truth in it, as the former; yea hath (in effect) one and the same Truth. For when God offers eternall Life unto all and every individuall man, upon condition of Faith, is it not His intention that they should have eternall Life upon their Faith, or in case they should believe? If not, then in such an offer, he should offer, and promise that, which He intends not to give, or perform, no not according to the tenor of His Promise. If it be said, (in favour of the distinction,) but though God intends to give eternall Life to all and every individuall man, upon condition they believe (this be­ing the expresse tenor of His Offer or Promise) yet it followes not, that such an intention in Him should be His reason or ground of tendring such an offer, or Promise, unto them; unto this I answer, that if this were the intent of the Author, I meane to difference the latter proposition from the former in point of error or falsehood, upon this account, because the latter supposeth such an intention as that mentioned, in God, to be the adequate reason or mo­tive, why He tenders such an Offer or Promise unto them, I should not much gainesay: because I suppose that God hath indeed other reasons, and these of greater weight, why He makes a tender of Salvation unto all men upon con­dition of Faith, then His intention of giving Salvation unto them, in case they shall believe. Yea, I doe not conceive, that either God or men, do any thing which they intend, simply out of their intentions thereof, or because they intend it; but out of a desire to effect, or to procure the effecting of it, or be­cause they desire it.

But that the Authors meaning in impleading the said latter proposition §. 7. of error, was far differing from this, appears sufficiently by the account which Himself gives hereof in the sequell of his Discourse. From this ac­count it cleerly appears, that in framing the said latter proposition, he useth those words, ex Dei intentione, for, cum Dei intentione; and placeth the er­ror of the proposition in this, viz. that it supposeth an intention to be in God of giving life unto all men upon their Faith, when He makes the offer mentioned unto them. To prove this to be an error, he argues to this effect, from Joh. 17. 2. (for his other arguments are plainely [...]) God the Father gave power unto the Sonne to give eternall life to those ONLY, who were given unto him by the Father. But reprobates (saith he) are not given unto the Sonne by the Father: therefore the Father gave no power unto the Sonne to give eternall life unto Reprobates: and consequently the Sonne cannot, either accord­ing to his own, or to his Fathers Intention, offer remission of sinnes or eternall life unto Reprobates. To this I answer, that the whole proceede of the argument ariseth from a mistaken ground, or a plaine mis-understanding of the Scrip­ture, upon which it is built. For by a power given unto the Sonne to give eter­nall life, &c. is not meant a power of dying for men, one or other, but a power of an actuall and reall investing men with eternall life, or a power to confer eternall life actually upon men, as appears from the former clause of the Verse: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternall life, &c. From whence it is evident, that the Power here spoken of as given [Page 117] unto the Sonne, to give eternall life, &c. is a consequent, branch, or effect, of that Power or Sovereignty, which the Father hath given him over all man-kinde, as viz. to dispose of them, especially in respect of their eternall estates and conditions, according to such Rules of righteousnesse and equity, as the Father, with the Son, have judged meet, and accordingly agreed up­on, for the regulating of such high and important dispensations. Now a power of conferring eternall life upon men, may very well be conceived to be a branch or part of that sovereignty, or larger power, which the Father hath given unto the Son over all flesh. But an injunction or command, or a free leave or liberty (Notion it how you please) given unto Him to die for a few men, cannot reasonably be looked upon as any Part or Branch, espe­cially as any such considerable or high-importing branch, as this here expressed must needs be conceived to be, of that most transcendent, and majestique power▪ Or,

2. By eternall life, may very well be meant, not eternall life properly and §. 8. formally so called, as viz. the blessednesse and glory of the World to come; but such a discovery or manifestation of God, and His Counsells, which is an effectuall meanes to bring men in time to the Possession and Enjoyment of this life. It is a frequent Dialect of Scripture, to call the meanes, and cause, yea and sometimes an opportunity only, which are proper and effectuall for the compassing, effecting, or obtaining a thing, by the name of the thing it self, which is to be, or may be, procured, or effected by them. Thus Numb. 22. 7. the wages or rewards, by which the Elders of Moab sent from Balaak the King to Balaam the Wizard, expected to procure Divinations, or some imprecatory and divellish Practises against the People of God, from Him, are termed, Divinations. And the Elders of Moab (saith the Text) and the Elders of Midian went, and Divinations in their hand, &c. Thus, good tidings, is put for the reward, which good tidings usually procure unto them, who bring them, 2 Sam. 4. 10. In this Phrase of Speech, the Scrip­tures, or the saving Knowledge of God therein revealed, are (according to the generall sence of our best Interpreters) termed, Salvation, Joh. 4. 22. So again, Heb. 2. 2. Thus wisdome, is called a mans life [keepe her, for shee is thy life, Pro. 4. 13.] because shee is the meanes of life, i. e. of Peace and Well­being unto men. In this sence also (to forbeare further instances, which are in great numbers at hand) the Gospell (and sometimes the Preaching or Ministry of it) is frequently termed, the Kingdome of Heaven. According to this manner of speaking (so familiar in the Scriptures) by eternall life, which the Son had Power given Him over all flesh, that He might give to as many as the Father had given him, may well be meant the words of eternall life, (as Peter calls them Joh. 6. 68.) or that Manifestation of the Name of God (as Himself speaketh, soone after, Joh. 17. 6.) by which they might be ef­fectually brought to the fruition and injoyment of eternall life. And that this indeed is the very meaning of our Saviour, is abundantly evident by the se­quell of the Context all along, for several Verses together. For having said, that the Father had given him Power ove [...] all flesh, that he should give eternall life to as many as he had given him, Verse 2. He immediately declares, Verse 3. what He meanes by eternall life. And this is life eternall, that they know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. This Notion He still carrieth on, saying, Verse 6. I have manifested thy Name unto the Men, which thou gavest Me out of the World: thine they were, and thou gavest them Me, &c. So again (directly still to the same point, Verse 8.) [Page 118] For I have given them the words, which thou gavest me, &c. yet again (upon the same account, Verse 14.) I have given them thy Word, &c. That which Verse 2. He had called, eternall Life, here He calls, His Fathers Word: as before, the Declaration, or Manifestation of His Name (as we heard.)

From the carriage of the Context, that further is abundantly evident, that §. 9. by those words, Verse 2. as many as thou hast given Him, are not meant the Elect, or the intire number of the Elect, or of those, for whom Christ Died (in Mr. Rutherfords sence,) but precisely and particularly, His Apostles: of whom alone He speaks, and for whom alone, and apart from the rest of the Elect, He Prayeth, all along the Chapter, untill Verse 20. where He en­largeth His Prayer thus: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in Me through their word. For this passage it is as cleer as the Sun at noone day, that from the beginning of the Chapter untill now, He [...]ad managed His Prayer, and Heavenly Conference with the Father, with par­ticular reference to His Apostles; and had not mentioned any thing about the residue of the Elect. That He speaks of the Apostles only Verse 2. under those words, as many as thou hast given Me, is most apparant from Verse 6. I have manifested thy Name unto the Men which thou gavest Me out of the World: thine they were, and thou gavest them Me, and they HAVE KEPT thy Word. First, Christ had not yet manifested His Fathers Name to all the Elect, no not to all the Elect, at this time in being in the World. 2. Neither could He say to His Father concerning all the Elect, that they had kept His Word, many of them having not as yet received it. Again (to passe by severall things by the way making out the same truth) Verse 12. Thus: whilest I was with them in the World (meaning, those, of whom He had spoken [...]om the beginning of the Chapter) I kept them in thy Name, [i. e. I preserved them from the exorbitances of the World, by the knowledge of thy Name, which still I have been communicating unto them,] those that thou gavest Me, I have kept; and none of them is lost, but the Sonne of perdition, &c. Evident it is, that this Sonne of Perdition, was one of that number of Men, which the Fa­ther had given Him out of the World, and which He had kept intirely, with­out the miscarriage of any one (this Son of Perdition only excepted.) I pre­sume that neither Mr. Rutherford, nor any of his judgement, will say that this Son of perdition was one of the number of the Elect, but certaine it is, that he was one of that number of men, which the Father had given unto Christ out of the World. The words are too too expresse to beare a deniall of this: those that thou gavest Me, I have kept: and none OF THEM is lost, but the Son of perdition, &c. Therefore by, as many as the Father had given unto Him, with an intent that He should give eternall life unto them, Verse 2. are meant the Apostles, and these only. These may be said to have been given unto Christ by the Father, not because they were the Fathers by Election from eternity (for doubtlesse the Son of perdition, as [...]ath been said, was none of His in such a Relation) nor simply because they were by any peremptory de­signation appointed and set out by him from amongst other men, to make Apostles for His Son, as if Christ had been necessitated to take these, and had no liberty, or right of power to have taken any others into that Relation; (for how could then Christ say unto them, that he had chosen them, viz. to the office and dignity of Apostles, Joh. 6. 70. Joh. 13. 18. Joh. 15. 16. 19.) but because God the Father by a worke appropriable unto him (of which I con­ceive we shall have occasion to speak more at large hereafter) had qualified, [Page 119] fitted, and prepared them for Christs Hand and Nurture, and so to make Apostles of in time: in respect of which Worke of God the Father, in and upon, them, Christ, out of that wisdom wherein [...]e excelled, and that knowledg which he had of the severall frames and tempers of the Hearts of men, made a prudent and deliberate choyce of them from amongst other men, for that service. Thine they were, and thou gavest them unto Me.] They are said to have been the Fathers, i. e. (as it were) the Fathers Disciples, or persons taught by the Father, Joh. 6. 45. and so (after a sort) appropriable unto the Father, (as those that believe, and are taught of Christ, are said to be Christs, or to belong to Christ) before they became Christs Apostles, or were chosen by Him upon this account: and are said to have been given unto Him out of the World by the Father, because they were peculiarly qualified, and (at it were) characterized and marked out by the Father, as fit matter to be formed into Apostles by His Son. The word, give, is frequently found in such a signifi­cation as this, in the Scriptures, and to import the preparing, furnishing, or fitting, whether of things, or persons, for such and such ends and purposes, in reference to the accommodations of Men. In this sence Christ is said to have given some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pas [...]ors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the Worke of the Mi­nistry, &c. i. e. to have every wayes prepared, qualified, indowed, fitted, fur­nished persons for all these Offices and Services in His Church, for the bene­fit of the Saints, &c. Thus Acts 13. 20. He gave them Judges, &c. i. e. He qualified and furnished men amongst them from time to time, with publique spirits, and with gifts fit for government, &c. So Neh. 9. 27. thou GAVEST them Saviours; i. e. thou furnishedst Men with Hearts, and Courage, and Wisdom, &c. to save them. See Eph. 1. 22. HE GAVE Him to be head over all things to His Church; i. e. He furnished Him with Sovereignty of Power, Wisdom▪ Majesty, and with all manner of indowments otherwise, requisite for such an Head. Thus Psal. 44. 11. Thou hast GIVEN us like sheepe for meat, &c. i. e. by withdrawing thy presence, help, and protection from us, thou hast pre­pared and sitted us to become a prey and spoyle to our enemies. In this sence also God saith to Jeremy, taht he had GIVEN him (for so it is in the origi­nall) a Prophet unto the Nations, i. e. that he had furnished him, and meant to furnish him yet further, with propheticall gifts and indowments for the benefit of Nations, if they would hearken to Him, Jer. 1. 5. So Psal. 21. 6. Thou hast given him to be blessings (so it is in the originall, and is your mar­ginall translation) i. e. thou hast so furnished, qualified, and disposed of him (meaning Christ) that whosoever will apply themselves unto Him, may be made happy and blessed by Him. See Ezek. 3. 8, 9. Esa. 43. 16. (in the originall) with other like. Our Saviour Himself useth the word in the sence now in­stanced from the Scriptures, when He expresseth Himself thus; All that the Father giveth Me, shall [or rather will] come unto Me, &c. Joh. 6. 37. Of which place more in due time.

Nor ought it to seeme any hard, uncouth, or unpleasant expression unto §. 10. us, wherein that which is prepared, or any wayes made fit for us, and with­all, so disposed of, or set in our way, that we may readily and lawfully serve our selves with it, is said to be GIVEN unto us, by Him, or them, who thus prepare, and dispose of it. He that shall prepare wholesome and savoury Meat, such as a man loveth, and shall set it before Him, and give Him free leave to take it, or eat of it, may in sufficient propriety of speech be said to GIVE this Meate unto him yea whether he takes, or eats of it upon such [Page 120] terms, or no. So God the Father, having wrought and fitted the men, whom Christ chose for Apostles, to serve and honor Him in this capacity, and with­all disposed of them in their Times, Residences, and Conditions in the World, so that Christ might both readily and lawfully call them to His Service, He may very well, in these respects, be said to have given them unto Him.

Thus by a diligent and narrow inquiry into Mr. Rutherfords Scripture, it evidently appears that there is nec vola, nec vestigium, not the least mutter or peepe of any such Notion in it, as he imagineth, viz. that if Christ should Offer, eternall life unto any more, then only unto the Elect (so called by Him) He must needs doe it besides His own, and His Fathers Intention. Here is not the least word, syllable, letter, apex, or [...] concerning, either the Fathers, or the Sons intentions, about the offer of Salvation unto Men.

By the briefe Discussions of this Chapter, it fully appears, that all those §. 11. Texts of Scripture, which offer, either forgivenesse of Sins, or Salvation, unto all men without exception, and which promise either, or both these un­to all men, upon, or upon condition of, their believing (which are very fre­quent and numerous) doe with the clearest light and evidence of Truth, hold forth the universality of Redemption by Christ. From whence it followes, in regular and due processe of reason and discourse, that all they make God a lyar in such Scriptures, who restrain the Salvation, or Redemption purchased by Christ, to any lesser number of men, then All.

VVE shall (God assisting) examine every of these Scriptures parti­cularly: §. 1. and so shall have occasion to exhibit the purport and tenor of them respectively, as they shall be produced to act their severall parts in Order. In which respect we shall not here transcribe them (especially considering the Reader may with a very little paines see them in their Muster, Cap. 5. Sect. 6.) but shall only point at their severall Dwellings or Scitua­tions in the Booke of God, which are these, Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 11. 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2 Pet. 2. 20. Heb. 10. 29. Mat. 18. 32, 33. &c. We make these Scrip­tures of one and the same Combination, and Associate them by themselves, because their import is (in effect) one and the same, they all supposing that Christ hath Died for those, who may perish notwithstanding, yea for those, who will perish. And certainly if He Died for those, who, notwith­standing His Dying for them, may perish, yea and for those who will actu­ally perish▪ as well as for those who shall be saved, He Died for all Men with­out exception. For as for that opinion of the Valentine Councell in France, mentioned by Estius In 2 Pet. 2. 1. vi, & Jo. Ball. Covenant of Grace. p. 238., and adopted by him (as it seems) for his own, which supposeth some Reprobates (as he calleth them) to have been redeemed by Christ, but not all; this opinion, I say, is not like (as far as I conceive) to make many Proselytes, nor to attract the judgements of considering Men. For if the Dying of Christ for Men, be to be esteemed matter of Love to them (as without all controversie and question it ought) what reason can [Page 121] there be imagined why he should die for Apostate Reprobates (who yet are that kinde of Reprobate, for which only Christ Died, according to that opi­nion) rather then for those, who though living and dying in unbeliefe, yet never contracted the guilt, of so desperate and provoking a sin? But this by the way.

The tenor of the Scripture first in view, amongst those lately appearing, is §. 2. this: destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ Died Rom. 14. 15..

First, that the destruction here spoken of, whereunto the strong Christian is so earnestly admonished and dehorted by the Apostle from exposing the weake, is not any temporall destruction, but that which is of body and soule for ever, is more cleare, then to require Proof. It is not easily imaginable, how, or that, a strong Christian, or any other Man, by eating meate sacrificed unto Idols, should expose a weake Christian unto the danger of any other de­struction, but of that only, which is Decreed by God, against those, who shall depart from the Faith, or finally apostatize from the Profession of Christ. Besides, it is every mans Notion, that this is that Destruction, that first▪borne of things formidable and dreadfull unto the precious soules of men, with which this great Apostle had so much to doe, and from which the great Prize that he runs for with all his might in all his Epistles, was to deliver them.

2. Whereas he chargeth Men, not to destroy those, for whom Christ Died, §. 3. though he doth not indeed suppose, that all those shall be actually destroyed, or perish, whom another may be said to destroy, i. e. to doe things tending to their destruction (which is the sence of the word in this place) yet this he cleerly supposeth, that such men, for whom Christ Died, are obnoxious to de­struction, may be destroyed, and perish everlastingly. Otherwise we shall quench the spirit of his zealous tendernesse over the Precious soules of weake Christians, expressed in this serious Item or charge unto others, not to destroy them; yea, and make him speake very weakly, and (indeed) ridiculously. To admonish men in a serious and solemne manner, to take heed of destroying those, who are out of all possibility of being destroyed, especially this being known to the Men, that are thus admonished, is as if a Man should seriously and affectionately intreat an Archer with his Bow and Arrowes about him, to take heed of shooting too high, for feare of hurting the Sun, and cause him to fall down out of the firmament of Heaven.

If it be said; yea but though it be supposed, that the Persons admonished §. 4. in this case, do know in in the generall, that they, for whom Christ Died, are not under a possibility of Perishing, yet they may be ignorant in Particular, whether those Men, whose destruction they are like to Procure, or Promote, by the abuse of their Christian liberty, be of the number of those Men, for whom Christ Died, or no: and consequently the Apostle may upon a good ac­count admonish them to take heed of destroying such;

I Answer, it can at no hand be supposed, that the Persons here admonish­ed, should be ignorant, whether the Men, about whose destruction, they are so deeply cautioned by the Apostle, be of the number of those, for whom Christ Died, because the Apostle himself so plainely and positively asserteth it: for whom (saith he) Christ Died. Besides, the maine strength and stresse of the argument or motive, by which he inforceth the dehortation, standeth in this, that those Persons, whosoever they be, whose Salvation they shall endanger by eating things sacrificed to Idolls, are of those for whom Christ Died. Now to presse an exhortation, or dehortation, upon the consciences [Page 122] of Men by such a motive, wherein these Men shall be supposed ignorant whether there be any Truth, or no, is to fight with a wooden Sword; espe­cially when it shall be yet further supposed, that such Men are under an ab­solute incapacity of ever knowing, whether there be any Truth, or no, in this motive; which must needs be the case here, if we shall suppose there be any number of Men, for whom Christ Died not. For unpossible it is (and so ge­nerally confest to be) for one man certainly to know the Truth of Grace, or Faith, in another; and much more to know the certainty of his Preseverance unto the end: and consequently (according to the Principles of Anti-univer­salisme) for any Man to know, whether Christ Died for any Man in Particular, and by Name, but Himself.

Therefore most certaine it is, that there is a possibility for those to perish, and be destroyed, for whom Christ Died, or notwithstanding Christs Dying for them. And if so, then Christs dying for Men doth not suppose a neces­sity of their Salvation: and if so, then Christ Died as well for those, who may not be saved, and shall not be saved, as for those, who may, and shall; and consequently, for all Men: for they who may, and shall be saved, and they who may not, neither shall be saved, together comprehend all Men whatsoever.

The Exposition of the Scripture in hand, as importing the Death of Christ §. 5. for those, who yet may be destroyed and perish, is so pregnant with evidence and truth, that it hath subdued the judgements of all Expositors I meet with, unto it. And Christ verily (saith Chrysostome upon the place) refused not, neither to be made a servant, nor to die for him: and wilt not thou so much as neglect thy belly to save him? For although Christ was not like to [win, or] gain all Men, yet did He die for all Men, so fulfilling that which appertained to Him [...]., [in order to the procuring of their Salvation.] Our late Protest­ant Expositors follow in the same path. Another consideration (saith Calvin) wherein the offence of the Brethren renders the use of things in themselves good, vicious [or faulty] is, that in wounding a weake conscience, the price of the Blood of Christ, is dissipated [or dissolved:] for even the most contemptible Brother [or member of a Christian society] is Redeemed by the Blood of Christ: therefore a [very] unworthy thing it is, that he should be destroyed, for the satisfaction of any Mans belly Altera ratio est, quòd dum vulneratur infirma conscientia, dissipatur pretium sanguinis Chri­sti: nam contemptissimus frater Christi sanguine est Redemptus: indignum est ergo ut perdatur, quo ven­tri satisfiat.. I trust that from henceforth, no Man that shall reade these passages from his Pen, will say, but that Calvin cleerly held a possibility of the destruction of such Men, for whom Christ Died, and consequently, that Christ Died for more, then shall be saved: and if so, for all, (as we formerly argued.)

He (saith Peter Martyr, meaning, Christ) hath REDEEMED Him: wilt §. 6. thou DESTROY him (speaking of the Apostles weake Brother.) He hath shed his Life, Soule, and Blood for thy Brother: canst not thou for his sake abstaine from a poore peece of Meat? Therefore the clear sence of this Orthodox man is, that the Redeemed of Christ may perish and be destroyed.

If the Salvation of our Brethren (saith M. Bucer on the place) be to be procured by us by the laying down of our lifes, and nothing be to be respected in comparison thereof; how impious and accursed a thing is it, that any Man should destroy a Brother for Meate? He had said immediately before: If we fol­low [Page 123] Christ, He for the rescuing [or saving] our Brethren, suffered Death: therefore we also ought to lay down our lives for the Salvation of the Brethren, and to abhor the destroying of a Brother, more then Death Jam si salus fra­trum etiam nobis morte nostrâ pa­randa est, nec quicquam illi non post habendum, quàm impium & execrandum sit, si quis perdat fratrem cibo, &c. Si Christum sequimur, ille pro adserendis fratribus nostris oppetiit mortem: & nobis igitur pro salute fratrum, ponenda anima est, morte (que) magis aversandum, fratrem perdere.. Therefore he also plainly supposeth, that even such a Brother may be destroyed, and that for meate, for whom Christ Died.

Musculus speakes by the same spirit with the former. To this grieving of the Brethren, the Apostle aptly subjoynes the destruction of those, who are offen­ded at the unadvised liberty of those that are strong. For the minde being thus grieved, as being weak, easily falls to this point, viz. to begin by little and little, being shaken through a sinister suspicion, to fall away from Christianity, and FROM TRVE FAITH Com­modè subii­cit huic con­tristationi, perditionem eorum, qui temerariâ fortium li­bertate of­fenduntur. Animus e­nim ad hunc modum con­tristatus, tanquam in­firmus, faci­le eò labitur, ut incipiat sensim per sinistram suspicionem labe factatus, deficere a Christianismo, & à vera fide.. In which words, the Author cleerly avoucheth the opinion of those, not only who hold that those may be destroyed, for whom Christ Died, but theirs also, whose judgement stands for a possibility of fall­ing away (and that to destruction) from true Faith. But as to the former point, he speaks more significantly, a little after the former words. It is all one as if the Apostle should say; Christ would have him saved, and sought it by his Death; but thou doest not only despise thy Brother, but opposest Christ also, and makes void [or of none effect] through thy rashness, and that for the sake of Meate, that DEATH of His, which He under▪went FOR HIS SAKE, and by which thou thy self also art saved Idem est hoc, ac si dicat, Christus voluit hunc salvum, id (que) suâ morte quaesivit: tu verò non solum fratrem contemnis, sed & Christo repugnas, & mortem ipsius, quam illius gratiâ subijt, quâ & tu servatus es, tuâ temeritate, i [...] (que) cibi gratiâ, inanem reddis..

Nor doth B. Aretius break ranke, but marcheth in close order with his fellowes. The Apostles argument (saith he) is from the effects: Thou de­stroyest him with the use of things indifferent, whom Christ redeemed by His Death. What madnesse is that? And soone after. Meate (haply) preserves thy life: but Christ died for him, whom thou slayest, not by dying, but by living: what cruelty is this Ab ef­fectis argu­mentum est: usum rerum mediarum perdis, quem Christus re­demit suâ morte: quae illa est insania?—Cibus tibi vitam conservat fortè: sed Christus pro illo mor­tuus est, quem tu occîdis, non moriendo, sed vivendo: magna est illa crudelitas.?

Let R. Gualter bring up the reere, for saying; the Apostle in this teacheth §. 8. that Christ Himselfe is sinned against, yea and that the Merit of His Death is overthrown, when we destroy Him, whom He by His Death and Blood hath vindicated [or restored] unto life Ita verò in ipsum Christum peccari do­cet, adeo (que) meritum mortis ejus everti, quando eum nos perdimus, quem ille per mortem & sanguinem suum in vitam asseruit..

Here are many witnesses (though many more might readily be summoned in with the same evidence) and those of the first-borne qualification for Autho­rity and credit in such cases (I meane, men orthodox and sound in the judge­ment of those, who assume the same honour unto themselves, and who are the high opposers of the Doctrine under Protection in the present discourse) [Page 124] speaking the same things plainly, expressly, and without Parable, with the Assertors of this Doctrine. Neither (indeed) could they, or any other Man, having such Scriptures before them, as that last insisted upon, with the former, to order their judgements and thoughts, conceive or speak other­wise, with any tolerable ingenuity, or without some such winking with the eyes, which is unworthy men pretending friendship to the Truth. But let us, hear what the Spirit of God saith further in the Point.

The next Scripture lately directed unto, was, 1 Cor. 8. 11. And through thy §. 9. knowledge (or through thy Meate, as Chrysostome reads the place) shall the weake Brother perish, for whom Christ Died. Some copies read the words with an interrogation (and thus, either our English Translators, or Printers, or both, deliver them unto us:) others, assertively. This difference in the point­ing, makes none in the matter, or substance of the Doctrine contained in the words. Only the interrogative is more piercing, and provoking to the con­sideration of the Truth imported. The tenor of the place is the same (in effect) with that last opened: and cleerly supposeth (upon the account gi­ven in the traverse of that Scripture) that such a Person may miscarry in the great businesse of Salvation, notwithstanding Christs laying down His Life for him. The Reader is desired to revise our debate upon the former Place for His satisfaction herein; unlesse, haply, the consent of the best Interpreters in that behalf will balance that accommodation.

Thy Lord, and Master (saith Chrysostome on the place) refused not to die for him: but thou makest no reckoning of him, no not so much as to abstraine from a polluted table for his sake: but sufferest him to PERISH AFTER SALVA­TION PROCVRED FOR HIM upon such terms. And soon after: So that here are foure accusations [or matters of charge] and these exceeding high; 1. That He is a Brother. 2. That He is weake. 3. That He is one, WHOM CHRIST SO HIGHLY PRIZED AS EVEN TO DIE FOR HIM. 4. That after all this HE PERISHETH for Meate [...]..

The expressnesse of the words over-ruled even Calvins Pen also to an As­sertion §. 10. of the same Truth. He is indeed weake, whom thou despisest, but yet a Brother: for God hath adopted him. Therefore cruell art thou, who hast no care of thy Brother. But that which followes is yet more pressing; viz. that even those that are rude or weake, are redeemed by the Blood of Christ. For there is nothing of greater unworthinesse, then that Christ should not scruple to die, that the weak might not perish; and we in the meane time lightly esteeme the Salvation of those, who have been Redeemed at so great a price. A memorable saying, whereby we are taught, how highly we ought to value the Salvation of our Brethren; and of these, not only, as considered in the lump, or in the generall, but of every one of them in particular, in as much as CHRISTS BLOOD WAS SHED FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM Est qui­dem infir­mus, quē tu cont [...]mnis, sed tamen frater: nam cum adoptavit Deus. Crudelis e [...] igitur, qui fratris curā non habes. Sed vehe­mentius etiā num quod sequitur▪ ru­des quo (que) aut infirmos Christi sanguine redemptos esse. Nihil enim indignius quàm Christū non dubitâsse mori ne infirmi perirent: nos floccipendere eorū salutem, qui tanto pretio redempti sunt. Dictū memorabile, q [...]o doceneur, quanti nobis esse debeat fratrū salus: nec omniū modo, sed singulorū, quando pro unoquo (que) est [...]usus Christi sanguis.. Nor can it reasonably be pretended, that by the Bre­thren, for every of which he saith the Blood of Christ was shed, he meanes only the Elect. For evident it is, that he speaks of the generality of Professors, who were joyned in externall communion with the Churches of Christ; many of [Page 125] whom he could not but know were not Elect (at least in the sence of such pretenders.)

Aretius worketh the place thus: Here is another fruit [or, effect] of that licentious liberty, greater then the former, For the former only was, that by means of such an example Men were strengthened in an evill error: but here he sheweth, that he that is weak, is even destroyed. And presently after: In conclusion, this practise mightily differs from the example of Christ: for He died for the weak sinner, &c Alter fructus est li­centiae illius superiori ali­quantò gra­vior. Nam prior fructus saltem erat, quòd in malo errore confirmarentur hujus exemplo. Hic autem quod etiam perdatur indicat; nec sim­pliciter, sed qui infirmus est—Deni (que) factum hoc vehementer discrepat ab ex [...]mplo Christi: is mortuus est pro peccatore infirmo.. So that this Expositor also clearly supposeth, that men may destroy him, for whom Christ Died.

Nor doth learned Musculus vary an haires bredth from the import of these things, upon the place demanding thus: How, I pray, can he be excused, who for meats sake destroyeth him, whom Christ redeemed with his Blood? And not long after: what greater sin can be committed against Christ, then to slay [or, destroy] Him, for whom He Himself Died Quo­modo quaeso excusari po­test, qui cibi gratiâ eum perdit, quem Christus sanguine suo redemit?—Quid enim gravius peccatum in Christum committi poterit, quam eum occidere, pro quo ipse est Mortuus..

I finish this account with Mr. I. Deodates glosse upon the words. Perish] i. e. (saith he) shall be in danger of wounding his Conscience mortally: and where­as before through tendernesse of conscience he abhorred any thing that drew neer to Idolatry, he may peradventure use himself to it to the Ship-wracke of Sal­vation.

These Expositors doe not mince the words, as Piscator, and some few others §. 11. doe, who (destroying hereby the best of the nourishment in them) glosse them thus: Thy weake Brother shall perish] viz. as to thee, or as much as lieth in thee Peribit] nempe per te quidem, seu quantum per testat See also the Annotati­ons of the English Mi­nisters, upon 1 Cor. 8. 11.. I confesse such a bridle as this doth well in the lips of some other Scripture expressions, which will not be ruled by the Truth without it: but it incumbers the Scripture in hand, and abridgeth the serviceablenesse of it. For if it shall be supposed, that that kinde of offender against the weak Christian, of whom the Apostle here speaketh, knoweth certainly before hand, that his act in eating meate sacrificed unto Idolls, can have no such sad effect, or sequell upon it, as the destruction of a weak Brother, must he not needs be tempted hereby, to despise the Apostles charge on that behalf, be­ing grounded mainely upon such an Assertion or Supposall? and so be com­forted, or incouraged in his sinfull Practise? To put restrictions upon Scripture Phrases or Assertions, without necessity, and this demonstrable, either from other Scriptures, or unquestionable grounds of Reason, is not to interpret the Scriptures now in being, but (upon the matter) to make new.

If it be replied in favour of the said limitation or explication of Piscator; §. 12. that there will be great weight, and force enough to command the Consci­ences of Men, in the Apostles argument, and to take them off from abuse of their liberty, though it should be supposed that there is only a tendency in such a Practise towards the destruction of weak Believers, whether it be sup­posed that such Persons may actually Perish and be destroyed, or not:

I answer; there can be no tendency supposed, in any action, or meanes to­wards an impossibility. For that which is simply impossible, or (which is [Page 126] the same, in effect) impossible upon a condition, that is immutable and cannot faile, is never the more possible, nor any whit neerer unto being, up­on any other account, or for any thing whatsoever that can be done. Therefore there is nothing can be done with any tendency towards the effecting of such a thing. Besides, were it granted, that there is a tendency in such a Practise, the forbearance whereof the Apostle urgeth, towards the destruction of a weake Brother, yea and further, that this Practise in respect of such a ten­dency in it, were sinfull; yet would there be very little in either, or both of these, to deter men from such a Practise, unlesse it be withall supposed, that that sad effect, whereunto the said tendency is acknowledged to relate, may possibly be Effected or Produced by it. For the more secure a sinner may be, that his sinfull Practise will not be so sadly consequenced, as, the Nature and Property of it only considered, it might very possibly be, the greater tentation lieth upon him to adventure upon it. The confidence which Judas had, that his act in betraying his Master, would not have been accompanied with His Death, but that he would now, as severall times before he had done, finde some way or other to make an escape from those, into whose hands He was betrayed, was one maine thing which betrayed Him into the deadly snare of that most abominable fact. For it is said, that when Judas saw that he was condemned (which implies, that this was more then He feared, or expected, notwithstanding his act in betraying Him) he repented himself, &c. and cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple, and departed, and went and hanged Himself Mat. 27. 3 5.

Thirdly, (and lastly) the mention and tender of an impossible effect by way of motive, to over-rule the Consciences of men against a Practice in one kinde or other, whereunto they are inclined, is little lesse then ridicu­lous: especially when the said impossibilitie is presumed to be known before hand to him, the over ruling of whose Conscience is attempted thereby. Suppose I be full of this Perswasion, 1. That I am a true Believer. 2. That being such, I am under an impossibility ever to fall away so as to Perish, and under this double Perswasion, were very much addicted to such, or such a sinfull course; the consideration of my falling away and perishing, were the most improper and impertinent argument, that lightly could be Pressed upon me, to perswade me out of the Way and Practice of my sin.

But some as willing to break loose from the Scripture in hand, as the for­mer, §. 13. yet being not satisfied with their Projection for an escape, trie the same conclusion another way, and by another device. The Apostle, (say they) calls a weak Professor of the Gospell, by the name of a Brother, not as if it could be demonstratively known that he is a Brother indeed, but because others stand bound by the Law of Charity to judge him such: after the same manner he saith, that Christ died for him; not as if he would have men to be­lieve this according to the judgement, or with the certainty, of Faith, but only with the judgement of Charity. Upon this supposall, they draw up the Apostles argument for him, thus:— thy Brother shall perish, for whom, &c. i. e. by the abuse of thy knowledge, thou mayst be the destruction of him, whom thou art bound in Charity to look upon as thy Brother in Christ, and one of those, for whom Christ died. But,

1. Why stand we not bound to believe, only with the judgement of Cha­rity, and not with the certainty of Faith, that Christ is the Son of God, or Saviour of the World, &c. as well as to believe only after this manner, that he may perish, for whom Christ died; this latter being as positively, as cleerly, [Page 127] as roundly and fully asserted by the Holy Ghost, as either of the former? Or what is such a liberty of Interpreting Scriptures, as this (being interpre­ted) but an effectuall door opened for the reducing of all things whatsoever in matters of Religion, yea the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures themselves, to the judgement of Charity, and consequently to the casting the judgement of Faith out of doores? But,

2. To enjoyn me a beliefe only according to the judgement of Charity, §. 14. where a belief according the judgement of Faith, would be ten times more beneficiall and serviceable unto me for the preserving of me from sin, espe­cially when the ground-work of Divine Revelation before me will better, and with lesse descant upon the words, admit the latter beliefe, then the former, (which is the case in the Scripture in hand) is very contrary to the Rule of Charity, which restraineth me from doing my Neighbour any prejudice, or harme, as well in his spirituall, as outward, estate: yea, and much more in the former, then in the latter.

3. If I stand bound to believe with the judgement of Faith, that it is un­possible §. 15. for any man to perish, for whom Christ Died, what will such a consi­deration as this (whether believed, according to the one judgement or the other) viz. that Christ Died for such, or such a man, advantage me, by way of preserving me from such a practise, which is apt to destroy him? For if it be a truth, that Christ did die for him, I need not (according to the suppo­sition mentioned) be at all tender about doing any thing, or forbearing any thing, out of any apprehension of danger, lest by the one, or the other, I should occasion his destruction. If it be a truth that Christ did not die for him, upon what account should the Apostle suggest unto me that he did die for him, or that it may be that he did die for him, by way of argument, to deter me from doing that, which may tend to his destruction? Suppose one part of the men in the World were impenetrable and invulnerable, the other part, as now they are, exposed unto the danger of death upon wounds recei­ved; were it a congruous motive or gound of perswasion, whereby to cauti­on me from wounding or smiting such, or such a man, with a Sword, Dag­ger, or the like, to inform me, that this man is, or may be, invulnerable? or that I ought to presume, or judge this man, to be invulnerable? Would not such an argument as this rather strengthen my hand to a smiting of him, then any wayes occasion me to forbeare? They cleerly make the Holy Ghost Himself to reason at no better rate of understanding, then this, in the Scrip­ture in hand, who make it only a matter of Charity to believe that Christ Died for a weake Brother; and that in case he did die for him, he is upon this ac­count undestroyable.

4. (And lastly) most evident it is, that the scope of the Apostle, in that, §. 16. 1 Cor. 8. (and there is the same consideration of, Rom. 14.) is to deterre Christians from an unseasonable and undue use of their liberty and know­ledge: and this by an argument or motive drawn, not so much from what is unseemely, uncomely, or dangerous, in respect of themselves, but from the consideration of what danger or damage may very possibly accrue thereby unto others. The whole tenor and carriage of both Contexts Proclaime this aloud: so that there needs no more proof of it, then only the perusall of the Chapters themselves. Now the danger, or dammage, which a Christian by such an abuse of his liberty, as is here expressed, may very possibly create, or occasion to another, the Apostle affirmes to be the destroying of his Bro­ther for whom Christ Died, i. e. the depriving of him of that great Salvation [Page 128] and blessednesse, which Christ by His Death purchased for him. Now if this strong Christian stands bound to believe, according to the judgement of Charity, that this Person is a true Brother, and one for whom Christ Died, he stands bound to believe, according to the same judgement at least, if not ac­cording to the judgement of Faith it self, that he may perish through the abuse of his liberty. Otherwise the Apostles argument for the disswading of him from such an abuse, cannot be supposed to take any place in him, nor worke at all upon him in order to such an end. For no consideration or saying what­soever, unlesse believed with one kinde of Faith, or other, can have any influ­ence or operation upon men, either to perswade them to, or from, any practise. If then the strong Christian stands bound to believe, be it only ac­cording to the judgement of Charity, that the weak Professor is a Brother indeed, and one for whom Christ Died, he stands bound also to believe, ac­cording to the one judgement or the other, that he may perish through his Unchristian misdemeanor in the use of his liberty. If so, then he (and con­sequently, every other Christian) stands bound in Conscience to believe, that such a man may perish, for whom he stands bound in Conscience like­wise to believe that Christ Died. For a belief according to the judgement of Charity, where it is required, is matter of duty and of Conscience, as well as a belief according to the judgement of Faith, in cases appropriate here­unto.

Neither is it true, according to the Principles of that opinion, which we now implead, that a Christian stands bound in Conscience to believe, no not according to the judgement of Charity, that all that Professe the Faith of Christ, are true Brethren, or Persons for whom Christ Died. For the Pa­trons of this opinion generally hold, 1. That many who make such a Pro­fession, are Hypocrites, and not true Brethren. 2. That many of this number, will perish at last in their Hypocrisie and Unbelief. And thus far they hold nothing but truth. But, 3. (and lastly) they hold yet further (which they should doe better to let goe) that Christ Died for none of those Professors, who perish in the end. These things they hold and believe, not with a be­liefe according to the judgement of Charity, but dogmatically, and accord­ing to the judgement or certainty of Faith. Now certaine it is, that no man stands bound in Conscience to believe that according to the judgement of Charity, which is contrary to what he believeth, or what he truly judgeth Himself bound in Conscience to believe, according to the judgement of Faith: because no Law or Rule of Charity bindeth me to believe, with any kinde of belief whatsoever, that God is a Lyar, or Untrue in his Word, which is the Foundation and Rule of what I stand bound to believe according to the judgement of Faith. Such men therefore, who believe according to the judgement of Faith, that all Professors of Christianity shall not at last be saved, cannot, with the safety of their own Principles, say they stand bound in Conscience to believe, with the belief of Charity, that Christ Died for them all: because in their Notion, and according to their grounds, these two Propositions are inconsistent in Truth, viz. that Christ should die for all, and yet some, perish. But thus it still happeneth to those, who are ingaged in the defence of an error; I meane, to intangle themselves, and to non-sensifie such Passages of Scripture, which manifestly oppose their error, by such evasions, such unnaturall and forc'd Interpretations, which for the keep­ing alive of such a Tenet, which were better dead, they are necessitated unto.

Nor will it availe them here to reply, that they doe not judge themselves §. 17. bound in Conscience to believe in a way of Charity, that all and every Pro­fessor of the Christian Faith, are true Brethren, or Persons for whom Christ Died, but only that there is no Particular or single Person in this heap, con­cerning whom they stand not bound by the Law of charity thus to believe, at least untill they have ministred grounds of suspition that indeed they are Hy­pocrites; For to this I answer,

1. In such an Explication of themselves as this, they cleerly grant, that for a time, viz. untill Professors administer grounds of jealousie that their Faith is not sound, they stand bound to conceive of them all, one or other, without exception, (I meane, according to the judgement of Charity) t [...]at Christ Died for them. But such a belief as this is contrary to what they be­lieve dogmatically (as hath been said) and according to the judgement of Faith. Therefore still they enterfeere. For to believe that Christ Died for every individual Professor, and to believe that He Died for all Professors with­out exception, is but one and the same belief, nor can any difference be shewed between them.

2. Neither is a Symptome of Hypocrisie, seene or observed in a Professor, §. 18. any sufficient ground for the reversall of such a judgement of Charity con­cerning Him, according unto which we judged Him a Person for whom Christ Died. Because, 1. There may be many Symptomes or Signes of Hy­pocrisie, which are not demonstrative, or of any essentiall eviction. And 2. If a man were an evicted Hypocrite, yet may he recover from under this condemnation. Therefore Hypocrisie, though certainly known by a man, is no sufficient or reasonable ground, no not according to the grounds of the Doctrine now oppugned, why I may not, or ought not, in a way of Chari­ty, to judge that Christ Died for him notwithstanding. Thus then we see at last, that no Colour, Plea or Pretence; no turning, shifting, or winding about, this way, or that, will salve the impertinency, that I say not, impor­tune absurdity, of any interpretation whatsoever of the Scripture in hand, which doth not (in a cleer comportance with the words, and scope and drift of the Apostle therein) suppose a possibility of their Perishing, for whom Christ Died, and that in order to their non-Perishing; (as we shall have oc­casion to shew further before the end of this Chapter, in asserting another Passage of Scripture to the same Point.)

The next (in the order propounded) is 2 Peter 2. 1. But there were false §. 19. prophets among the People, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. Here it is cleerly supposed, and as good as in plaine terms affirmed▪ that men bought by the Lord (viz. Christ, as all Interpreters expound) may, yea and that some will, bring up­on themselves destruction. If so, then evident it is, that the Lord Christ bought with the Price of His Blood, as well those who perish, and are destroyed by their own wickednesse, as those that are saved; and consequently, all men, with­out exception.

That which is excepted against this Interpretation, and Inference from §. 20. the place, is very faint and weake; if you desire it, as it is, I shall impart it. First (say some) the Lord Christ is not here said to buy those here spoken of, and who are said to bring destruction upon themselves, after the same manner, or upon the like terms, on which he is, or may be said to buy those, that are saved: these He buyes for one end, or with one intent, as viz. to adopt [Page 130] for sons: those, with another, as, viz. for slaves and vassalls only. I sup­pose the World never heard of such a purchase as this, made by Jesus Christ, till these latter dayes; I meane, of men, only to make slaves and vassalls of them. Certaine I am, that the Scripture makes Christs free-men, and Christs servants, or bondmen, all one. For he that is called in the Lord (saith the A­postle) being a servant, is the Lords freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christs servant, or bondman 1 Cor. 7. 22.. And indeed, it is the blessed li­berty and freedome which we obtaine by Christ, that makes us His servants or bondmen, i. e. which ingageth us to be such unto him. But if Christ buyes Men with the Price of His Blood only for slaves and vassalls, I would know whether they come to the actuall injoyment of this Priviledge (for such it must needs be supposed, as by the Context it selfe will appeare presently) by Faith, or without Faith. It cannot be said that they come to the Possessi­on of it by Faith; for by Faith men are put into the blessed relation of sons: Yee are all the children of God (saith the Apostle) by Faith in Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 26.. If they should come to it without Faith, then Christ should shew more favour (at least in this respect) to his vassalls, then to His Sons. His Sons come not to the actuall injoyment of their Priviledge, but by Faith: but His slaves (it seemes) may attain the actuall injoyment of theirs, without the perform­ance of this, or any other condition whatsoever.

Againe, if Christ bought wicked Men and such as perish, for slaves and §. 21. vassalls, I would know whether they act the parts of slaves and vassalls, and so serve Him in that capacity, which He aimed at in His purchase of them; or whether they act contrary to the Nature and Lawes of slavery or vassallage. If they act as slaves and vassalls, then they answer and fulfill their Lords in­tentions and desires in His Purchase, and so are not to be blamed, but com­mended rather. If it be said that they act otherwise (I meane, then as be­commeth slaves and vassalls) this must be either by acting righteously, or unrighteously. If it be by acting righteously that they transgresse the Law of slavery, then it followes, that men may prove better, and live more ho­lily, then Christ ever intended, or desired they should. If it be by acting unrighteously, then Christ did not intend, that those whom He bought for slaves, should live unrighteously, but holily. If so, then were His intenti­ons towards those, whom He bought for slaves, altogether as gracious, as to­wards those, whom He purchased for sons; His intentions towards and con­cerning these (in His purchase of them) being clearly this, that they should serve him in righteousness Luke 1. 74. 75..

Againe, if Christ should buy some Men for slaves and vassalls, then in §. 22. case any of these, bought for such an end, or with such an intention, as this, should repent and believe, Christ should be, not only disappointed in His bargaine, but this by the righteousnesse of the persons bought, or bargained for by Him. To alledge here, that it is unpossible that any person, who is bought for a slave, should repent, or believe; 1. Is absolutely untrue, there being no man but only he, who hath sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, who is not in a capacity or possibility of Repentance. 2. Though it were true, yet it hinders not at all the truth, or the force of the consequence in the proposition mentioned; viz. that in case any of those should repent, whom Christ hath bought for slaves, then he should be disappointed in his bargaine, and that by the righteousnesse of those bought by Him. Reason teacheth us, that a Connex proposition may be demonstratively true and pregnant, though both the parts of it be never so false. As for example; if Ismael had been [Page 131] the naturall son of Lot, he could not have been the naturall son of Abraham: this is a proposition of a manifest and cleer truth, yet both parts of it are false. For, 1. Ismael was not the naturall son of Lot: 2. He was the naturall son of Abraham. Yet,

Againe; if Christ bought some for slaves, then hath he some base, servile, §. 23. hard, or drudgery work to doe, such as is not meet for sons to put their hand unto. For they have no need of slaves, that have no servile, or slavish work to doe. But Christ hath no work to doe, but that which is Honorable, and worthy the most ingenuous of all His sons to doe. All the Commandements of God (David saith) are righteousnesse Psal. 119. 172.. And a little before: All thy Com­mandements are truth Verse 151.. Now Christ hath no more Worke to be done by Men, in the World, then God hath: neither hath God any more, then what is expressed and set forth in His Commandements: and all these (as we heard from David) are righteousnesse, [i. e. require nothing but what is righteous and just for Men to doe,] and consequently meet for sons, yea chiefly for sons, or righteous ones to doe. Yea, God hath no neede of any Mans lye, or of any Mans sin whatsoever. Therefore neither did Christ buy any for slaves.

Once more: if the Persons here said to be bought by Christ, were bought by §. 24. Him for slaves, then must the Apostle be conceived to extenuate their sin in denying Him, by saying, that He bought them: whereas by the emphati­call carriage of the Context it is evident, that His intent was, by this consi­deration to aggravate that their sin, and set forth the hainousnesse, the high demerit and provocation of it. He that buyes Men, being slaves, to make them free Men, and set them at liberty, may well expect thanks and free ser­vice from them: and if they should not own such a Person as their Great Be­nefactor, they deserve, not only to be devested of that liberty, which this Bene­factor of theirs hath purchased for them, but to be subjected to a Bondage seven times more grievous then that, from which they were delivered. But if a Man shall buy those that were slaves before, only to put them into a con­dition of worse slavery, then that wherein they were, they are not to be blam­ed, if they deny Him to be any Great Benefactor to them. In like manner, if Christ shall be here said to buy the Men spoken of, for slaves only, He should buy them out of a more easie slavery, from under a lighter condem­nation, only to put them into an harder Bondage, and subject them to a grea­ter condemnation: and consequently, their not owning Him, or their de­nying Him as any Benefactor unto them, were no just matter of provocati­on to Him, nor of displeasure from God. What is that estate of Bondage, or Misery, in any kinde, out of which Christ may be said to buy those, whom He is supposed to buy for slaves? And what is that estate of slavery, unto which He subjectth them, or into which He putteth them, by this pur­chase, or buying of them; that so we may compare them together? Doubt­lesse that Bondage and Misery, out of which these Men can be supposed to be bought by Christ, is, in the utmost Line and Pitch of it, but an obnoxi­ousnesse, or liablenesse to have been cast into Hell fire for their sin, com­mitted in, or contracted from Adam, as soone as they were conceived, or borne, or the like: but that estate of slavery, whereinto (according to that interpretation of the place, which we now oppose) they are bought, by be­ing bought by Christ, is seven times more grievous then so. For, 1. Under this they are as liable to be thrown into Hell fire, as in the other. Nay, 2. They are sure to be cast into Hell fire with much more guilt of sin upon [Page 132] them, then in their former condition they were capable of; and consequent­ly to be so much the more grievously tormented for ever. Therefore their sin of denying Christ, is so far from being aggravated by their being bought by Him for slaves, that indeed it is extenuated, and brought to nothing by it: and consequently such an interpretation is diametrally opposite to the A­postles intent in the place.

Lastly, (for this) if Christ bought the false Teachers here spoken of, with §. 25. other wicked Men▪ who in fine perish, for slaves, in what respect, or with what intentions, may He be supposed to have bought such Infants, who dying in their infancy, and before the committing of actuall sin, are supposed, through the want of the Priviledge of Election, to Perish? Must we not have another Device, or Notion, whereby to forme the Intentions of Christ in His Purchase of these? For it can at no hand of reason be said, or thought, that He bought these for slaves, in as much as He never intended that these should live so much as to a capacity of doing any worke at all, in one kinde, or other, for Him. If the Assertors of the Interpretation now ready to fall, shall think to relieve themselves at this Point, by saying, that it is not necessary that Christ should at all minde such Children in His Purchase, so as to buy them in one kinde or other, but may well be conceived only to leave them, as He found them; I would demand of them only this; how then, or upon what account, such Children should injoy the benefit of life, though but for a short season, as for a Month, two, &c. together with the com­forts of life appropriate to their Age, as nourishment, nursing, looking to, &c. If no consideration at all was had of such in the Death and Purchase of Christ, I would gladly understand what other Friend they had to Mediate with God for such things on their behalfe: or whether God be so far well pleased with them without all mediation, as to indulge such mercies and com­forts unto them?

Nor can it with any Colour of Reason be said, that Christ bought the §. 26. Persons here spoken of for slaves, or servants unto the Saints: because, 1. As the sphere of the affaires of this World moves, the Saints are rather ser­vants unto the wicked, then these to them. Thy seed (saith God to Abra­ham) shall be a stranger in a Land that is not theirs: and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them foure hundred yeares Gen. 15. 13.. And, 2. Though there be a sence, wherein all things are said to be theirs (the Saints,) All things are yours 1 Cor. 3. 22, &c. yet wicked Men are in no other sence here said to be theirs, then that, wherein Paul, Apollos, and Cephas are said to be theirs. Therefore as it doth no wayes argue, that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas were bought by Christ for slaves, because they are here said to be, the Saints, i. e. for their service and benefit: so neither doth it prove that wicked or impenitent Men were bought for slaves by Him, because they are here said to be theirs also, or because (in some sence) they are or may be serviceable to them.

Some seeme to grant, upon the accompt of the Scripture in hand, that §. 27. Christ did buy some Reprobates [viz. such as are spoken of herein, and after­wards See Mr. I. Ball Covenant of Grace, p. 238. 239. more fully described in the Chapter;] but (say they) this concludes not the question in Hand, unlesse it can be shewed, that there is the same rea­son of all Reprobates. For (they say on) the thing to be proved, is, that Christ Died equally for all and every Man: And it is one thing to die for the Reprobate in some sence, and to die for them with an intention and purpose to save them: and if Christ Died for some, and but some, that perish in a manner not common to all and every Man, it is manifest He died not equally for all Men. [Page 133] How unlike Himselfe is the Author in these Passages? or what Pen ever dropt such Divinity as this, with that which followes in the same Contex­ture of Discourse, besides? For, 1. is it reasonable to demand a Proofe, that there is the same reason of all Reprobates [viz. in all circumstances, or in every respect] to evince this, that Christ Died equally for them all? Sup­pose some of them be greater sinners, and some lesser, and sufficient proofe can be made, that Christ Died for the greater sinners amongst them (which the Author of the said passages plainely grants) is it a reasonable ground of deniall that He died for the rest, that they are lesser sinners then they? Or suppose there can be ten thousand differences shewed between Reprobates, and Reprobates, yet if there be none of them competent to evince a diffe­rence in the intentions of Christ, in, or about His dying for them, they are all of them put together of no consideration at all, to prove that Christ Died not equally for them; nor yet to infringe their Assertion, who affirme He did. As suppose some of them be Taylors, others Carpenters, a third part Mariners, or the like, such differences as these, though never so many, are no ground, whereon to conclude, that Christ Died not equally for them all.

Secondly, whereas He makes this the state of the Question between Him, §. 28. and His Antagonists, whether Christ Died equally for all▪ and every Man, or no, confident I am that this is a very palpable mistake▪ especially if by, equally, He meanes (as meane He must, if He meanes to speake congru­ously to the interest of his own Discourse) intentions of procuring them by His Death the actuall injoyment of equall conveniences, equall opportuni­ties, equall accommodations, in every kinde, for their respective Salvations. For certainly no Remonstrant was ever dis-sensed to such a degree, as to hold, that Christ intended, in, or by His Death, to purchase any such uniformi­ty of Divine dispensations in the Government of the World at the Hand of God, that all and every Man (for example) should injoy a Ministry of the same Efficacy and Power, for Conversion, Edification, Establish­ment, &c. or that all and every Man should be disposed of unto callings equally free from, and equally subject unto, Temptations, Occasions, Op­portunities of sinning, &c. (with twenty and ten Particulars more of like consideration which might readily be instanced;) nor was ever any contra-Remonstrant ingaged, or occasioned by any Adversary, to remonstrate against any such Opinion, as this. But the Question between them touching the intentions of God, and of Christ in His Death, was, whether God did not as truly, as really, as cordially, intend the Salvation of one Man, as another, considered as Men, in, or by Christs Death. That God in His Providen­tiall dispensations putteth a difference between one Mans spirituall oppor­tunities, and anothers, doth at no hand argue any different intentions in Him towards the one, and the other, in Christs Death, but may flow from se­verall other Principles, or Causes, as either from a different use and im­provement in Men of their originall stocks of Grace, or from different ap­plications that have been made unto God by others, as in Prayer, Interces­sion, &c. in the behalf of some, in respect of others; or from different respects borne by God to the Parents or Forefathers of some, in regard of their signall Piety and Serviceablenesse to His great Name in their Genera­tions, above others; or lastly from the Wisdome of God in conjunction with His Goodnesse, in, and about the government of the World, accord­ing unto which He judgeth it most expedient, as well for His own Glory, [Page 134] as for the comfort and equitable consideration of His Saints, and such as walk before Him with upright and perfect hearts, to make, or to permit all that variety and disparity which is now seene in the World, in the spirituall con­veniences or accommodations of Men, some Mens Proportion and allowance in this kinde being but the Omer, and other Mens, the Ephah, which the Scripture makes ten times larger, then the other Exod. 16. 36. From some, or all of these considerations, and possibly from some others, besides these, that in­equality mentioned between Men and Men, in the injoyment of the meanes of Grace, may very probably arise: so that there is not the least colour of a necessity to resolve it into any difference of intentions in God, in the Death of Christ. And if difference of meanes vouchsafed unto Men, would argue different intentions in God touching their respective Salvation, in the at­tonement made by Christs Death; it will be found every whit as true, that Christ Died not equally for the Elect themselves, as that He died not equally for all Reprobates. Nay if an estimate be made of the Intentions of God in the Death of Christ concerning the Salvations of Men, by this Rule, it will be found that He bare more gracious intentions in the Death of Christ towards many Reprobates, and their Salvation, then towards many of the Elect, or of those who in the end come to be saved. For nothing is more evident, then that many Perish under greater and more excellent meanes of Salvation, then are vouchsafed unto many others, who yet are saved there­by Mat. 8: 10. and Mat. 15. 28 compared with C. 11. 10. 21, &c.. So that it is a reasoning of no value, which concludeth that Christ Died not equally for all and every Man, because all and every Man have not the same [...]eanes of Salvation granted unto them. Yet in what sence it is (at least) very probable, that all and every Man have the same means of Salvation vouchsafed unto them, shall be taken into consideration in due place.

Thirdly, whereas the same Author saith, that it is one thing to die for §. 29. the Reproba [...] in some sence, and [another, I suppose he meanes] to die for them with an intention and purpose to save them; I verily believe that neither he, nor [...]ny of his perswasion in the present controversie, are able to credit such a distinction, (unlesse captiously, and altogether irrelatively to the businesse in hand, understood) either by the Scriptures, or any solid Rea­son. For I confesse I am yet to learne, where, in the Scriptures, Christ is said to die for any, for whose Salvation he Died not. It is true, Christ Died not so Precisely or Adequately for the Salvation of any Man, as not to die for the obtaining of many other good things also for them, which are not comprehended in Salvation, formally taken: and in this sence the distincti­on may be admitted, in as much as upon this account, it amounts to no more, but this: It is one thing to say, that Christ Died for the Reprobate in some sence, [i. e. for the obtaining of lesser mercies for them,] and another, to say, that He died for their Salvation. I confesse, that these two Asser­tions, are not formally, and every wayes the same, as lesser things, and grea­ter things, compared only between themselves, are not the same. But such a sence as this no wayes accommodates the Authors Discourse. Therefore His meaning (to make him speake like a Man) must be, that to say, that Christ Died for the obtaining of some good things for Reprobates, may ac­cording to Scripture Principles and Grounds, stand, and be justified: but to say, that He Died for the Salvation of such Men, cannot by these Prin­ciples and Grounds, be evinced. But in this sence, the said distinction hath not yet been, nor (I believe) ever will be, in the latter member of it, made Or­thodox or sound, upon such termes.

The said Author in Processe of the same Discourse, to save his Bottle of §. 30. Hay or Stubble, from being burnt in the fire of the Scripture in hand, advan­ceth another distinction, every whit as helplesse that way, as the former. We confesse (saith he, speaking of the false Teachers in the Text before us, who bring swift destruction upon themselves) that they were bought by the Blood of Christ, because all these were fruits of Christs Death, whereof they were made partakers. But a few lines after, he retracts (upon the matter) the substance of this his confession, by mincing it thus: To these Men their sinnes were re­mitted IN A SORT in this World, and IN A SORT they were bo [...]ght with the Blood of Christ, but INCHOATELY only, and as they tasted the Word of Life Mr. I. Ball Covenant of Grace, p. 240.. Such shifting, intricate, and winding expressions as these, falling from the Pens of Grave and Learned Men, are the constant symptomes of a judgement distempered with some error, labouring and toyling in the service of it. But, 1. who ever heard of sinnes remitted in a sort? or who is able to notion such an expression? what is that remission, which is in a sort? If by Remission of sins in a sort, he meanes Remission of sins to a degree, or with some imperfection; this contradicts the generally received opinion of Pro­testant Divines, who admit no degrees, no magis and minus, in Justification; still assigning this for one difference between Justification & sanctification. If by Remission in a sort, he meanes a conditionall Remission (which seems to be his meaning by an expression used a few lines before) I know no other sence can be made of the expression, but only this, or of this import, viz. that God forgiveth some Men their sins, upon such terms, as to reserve a liberty unto himself, of Reversing or Recalling that grant, in case of such or such an un­worthinesse in them afterwards. This I judge to be most Orthodox and true; though not in relation to some Men only, but with Reference unto all with­out exception, to whom God at any time granteth Remission of sins in this World: (of which more before the close of this Chapter:) yet this sence (I presume) no wayes Befriends the Authors judgement in the controversie de­pending: so that the truth is, I know not what sence to make, of his Remission of sins upon condition, and in a sort.

Secondly, every whit as mysterious and uncout [...] to me, as the former, is §. 31. that expression also, of these Men being bought with the Blood of Christ in a sort. I wish that either some of the publishers of the Discourse, or some other Friend, either of the Person, or Cause, or both, would explaine it. For as for his own explication (so intended, I suppose) in the words fol­lowing, but inchoately only, and as they tasted the Word of Life, it is to me ra­ther a further Obscuration, then Explication. Were they bought with the Blood of Christ inchoately only? and not perfectly? How then can this Author say (in the passage next following) that by promise he [God] assured them of Salvation, if they did believe? and again, that if they had unfeignedly be­lieved in him, without question they should have been saved? Would their be­lieving have altered the Intentions of God concerning them in the Death of Christ? or cause them to have been bought by the Blood of Christ, though they were not bought before? Or did God assure them of such a Salvation, which never was▪ nor ever so much as intended to be purchased or procured for them? Doubtlesse, if so be they should without question have been saved, in case they had unfeignedly believed, they were bought as perfectly and compleat­ly with the Blood of Christ, as any the Elect themselves, their unbelief not­withstanding: because their Believing could not have procured, or Brought any other Salvation to them, but only that which was fully and compleatly pur­chased [Page 136] and bought for them with the Blood of Christ, without any dependance at all upon their Faith. Therefore unlesse we suppose, that Salvation was compleatly purchased for them by Christ in His Death, we cannot say or sup­pose with truth, that in case they had believed, they should without question have been saved See more of this cap. 7. Sect. 2. 3. &c..

That which is behind, and as they tasted of the Word of Life, is yet more in­accessible §. 32. to my understanding, then any thing that went before. For how, in what sence, or with what congruity to a rationall apprehension, can Men be said to have been bought with the Blood of Christ, as they tasted of the Word of Life? Surely the meaning is not, that when or whilest they tasted of the Word of Life, they were so bought (I meane, with the Blood of Christ;) nor that this their tasting of the Word of Life, was the formall or precise considerati­on under which Christ bought them (though the Particle, as, frequently im­ports this consideration:) As well the one, as the other, of these sences, are the abhorrings of common sence it selfe; and besides, they are at enmity with the Principles of the Author relating to the businesse in hand. Nor am I conscious of any thing at all intended in the Clause, unlesse (haply) this may be it; viz. that in as much as they tasted of the Word of Life, it is an argument that they were bought with Christs Blood; i. e. that they were Parta­kers in the Fruit and Benefit of Christs Death, or that the intentions of God in the Death of Christ extended thus far, or in this consideration, unto them. But can it enter into any reasonable Mans thoughts to imagine, that if this had been all, which the Holy Ghost intended to say, viz. That God inten­ded by the vertue or meanes of Christs Death, to cause these Men to taste of the Word of Life (especially with exclusion of all intentions in Him to save them) that He would have expressed it by saying, that Christ bought them? Suppose a Man should buy or procure such a quantity of Meat and Drink for a poor captive, as were sufficient to nourish him well and with good satis­faction, two or three dayes, but should intend no such thing as to purchase his Liberty, or Redemption from captivity, will any Man call this a buying, or Redeeming of the Person of this Man? It is a very strange thing to ob­serve, with what importune, bold, and broad fac'd absurdities, error (some­times) though in company and conjunction with modesty and sobernesse of judgement, will attempt an escape out of an exigency or straite. But fur­ther (to the Point in hand) evident it is (as hath been already observed) that the Apostle, in these words, who bought them, intends an emphaticall aggravation of the sin of such Teachers, who should deny their Lord. Now if there were nothing more intended in the said words, but only this, that their Lord procured this for them, that they should taste of the Word of Life, but intended nothing further, or better then this to them; this would be so far from aggravating the sin mentioned, that it would rather ease and qualifie it. For if there was nothing purchased for them by the Lord Christ, but on­ly this tasting of the Word of Life, unpossible it was for them to have obtained any thing more; weake and sinfull Man being in no capacity of obtaining more good in any kinde, then what a way hath been opened for him, in, and by, the Death of Christ, to compasse. Now for a Man to taste only of the Word of Life, and to be in no capacity of making any further progresse in the way of Salvation, nay, to be in no capacity of doing that, by which he might be actually saved, no whit bettereth or sweeteneth any Mans conditi­on, but makes it much worse, and much more grievous, then otherwise it would have been. Better it had been (saith our Apostle afterwards in the [Page 137] same Chapter) for them not to have known the way of righteousnesse [i. e. to taste of the Word of Life] then after they have known it, to turne from the holy Commandement delivered unto them; which yet they must of necessity doe, if they were in no capacity, under no possibility, of going forward, or of being saved. Now for a servant to deny, or disclaime his Lord, in case he never in­tended to make his condition any whit better, but in many respects, worse, is a far lesser, and lighter sin (if any at all) then it would be to deny Him, upon a supposition that he had never done any thing at all in relation to Him, neither good, nor bad. Therefore this Author is inextricably intangled with his exposition of the place in hand, and makes no earnings of it at all. He gives no tolerable account, how those Teachers, who brought swift destructi­on upon themselves, should be bought by Christ inchoately only, and in a sort, and not simply and absolutely, after the same manner, and upon the same termes, that all other Men, yea, the Elect themselves, are bought by Him.

Our English Annotators, taking no notice of the former Exposition of the §. 33. place, as being (it seemes) to them inconsiderable, give us, in stead thereof, our choyce of two others; but both of them calculated likewise to serve the turne, not the truth. The Lord that bought them] i. e. (say they) that gave a price sufficient for them. Or, by whom they professed that they were Redeemed: and therefore they should not have denied Him. But (for the former) we have once & again razed to the ground the polluted Sanctuary of that Distinction, which asserteth Christs Dying sufficiently for Men, and yet denieth His Dy­ing intentionally for them Cap 5. Sect. 39, 40. &c. Again Cap. 7. Sect. 5.. Besides, here to interpret, that Christ Died sufficiently for the persons spoken of, without supposing, that He died inten­tionally also for them, is cleerly to overthrow the Apostles intention in the words, and to turne his aggravation of the sin he speaks of, rather into an extenuation, then otherwise. For he that shall pay that for the ease and be­nefit only of another, which was sufficient to have pleasured and eased me also, as well as him, and yet shall neglect me in such a payment, and leave me in misery, when as he might, without the least trouble or charge to himself, above what he underwent upon another account, have relieved me, hath no cause to expect service, or thanks from me, for such a payment: but I am the more excuseable if I neglect him, or refuse to own him as a friend, because he neglected me in my greatest extremity, and that when he had such a faire opportunity, of a miserable, to have made me an happy Man, and might have done it without the least inconvenience to himself, more then what he voluntarily put himself upon for the sake of others, to whom he was no whit more beholding, or ingaged, then unto me. It is a palpably-importune and sencelesse conceit, to think that men are engaged in any bands of thankfulnesse, or service, unto Christ for dying sufficiently for them, unlesse He died intentionally also.

The latter Exposition of the last named Author [...] [...], that the Lord Chris [...] §. 34. is said to have bought these false Teachers, beca [...] they professed themselves to have been bought by him. But, 1. why doe they [...]ot put such a glosse as this upon other places, where there is every whit as much reason to do it, as here? As when Paul saith, For God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but to obtaine Salvation 1 Thess 5 9, &c. why do they not interpret here, For God hath not appoin­ted us, &c. i. e. WE PROFESSE that God hath not appointed us, &c. So when the same Apostle saith, that God hath purchased the Church with his own blood Acts 20. 28, why do they not gloss here; God hath purchased the Church with, &c. i. e. the [Page 138] Church PROFESSETH her self thus purchased, &c. Partiality in Inter­pretation of Scripture is every whit as bad, and Unchristian, as in civill Judi­catures.

Secondly, the great sin, by which these false Teachers are said to bring §. 35. swift damnation upon themselves, is said to be, their denying the Lord that bought▪ them. If then they denied this Lord that bought them, how can these Expositors say, that they professed themselves bought by Him? If it be re­plied, they might formerly professe themselves bought by Him, though after­wards they denied Him; and the Apostle may charge them with sin in their present deniall of him, upon the account of their former profession; I answer: that if formerly they professed themselves bought by him, but were not in­deed so bought, and afterwards coming to understand or apprehend the truth, viz. that they were not so bought, they are not at all to be blamed for deny­ing themselves to have been bought by him, or for denying that he bought them. To deny that to be so, which is not so, especially when a Man verily believes and apprehends it not to be, is no Mans sin. Or if it be further pleaded (in favour of the said glosse) that these false Teachers might at the same time, when they professed themselves bought by Chris [...], deny him, viz. in a consequentiall way, as either by teaching such hereticall Doctrines, which overthrew his God-head, Man-hood, &c. or else by an impious conversati­on; I answer, 1. That if they professed themselves bought by him, they could not lightly teach or hold forth any Doctrine, wherein they should deny, ei­ther his God-head, Man-hood, Satisfaction, or any other thing relating to him, without which he could not, in a rationall way, have made such a pur­chase of them. Or, 2. If they did teach any such Doctrine, it must be sup­posed that they did it unwittingly, and because they apprehended nothing in it of any inconsistency with their profession of being bought by Christ. For it is not to be thought that Men will willingly and knowingly teach contra­dictions, or teach any opinion, which they apprehend contradictory to what they daily professe to believe. Now for a Man unwittingly, and contrary to his intention and desire, to teach such a Doctrine, which consequently involves, or leads unto an opinion that is dangerous and damnable, is no­thing but what is incident to the best and most approved Teachers (as I could readily demonstrate by many instances) and therefore not like to be a sin of such high provocation, as to bring swift damnation upon them. But, 3. (and lastly) that the Apostle doth not speake of any such deniall of the Lord Christ by these false Teachers, which is by workes, or by wickednesse of life and conversation, but of Doctrine, is evident enough by the expresse tenor and carriage of the words themselves. But there were false Prophets also a­mong the People, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying, &c. which cleerly sheweth, that the deniall of the Lord here charged upon false Teachers, stood not in works, but in words, in false, Hereticall, and damnable Teachings. There­fore they are not, they cannot be here said to have been bought by Christ, because they professed themselves to have been redeemed by him.

Some to evade that mortall stroke, which the Scripture in hand reacheth §. 36. to that opinion, which denieth a possibility of perishing in those, who are truly bought and Redeemed by Christ, not being satisfied with any of the for­mer come-offs, have devised this. The Lord (say they) is said to have bought these false Teachers, not because he really, indeed and in truth bought them, but because in the opinion and judgement of Men he had bought them: they [Page 139] were looked upon as persons Redeemed and bought by Him. And to credit this Interpretation, they alledge severall Texts, where things, or persons are said to be so, or so, such or such, not because they were really that, which they are said to be, but only because they were this in appearance, or accord­ing to the common estimate of Men. As Mat. 9. 13. Joh. 9. 39. Mat. 13. 12. com [...]ed with Luk. 8. 18. But this colour is as faint, as any of the former, and as easily washed off. And,

1. It is very questionable, whether in any of these places, either things or persons receive any denomination meerly from appearance, or opinion of Men. Many things might be argued, and that with much probability, in op­positum. But concerning the first of the places, most certaine it is that there is no such notion to be found there. For that by the righteous, whom Christ saith that he came not to call to Repentance, should be meant, righteous only in shew, or in the opinion of Men, whether themselves, or others, and not righteous truly and properly so called, contradicts the manifest and declared intentions of Christs comming into the World, which are frequently a­vouched and found to be, the calling of sinners of all sorts, kinds, and de­grees, unto Repentance; and therefore of Hypocrites also, as well as others, and of persons conceited in the highest of their own Righteousnesse. See Mat. 3. 7, 8. &c. 1 Tim. 1. 12, 13, 14, 15. compared with Philip. 3. 6, 7, &c. (to omit many other places of like import.) Besides, the occasion, and tendency of our Saviours Words, are of pregnant eviction, that by, righte­ous, he meanes persons truly such, and not in conceit, or opinion only. He was charged as with matter of undue deportment, in eating with Publicans and Sinners. For his justification he pleads, that the whole have no need of a Physician, but the sick; meaning that as the calling of the Physician, is no wayes necessary, in respect of those that are strong, healthfull, and sound, but only of the sick; so neither had His comming into the World been of any such necessity, as now it was, but for sinners; and that had Men been righteous and spiritually sound, there had been no need of His comming unto them. And therefore as a Physician is not to be blamed for conversing with the sick, in as much as the nature and end of his calling requires his presence with them, and not with those that are sound: so neither was he to be blamed for being in the company of sinners, seeing the great end and intent of his calling to the Office of a Saviour, was not to save, or to be helpfull unto, such as were righteous, who upon such an account stood in no need of him, but to administer comfort and help unto sinners, who without help from him must needs perish. Now certaine it is, that the righteous, whom Christ com­pares unto the whole, who in that respect need no Physician, are not men righteous in shew, or in opinion only, for these stand in as much, or more, need of the Physician, then others; but those that are truly and sincerely righteous. Therefore this Scripture holds no intelligence with that interpretation of the other, which is now under censure. But,

2. Be it granted for truth, that things and persons sometimes receive ap­pellations §. 37. only from an appearance of what they are called, or from the opi­nion of Men judging them such; yet such a line of interpretation as this, is not to be stretched over what Scriptures we please; nor indeed over any, but where the manifest exigency of the Context calls for it. Otherwise we shall entitle Men to a liberty, of substituting shadowes and appearances only, in­stead of realities and substances of Truth, where, and when they please: and so to turne the Minde and Counsells of God in the Scriptures upside down. [Page 140] The Contest of old between Hierome and Austine about Pauls reproving Peter (Gal. 2.) is of notable consideration to the businesse in hand. Hierome pleaded, that when Paul reproved Peter at Antioch, he did it not seriously, or in good earnest: but affirmed, that these two Apostles out of a kinde of prudent Charity agreed to make a shew of a Contest between them, when as indeed there was none. But how gravely, and copiously doth Austin declare against, and argue down, such a licentiousnesse of interpreting? The Scripture (saith he) plainely saith, that Peter was worthy reproofe, or to be condemned. If then we shall take this liberty, (or boldnesse) to say, that in­deed and in truth he did not amisse, but only dissembled for the sake of those that were weake, then the Apostle Paul lyes, in saying, that he was worthy blame, or reproofe. Admit this (saith this learned Father) and down falls all the Autho­rity and certainty of the Scriptures Mihi enim videtur exitio­sissime credi aliquod in libris Sanctis esse mendacium, &c Aug. Epist. 8. vid. & Epist. 9. & 14. & praecipue, Epist. 19.. For if they speake that which is false in one place, who can make it good that they speake Truth in another? This is the briefe of that famous dissertation between those two Worthies in the Christi­an Church. From whence it may appeare, of what dangerous consequence it is, to expound that, which the Scripture simply and plainely delivers as a Truth, as spoken by way of appearance, or humane opinion only, when there is no apparant necessity inforcing such an Exposition. And if there be some places, which will beare, or which call for such a figurative and Catacresti­call Interpretation as this, they are but few: and those which are, must be discerned and distinguished from others, by the manifest exigency of their re­spective scopes and imports; the least jot or title of which character is not to be found in the place in hand. For,

3. (And lastly) most evident it is (as hath been formerly also observed, §. 38. and as many Expositors, more then enough addicted to the contra-Remon­strant opinion, themselves acknowledge) that the Apostles intent here is, to set forth the most hainous and horrid indignity of the sin of these false Teachers in denying their Lord, by this aggravating consideration, that they deny such a Lord who bought them. Now if it be supposed that this Lord, really, and of love and good will to them, and out of a desire to free them from misery, bought, or redeemed them, the consideration is of great preg­nancy and force to demonstrate horrible ingratitude and impiety in them, to deny Him. But if on the contrary it be supposed, that he did not indeed buy them with any intent to free them from their misery, but only make a shew of such a thing, or only do that, which might occasion Men to think, or to believe that he did so, this manifestly easeth and qualifies the guilt of their sin in denying him; and so is manifestly repugnant to the Apostles scope. For, to make a shew of love only, or to doe that, by which other Men may be invited to think, that a reall kindnesse is done for such, or such a Man, when as indeed there is nothing done of any such consideration, nor ever intended to be done, doth no wayes oblige this Man in thankfulnesse unto him, who ac­commodates him upon no better terms, but is rather a just ground of an harder and worse opinion of him.

If it be replied; yea but these false Teachers knew nothing but that they §. 39. were truly and really bought by Christ, and that out of a desire of saving them: nor had they any sufficient reason to judge otherwise. Therefore their sin in denying him is no wayes eased upon this account, that he did not indeed buy them with any such intent, or desire, because, 1. Men are bound to judge, as they have reason to judge: and, 2. are bound to act or practise according to their judgements; I answer;

There can be no sufficient ground for any Man to believe that which is false, nor ought such a thing to be believed; at least with confidence of belief, or with any such belief, upon which he shall stand bound to ingage in any material and weighty Action, or Practise. Therefore if Christ did not really buy these false Teachers, they could have no sufficient ground to believe that he did; at least to believe at any such rate of confidence, as rather to suffer the losse of any considerable good, then deny it. If it be againe replied; A Man may stand bound to adventure much upon probabilities, in many cases, though there be no certainty, or truth in that, which upon such probabilities he doth be­lieve; I answer, possibly a Man may indeed stand bound, in point of wis­dome, or prudence, in some cases to adventure much (in a simple conside­ration) upon probabilities only; but not in point of Conscience. As for example; a Merchant, or other Man, may stand bound in point of wisdom to adventure some considerable part of his state in a way of Trade beyond the Seas, upon probabilities only of a gainfull returne; though even in this case, upon a more exact consideration it will appeare, that such a Man doth not make, this adventure upon any meere probability, one, or more, but upon that which is certaine. For the probability of a good returne in this case, is a certainty to him: he knowes certainly, and beyond all doubt or question, that it is a thing probable or likely, that he shall receive such a returne, though he knowes not certainly, but only probably, that he shall indeed re­ceive it. Now the true ground upon which the Merchant adventures, is not the knowledge that he shall, or will gaine by his adventure: for it is unpos­sible for him to know this: but the knowledge and consideration of the likely­hood of his gaining, which (as hath been said) he may, and doth know, and that certainly.

You will upon this say (it is like) The false Teachers (in the Scrip­ture §. 40. in hand) had, or might have had, such a certainty as this, that the Lord Christ did really buy them: for it was very probable that he had so bought them, in regard of that illumination, externall sanctification, and other gifts, whereof they were partakers; and consequently their sin in denying him was never the lesse upon any such account as this, that he had not indeed bought them: in as much as they were bound to believe that he had so bought them, and to behave themselves towards him accordingly. I answer: 1. Upon this supposition, that Christ did not indeed buy, or had not bought them, they could have no probability, no not upon their illumination, or outward gifts whatsoever, that he had, or should have, so bought them; especially tak­ing in the opinion of those, against whom we manage our present Discourse, viz. that Christ truly bought no more, then come to be actually saved. For, 1. if those truly bought by Christ be but very few in number, comparatively, with those, who were passed by, and not so bought by him, then no parti­cular Man, thus far, (I meane, as he is a member of Man-kinde, or one of the generality of Men) can have so much as a probable ground, that he is one of those so bought by him. As when there are twenty, or fourty blanks in a Lottery, and only one prize, it is not probable or likely that he that draweth but once, shall draw the prize. For it is twenty or fourty to one that he shall not draw it. 2. Neither doth the receiving of illumination, or any other common gift, upon the former supposalls, make it probable un­to any Man, that Christ truly bought him, because very many receive illumi­nation (at least in the sence of our opposers) &c. who live wickedly; and many also, who fall away from that externall sanctity, wherein they walked [Page 142] for a season. And our Saviour himself saith, that many are called, but few are chosen Mat. 20. 16; and againe, that upon the abounding of iniquity, [viz. in fierce and bloody Persecutors] the love of many shall wax cold Mat. 24 12: and yet again, that many that are first, shall be last Mat. 19. 30, (to omit many other passages of like im­port.) Therefore no externall, or common gifts whatsoever make it so much as probable unto any Man, that he was truly bought by Christ, there being very many thus gifted, who will not in the end be saved. But,

2. Suppose our false Teachers had probable grounds, from their illumi­nation, §. 41. &c. to believe, that Christ had truly bought them, yet this probabi­lity, upon the Premises last argued, could be but very faint, and mingled with much jealousie and feare of the contrary: and consequently nothing so binding upon them to own and honour him in the World, as a certaine know­ledge, (free from the pain and torment of feare of the contrary) that he had so bought them, would have been. So that though it should be yielded (which yet there is no sufficient reason to do) that the Interpretation which we now oppose, doth not turne up by the very roots the drift and scope of the Apostle in the Place and Words, yet it shakes them terribly, and leaves little spirit, strength, or force in them. If the Merchant judged it fourty, twenty, yea or but ten Vix enim dicimus quis­que eorum, qui Christo nomen ded [...]runt, fidei puritatem ad extremum us (que) retinet: omnes fere ad corrup­telas degene­rant, atque a­magistris licen­tiae delust, pro­sancs [...]unt. Calvin. in 2 Pet. 2 2. to one odds, that in case he should venture, he should never have any returne of what he ventures, he would have but flender incouragement, and so little list, to follow his Sea-Trade with his whole estate upon such terms. Whereas certainty of returnes with considerable gaine, would the Providence of God, and condition of humane affaires bear it, would multiply Merchants without end; and withall render those very weake, and unlike Men, who having meanes and opportunity to follow such an imployment, should either be slothfull and sit still, or else dispose of their estates in any other way, wherein little or no improvement could be expect­ed. In like manner a certainty of knowledge, that Christ truly and really bought a Man with His Blood, is an high and sacred ingagement upon this Man to acknowledge, own, and honour Him as His Great and Blessed Lord and Benefactor, in the sight of the World; and consequently renders Him the reproach and abomination of Men, in case he shall be ashamed of Him, or deny Him: whereas a faint apprehension only of such a thing done for Him, intangled and incumbred with a thousand Questions, Feares, and Doubtings, hardly extricable, whether it was indeed done, or no, makes the deniall or dis owning of Him, if not pardonable, yet much more excuse­able, and of far lighter provocation and demerit, then in the other case it would be.

Thus then at last we see, that no Interpretation will sit with any tolerable §. 42. closenesse or congruity, to the words and scope of the Scripture in hand, but only that, which acknowledgeth the false Teachers mentioned therein, truly, really, absolutely and compleatly Redeemed or bought by Christ, I meane, after the same manner, and upon the same terms of love on Gods Part, after, and upon which, those were Redeemed and bought by Him, who in the issue and event come to be saved. As for that objection, which lies in many Mens thoughts against such an Interpretation as this, as viz. that if Christ truly Redeemed or bought any Man, He must of necessity at last be saved; we shall (God assisting) give a faire, cleere and satisfactory Answer unto it, when we come to Answer the Arguments insisted upon, for the Proofe of the contrary Doctrine to that▪ which is maintained in the present Discourse. But for that which some plead against the Interpretation asserted, from [Page 143] Revel. 14. 4. where those that are said to be Redeemed or bought [...], from Men, are termed the first-fruits unto God, and to the Lamb, and are said to follow the Lamb, wheresoever he goeth, which implieth their actu­all Salvation; the answer unto it is easie. For evident it is from the descrip­tion of the persons here spoken of, that they are such, not simply who were Redeemed and bought by Christ, but who also truly believed in Him, and persevered in Faith and Love unto the end; and consequently such, in whom the worke of Redemption performed by Christ, obtained its ultimate and plenary efficiency, and end. In which respect they are said, in a kinde of emphaticall manner, to be [...], to have been Redeem­ed [or, bought] from Men [or, from amongst Men,] i. e. Persons in whom the common Redemption vouchsafed by Christ tooke Place, and wrought, to that great and signall differencing and distinguishing of them from other Men, that whereas the grace of this Redemption was Buried under other Mens wickednesse and unbelief, and at last, in their destruction, it prevailed and magnified it self in the constant Faith and Holinesse of these, and at last triumphed gloriously in their Salvation. Whereby it came to passe, that these only seemed to have been Redeemed, amongst Men, all others miscarrying, as if they had not been Redeemed. So that there is nothing at all, scarce so much as an appearance of any thing, in this Scripture, against that Interpretation of the other, for the establishing of which, way hath been made through the fall of many others.

And doubtlesse he that shall attentively, and with consideration Reade §. 43. what Calvin himselfe hath commented upon the place, must needs judge him very compliant with the said Interpretation. Although (saith he) Christ may be denied severall wayes, yet (in my judgement) Peter means that, which is expressed in Jude, viz. when the Grace of God is turn'd into wantonnesse. For Christ hath Redeemed us, that He might have a People separated from all the defilements of the World, addicting it self unto holinesse and innocency. Wherefore THEY, WHO SHAKING OFF THE BRIDLE, CAST THEMSELVES FOR­VVARD INTO ALL MANNER OF LICENTIOVSNESSE, ARE NOT WITH­OVT CAVSE SAID TO DENY CHRIST, BY WHOM THEY WERE RE­DEEMED. So then, that the Doctrine of the Gospell may abide with us safe and sound, let this be alwayes fixed in our minds, that we are Redeemed by Christ, that He may be the Lord both of our Lives, and Deaths Tametsi variis modis abn [...]gatur Christus, eum tamen [...]îc (meo judicio) at­tingit Pe­trus, qui exprimitur apud Judam, nempe cum gratia Dei in laescivi­am conver­titur. Rede­mit enim nos Christus, ut populum habere se­gregatū ab omnibus mundi inqui­namentis, ad­dictum Sanctitati & innocentiae. Qui igitur excusso fraeno in omnem licentiam se proiiciunt, non im­merito dicuntur Christum abnegare, à quo Redempti sunt. Proinde ut salva & integra Evangelij Doctrina apud nos maneat, hoc animis nostrie infixum sit, Redemptos esse nos à Christo, ut vitae simul & mortis nostrae sit Dominus, &c.. In this piece of Commentary, there are severall passages, which plainely declare the Authors judgement to have been (at least when He wrote these things) that those are, and may be said to be redeemed by Christ (and that after the same manner that the Saints themselves are redeemed) who yet may in the end perish. For, 1. in saying, Christ hath redeemed us, questionlesse he includes Himselfe, and all the godly (at least) that heard Him, or shall read these things. Now if He should meane that either Himself, or other godly ones, were Redeemed with any other kinde of Redemption, then that spoken of in the Text before Him, viz. wherewith the false Teachers (there mentioned) were Redeemed, his Commentaries should be quite besides the Text.

[Page 144]2. He saith Expresly, that they, who shaking off the Bridle, cast themselves forward [or head long] into all manner of licentiousnesse, are not without cause said to deny Christ, by whom they were Redeemed. Now who are they that bring swift destruction upon themselves, but such as he here describes, and whom he supposeth to have been Redeemed by Christ, and that with the same Redemption, whereof He had spoken immediately before, viz. wherewith Himselfe, and other godly ones, had been Redeemed? For to make him speake of two severall kinds of Redemption specifically distinct, in one and the same Passage, without giving the least notice of any distinction or difference at all between them, is to suppose Him to equivocate, and to make Him a Transgressor of the knowne Principles and Rules of Writing.

3. (And lastly) when He exhorts, let this alwayes be fixed in our minds, that we are Redeemed by Christ, that He may be the Lord of, &c. He cannot be supposed to addresse or speake only to those, that were, or are, truly god­ly, but to all those (at least) who judge themselves such: yea, clear it is, that He speaks to all Persons professing Christianity, without exception. Nor can he be supposed to invite or perswade any Man to fix that in his mind, which is every whit as likely, if not much more likely, to be false, then true, but only that which is most certainly and unquestionably true. There­fore he clearly supposeth, that all Persons, who upon any terms or grounds whatsoever judge themselves godly, yea, that all Professors of Christianity, without exception, are Redeemed by Christ: and consequently, that as well those who Perish, as those that are saved, are Redeemed by Him; there being nothing more certaine, then that many who professe Christianity, yea and who call themselves godly, will Perish.

From henceforth then let no Man put the Doctrine maintained in this Dis­course, §. 44. to any such rebuke, as this, that it was never held or countenanced by any Divine of the Order sirnamed, Orthodox: we finde the Principall of this Order ( Calvin himself I mean) besides many others of Name and Note amongst them, once and againe, yea seven times over, very freely giving the right hand of fellowship unto it. We have been somewhat long in our vin­dication of the Scripture last argued: but the restlesse and endlesse importu­nity of Men in perswading the Scriptures to entreate their Darling error kindly, together with the difficulty of the Scriptures to be so perswaded, hath compelled us. But it is very incident to Men, to doe by the Scriptures as they do by themselves. God (saith Solomon) hath made Man upright: but they have sought out many inventions Eccles. 7. 29. So may it be truly said; that God hath made many Scriptures upright, plain, clear, obvious for sence and mean­ing: but Men are wont to seek out many inventions to perplex or misfigure this meaning, that it may not be known to oppose their fond Conceits and Ima­ginations.

The next Scripture of the Consort designed for this Chapter, was, 2 Pet. §. 45. 2. 20. For if after they have escaped the pollution of the World through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are intangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them, then the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousnesse, then after they have known it, to turne from the holy Commandement delivered unto them. Here likewise it is most irrefragably and cleerly supposed, that Men who have been truly sanctified and regenerated, and consequently Redeemed by Christ, may yet decline so as to Perish in the end. For to deny, that that expression of [Page 145] escaping the pollution of the World, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, doth import true Sanctification, or Regeneration, is to deny that the Sun is up at Noon-day. For if the Persons here said to have escaped the pollutions of the World, through, &c. shall not be supposed truly and in­wardly Sanctified, &c. but only superficially and externally, they must be supposed withall, 1. To have been all this while in the midst of that greatest pollution of the World, and which pollutes all other things unto Men Tit. 1. 15., un­belief. 2. To have been in the inward bent and frame of their minds and wills as much addicted to all other the pollutions hereof, as at any time formerly. 3. (And lastly) to have been all this while most damnable Hypocrites and Dissemblers. Now that the Holy Ghost should say, that Unbelievers, Per­sons inwardly full of all wickednesse and filthinesse, most vile Hypocrites and Dissemblers, have escaped the pollutions of the World, especially through the knowledge [or rather, acknowledgement, [...]] of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is to me (and I thin [...] to all other impartially consider­ing Men) the first borne of incredibilities. Can a Man be said to have escaped his enemies, when he still remaines under their power, and is in greater dan­ger of suffering mischiefe from them, then ever before? Or is not he, who being enlightned, Retaines the truth in unrighteousnesse, remaines inwardly full of malice and wickednesse, only garbing himself with an Hypocriticall outside, or meere Profession of Holinesse, as much or more under the Power and Command of sin, as likely to Perish everlastingly for sin, as ever he was, or could be before his illumination? For that, during that condition of escape, of which the Holy Ghost here speaks, from first to last, the Men spoken of were inwardly full of all filthinesse and wickednesse, and conse­quently, vile Hypocrites and Dissemblers, our Adversaries themselves con­fesse in their managing this Scripture, though (as they suppose) to their advantage. Evident it is (say they) that all the while they were free from the pollutions of the World, they were still Doggs and Swine [and if so, as in­wardly vile and wicked as ever] because it is said of them, Vers. 10. But it is happened to them according to the true Proverb; the Dog is returned to his own vomit again, and the Sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. But of this more anon.

2. That which is here expressed to be the cause, or meanes, of their escape §. 46. or deliverance from the pollutions of the World, their knowledge, [or acknow­ledgement rather, which is somewhat more] of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, plainly evinceth it to have been such an escape, which is inward, cor­diall, and reall, in conjunction with true Sanctification, and not externall, formall, or in Shew and Pretence only. There is scarce any thing more frequent or familiar in the Scriptures, then the ascribing of Justification, Sanctification, yea and Salvation it self to the knowledge, sometimes of God, sometimes of Christ, sometimes of both. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant (saith Isaiah, speaking of Christ) justifie many Esa. 53. 11.. By his KNOVVLEDGE; i. e. (as Interpreters generally) by his being known. He calls that (saith Musculus) the knowledge of Christ, not wherewith he himself knoweth, but whereby he is known by us Scientiam Christi vocat, non qua ipse scit, sed qua scitur & cog­noscitur a nobis.. The Apostle Paul speaks of the KNOVVLEDGE of the Sonne of God, as one of the Principall ends of that Evangelicall Ministry, which was by speciall [...]race given unto, and is continued in, His Church, and joynes it with the perfection of the Saints. Eph. 4. 12. 13. and afterwards (in the same Chapter, Vers. 20. 22. &c.) ascribes the putting off the old man, and the renewing in the spirit of our minds, unto it. The Apostle John makes [Page 146] no scruple to pronounce him a lyar, who shall say that he KNOVVETH CHRIST, and yet keepeth not his Commandements 1 Ioh. 2. 4.. And again; that whosoever sinneth [i. e. lives wickedly] hath not seene Him, neither KNOVVN Him 1 Ioh. 3. 6.. That of our Saviour Himself to this purpose is well known: This is life eternall, that they KNOVV thee the only true God, and Him whom thou hast sent, Iesus Christ Ioh. 17. 3.. It were easie to multiply places of like import. Therefore certainly that obedience, that Sanctification, that Conformity in life and conversation to the Word and Will of God, which is begotten and raised in Men, by the knowledge, much more by the acknowledgement, or thorough▪ knowledge (which the Word [...] seemes to import) of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is cordiall obedience, true and reall Sanctification, and conformity to the Will of God.

3. And lastly, if the escape and deliverance from the pollutions of the World §. 47. here spoken of, was not inward, reall, and accompained with true Sanctifi­cation, &c. how could the Persons be in danger of an after- intanglement there­with, (especially of an inward intanglement, and wherewith the Heart should be insnared, which yet the Holy Ghost evidently implieth they were, Vers. 14. in ascribing unto them an heart exercised with covetousnesse,) or of being overcome? at least how should their conditions be rendered so much more grievous and dreadfull by any such entanglement, then they were under the escape, as the Holy Ghost here clearly supposeth? If the escape here mentioned, importeth not true and reall Sanctification, the Persons escape­ing must of necessity be supposed, all the time of this their escape, to have been in the gall of bitterness, and bands of iniquity; and particularly, to have been both Hypocrites, and Unbelievers. Now our Saviour Himself suppo­seth Hypocrites and Unbelievers to be the first borne children of Hell, and of the Lake that burneth with Fire and Brimstone for ever, in those two say­ings of His, compared, viz. Mat. 24. 51. with Luke 12. 46. The tenor of the former is this: The Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an houre that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asun­der, and appoint him his portion with HYPOCRITES: there shall be weeping and gnashing of Teeth. Of the latter, this: The Lord of that servant—will cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with UNBELIEVERS. If Hypocrites and Unbelievers be of the first and Primary designation for Hell, and eternall destruction (which the said Passages cleerly import) they cannot lightly through any apostacy whatsoever contract any worse, or more grievous con­dition, then their present condition is. The truth is, that I know no Apo­stacy, of which an Hypocrite or Unbeliever is properly capable, but onely that, which is from Belial unto Christ, or from Satan, unto God.

All that the Adversaries of the Interpretation given, and who will not acknowledge the escape here mentioned to imply any thing more then a meer §. 48. formall and outside Sanctification, are able to plead from the words, or Context for themselves, is only that (which hath been already touch'd) Verse 22. The Dog is turned to his own vomit againe, and the Sow, &c. From hence they conclude, that as a Dog, is a Dog, retaines the same nature, whilest his vomit, and he are parted, which he had before: and so a Sow, or a Swine, is the self▪ same Creature inwardly, washed, and unwashed: so were the Persons resembled to these Creatures, the same men in the inward frame and constitution of their Hearts, even whilest they had made the escape here spoken of from the pollutions of the World, which they were before; therefore not truly Sanctified, or Regenerate.

But how weake this allegation is, sufficiently appeares by the foundation, on which it is built, which is this, that Parables or Similitudes run upon all foure; or that all things whatsoever found in the things resembling, are appliable also to the things resembled. God in hearing the importunate and restlesse cries of his Saints, is compared to an unrighteous Judge, who though neither fearing God, nor regarding Man, was notwithstanding overcome with the Widows importunity, to doe her Justice. Now to infer from hence, that because this unjust Judge remained still unjust, even whilest he did Ju­stice to the Poore Widow; therefore God also, being compared to him, was unjust, whilest he heard the Prayers of his Saints, would be an inference blasphemously ridiculous. Of no whit better calculation is that collection mentioned; wherein, because Men, sometimes cleane, and afterwards pollut­ed, are compared, in respect of such a change, to a Dog returning to his vomit, and a washed Sow, to her wallowing in the mire; it is argued, that therefore during their cleannesse, they must needs be inwardly, and in disposition, like unto these Creatures. Besides, supposing the Persons here spoken of, to have been Dogs and Swine, I meane, inwardly uncleane and impure, be­fore the alteration here ascribed to them, the Proverb of the Dog re­turning to his vomit, &c. may, in sufficient Propriety of Speech, be ap­plied unto them, without any supposall, that under that alteration they should be Dogs also. Suppose a Dog should by casting up his gorge, or vo­mit, be turned into a Sheep, and afterwards should by a contrary meanes, viz. by resuming it, become a Dog again, might it not Truly and Properly enough be said, that this Dog, though lately a Sheep, is now become a Dog again? But the impertinency of the Plea now impleaded, may be any Mans Vision, that will but narrowly and impartially looke upon it. Yea,

Calvin himself (it seems) was so far unsatisfied with it, that he could §. 49. not own the Interpretation attempted by it, but crosseth over the way to the other Interpretation. This (saith he upon Vers. 22.) is that in brief that Peter would say; that the Gospell is Physique which purgeth us with an wholesome vomit, but withall that there are many Dogs, who to their destruction, resorb [or resume] what they have vomited up. And again, that the Gospell is a Laver, which washeth away all our uncleannesses: but there are many Swine, who soone after their washing tumble themselves in the mire. In the mean [...] time the godly are admonished to take heede of both, unlesse they meane to be reckoned amongst Dogs and Swine Hoc au­tem summa­tim vult Petrus, E­vangelium esse medici­nam qu [...] nos salubri vo­mitu pur­gat: Sed multos esse canes, qui in suam per­niciem re­sorbent, quod vomuerant. Item Evan­gelium esse lavacrum, quod im­munditias omnes no­stras abster­git: sed multos esse porcos qui statim à lotione in coenum se provolvant. Intereà monentur pij ut sibi ab utro (que) caveant, nisi velint in canum & porcorum ordine censeri.. If Men like Dogs, may resume that to their de­struction, which they have vomited, or cast up, certainly, when they had thus vomited, and till such a resorbition, they were sound, and in a condition of Salvation. A Man cannot reasonably be said to take any thing to his destructi­on, who had that in Him before, which was a greater and more certaine means to destroy Him. Nor neede godly Men be admonished of any thing, as like, or Possible, to bring them into the account of Dogs or Swine, if such a transition be supposed to be unpossible to them. Therefore (doubtlesse) Calvin resents much better that Exposition of the Place in hand, which sup­poseth the escape specified therein to include an inward and reall Sanctificati­on, then that which resolves it into smoak and wind, I mean, an Externall, For­mall, Hypocriticall Sanctification.

Another Scripture ranged in the same Division with the former, is of much §. 50. the same consideration with them. Of how much sorer punishment (saith the Apostle) shall he be thought worthy, who hath troden under foote the Sonne of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace Heb. 10. 29? To say, that this Scripture (with the former) doth not speak of a true and reall Sancti­fication, but of that only, which is outsidely, seemingly, and hypocriti­cally such, is to claime a meere Arbitrary Power for Interpreting the Scriptures.

For, 1. The word here translated, Sanctification, is the same, with that which our Saviour useth, Joh. 17. 17. where, in the behalf of His Disciples, He Prayeth thus unto His Father: Sanctifie them through thy Truth: thy Word is the Truth. If neither Reason, nor Religion suffereth us here to interpret, that Christ Prayed unto the Father to Sanctifie His Disciples, outwardly, for­mally, seemingly only, but really and in truth, I would gladly know which of the two, or whether both, lead us to understand any other Sanctification, in the Place in Hand.

2. No one instance (I verily believe) can be brought throughout all the Scripture, where Men are said to be Sanctified by Christ, by the Blood of Christ, by the knowledge of Christ, or the like; but that the Place is to be understood, of a true, sound, and saving Sanctification. But Places of this Interpretation are many, 1 Cor. 1. 2. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Eph. 5. 25, 26. Heb. 13. 12. &c.

3. There is this reason evincing with an high Hand that the Scripture before us speaketh of an inward, reall, and soule Sanctification, viz. that the sin of the Person here said to have been Sanctified, in counting the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing [i. e. in Despising or Prophaning it] is aggravated by this consideration, that He was Sanctified by it. The carriage of the Verse, cleerly, and above all contradiction, evinceth this. Now then if we shall suppose that this Person had received no more good, no greater benefit by this Blood of the Covenant, but only to be made an Hypocrite, or a Dissembler by it (which must be affirmed, if the Sanctification here attributed unto Him, be only a feigned, or formall Sanctification;) this is so far from aggravating that sin of His in despising it, that it doth very much, if not altogether, extenuate and excuse it.

Nor can it be here pretended (with reason) that it was not the fault, §. 51. nor any defect in the blood of the Covenant, that he was not truly and really sanctified, but his own negligence and falsenesse of Heart. For though it be true, that the Reason why any Man, especially injoying the Gospell, Proves an Hypocrite, is not any deficiency in the Blood there Presented unto Him by way of antidote, and for his cleansing, but his own negligence, and un­faithfulnesse to his own Soule; yet the Sanctification spoken of in the Scrip­ture in Hand, is not attributed to the Loosenesse or Hollow-heartednesse of the Person, in whom it was found, but to the Blood of the Covenant it selfe. Now that which is the Proper and genuine effect of this blood, cannot be any Hypocriticall, or meere outside thing. And however, were this Sanctifica­tion an Hypocriticall, or meere-outside thing, and so an occasionall effect only of the blood of the Covenant; yet would the consideration hereof be no just or fitting matter, whereby to aggravate the sin of him that should de­spise this Blood. Though I may be guilty, and an offender in an high degree, to remaine an Hypocrite, or a false-hearted Man, under meanes so effica­cious [Page 149] and Proper to make me sound and upright Hearted, as the Gospell, and the Blood of the Covenant held forth therein, are; yet the consideration of my remaining an Hypocrite in this case, is no ground why I should be judged, either by my self, or others, the greater sinner, for despising these meanes. It is rather an extenuation (as hath been said) of my sin in this kinde, then otherwise, to consider, that though this Blood of the Covenant be a very Efficacious and Proper meanes to make me sound-Hearted and sincere, yet it is not so Efficacious and Powerfull in this kinde, as actually to subdue and overcome the Hypocrisie and Wickednesse of my Soule, without mine own endevours in concurrence with it. Therefore certainly the Apostle would never instance in a counterfeit, unsound, or imperfect Sanctification, wrought, or occasioned by the blood of the Covenant, to aggravate the sin of such a Person, who should despise it, by Apostatizing from the Profession of it. But,

4. (And lastly) suppose the Scripture in Hand should be conceived to speak of an outward formall Sanctification, which consists in a civill or mo­rall Reformation of the outer Man (which yet the scope of the Place, will at no hand, as hath been argued, admit) yet it sufficiently reacheth in Point of Proof, that which is intended from it, viz. that Christ Died for those that Perish. For this Sanctification, of what kinde soever it be, be it shadow, or be it substance, is ascribed to the Blood of the Covenant (i. e. the Blood of Christ, wherein God covenanteth Life and Salvation unto the World upon their be­lieving) as the efficient cause or means of it. Therefore this Blood howsoever was shed for those that may, and do Perish.

If it be said; it's true, it was shed for such Men, with such an intent on §. 52. Gods Part as this, that they should be externally cleansed by it, and outward­ly sanctified, but not that they should be really and internally Sanctified, or in fine saved by it; I answer, 1. That the strength of this Objection hath been already troden down in this Chapter Sect. 29▪ 30, &c.. 2. I here add, that if God intended an externall Sanctification only by the Death of Christ, for the Persons menti­oned in the Objection, then were His intentions in Christs Death, in refer­ence to these Men, rather grievous, then gracious; bent upon the aggrava­tion and increase of their condemnation, not upon the advance of their Sal­vation: and Christ Himself should come unto them, not that they might have life more abundantly, but that they might have Hell and Death more abun­dantly; whereas most certaine it is, that God sent not His Sonne into the World to condemne the World, much lesse to increase the condemnation of the World, but that the World, that is (as we formerly made good the interpretation Cap. 5. Sect. 10. 15, &c.) the generality of Men, might be saved. 3. (and lastly) If Christ Died for these Men to invest them with an externall Sanctification, to make them outward­ly holy, I would know, whether, together with this outward Sanctification, He did intend to Procure for them by His Death an inward Principle an­swerable to it, out of which it should flow. If so, if He did intend to Pro­cure by His Death an inward suitable Principle for these Men, out of which that outward Sanctification should flow, then certainly He did intend to Procure them a true and reall Sanctification. For what can we imagine a true and reall Sanctification should be more, then a righteous, blamelesse, innocent and Christian Conversation issuing from an inward Principle suit­able to it? If it be said, no; Christ did not intend by His Death to Procure for these Men any such inward Principle, as you speake of, but only that outward conformity to the Wayes and Lawes of Christian Religion, then [Page 150] it will follow that Christ Died with an intention to make Men Hypocrites, or to Procure Hypocrisie for Men. Because a faire shew in outward Practi­ses and Religious deportments, without an inward Principle and frame of Heart answerable to them, and which ariseth out of an hollow and unsancti­fied Heatt, is Hypocrisie, and that in the Plainest and most obvious signi­fication of the Word. Therefore certainly Christ did not shed His Blood to Purchase any such Sanctification for Men, which some conceive to be meant in the Scripture in hand. Christ in Dying for Men intended nothing for Men, but that which is true, reall, and saving, in the Nature and Proper tendency of it. Intentions of making Men hypocrites, or Christians by halves, in one kinde or other, are more fitting for Satan, then for Christ. How little danger there is, or rather what Precious advantage there is for the com­fort, Peace, and Edification of true Christian Soules, in that Interpretation of this Place, which by Sanctification, understands a true and reall Sanctification, above any thing that is in the contrary, we shall (God willing) demonstrate in the next Chapter.

In the meane time I desire the Reader will please to understand this, that §. 53. the interpretation asserted, and which understands the Scripture in hand of a true and reall Sanctification, is no slip of Remonstrantisme, but attested by very Orthodox Men (as the word now ruleth:) Calvin himselfe writeth nothing upon the Place, but of good accord with it. By a comparison of the benefits (saith he, speaking of what Men received by Moses under the Law, and what Christians now under the Gospell receive by Christ) he aggravates the ingratitude of Men. It is a very unworthy thing to profane the Blood of Christ, which is the matter [he meanes, the Principall, or most materiall cause] of OVR SANCTIFICATION. Yet this they doe, who apostatize from Faith. A little after. But he [the Apostle] takes notice of the manner how the Covenant is confirmed unto us, when he saith, we are sanctified: because the Blood shed would profit us nothing, unlesse we were watered [or sprinkled] therewith by the Holy Ghost. From hence commeth Expiation and Holinesse Compa­ratione be­neficiorum ingratitudi­nem auget. Valdè indig­num est san­guinē Chri­sti, qui San­ctificationis nostrae ma­teria est, pro­fanare. Hoc verò faciun [...] qui descis­cunt à fide.—Sed modum con­firmationis notat, quùm dicit nos Sanctificatos: quia nihil prodesset fusus sanguis, nisi nos per Spiritum Sanctum eo irrigaremur. Ʋnde & expiatio, & Sanctitas.: (with much more to like Purpose in this Commentary.) Whereby evident it is, that this Author, by the Sanctification mentioned in the Text, understands no other, then that which was in himselfe, and which is wrought by the Spirit of God in the Saints, by Watering or Sprinkling them with the Blood of Christ.

By which he was Sanctified] i. e. (say our English Divines in their Anno­tations upon the Place) by which their sinnes were pardoned, in regard of that meritorious sufficient satisfaction purchased by it; sending us backe to their Note on Vers. 10. of this Chapter, where they interpret the word, Sancti­fied, as signifying, our being freed from the guilt of our sinne, and consecrated to Gods Service. So that there is little question but that these also understand the Place to speak of a true Sanctification indeed▪ and which either is, or flows from, justification it self. And long before them both Chrysostome interpret­ed the Place, as speaking of such a Sanctification, which appertaines to a Son, or Child of God. God (saith he) hath made thee a Son: and wilt thou be will­ing to be made a Servant [...];?

The last of the Scriptures Produced, to Prove, that Christ Died even §. 54. for those also who Perish, as well as others, was Mat. 18. 32. 34. The tenor [Page 151] and carriage of this is of like consideration with the three last opened; ex­cepting only, that whereas those speak of Sanctification, this speaks of Ju­stification. The passages now to be insisted upon lie in the Body of a Para­ble, which is somewhat large: the Reader may please to peruse the whole in the Evangelist. The Particulars in it for our Purpose, are contained in these words. Then His Lord, after He had called Him, said unto Him; O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou desiredst Me: Should­est not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? And His Lord was wroth, and delivered Him to the Tormentors, till He should pay all that was due to Him. So likewise shall my Heavenly Father doe also unto you, if yee from your Hearts forgive not every one His Brother their Trespasses. In these words we heare of a Servant to whim his Lord and Ma­ster had freely forgiven all that debt, which he owed unto Him, which (as we finde in the former part of the Parable) was a vast sum of ten thousand Talents (fit to typifie or represent that great debt of eternall sufferings, which every Man owes for Sinnes and Trespasses, unto God:) And yet we hear also that this same Servant, by provoking this gracious Lord and Master of His, by unmercifulnesse and cruelty to one of his fellow-servants, for­feited his former Grace and Mercy, which he had received from Him in the forgivenesse of his great debt, and that this forfeiture was taken by His Lord, and he delivered by Him to the Tormentors, or Prison-keepers, untill He should pay the whole debt, i. e. for ever, in as much as He had not, nor was ever able to procure, wherewith to make such a payment. What was intended and signified by all this, is cleerly expressed by our Saviour in those last words, which containe the application, and are the close of the Parable: So likewise shall my Heavenly Father, &c. From which words the cleer and direct scope and intent of the Parable sheweth it self to be this, viz. to give the World to know and understand, that if Men, who have obtained forgivenesse of sins by the meanes and Grace of Jesus Christ, shall so far sin against the excel­lency and richnesse of this Grace, as to deale cruelly and unmercifully by Men, this act of Grace towards them shall be cancelled and revoked, and the debt of their sins shall returne and recoyle againe upon them. Yea, he plain­ly tells his Disciples themselves (for this Parable was in speciall manner di­rected unto them, as appears from the beginning of the Chapter) that they themselves must not looke to be exempted from this Law of the righteous­nesse and equity of God. So likewise shall my Heavenly Father doe also unto you, or, even unto you (notwithstanding any Priviledge you may seeme to have above other Men, by being My Disciples;) he will neither deale better nor worse with you, but just as this Lord did by that wretched and most unthank­full Servant of his, if you Provoke him after the same manner, i. e. if yee from your Hearts forgive not every one His Brother their Trespasses. That great Grace of forgivenesse of sins, under which you now stand, will be reversed and called in again, by him that hath given it you, if you shall so far tread and trample the glory of it under your feet, as not in consideration and ac­knowledgement of the greatnesse of it, to be open and free-hearted in for­giving one another such Injuries and Trespasses, as are done to you. This is the righteous and royall way of that God with the World, who (as Peter saith) without respect of Persons judgeth according to every Mans work.

I shall not need (I suppose) to caution that which hath been delivered §. 55. upon this account, with any such Item or Explication, as this; that it was far from our Saviours intent to threaten, either his Apostles, or any other [Page 152] Man, that they should incur the sore judgement mentioned, the losse of the forgivenesse of sins, or be cast into the Prison of hell, by every passionate or sudden heat conceived against a Man upon a Provocation, or Offence given. If this were so, the whole World of Saints (in a manner) might cry out, as the Apostles, upon occasion of another Doctrine taught by Christ, some­times did, Who then can be saved? But his meaning clearly was, and is, that if they should harbour or nourish thoughts or desires of revenge against any Man, that should at any time offend or injure them, and remaine impla­cable, not admitting of a clear and cordiall reconciliation with him, and should live and die in this hatefull and revengefull Posture, that then God would deale no better with them, then the Lord in the Parable did by that Servant, to whom he had forgiven a great debt, upon his unmercifull dealing by his fellow servant, when He delivered Him to the Tormentors to be cast into Prison, untill He should pay the whole debt.

Nor doth any thing that hath been asserted concerning the returne of the §. 56. debt of sin upon any Man, after forgivenesse, upon occasion of cruell, un­mercifull, and revengefull dealings by their Brethren, beare at all upon that of the Apostle: the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance Rom. 11. 29.. For the meaning hereof is not, that what God once gives, he never takes away: we know there are instances in the Scripture without number to the contra­ry. He tooke away that integrity and rectitude of nature from Adam upon his fall, which he had given him in his Creation. So in the Parable, he com­mands the Talent to be taken away from the unprofitable servant Mat. 25. 28, which be­fore he had given him: yea and threatens universally, that from every one that hath not [viz. by way of improvement or increase] shall be taken away even Ʋers. 29. that which he hath [viz. by way of stock, or originall donation.] So that the gifts and calling of God are not in this Sence without Repentance. Therefore,

2. When the Apostle affirmes the gifts and calling of God to be without §. 57. Repentance, his meaning may be, 1. That he never gives any thing to any Person, or People whatsoever, but that he knows and considers before-hand, all the inconveniences and dis-accommodations that will follow upon it, ei­ther in Reference to his own glory, or to his Creature, one or other, in any kinde. In so much that what ever be the event or consequence of any of his gifts, if they were to give again, he would give them. Nor doth that ex­pression concerning him, and it repented the Lord that He Had made Man upon Earth, and that it grieved Him at His Heart Gen. 6 6., any way imply, but that if Man had been now to make, he would have made him; or that when he did make him, he did not fore-see the inconvenience which now followed upon his making of him. The Phrase only imports a purpose of heart in God shortly to destroy him from off the face of the Earth for his wicked­nesse, as he saith (immediately after) that he would do. For which kinde of expression, when attributed unto God, we have accounted at large in the third Chapter of this Discourse.

2. The gifts and calling of God, are, or may be said to be, without Repen­tance, §. 58. because, let Men continue the same Persons (I meane, Geometri­cally, or Proportionably the same) which they were, when the donation, or collation of any gift was first made by God unto them, he never chang­eth, or altereth his dispensation towards them, unlesse it be for the better, or in order to their further good: in which case he cannot be said to repent of what he had given. But in case Men shall change and alter from what they [Page 103] were, when God first dealt graciously and bountifully by them, especially if they shall notoriously degenerate, or cast away that principle, or through negligence, or otherwise, devest and despoile themselves of that very quali­fication, on which, God (as it were) graffed his benefit or guift vouch­safed to them; in this case, though he recalls and takes away his guift, he can­not be said to repent of the giving it, because the terms upon which he gave it, please him still; only the persons to whom he gave it, and who pleased him when he gave it unto them, have now rendered themselves by their un­worthinesse, displeasing unto him, and uncapable, by the Lawes and Rule, of his righteous dispensations, of any further injoyment thereof. This is the case between God, and such Men, who having once obtained remission of sins from him by such a Faith, which wrought, or was apt and ready to work, by love, afterwards upon the losse or degeneration of this Faith, together with the operativenesse of contrary and vile principles, are devested by him of that great and glorious priviledge, and fall back into their former estate of condemnation.

Therefore from those quarters of the Parable in Matthew which we have §. 59. lately surveyed, perfect intelligence comes, that persons, who have by meanes of a sound Faith received remission of sins upon the account of Christs Death, may through negligence in not preserving this Faith, or the sweetnesse and soundnesse of it, so far provoke their glorious Benefactor, as to cause him to repeale that His Act of Grace towards them, and to suffer their former guilt to returne, like the uncleane spirit with seven worse then himself, upon them. From whence it undeniably followes, that Christ hath purchased Remission of sins by His Death for those, who notwithstanding may through their own folly and wickednesse perish. Chrysostome interprets the place in full consonancy with this inference or supposition. Although (saith he) the graces and guifts of God are without Repentance, yet malice [or, wickednesse] prevailed so far, as to dissolve this Law. What then is there of more grievous consequence, then to remember injuries, which appeares to be a subverter [or, destroyer] of such, and so great a gift of God [...];? Amongst our later Exposi­tors Musculus, as Orthodox as Men can make a Man, advanceth the same interpretation; making it his third observation upon the place, that those sinnes, which are through the Grace of God pardoned [at present] shall not be remitted [in the future] unlesse we will forgive our Brother. For it is an un­just thing, (saith he) that he should enjoy the free remitment [or, forgive­nesse] of a debt of ten thousand Talents, who refuseth to forgive his Brother a debt of an hundred pence Tertia observatio est, etiam ea­delicta, quae jam condon­ata sunt per gratiam Dei, non fore remissa, si nos nolimus remittere fratri. Est enim injustum gaudere de re missis sibi Talentis mille, qui nolit centum denarios fratri remittere.. Mr. John Ball himself nibbleth also at this expo­sition, even whilest for the sake of those that sit at table with Him, he opposeth it. As in the Parable (saith he) the Lord is said to remit to his servant a thousand Talents, when he desired him, viz. inchoately or upon condition, which was not confirmed, because he did not forgive his f [...]llow servant: so the false Pro­phets are bought by the Blood of Christ, viz. in a sort, as they believed in Christ, but not sincerely and unfeignedly Covenant of Grace. p 240.. A little after: to these Men their sinnes were remitted in a sort in this World, &c. If he would have brought forth his darknesse of, inchoately, upon condition, in a sort, into a cleare and perfect light, his meaning must have been, that that Remission of sins which God gives unto Men in this World, he neither confirmes unto them in the houre of [Page 104] Death, nor in the Day of judgement (the Authors own words a little after the former) in case they live and die under an implacablenesse or unmerciful­nesse of spirit, towards those who injure them. Such a sence as this is truly Orthodox, whether Men vote it such, or no. Our English Annotators, though they neither buy, nor sell, this interpretation in expressnesse of terms, yet interpretatively they buy or confirme it. This Parable (say they upon Verse 35.) informes us that they shall finde God severe and implacable, that doe not forgive their Brethren, although they have been diversly and grievously in­jured by them. In these words they clearly suspend the Gracious Act of God in Remission of Sins, in respect of the ultimate and compleat exercise of it, upon the Christian deportment and behaviour of Men in forgiving one another their Trespasses.

How perfectly it stands with the immutability of God, the unchangeable­nesse of his love, the unalterablenesse of his counsells, and generally with all his Attributes, to Reverse Acts or Grants of favour, to re-demand debts once forgiven, &c. shall be cleer'd in the processe of the Digression following, occa­sioned by the contents of this Chapter.

NOtwithstanding the frequently experienced Truth of the common say­ing, §. 1. pessimus Consiliarius Timor, Fear is a very bad counsellor, yet is it very incident to the natures of Men never to thinke themselves wiser, then in their feares, nor to be more importunely wedded to any apprehensions, then those, which they conceive to be sovereigne for the prevention of evill. With what height of confidence, and unrelentingnesse of judgement did the Jewes please themselves in their opinion of justification by works, through an ap­prehension that they must needs disclaime or reject Moses, and the authority of his Law, or Writings, in case they admitted the Doctrine of Paul con­cerning Justification by Faith! Whereas this Apostle expresly poves and demonstrates unto them, that this Doctine of his was so far from reflecting prejudice in the least upon Moses his Law, that indeed it did establish it [i. e. avouch the Truth and authority of it Rom. 3. 31. and cap. 4. thoroughout..] yea I verily believe that a very considerable part of those Doctrines and Tenents, which are at this day held by Professors of Christian Religion, are not maintained or held by them, so much upon any evidence, or confidence they have of their Truth upon those positive grounds, whether from Scripture, or Reason, which they comonly plead for them, as out of apprehensions and conceits that the contrary Doctrines are of evill consequence, and will in one kinde or other doe them harme; in case they should give intertainment to them. Lactantius reports that one principall thing which intangled the Heathen with Idolatry, or worse shiping of Idols, was, a certaine feare or conceit that possessed them, that all their Religion or devotions would be in vaine, in case they saw not with their eyes something that they might worship Verentur ge [...]tes, ne Reli­gio vana sit, si nihil videant, quod adorent.: Tertullian (as Austin reports) [Page 105] who held the Soul to be corporeall, or a body, held it upon the account of this feare, least if he made not a body of it, he should make nothing at all of it [...]eni (que) Tertullian­ [...], qui cor p [...] esse un­ [...]am cred [...] dit, non oba­liud nisi quod eam incorpore [...]m cogita re non potu­it: & [...]d [...]ô timuit ne nihil esset, si corpus non esset. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 12. c. 25.. The ancient Jewes (Mr. Brightman affirmeth it) held it not meet for young Men to read the Book of the Canticles, out of a feare they would receive harm by it In Cantic. p. 5.. Mercer likewise relates, that the Ancient wise Men of this Nation, judged it best to restraine the common People from reading the Booke of Ecclesiastes, out of a conceit that it both contradicted it selfe, and other parts of Scripture likewise Nec vulgo legendum tradere, quòd repugnan­tia contineret, & aliis libris contraria. Mercer in Pro. 8. 9.. Luther (it is sufficiently known) rejected the Epistle of James, out of a conceit that it contradicted the Doctrine of Paul concerning Justification by Faith only. And severall others, both learned and good Men, some, the second Epistle of Peter, some, other pieces, only, or chiefly, upon the like account of fear.

Concerning the Doctrine, which maintaineth a possibility of defection in §. 2. the Saints themselves, or true Believers, unto destruction, though I am not ignorant, but that many, both Texts of Scripture, and arguments otherwise, have been levied, and are wont to be brought into the field, against it; yet I verily believe that that which makes Professors generally so impatiently zea­lous in their opposition to it, is not so much any satisfaction they finde either in these Scriptures, or arguments, for the Proof of that, which is contrary unto it, as their inconsiderate and tumultuary feares, least this Doctrine should bereave them of those inward accommodations of Peace and Com­fort, which they conceive themselves to be befriended with by the other. In this respect, being little lesse then necessitated for the securing of some pas­sages (in the former Chapter) very materiall for the carrying on the maine designe of this Discourse, to ingage a little about the Doctrine of Perseve­rance, I conceive it best, in my entrance hereupon, to remove this stumbling stone out of the way, and to demonstrate, not only that this Doctrine hath every whit as faire and full a consistency with the Peace and Comfort of the Saints, as that contrary to it, but that of the two it is of a far better and more healthful complexion to make a Nurse for them. When we have cleared the innocency and inoffensivenesse of it in respect of the Peace and Comfort of Men, and so shall have reconciled it unto their affections, it will be no great mastery (I conceive) to gaine in their judgements unto it afterwards. And,

1. I must crave leave (the truth, and deere interest of the precious Soules §. 3. of Men so commanding me) to say and to affirme, that the Doctrine of pre­severance so much magnified amongst us, as it is comonly taught, and recei­ved, is, in the nature and proper tendency of it, very obstructive, yea and destructive, unto the true peace, and sound comfort of Soules. For if we shall diligently inquire after the common and ordinary causes of those doubts and feares so incident to Professors of Religion, as also of those extreme bur­nings and ragings of Conscience, wherewith both such persons, and others, are sometimes most grievously handled and tormented, we shall finde them, if not universally, yet generally and with very few cases of exception, to be these (with their fellowes, negligence and slothfullnesse in watching over their hearts and wayes, omission of known duties, formality in services, un­profitablenesse in their course and callings, non-proficiency in Grace; and especially the frequent prevailings & breakings out of base corruptions, vile af­fections, [Page 106] noysome lusts, &c. Therefore what Doctrine soever, is, in the Na­tive Frame and Constitution of it, apt to lead men into such snares of Death, to fill their consciences with the guilt of such Unchristian misdemeanours, as these, must needs carry a strong antipathy in it, and be full of enmity against the inward Peace and Comforts of their deer soules. And what Doctrine lightly can there be of a more apparant and notorious tendency this way, then that which promiseth unto Men, and that with heigth of assur­ance, under what loosenesse, or vile practises soever, exemption and free­dome from that punishment, the feare and dread whereof is the strongest and sharpest bridle, which God Himself hath to put into the lips of the unruly flesh in Men, to restraine it from sin; yea and which, the strength and sharp­nesse of it notwithstanding, the flesh many times despiseth and laughs to scorn, and disdains to be reclaimed or held in by it? And is not that Doctrin of per­severance, comonly taught and believed amongst us, of this very calculation, tendency, and import?

If it be said, yea but they who teach the Doctrine of perseverance, teach §. 4. withall, yea urge and presse the necessity of the use of such meanes, which God hath appointed to inable Men to persevere; I answer, It is in vaine to perswade or presse Men unto the use of such meanes in any kinde, which are in themselves distastfull and unpleasing unto them, when they are ascertained and secured before hand, that they shall not faile of the end howsoever, whether they use such means, or no.

If it be replied; that the Teachers I speak of, do not promise perseverance in Faith unto the end, but only unto those, who shall use the meanes ap­pointed by God for the obtaining of it; I answer, if this indeed be the tenor of their Doctrine, mine, and theirs, are no more two, but one and the same. I am as willing and free, as the most zealous of them in their way, to give that great Pledge of Heaven, the Word of the living God, unto the Saints, to secure them of their standing unto the end, upon the use of the meanes which God hath prescribed in order thereunto. But I feare this is not the clear and simple tenour of their Doctrine we now speak of: they blind it with some such additionall ingredient as this, that as God requires the use of the meanes of perseverance at the hand of the Saints, and will give it unto none but those, who shall use them; yet he hath certainly, universally, and irreversibly decreed, that they shall all use them accordingly, and that he himselfe will interpose by the power of his spirit, that not a Man of them shall miscarry at this point. I have but a word to say to this: let them produce such a decree as this, and it shall be an end of all strief between me and them (as to this point) immediately. But how little there is to evince any such decree, in all that they are wont to alledge and argue to that purpose, will sufficiently appeare upon the examination, whereunto we shall bring it in due time.

2. As that Doctrine of perseverance, whereof Professors make such a §. 5. treasure, is deeply accessary to the greatest part of those feares, those wring­ings and gripings of conscience, wherewith their peace is interrupted, and their comforts appal'd and shaken, so is it exceedingly to be feared that it hath a potent and pernicious influence of causality into those frequent, daily and most sad apostasies and declinings from wayes of holinesse, unto loose­nesse and prophanesse, which are found amongst them. For when the flesh, or that which is corrupt, carnall, and sensuall in a Man (a Principle not on­ly in being, but even vigorous more then enough in the greatest and best Be­lievers) [Page 107] shall be intoxicated with such a luscious and fulsome conceit as this, that it hath goods layd up for the dayes of eternity, hath it not the temptation of that foolish man (as he is called) upon it, who upon a conceit that he had goods laid up for many yeares, incouraged his Soule unto vanity; Soule, take thine ease, Eate, Drink, and be Merry Luke 12. 19. When a man that stands, is in any capacity of falling, is it not the only way to educe that power or capacity in­to act, and to cause him to fall indeed, to perswade him that he is in no pos­sibility of falling? Agag being full of this conceit, Surely the bitternesse of Death is past 1 Sam. 15. 32., came (as the Text saith) unto Samuel, delicately. When the flesh shall be taught to say, Surely the bitternesse of eternall death is past, I am out of all danger, all possibility of suffering the vengeance of eternall fire, is it not a secret and bewitching incouragement unto it to wax wanton against Christ, and to feed foule upon the sinful delicacies of this present World? Not only the distinct sound, but any confused blast of such a trumpet as this, is sufficient to prepare the flesh to the battell of sence, and sensuality. Nor doe they seem to be much acquainted with, at least not much to consider; the genius of that Principle in men we now speak of (I meane, the flesh) who thinke there is any other meanes so proper, or probable to hamper it, to break the heart and strength of it, as the Iron yoke of the feare and dread of the Worme that never dieth.

If it be said; yea but it cannot be proved, that any of those, who decline §. 6. from Religious courses, unto loosenesse, how many soever they be that thus miscarry, ever were true believers; or if such, that they continued in their declinings, without an holy recollection of themselves before the end; To this I answer,

1. Be it supposed (which yet will never be proved) that all they who fall away from a Profession of Faith and Holinesse, without rising againe, or returning, were never true Believers, yet it cannot be denied (and it is com­monly granted by men of contrary judgement) but that many of them were, or might be, in a very faire, probable, and hopefull way of obtaining true Faith, of being made sound Believers. Now that Doctrine, whose native and proper tendency is to take men off from the meanes, or to turne them a­side out of the wayes of Life and Peace, or (which is the same) of sound Believing, is every whit as much, (if not more) Anti-evangelicall, as that which directly occasioneth such miscariages in those, who do truly believe. So that there is nothing gotten by that pretense howsoever. But,

2. If there be any Persons under Heaven, who may upon sufficient grounds, §. 7. and justifiable by the Word of God, he judged true Believers, many of those Apostates we speak of, were to be judged such. All the visible linea­ments of a true Faith, were in their faces. As far as the eye of man is able to pierce, they lived godlily, righteously, and soberly in this present World. Doth any true Believer act zealously for his God? So did they. Is any true Belie­ver fruitfull in good works? So were they: yea, there were found in those we now speak of, not only such things, upon the sight and knowledge whereof in men, we ought to judge them true Believers, but even such things further, which we ought to reverence and honour, as the lovely and majestique cha­racters of Faith and Holinesse in their exaltation. Therefore it is but an im­portune pretence in men to deny them to have been true Believers. To say, that whilest they stood, men were indeed bound in charity to judge them true Believers; but by their declining, they discovered themselves not to have been the men; is but to beg the question, and that upon very ill terms to obtain it.

[Page 108]3. If our Saviours Rule be authentique, By their fruits we shall know them Mat. 7. 20., §. 7. we did not only stand bound by the Law of charity, but by the Law of a righteous or district judgement it selfe, to judge the persons we speak of, true Believers, whilest they adorned the Gospell with such fruits of righteous­nesse, as were mentioned. For our Saviour doth not say, by their fruits you shall have ground to conceive, or to conjecture them such, or such, or to judge them in charity such, or such; but you shall know them. Now what a man knows, he is not bound to conjecture, or to judge it in a way of charity to be that, which he knoweth it to be; but positively to judge and conclude of it acordingly. If then it be possible (as hath been said) for men by any Signs, Fruits, Works, Expressions in one kinde or other, to know true Be­lievers (which our Saviour in the said Rule, and elseqhere, seemeth to sup­pose to be very possible) the persons we speak of may be known to have been such.

4. (And lastly) if that Doctrine of Perseverance, in the comfort where­of §. 8. men so much rejoyce, intangles them with such a necessity, for the de­fence of it, as this, I meane, to judge all those to have been Hypocrites, or unsound in the Faith, who afterwards apostatize and decline to prophan­nesse, it will be found upon a true account, to be a Doctrine of no such good accord with their peace, or comfort, as is pretended, or as they (in consider­ately) imagine. For what will it availe me to my Peace or Comfort, though I be never so fully resolved, or perswaded, that in case I be a true Be­liever, I shall never fall away to Perdition, if in the meane time I be so in­tangled in my judgement, that I can hardly, if at all, have any sufficient or cleare ground to judge, when, or that, I am a true Believer? or be otherwise occasioned strongly to suspect and doubt of the truth of my Faith? Now if I must of necessity conclude all those to have been Hypocrites, or pretenders only unto true Faith, who afterwards fall, and rise no more, I must needs hereby minister an occasion of a thousand feares and jealousies to my self, and my own conscience, touching the truth and soundnesse of mine own Faith, lest this should be of no better kinde or constitution, then theirs. And being compassed about with such fears and jealousies as these, what great peace or comfort am I capable of, touching my Salvation? Or what is it to me whether true Believers may fall away, or no, when as I lie under the heavy pres­sure of so many doubts and debates with my selfe, whether I be a true Be­liever, or no?

If it be replied; yea but I may have security and assurance enough for the §. 9. truth and soundnesse of mine own Faith, because I am perfectly conscious to the uprightnesse and simplicity of mine own heart, which I could not be of theirs: and therefore though I might very possibly be mistaken touching the truth of their Faith, having nothing to found my judgement in this kinde upon, but only their outward deportments, yet having the testimony of mine own heart and conscience, together with my outward conversation, I may here be confident, though I miscarried there: To this also I answer,

1. Far be it from me to deny, but that a man may very possibly attaine un­to a very strong and potent assurance, and that upon grounds every wayes suf­ficient, warantable, and good, that his Faith is sound and saving; yea and such, wherein persevering unto the end, he shall undoubtedly be actually saved. I shall not need to argue this, because it is nothing but what is owned on both sides. But,

2. I verily believe withall, that there is not one true Believer of an hun­dred, §. 10. [Page 109] (I might say of many thousands,) who hath any such assurance as this of the truth and soundnesse of their Faith, (such an assurance I meane, which is built upon solid and pregnant foundations, and which are proper to beare it) my reasons are two. 1. Because though the testimony of a mans Heart and Conscience touching his uprightnesse towards God, or the soundnesse of any thing that is saving in Him, be comfortable and cheering, yet seldom are these Properties, (this comfortablenesse and cheeringnesse of it) built upon such foundations, which are sufficient to warrant them, at least upon such, whose sufficiency in this kinde men duly apprehend. For the testimo­ny of the Conscience of a Man, touching any thing which is spiritually and excellently good, is of no such value, unlesse first it be excellently inlightned with the knowledge of the Nature, Properties, and Condition of that, of which it testifieth; and, 2. Be in the actuall Contemplation, Consideration, or Remembrance of what it knoweth in this kinde, when it rendreth such te­stimony. Now there are (I question not) many thousands both of Men and Women in the World, who truly believe, and whose Hearts are up­right with God, who yet are not to any such degree inlightened about the Natures and Properties, either of a true Faith, or uprightnesse of Heart, but that the testimony which their Consciences give concerning these, is liable to many Disputes and Questions about the certainty and truth of it, in the Consciences themselves, which give it. This is the constant and known ex­perience of (in a manner) the whole believing World; there being not one amongst many of the inhabitants hereof, the testimony of whose Consci­ences touching the soundnesse of his Faith, is upon any such terms, or to any such Degree, either Comforting or Cheering, but that He conflicts with many feares, and scruples, and doubtfull apprehensions notwith­standing.

2. The comfortablenesse, and cheeringnesse of the testimony, which any §. 11. Mans Conscience gives touching the soundnesse of his Faith, and the up­rightnesse of his Heart towards God, depending mainly and Principally upon the uniforme, regulate, and constant tenor of his life and conversati­on in wayes of Holiness; and there being so few, even among the Saints them­selves, who are to any competent or considerable degree, carefull to walke without stumblings, and slippings, and many straines of unworthinesse, hence it must needs follow that that testimony of Conscience we speake of, will faulter, and be divided in it self: and though that which is comforting and cheering in it may be predominant, yet the consciousness and sence of irregularities in Mens wayes, must needs detract proportionably from the same. The credit and authority of that testimony, which any Mans Consci­ence gives in unto him touching the truth and soundnesse of his Faith, must needs in a very great measure depend upon the equable flowings or issuings forth hereof in wayes and workes of Righteousness, because when there is any considerable interruption in these, that testimony will be suspended and put to silence for the time, unless the Conscience it self be under the power of some delusion. This is evident from the Scriptures themselves in many places. Little Children (saith John) let no Man deceive you: he that doth Righteous­nesse, is righteous 1 Joh. 3. 7. This caveat, let no Man deceive you, plainely intimates, that the Consciences, even of Christians, and true Believers themselves (for such Johns little Children here, are on all hands presum'd to be) may very possibly be deceived in their estimate of a righteous Man, or (which is the same) of a sound Believer, and judge him to be either the one, or the other, [Page 110] who is neither. This is chiefly spoken (and is accordingly to be understood) concerning a Mans judging of himself. Whereas he adds, he that doth righ­teousnesse, is righteous; it is to be understood emphatically and exclusively, so that he, and he only, who doth righteousnesse, is to be judged a righteous Man, the Scripture frequently expressing it selfe after the same manner See Esa. 66 2 Gal. 3. 12. Joh 3. 16.. Now by doing righteousnesse, he doth not meane the doing of some righteous acts now and then, but a constant and uniforme practise of righteousness (humane frailties only excepted, which come not in to this account.) For in the Writings of this Apostle, as [...] 1 Ioh. 3. 8▪ 9, usually (if not constant­ly) signifies (as it were) to follow a Trade or Course of sinning, to sin with the like frequency and dexterity that a Tradesman works upon his or­dinary calling, or occupation; so doth [...] 1 Ioh. 2. 29. 7. 10., and so [...] 1 Ioh. 1. 6 Ioh 3. 21., and [...] Ioh. 7. 17▪ 9. 31, &c., signifie a proportionable acting of righteous­ness, and of the truth, and of the Will of God. Now if no Man can, or ought, upon Scripture grounds, to be judged a righteous Man, or sound Be­liever, but only he who doth, or worketh righteousnesse upon such terms as these, evident it is, that in what degree Men fall short of these terms in working righteousnesse, the testimony of their Consciences, touching the soundness of their Faith, and uprightness of their Hearts towards God, must needs f [...]ulter, and be incumbred with doubts and fears, proportionably, un­less th [...] Consciences themselves be mis-inform'd, or hardned. Therefore what Doctrine soever occasioneth Men to question the sufficiency of their obedience or righteous walkings, for rendring the testimony of their Con­sciences touching the soundnesse of their Faith, valid and worthy belief, can be of no such lovely or desireable Consequence for their Comfort and Peace: and consequently, the Doctrine of Perseverance, cannot, in a righteous judgement, be adjudged such. Because (as hath been already argued) it still necessitateth Men to give sentence against a better, and more uniforme Righteousnesse, then their own, (I meane, the practicall Righteousnesse of many, who [...]erwards apostatized without returning) as being invalid and insufficient to evince those to have been true Believers, in whom it was found. And if I stand bound in Conscience to judge those to have been Hypocrites, or Pretenders only to a true Faith, and not true Believers indeed, whose Righteousnesse and Fruitfulnesse of conversation by many degrees exceeded mine; am I not strongly hereby occasioned, yea ingaged, to question the truth and soundnesse of mine own Faith? especially considering (as hath been said) that the evidence of the truth and reality of every Mans Faith, depends so much upon the fruitfulnesse and operativenesse of it in wayes and works of Righteousness.

The Premises duly considered, that Doctrine of Perseverance, over which §. 12. the generality of Professors so impotently rejoyce, as being of so desireable and rich a compliance with their spirituall Comfort and Peace, must needs appeare to be a Doctrine of no such import or accommodation to them, but rather a Doctrine, very apt and likely to intice them into a boldnesse and venturousnesse in sining; and consequently must needs dispose them to apo­stasie and declining, yea and fill their Consciences many times with dread and horror, and very frequently with great jealousies, inextricable Questions and Disputes about the truth and soundness of their Faith.

Yea but, will the friends of the said Doctrine, (it is like,) still say; we §. 13. finde it very sweet and comfortable to us: whereas the contrary Doctrine, which tells us of a possibility of our finall apostacy and falling away, is very [Page 111] sad, and full of discouragement, &c. To these things, and all that can be preten­ded in this kind; we answer,

1. Suppose the Doctrine we speak of were never so comfortable▪ yet this would be no Argument of the truth or goodnesse of it, unlesse the comfor­tablenesse of it be found in due consistence with the Wisdome and Righte­ousnesse of God. It were easy to invent twenty Doctrines every whit as comfortable (nay much more comfortable) as this, in respect of the Natures and Imports of them; which yet will be found notoriously defective in point of Truth, because they hold not any regular Proportion with those Attri­butes of God. As for example, such Doctrines as these, All Men without exception; shall be saved, whether they believe, or not; no Man shall be punish­ed for any sin [...] whatsoever, neither in this World, nor in that which is to come; Men are as much app [...]ed of by God in the committing of the greatest sinne, as in the performance of the greatest duty; such Doctrines (I say) as these, are much more sweet and comfortable in respect of their frame, constitution, and import, then that, which affirmes a necessity of the Saints preseverance. But as those Doctrines with their fellowes, are not to be commended, nor enter­tained for their sweetnesse, or comfortablenesse sake, having no approbation or countenance from God in His Word; so neither is the common Doctrine of Perserverance at all to be regarded for any thing of like accommodation; I meane for any thing sweet or comfortable in it, unlesse the stamp of Di­vine Authority could be shewed upon it, which by no light yet extant is to be seene.

2. Though Doctrines and other means of spirituall comfort, are very §. 14▪ desireable, and earnestly to be pursued and contended for, when they are regular, and lawfull; yet as we must be content to be at the allowance of our Heavenly Father, for the accommodations and comforts of this present Life, and not be our own Carvers of all that comes within our reach, for such a purpose, so ought we no less to rest satisfied with such grounds and meanes for our spirituall consolation, which God hath judged meete for us, and hath Himself administred unto us in His Word, and not straine our phantasies or apprehensions to mould such Notions and Doctrines, as we our selves conceit to be commodious and serviceable to us in such a way. And as it is an high reproach unto the gracious and bountifull Providence of God for Men to have recourse unto the Devill, or any of his uncleane Arts or Methods, for their temporall supplies in any kinde; so is it no less (if not rather much more) dishonorable to Him, when Men shall make themselves beholding to a spirit of error for the supports or supplies of their inner Man. But,

3. No such Notion or Doctrine, which is only comfortable, and betid­ing §. 15. peace to the flesh, i. e. the corrupt, base, and sensuall part of a Man, ought to be esteemed, especially by the Saints, so much as comfortable, simply, and indeed, or any meanes of peace (truly so called) but should rather be looked upon as prejudiciall unto, and of an evill influence upon their whole interest in this kinde. For that which is proper to strengthen the hand of the flesh, can very hardly (if at all) be serviceable unto the Spirit, in the things of the Peace and Comfort thereof. Now that the Doctrine so often named, is a grand Benefactresse to the flesh, a full fountaine of joy and gladnesse unto it, hath been sufficiently proved in this Chapter already. I here only add this brief demonstration further: It must needs be a Doctrine speaking to the heart of the flesh, because it administreth a certaine hope unto it, that it shall how­ever [Page 112] escape the wrath and vengeance which is to come, yea though it dispo [...] ­teth it self in all manner of loosenesse, and licentiousness in the meane time. For this i [...] the spirit that speaks in that Doctrine.

That it is no wayes comforting or strengthening to the spirit, or spirituall §. 16. and regenerate part of a Man, but rather fulsome and importune, is evident from hence, because a man, so far as he is regenerate and spirituall, desires not, wisheth not Heaven, or Salvation it self, but only in wayes of Holinesse and of Honor: nor would he purchase a dispensation, though it were offered unto him, with the least haire on his head, to take his fill in the pleasures of sin, without danger. Nay if an Angell from Heaven should come and offer such a dispensation as this unto him upon the terms specified, it would be as an un­cleane and accursed offer unto him. The Holy Angels, because they have no flesh, no corruption in them, though they be mutable, (as all Creatures whatsoever by the unavoideable Law of their Creation, are) value not their happinesse, or their security in their standings, at the least mite the less, be­cause they have no liberty of sinning without danger: nor would they account such a liberty any priviledge or comfort at all to them, if they had it. But that they are capable or in a possibility of sinning, as well as Men regenerate, though not in so neer a capacity, we shall (I conceive) have opportunity to demonstrate in the sequell of the Discourse. Now a Man regenerate, take him so far as he is spirituall, and borne of God, valueth opportunities of sinning no more than an Angell: nor desireth continuance in the love and fa­vour of God, upon any other terms or conditions, then such, on which the Lord Christ Himself (as it seemes) injoyed it. If yee keepe my Comman­dements, yee shall abide in my Love: even as I have kept my Fathers Commande­ments, and abide in his Love Ioh. 15. 10. So then evident it is that the new Man taketh no pleasure, rejoyceth not in any such Doctrine, which insures either perseverance in Faith, or continuance in the Favour and Love of God, to it, upon any other terms, then of walking holily and humbly with him. And upon these terms the Doctrine which teacheth a Possibility of the Saints declining, insu­reth both the said glorious accommodations, with as high an hand of securi­ty, as it.

Yea the Truth is, that the received Doctrine of Perseverance, is so far §. 17. from gratifying the spirituall part of a Man, that it is to it what Peter was to Christ, when he counselled him to pitty himself Mat. 16. 22, I meane, an offence: o [...] what those Christians were unto Paul, of whom He complained that they brake his heart with weeping Acts 21▪ 13. For it secretly whispers, and suggests, unto it such things, the Nature and Proper tendency whereof is to scatter, what the spirit hath gathered, to dissolve and break the strength of those holy Pur­poses and Resolutions, wherewith the Regenerate part hath harnassed and arm­ed it self against temptations unto evill. When the new Man in a Servant of God, shall (with Paul) have reasoned and resolved thus: I will keepe under my Body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any meanes when I have Preached unto others, I my self should be a cast-away 1 Cor. 6. 27 ▪ he that shall come and insinuate thus into him, whether thou keepest under thy Body, or no, whe­ther thou bringest it into subjection, or whether thou sufferest it to wax wan­ton, thou shalt be in no danger, in no possibility of being a cast-away, shall he not loosen the very foundation & ground-work of such a resolution, which was the sence and apprehension of the great danger of being a cast-away, in case his body was not kept under? Or suppose a Man should argue, and conclude thus within himself, I will labour with my hands, that I may have [Page 113] whereof both to subsist honestly, and to doe good unto others, would not such a suggestion as this to him, that he shall have that which will be abundant­ly sufficient for both purposes, whether he laboureth with his hands, or no, be a temptation and snare upon him to retract his Conclusion in that kinde?

If it be here said▪ yea but a certaine knowledge, and full assurance that §. 18. God will never cease to love me, will bestow Salvation and blessednesse up­on me, whatsoever my failings shall be, is an effectuall motive unto my heart and soule, to cleave unto him in all love and faithfullnesse; and consequent­ly is nourishing, cheering, and strengthning even to the inner man; To this I Answer;

1. That the inner, or new Man in the Saints, takes no pleasure at all in any such Notion or Perswasion as this, that it may, or shall injoy the Love of God, or Salvation it selfe, under the practise of all manner of sin and wickednesse whatsoever. The very sound of these last words is harsh and uncouth unto it. Nor can it easily be perswaded, that any such Perswasion is from GOD.

2. Should it be granted, that a full and Perfect assurance of the continu­ance of the Love of God upon all, upon any, terms whatsoever, even of the greatest sin and wickedness, would be an effectuall motive upon the Heart and Conscience of a regeneate Man, to cleave in Love unto God, yet would it not be a motive in this kinde of any such strength or efficacy, as such an assurance as this, that he shall continue in the Love and Favour of God for ever, in a way of Righteousness and well doing, but with all shall be in dan­ger of loosing this love, in case he shall decline unto wickedness. The rea­son why this latter compounded motive, must needs be of more efficacy to the purpose mentioned, then the former, is, because the latter supposeth a necessity of this cleaving in Love to God for the obtaining of this great good [ the continuance for ever of the Love of God towards him.] which the former doth not. Now this is a generall rule, that that motive is still of greater force to perswade to an action, which renders the action perswaded unto, as of ab­solute necessity for the obtaining of some desirable end; especially when the said end is insured withall, upon the performance of the action, then that which renders this end attaineable without the Performance of this action. He that shall perswade me to love such or such a man, by telling me, that whether I love him, or no, yet he will deale lovingly and friendly by me, should not perswade me to love him by an argument or motive of so much strength, as he that should move me to the same Point, thus: if you love him, he will deale very lovely and friendly with you; but if you shall neg­lect, or voluntarily injure him, you will finde him a sore enemy. There is no action how lovely or desirable soever in it self, but becomes so much the more desirable, by how much the greater good shall appear to depend upon it, and must needs be produced by it; especially if it shall yet further appear, that this good cannot be produced or obtained by any other meanes whatsoever, without it. Now then as he who deprives a man of a greater benefit to in­teress him in a lesser, doth him as real an injury or wrong, as he that should take away a part of his substance from him without any consideration at all: in like manner that Doctrine, which shall bereave the spirituall part of a man, or a Believer, of a greater and more effectuall motive to the per­formance of a duty, only to present him with a weaker, and of less Power, must in reason be judged an enemy unto the one and the other, yea as great an [Page 114] enemy, as such a Doctrine would be, which deny them a lesser motive in that kinde, without any recompence at all.

3. If such a knowledge or assurance, as the Objection speakes of, were §. 19. an effectuall motive to perswade the heart of a man to cleave in love unto God, what reason can be given why God should not administer it, in order to such a Purpose, as well to his enemies and carnall men, as unto his Saints or Friends? For, 1. certaine it is, that all men whatsoever are commanded by God to love Him, or to cleave in this affection unto Him. 2. As cer­taine it is, that God is not defective in the subministration of motives unto them on this behalf, no not of those that are most Proper and efficacious to perswade them thereunto. 3. As certaine it is, as either of the former, that an assurance of the love of God towards them against all sin and wickednesse whatsoever that they are capable of committing, is a motive every whit as taking with, as suteable and pleasing to Naturall and Carnall Men, (if yet a motive it be) as to spirituall and holy Men, to perswade them to the love of God. Therefore if God hath not thought meet to afford such a motive as this is, unto Naturall or Carnall Men, it is no wayes likely that he hath afforded it unto Saints; with whose hearts, as such, (I meane, as they are Saints) it hath no agreement or takingnesse at all (as was shewed for­merly) Sect. 16, 17. of this Chap­ter..

4. And lastly, the very truth is (all things duly considered) that the con­sideration §. 20. we now speake of, and which is specified in the Objection, hath no­thing at all in it of the true Nature or Property of a motive, to perswade any Man to cleave in love unto God. For whatsoever representeth God to the Heart, Soule, or Conscience of a Man, as a God, in whose sight he is good, that doth evill Mal. 2▪ 17, and consequently as no God of judgement; as a God Pro­mising His Love, Favour and Acceptance, as well unto Dogs returning unto their vomits, and to Swine wallowing, after their washing, in the mire, as well as unto Lambs and Sheep, is no consideration which commendeth him unto his Creature, Man, or consequently which hath any thing in it, to ingage him to cleave in love to him. Suppose a man were thus Principled, that having once had a good opinion of any man, he would never alter his opinion of him, how desperately soever the Man should degenerate from himself, as though he should become the first borne amongst all the Sons of Belial, turne the most bloody murtherer, the most cruell oppressor, the most brutish in­cestuary under Heaven; but under the guilt and daily Practise of these and such like abominations, should love this Man with as much truth, reality, and sincereness of affection, only upon the account of his sometime▪ good­nesse, as he doth the most vertuous and worthy Person under Heaven, would such a Temper or Principle as this, commend him as a Person so much the more worthy love and respects, in the eyes of any considering Man? or would they not rather draw disparagement and contempt upon him, yea and this from those very Persons, whom he shall affect and love upon such terms? Therefore in case it were possible for me certainly to know, that how loose­ly, how Prophanely, how debauchedly soever I should behave my self, yet God will love me as intirely, as fervently, as he doth the holiest and most righteous man under Heaven, it would be a very slender motive unto me to cleave i [...] love unto him. So then it doth not yet appear by any thing that hath been mentioned or argued to the Point, that the Doctrine of Perse­verance, as it passeth up and down amongst us, is any contributor to the Peace or Comfort of that, which is of God, but only to that which is of Satan, [Page 115] in men, and which deserveth mortification and Crucifying instead of Com­fort and Peace.

If it be yet further Objected; But is not the Doctrine of falling away a §. 21. very uncomfortable Doctrine, apt to beget a servile spirit in the Saints, a a spirit of bondage and feare? Or must not they▪ who apprehend themselves to be in continuall danger of falling away, and Perishing, needs eate their bread in darkness, dwell with Sorrowes and Perplexities of soule all their dayes? To these, and all other reasonings and demands of like import with them, I Answer,

1. To be in danger of falling away, and to be under a Possibility of falling away, are two very different things; at least if we take the word, danger, in the common (which yet is the Proper,) Notion and signification of it, viz. as it imports a Probability or likelyhood of evill to befall those, that are said to be in danger. A man that is in danger (Properly so called) of suf­fering evill, if the evill be great, cannot well injoy himself with much Com­fort or Peace, whilest the danger continues. But he that is only in a pos­sibility of suffering evill, especially being sufficiently Provided of meanes whereby to prevent the comming▪ of the evill upon him, if he please, is fully capable of injoying himself upon the richest and best terms of security, that are competiable to a Creature. Nor are men wont to be troubled with the lightest grudgings of feare in respect of such an evill, though very grievous in the Kinde and Nature of it, which may very possibly befall them, in case they may with ordinary care keep themselves from it. Men may very pos­sibly fall into the fire, and be burnt: into the water, and be drowned▪ from the tops of Houses, or Steeples, and be dash'd in peeces: yet no man lives ever a whit the more uncomfortably, or under any kinde of feare, because they live under a Possibility of suffering these great evills. The reason of their security in this kinde, is, because they know that God hath given them rea­son and understanding sufficient to preserve themselves from them. In like manner▪ God having vouchsafed unto the Saints meanes abundantly suffici­ent to preserve themselves from Apostasie, and consequently from Perish­ing, so that they need not, either Apostatize, or Perish, except themselves please, there is no occasion at all (much lesse any necessity) why they should live any whit the more uncomfortably, or abate so much as the least haire of their Head in confidence of being saved, only because they are under a Pos­sibility of Declining, and so of Perishing. The Apostle Paul acknowledg­eth himself to have been under a Possibility of being made a Reprobate, or cast-away (lest, saith he, having Preached unto others, I my self should prove, or become, a cast-away 1 Cor. 9. 27▪) yet at what an excellent rate and height of com­fort, yea of joy unspeakeable and glorious, did he live? I am perswaded (saith he) that neither Death, nor Life, nor Angells, nor Principalities, nor Powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor Height, nor Depth, nor any other Crea­ture shal [...] be able to separate us from the Love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord Rom. 8. 38, 39.. That which ministred unto him the ground-worke of this most raised, and blessed confidence, notwithstanding the Possibility he was under of being made a cast-away, was partly that cleare and certaine knowledge which he had of the unchangeable Purpose of God to give Salvation unto all those, who should Persevere in Faith and Holinesse unto the end; par [...]ly also the like knowledge▪ of the bounty of God towards all His Saints, in vouchsafing unto them so rich and full a Proportion of meanes, as he doth, whereby to Persevere▪ accordingly. Thus then we see, that the Doctrine [Page 116] of falling away, teaching only a Possibility hereof, and so of Perishing, is no Doctrine of uncomfortableness, nor necessarily occasioneth the least fear in men of falling away, or of Perishing.

2. Suppose (for Argument sake) the Doctrine of Perseverance should §. 22. be subscribed unto, and that absolute assurance of Salvation granted unto Be­lievers, which this Doctrine pretends to give unto them; yet will not that conditionall assurance, which the other Dostrine affords unto them, fall much short of it (yea in most respects, some whereof have been already touched, it will be found, in order to their Comfort and Peace, greater then it.) Put case I were a man, who very much desired to live long in the World, and God should please to grant me a Lease or Assurance of my life for a thousand years, only upon condition that I should not willfully destroy myself, as either by thrusting a Sword through my own bowels, or by cast­ing my self headlong from some high Tower, or by taking Poyson known to me for such before hand, with the like; would I not upon the matter be as well satisfied with such a conditionall Lease or Grant as this, as with one that should be absolute, and wherein my life should be assured unto me a­gainst all possible attempts to be made by my self to destroy it? Doubtless if it were simply long life, which I desired, the former grant would be as satisfactory unto me, as the latter. Indeed if besides the security of my life, and of the continuance of it for such a terme, I should wantonly or vaine gloriously desire to shew desperate tricks, without fear or danger, as to take Lyons by the beards, or Beares by the pawes, to treade upon Cockatrices, to wash in cauldrons of boyling Lead, or the like, then the latter grant would accommodate me better then the former. In like manner, if it be simply and singly the Salvation of my soule, which I desire, and the certainty or assurance hereof, such a conditionall Promise made unto me by God as this, that saved I shall certainly be, if I will but quit my self like a Man, abstaine from foolish lusts, and not, with the Dog, returne againe to my vomit, or with the Swine that hath been washed, to my wallowing in the mire, such a Promise (I say) as this is security in abundance unto me in that behalf. But if my desire be, over and above the saving of my soule, to live loosely and prophan­ly, to disport my self in all manner of sin and wickedness, to affront the Heavens, and bid defiance to the Almighty, and laugh Jesus Christ and His Gospell in the face to scorne, or the like, without running the hazard of losing my soule, then I confesse only such a Grant or Promise of Salvation from God, as the Doctrine of absolute Perseverance demands, would satisfie and content me, and furnish me with that assurance which I desire. So that the most express and evident truth is, that there is nothing more in that as­surance of Salvation, which the Doctrine of absolute Perseverance pretends unto, then in that, which the Doctrine of falling away, or of conditionall Perseverance, indulgeth unto the Saints, but only a liberty or fearlesseness of sinning, And whether men may not be of a free, ingenuous, and Son-like spirit, without a liberty, or boldness of sinning; yea whether such a li­berty as this, will consist with that spirit, I freely refer to the Determination of any man, who hath been never so little baptised into the spirit, whereby the Saints cry, Abba, Father.

3. That Doctrine which is efficacious and proper to cut off, and prevent §. 23. all those occasions and miscarriages, from which troubles of Conscience, doubtings of Salvation, fears of Perishing, &c. do most frequently (if not alwayes) arise, must needs be a Doctrine of a far better comportance with [Page 117] the Peace and Comfort of men; than that, which is apt to multiply, or to give being to such occasions. Now, 1. that the uncleane issues of lust and corruption in the lives and wayes of Men, are the Springs and Fountaines that commonly send forth the bittter waters of inward troubles, fears, and perplexities of soule, hath been already argued in this Chapter; and besides, is nothing, but what the daily experience of too many fealeth unto for truth, 2. It hath been likewise brought forth into a cleer light, that the Doctrine of absolute Peseverance is of as pregnant and dangerous a calculation, as a Doctrine lightly can be, to cause the lives and wayes of men to abound with those uncleane issues we speak of. Therefore, 3. (and lastly) I here add; that the contrary Doctrine, (I meane, of conditionall Perseverance) is of a kindly temper, of a most absolute, choyce, and proper constitution, to pre­vent the breakings out of such issues, to amate the courage, and to break the heart of those corruptions in men, which otherwise would be very un­ruly, and hardly beare restraint: and consequently, is a faithfull and severe guardian to and over the Peace and Comforts of Men. For teaching on the one hand, certainty of Perseverance, and of Salvation thereupon, upon a con­scientious use of those meanes, which God hath prescribed in order thereunto, (I mean, for the inabling of men to persevere) it mightily cheereth, forti­fieth, and strengtheneth the spirit in men, who desireth (as hath been pro­ved) neither Perseverance, nor Salvation it selfe, upon any other terms, then these, and rejoyceth above measure, that upon these, they may, and shall, most assuredly be had; and on the other hand, by teaching, that by loosenesse, prophanesse, negligence in the use of meanes, &c. there may be an apostatizing to Perdition, it sorely rebukes the flesh, or corruption in a Man, and puts a sharp bit and bridle into their lips. A▪ Bridle (saith So­lomon) for the Asse, and a rod for the Fooles back Pov. 26. 3. The terrible rod of Hell fire, is for the back of that great Foole, the flesh, or that which is irrationall and unruly in Men, without the shaking and sound whereof it will hardly learn subjection.

If it be objected; yea but experience shews, that the contrary Doctrine, §. 24. that which maintaines un-conditioned Perseverance, is more effectuall to subdue corruption in men, then the other, in as much as many, who main­taine the Doctrine of falling away, are known to be loose, and of sinfull ad­diction in severall kinds, to be no friends to the power of Religion, &c. where­as men of greatest holinesse, and strictest conversation, are known to be of the contrary judgement; to this also I answer;

1. The experience asserted in the Objection, is not so unquestionable in Point of truth, but that if the Assertors were put home upon the Proof, they would (I fear) account more in presumption, then in reasonableness of Argument. For if persons of the one judgement, and of the other, were duly compared together, I verily believe there would be found every whit as full a proportion of men truly Conscientious and Religious amongst those, whose judgements stand, and have stood, for a possibility of falling away in the Saints, as on the other side. But through a foolish and unsavoury kinde of partiality, we are apt on all hands, (according to the Proverb) to count all our own Geese, for Swans, and other mens Swans, Geese. Certaine I am, that if the Writings of men of the one judgement, and of the other, be compa­red together, and an estimate made from hence of the Religious worth and holinesse of the Authors respectively, those who oppose the common Doctrine of Perseverance, need count it no robbery to make themselves every [Page 118] wayes equall in this honour with their opposers. The truth is (if it be law­full for me to utter, what I really apprehend and judge in the case) I do not finde the spirit of holiness to breath with that Authority, heate, or excel­ency of power in the writings of the latter, which I am very sensible of in the writings of the former. These call for Righteousness, Holiness, and all manner of Christian conversation with every whit as high an hand, as the o­ther, and add nothing to check, obstruct, or enfeeble the authority of their demands in this kinde: whereas the other, though they be sore many times in their exhortations and conjurements unto holiness, yet otherwhile render both these, and themselves in them, contemptible, by avouching such Prin­ciples, which cut the very sinews and strength of such their exhortations, and fully ballance all the weight of those motives, by which they seeke to binde them upon the consciences of men. And for numbers of men truly holy, and conscientious, doubtless the Primitive Christians, for three hundred years together, and upwards, next after the times of the Apostles, will fully bal­lance (with an abundant surplussage) both for numbers, and truth of god­liness, all those in the reformed Churches, who since Calvins dayes have adhered to the common Doctrine of Perseverance. And that the Churches of Christ more generally, during the said space of 300 years and more, next after the Apostles, held a possibility of a totall and finall defection, even in true and sound Believers, is so cleare from the records, yet extant of those times, that men who shall please to acquaint themselves with them, cannot with­out much opposition from their Consciences, deny it. We shall (God willing) give some light of proofe to this Assertion in the 15 Chapter of this Discourse.

2. Concerning the Persons signally (I suppose) aimed at for the con­firmation §. 25. of the said experiment on the right hand, as Calvin, Musculus, P. Martyr, Bucer, with other Protestant Divines of like Note and Name with them; together with such of our English Ministers, and other Professors amongst us, who stood up with the greatest zeal in opposing Ceremony and Superstition, Episcopall tyranny, and Popish innovations, being ge­nerally reputed men very exemplary, and particular in their wayes and con­versations, my answer is, 1. That it is a meere mistake to conclude or think, that these, especially the former, were so through or setled in their judge­ment for the Doctrine of absolute Perseverance, as to have no thoughts within them, comming and going, the contrary way. He that shall narrowly and unpartially peruse their Writings, will (I verily believe) finde in them every whit as much said for conditionall, as for absolute Perseverance. I shall (God willing) give a very competent account of this my Faith, be­fore the end of this Discourse: and shall fully prove by severall expresse testimonies from some of the leading men, and greatest masters amongst them, that they had a very good minde, at least at times, to be of that opinion, which affirmeth a possibility of defection in the Saints even to the loosing of the Soule. And for the latter (I meane, the English Ministers, and those mentioned with them) there is the like consideration of these also. The works of such of them, as have written, bewray them to have had both the Nations we speak of in their womb; in which works or writings of theirs, if they speak one word for a necessity of Perseverance in the Saints, it is ten to one but they speak another for a possibility of such a defection, which is never accompanied with Repentance. For those godly Ministers now upon the Stage, who are looked upon as rigid Patrons and Assertors of the re­ceived [Page 169] Doctrine of Perseverance, the truth is, that whatsoever they are in the letter of their Conclusion, they are in the Spirit of their Principles and Premises, builders up of that Faith, which destroyes the Faith of that Doctrine: most of their Sermons, which any wayes relate unto that subject, having ( Janus-like) two Faces, with the one of which they countenance this Doctrine, and with the other, that which is contrary unto it. So that the experience pretended in the objection of so many pious men embracing the Doctrine of Perseverance, is but a meer presumption: the men generally are divided in their own judgements about the Point. True it is, our Eng­lish Ministers and Professors, more generally profess themselves for the Doctrine of Perseverance, and cry out upon the Doctrine of falling away, as Arminian: but as it fell to Esaus lot, through Divine dispensation, to be first-borne, and so to have the precedency of Iacob in worldly honours, in respect of time, though at last his Mountaine and his Heritage was laid wast Mal. 1 3, 4., for ever; so it seemed good to the Providence of God, that, of the Doctrinall twins we speak of, striving together in the wombs of the minds and judgements of those men now under consideration, that of Persever­ance should first lift up its head in the World, and be applauded; making no question withall, but that the time is a comming, yea and is even at the doore, when this Doctrine must decrease, and the contrary to it, increase, and be exalted in the judgements, and tongues, & writings of Men. The maine Providentiall occasion (I conceive) which hath caused the Doctrine of Perseverance to flourish hitherto like a greene bay Tree in this Land, as it hath done, was the Permission of Mr. Perkins his judgement to be over-ruled on this hand, by those Texts of Scripture, (some, or all of them) together with those reasons, which are commonly at this day insisted upon for the Proof of this Doctrine. The great worth of the Man otherwise, commen­ded his Opinion unto many far above the worth thereof. And it being so incident unto men, malle credere quam judicare, rather to believe, then Omnes malu­mus credere, quam judica [...]e. Sen. judge; and again, to believe persons reputed singularly Pious and learned, ra­ther then others; it may very well be conceived, how by the authority and repute of this worthy Instrument of God in His Generation, this land should come to be so generally levened as it is, not so much indeed with the opinion it self of which we speak, as with the Profession of it. Before his dayes, this Doctrine found no such generall applause or intertainment amongst conscientious Persons in this Land, and many of the learned Martyrs in Queene Maries dayes leaned another way; who likewise dessented from him in severall other Tenents about the Arminian controversies. And when I consider what grudgings there are of the contrary Opinion (I meane of that which avoucheth a Possibility of falling away) in the judgements of the most consciencious Ministers amongst us, though the streame of their Pro­fessions runs in opposition hereunto, & withall what Principles they cleerly and frequently hold forth, especially in the applicatory Parts of their Sermons; I am easily induced to believe, that as by the authority of one Man, or some few, the Profession of such a judgement came in upon them, and surprised them, so likewise they want nothing in order to the Profession of a change of their judgements in the Point, but only the authority and countenance of some one, or some few Men of like Popular acceptance, to goe before them, 2. Suppose it should be granted, that the godly Persons minded in the Objection as holding the Doctrine of Perseverance, were perfectly whole and intire, and not divided (as hath been said) in their judgements there­upon, [Page 170] yet would it n [...] wayes follow from hence, that therefore this Doctrine was any wayes accessory to that godlinesse, whereof they gave so good an ac­compt in their lives and conversations. These men (I presume) held many Principles of Christian Religion, which taught them to live god [...]ily, righte­ously and soberly in this present World. So that if they did live according to all these worthy and commendable straines of Christianity, yet is there no ne­cessity of entituling the Doctrin of Perseverance held by them, either in whole or in part, thereunto.

3. Concerning the Persons chiefly intended in the Objection for the con­firmation §. 26. of the experience therein averred, on the left hand, who (I sup­pose) were the worst of our late Bishops, such as Romanized, and Tyran­nized most amongst them, together with their Clergy▪ creatures and favou­rites, who were generally inclined to the Doctrine of falling away, and with all took more liberty in their lives, then men truly Religious ought to have done; my Answer is, 1. That as was said concerning the godlinesse of the other, that it did not necessarily flow from the Doctrine of Perseverance, either as held, or professed by them, so neither did that loosenesse or un­worthinesse in any kinde, which was found in these, necessarily (no, nor so much as probably) arise from that Opinion concerning the possibility of a totall and finall defection in the Saints, professed by them. They held other Principles more then enough, sufficient to teach them all that irregu­larnesse and unrighteousnesse of conversation, which can with truth be charged on them. So that neither the good, nor the bad, neither the godly, nor the ungodly, deportments of persons professing such, or such particular Doctrines, principles, or opinions, are any demonstrative, no nor yet so much as any Dialecticall or probable arguments, either of truth, or error in them. The Scribes and Pharises were full of all Hypocrisie and unrighteousnesse, yet did they hold and teach many Doctrines that were sound, in so much that the Lord Christ himself commanded his own Disciples to observe and doe, what­soever they taught as necessary to be observed Mat. 23. 3.. And if the soundnesse or rottenesse of Opinions should be estimated by the goodnesse, or badnesse of the lives of any parcell, or number of persons professing them, as well the Opinion of Atheisme, which denies the being of any God, as the Opinion of Polytheisme, which affirmes a plurality of Gods, must be esteemed better and more sound, then that which maintaineth the being of one God, and of one only. For certaine it is, that there have been many Heathens, professors, some of the one, and some of the other of those Opinions, who have quitted themselves upon far better terms of honour and approbation in their lives, then many Christians, professors of the last Opinion, have done. It is the ob­servation of a great learned man of this Nation, Atheisme did never perturb Sir. Fr. Bacon. Essay 12. of Superstition. States: for it makes Men wary of themselves, as looking no further: and we see the times inclined to Atheisme, as the time of Augustus Caesar, and our own times in some Countries, were, and are, civill times. 2. There is (I suppose) a plaine reason to be given, why that Generation of men now under discourse, (the popish gang of Bishops, with the Clergy adoring them for perferment-sake) should, in order to the promoting of their secular interest, take up the Doctrine, which opposeth the common received Doctrine of persever­ance; together with those other Doctrines, commonly, but I know not how properly, or deservedly, called, Arminian. It is sufficiently known, that the men we speak of, were professed enemies to the most Religiously-zealous party of the Ministers in the Land, with their adherents, then commonly [Page 171] Puritans, whom they both hated and feared, as a generation of men, by whom, rather than any other, they apprehended themselves in dan­ger of being dethron'd. Nec eos fefellit opinio. Upon this account they judg­ed it a very materiall point of their interest, to suppresse and keep under this faction (as they termed them) in order hereunto, they studied and cast about, how to weaken their interest and repute with the generality of the People, or at least with all those that were intelligent, and in that respect, considerable. To this end, wisely considering that nothing was like to pre­judice them more in their esteeme with such men, than to detect them of error and unsoundnesse in their Doctrine; and perceiving withall (as with half an eye they might, being so fully disengaged, as they were, from all high thoughts of those who held them) that they were not in any Doctines be­sides, which they were generally known to hold and teach, more obnoxious to such a detection, then in those, which they held and taught in opposition to the Remonstrants; hereupon they politiquely fell to professe and teach Remonstrantisme, that so they might have the more frequent occasion and opportunity, to lay open the nakednesse of the Puritan Doctrine before the People, and to shew the inconsistency of it with the Scriptures, as also with many the most manifest Principles, as well of Reason, as Religion, besides. Therefore should it be granted, that (in the generall) there is much in the unworthinesse of men, who professe such or such a Doctrine, or Opinion, to render the one or the other suspected, yet in the particular case before us, there is nothing at all: because the persons we speak of did not imbrace or take up the Opinion or Doctrine mentioned, out of any naturall compli­ance they resented in it with their lusts, or any their undue practises (for such it had none) but out of a politique only: and as Austine sometimes said, it is no disparagement to the Sheep, that the Wolf sometimes puts on and weares her cloathing.

3. (And lastly) it is generally known, that the Cathedrall Generation of Men throughout Christendome, were generally great admirers of the old learning (as some call it) I meane, the Writings, and Tenents of the Fa­thers, and of Austine more especially: and that they frequently made shield and buckler of their authority, to defend themselves against the Pens and Opinions of later Writers, whom their manner was, according to the exi­gency of their interest (at lest, as they conceived) to slight and vilifie, in comparison of the other. Now the judgements of the Fathers more gene­rally, and of Austine more particularly (as we shall shew in the procedure of our present Discourse) stood for the possibility of the Saints defection, both totall, and finall; wherein (it seems) the greater part of our modern Re­formed Divines have departed from them.

Whereas some to prejudice the minds and affections of men against the §. 27. Doctrine of a possible defection in the Saints, (with the rest commonly found in the same retinue) cast out such sayings as these, that they never knew any, who fell in with these Opinions, but they declin'd in Religion, and in the end came to nothing, they do but spread a snare in the way of the simple: any considering man will laugh such pretences to scorne. Such an allegation as this much sembleth the superstitious advise of those, who dis­swade the Marriages of Cozen Germans upon the account of this Observati­on of theirs, that such have never prospered. It is very possible that they may have observed and known some miscariage, disaster, or lesse-desirable suc­cesse in one or two of these conjunctions, amongst some of their acquain­tance [Page 172] and friends: but what is there in this to create prejudice in the least in the judgement of any well ballassed and considering Man, against the whole species of such Marriages, more then there is in the frequent miscar­riages that are found in all kinds of Marriages whatsoever, to disaffect the minds of Men against all these also? If a man should inquire a little after matters of this Nature in the World, he shall soone finde or heare of many instances, of poore persons Marrying, who prospered not, of rich persons Marrying, who prospered as little; of Nobles Marrying, whose married condition was little blest from Heaven; of Princes Marrying, to the g [...]eat affliction, or ruine of themselves, &c. Is it now reasonable to infer from such observations, or instances as these, that therefore neither poore Men, nor ric [...] Men, nor Nobles, nor Princes, shall doe well, or wisely, to marry? The alledgement in the Objection in hand, is of no whit a better genius, then such a collection as this. For what though many, who have clozed in their judgements, (or rather made profession of such a clozure) with the Opinions there mentioned, have lost their savour, withered in their zeal, and put away a good Conscience from them; ought, or can, this in the judge­ments of reasonable Men, reflect any whit more prejudice upon the said Doctrines, then the frequent and daily apostasies and declinings, that are made under, and from, the contrary, yea under, and from the Protestant Religion it self; yea (that which is yet somewhat more) under, and from Christianity it self, ought in reason to disparage all these? We have a common proverb, that one Swallow makes not a Summer: and to say, that one Woodcock makes not a Winter, would in time make a proverb of as much Truth.

But though enough hath been said to evince and maintaine the innocency §. 28. of the Doctrine under Protection, in respect of any violation of, or intrench­ment upon, the inward peace and comfort of the Saints, yea and more (I am certaine) then can with good Reason be gainsaid, yet prejudice (I know) is restlesse, and thoughts of any long standing in the minds of Men, hardly removed. Therefore it is like, notwithstanding all that hath been argued hetherto, some will still object and say, we cannot yet be satisfied, but that your Doctrine of falling away must needs be very uncomfortable, and of sad importance to the Saints: because though there be but a possibi­lity only of their falling away, yet considering their manifold and great weaknesses, and aptnesse to sin, they must needs be in continuall feares, lest this possibility should be reduced into Act. And therefore there is nothing that can blesse them with any security or peace in this kinde, but the know­ledge and belief of some such fixed and unchangeable Decree of God as this, that however, they shall never fall away, to perdition. Nor is there the same consideration of a Saints refraining from sin, and of a Mans forbearing to destroy his Naturall Life, by wilfull precipitation, poysoning himself, or the like: because the inclination which is in Men to preserve their Natu­rall Lives and beings, and so to refraine all things manifestly destructive to them, is Potent, Vigorous, and Active; whereas the inclination to ab­staine from sin, which is in the Saints, is comparatively weak, much incum­bred and broken by the flesh, the frequent Motions and Temptations thereof, &c. To these things, and whatsoever may be further pretended in the same kinde, I answer;

1. Though that disposition which is in the Saints to forbeare sin, be nei­ther §. 29. so free, nor so full of Energy and Power, as the Naturall inclination [Page 173] in Men to preserve their Naturall Beings; yet, 1. Even this inclination it self is not so intire, or free, or so strong, but that it is liable to temptation also, and subject to be incountered, yea and sometimes is overcome; as in those, who under great Pangs and Agonies of discontent, lay violent hands upon themselves. Therefore there is no such great disproporti­on between the one inclination, and the other, as the Objection suppo­seth. But,

2. Be it granted, that the Propension in the Saints to abstaine from sin, §. 30. simply, and in the generall, is nothing so energeticall or powerfull, as the Naturall desire in Men to preserve their Naturall lives; yet possibly it may be, yea probably it is, every whit as potent and operative, in Reference to some sins; and particularly to those, which are likely to occasion or produce finall Apostasie. For though there be in every sin whatsoever, a Naturall tendency, according to the kinde and degree of it, towards Apostasie, even that which is finall, as there is in every light prick with a Pin in a Mans finger, towards the dissolution of the Naturall Life; yet as no man is di­sturb'd in his Peace and Comfort touching the continuance of his health and life, by a drop o [...] two of Blood dramn from his finger by the scratch of a Pin; so neither is there any reasonable ground, or occasion, why upon the commission o [...] [...]ry sin, a Saint should be struck into a Passion of feare of falling away, u [...]lesse he hath an assurance from Heaven that he shall not fall away. They are not sins of infirmity, or sins quotidiani incursus (as Austine somewhere calls them) i. e. sins of a daily incursion, but only such sins quaevastant conscientiam (as the Schoole-m [...]s [...]hrase is.) i. e. that lay wast the Conscience, which have any dangerous [...]ity with falling away. Now I suppose that in respect of such sins as these, the inclination of the Saints may well be as strong and free tow [...]ds [...] Non-commission, or Re­frainement, as the Naturall Inclination in Men is towards a self-pre­servation.

3. Whether that inclination or disposition in the Saints, which we now §. 31. speake of, be actually, and in the generality of them according to their pre­sent conditions, commensurable in Strength, Power, and every other de­sireable Property, with the inclination in Men to preserve their Naturall Beings by the forbearance of all acts whatsoever apparantly destructive to them, or no; most certaine it is, that God hath vouchsafed unto them a sufficiency of means, yea means in abundance, to make them every wayes commensurable hereunto, yea to raise them to an higher Pitch or Degree of Strength and Power, then so: yea and further hath made them (the Saints themselves I meane) every wayes capable, (all their infirmities and weak­nesses considered, and allowed for) of the use of these means even to the actuall producing of such a glorious and blessed effect, as that. So that if the said inclination in them be not every wayes as serviceable unto them, in securing them against all feares of acting in any way apparantly destructive to their great spirituall interest, the saving of their Soules, as the other in­clination in Men is unto them, to secure them from fears of doing any thing knowingly, to the unavoideable losse of their lives, the fault is meerly and absolutely in themselves; and this not through any infirmity or weaknesse, which is Naturall to them, and so inseparable, but through a Grosse, Rank, and Stupid carelessenesse and sloath. If thus, then is not the Doctrine of falling away any wayes prejudiciall to the Peace and Comfort of the Saints, in respect of it self, but meerly accidentally and occasionally, viz. as the [Page 174] Saints will voluntarily, and without any necessity either from within, or from without, compeling them, break out into such extravagancies of sin, which, that Doctrine being true, may justly fill them with fears of fal­ling away, and perishing. But let me say this too (which here is not to be omitted) that even the Assertors themselves of the common Doctrine of Perseverance, doe affirme and teach, that their Doctrine it self notwith­standing, the Saints under such extravagancies of sin, as we speak of, can have no Comfort, Peace, or Assurance of Salvation, and consequently no assurannce of Persevering in Faith unto the end. Therefore by their own confessions and tenor of discourse, there is no such great difference between the two Doctrines, in Reference to the Peace or Comfort of the Saints, the one (I meane that of Perseverance) leaving them obnoxious unto feares and doubtings, as well as the other, yea if sentence were given between them according to truth, that of Perseverance must be adjudged, not only to leave the Saints under a possibility or capacity of discomfiture and feare (which indeed the other doth) but under a sore temptation also (as we have formerly proved) of tormenting themselves with such fears, which the other doth not.

If it be demanded; But what are the meanes, which God hath given (as §. 32. I say) so abundantly unto the Saints, to make themselves as free, as strong in inclination to avoid things apparantly destructive to their spirituall Peace, and Salvation of their Soules, as Naturally Men are to forbeare all such actions, which are apparantly destructive to their Naturall Lives; so that they need not be any whit more afraid of losing their Soules through their own actings, then men are, or need to be, of destroying their Naturall Lives, upon the same terms? I answer;

1. There is nothing which indangereth the Salvation of the Soule, but sin: yea there is nothing that causeth this danger to any much considerable or formidable degree but only such sins, which are notoriously manifest un­to the Saints, if not by the light of Nature, yet by the light of Grace, and of the Scriptures; manifest I meane, not only, or simply, as, or that, they are sins, but manifest also according to that Relation, wherein we now speak of them, i. e. as, and that, they are sins threatning (as it were) with a loud voyce destruction to the Soule. So that (in the first place) God hath vouchsafed unto the Saints means fully sufficient to informe them of whatso­ever is imminently or apparantly destructive to their Soules.

2. He hath given them Eyes wherewith, and light whereby, cleerly and §. 33. evidently to see and know, that it is not more Rationall, or Man-like, for Men to refraine all such actions, which they know they cannot performe but to the present and unavoideable destruction of their Naturall Lives, then it is to forbear all sinfull acts whatsoever; and especially all such, which are appa­rantly destructive to their Soules.

3. God hath not only given them the Eyes, and the light we speake of, §. 34. wherewith, and whereby cleerly to see and understand the things mentioned, but hath further endued them with a faculty of consideration, wherewith to reflect upon, and review, to weigh and ponder, as oft as they please, what they see, understand, and know in this kinde. Now whatsoever a Man is capable, 1. Of Seeing and Knowing; 2. of Pondering and Considering, he is capable of raising or working an inclination in Himself towards it, answer­able in Strength, Vigor, and Power, to any degree of goodnesse or desire­ablenesse, which he is able to apprehend therein. For what is an inclination [Page 175] towards any thing, as suppose towards an act, or course and frequency of actions, but a propension and leaning (as it were) of the Heart and Soule towards it? And how comes the Heart or Soule of a Man to propend or leane towards any thing, but by apprehending and considering somewhat, that is seemingly at least, if not really also, good for him therein? And the greater the good is that is apprehended herein, and the cleerer, the more raised and multiplied the apprehension is, the greater proportionably, the fuller of Strength, Vigour, and Power, must the Propension, and inclina­tion of the Heart and Soule needs be thereunto. So that if, 1. There be worth and goodnesse sufficient in any object whatsoever to beare it: and, 2. If a Man be in a capacity of discovering and apprehending this good cleerly; and, 3. Be in a like capacity of revising or considering this his vision, as oft as he pleaseth, certainly he is in a capacity and at liberty to work himself to what strength or degree of desire and inclination towards it he pleaseth. Now evident and certaine it is to every Man, or else easily may be, 1. That there is more good in abstaining from things, either eminently dangerous, or ap­parantly destructive to his Soule, then in forbearing things apparantly de­structive to his Naturall Being. 2. As evident it is, that every Man is capable of attaining, or comming to the certaine knowledge of, and of cleerly ap­prehending this excesse of good to him in the former, above the latter; 3. Neither is it a thing lesse evident, then either of the former, that every Man is as capable of Ruminating or Re-apprehending the said excesse of good, as much, and as oft, as he pleaseth, as he is simply of apprehending it. All which supposed as undeniably true, it followes with an high hand, and above all contradiction, that the Saints may, and have meanes and oppor­tunities faire and full for the purpose, Plant an inclination or disposition in themselves, to refrain all manner of sins apparantly dangerous and destructive to the safety of their Soules, fuller of Energy, Vigour, Life, Strength, Power, then that Naturall inclination in them, which teacheth them to refrain all actions, which they know must needs be accompanied with the destruction of their Naturall Beings. Therefore if they be more (yea or so much) afraid of destroying their Lives voluntarily and knowingly, as by casting themselves into the Fire, or the Water, or the like, then they are of falling away through sin, the Fault or Reason hereof, is not at all in that Doctrine, which affirm's, and inform's them, that there is a Possibility that they may fall away, but in themselves, and in their own voluntary negligence: they have meanes and opportunities (as we have Proved) in abundance, to ren­der themselves every whit as secure, (yea and more secure) touching the latter, as they are, or reasonably can be, concerning the former. The Pos­sibility they live under of destroying their Naturall Lives with their own hands, doth not occasion the least trouble or fear of death in them, in such a way. Nor needs the Possibility they lie under of falling away, being grounded only upon a Possibility of their own voluntary actings, occasion the least di­sturbance, uncomfortableness, or fear in their spirits, that they shall fall away. Therefore,

2. (To the maine objection in hand) I answer further; concerning the §. 35. manifold weaknesses of the Saints, their aptnesse to sin, &c. these indeed are sufficient and Proper to cause them to fear, but nor the fear of falling away from God, or from his Grace, but that fear, which the Scripture is wont to oppose to high mindednesse. Be not high minded, but feare, Rom. 11. 20 This fear is nothing else but an humble reflection upon a Mans own weakenesse, and [Page 176] insufficiency to stand by his own strength, which necessarily draweth along with it an humble dependance upon God for strength whereby to stand, to­gether with an acknowledgement of strength received from him, when, and whilest, he doth stand. This is evident from that of the Apostle: worke out your own Salvation with feare and trembling▪ [i. e. with humility, with a sence and acknowledgement of no sufficiency, as from your selves, for so important a work] for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to doe of His good Pleasure Phili, 2. 12. 13.. i. e. you are debtors unto him both for every disposition you finde in your selves to act, and likewise for every action, wherein you doe act, in order to your Salvation. But of this Passage of Scripture more hereafter, God willing. In the meane time certaine it is, that the infirmities and weak­nesses of the Saints, through [...]hich they are apt to sin, doe not require any such Decree in God, which [...]ncludeth in it an impossibility of their falling away, to render them secure from, or against such falling. For as the lighter crosses and discontents, which men daily meet with in their houshold affaires, conversings with Men, and dealings in the World, bring them into no dan­ger or feare of making away themselves, or destroying their own lives, though there be no absolute Decree of God to secure them in this behalf, the Na­turall desire of self-preservation which God hath planted in them, easily over ruling, by the Power and Strength of it, all motions [...]or dispositi­ons towards self-destroying, which are wont to arise from such occasions: in like manner the strength of that inclination or desire, which is, or ought to be, and very possibly (as hath been Proved) might be in the Saints, to save their Soules, and consequently to preserve themselves from apostasie, is sufficient, without any such Decree in God as was mentioned, to secure them both from all danger, and from all feare of apostatizing to destruction, notwithstanding all weaknesses or infirmities that they are subject unto. The truth is, that the infirmities and weaknesses of the Saints, as such, are so far from being any necessary or just ground of fear unto them that they shall fall away; that the sence and acknowledgement of them are most cleer, pregnant and effectuall Antidotes and Preservatives against falling away. For he that is inwardly and truly sensible of his own weaknesse and inability to stand, will, especially being a Saint, or Believer, most certainly depend upon him for strength, who is both able, and willing to supply and furnish him, upon such terms.

3. (And lastly,) upon the former accompt, and for a close of this Chapter, §. 36. I answer; that if the Doctrine of falling away be so uncomfortable unto the Saints, as the objection pretends, the truth is (as we have in the Premisses of this Chapter made it to appear) they are not much relieved at this Point by the Received Doctrine of Perseverance. For this Doctrine (as hath been shewed) scarce suffereth any man to believe, upon any Rationall, competent, or sufficient grounds, that he is a true Saint, or Believer, yea and doth little lesse then tempt him to such things, which are exceeding apt and likely to fill him with feares and questionings touching the truth of his Faith. And what great comfort can it then be unto him to hear, or believe, that true Be­lievers cannot fall away, or perish? whereas the other Doctrine leaveth them a good latitude of competent ground, whereon to judge themselves true Saints, and true Believers: nor doth it deprive them of sufficient ground, on which to secure themselves both against the danger, and against all feare of the danger▪ of Apostatizing or falling away, to Perdition. This Doctrine therefore, of the two, is (questionless) of the more benevolous aspect and in­fluence upon the Peace and Comforts of the Saints.

BEing occasioned, and (after a sort) necessitated, for the securing of §. 1. some passages of interpretation Cap. 8. being of main concernment to the Principall cause undertaken in this Discourse, to ingage home in the Question about Preseverance, I should, according to ordinary Method, and that hitherto observed in the traverse of the maine Doctrine, first have argued my Sence and Judgement in the Question [...], assertively; and then [...], i. e. by answering such Objections, whether from Scrip­ture, or otherwise, which are wont to be levied by Men of contrary judge­ment, in opposition thereunto. But finding by experience that weaker men, through too much fulnesse, and aboundance in their own sence in matters of Controversie, and this chiefly by meanes of some Texts of Scripture run­ning still, and working in their heads, which in sound of words, and surface of Letter, seeme to stand by them in their Sence and Notion, are under a very great disadvantage, either for minding, or understanding such things, which are spoken unto them for their information in the Truth; I thought it best, for their relief in this case, to invert that Method in the present Dis­pute; and first to endeavour to take from them those weapons, whether of Scripture, or argument, wherein they trust; and afterwards present them with such other Scriptures, and grounds, which are Able, Pregnant, and Proper, to build them up, and establish them in the Truth.

We shall not tie our selves to any Rule, or Prescript of Order, in bring­ing §. 2. those Scriptures upon the theatre of our Discourse, which men of dif­fering judgement in the cause in hand, are wont to plead in defence thereof, themselves (as far as I have observed) observing none; but shall produce them one by one as God shall please to bring them to mind, unlesse (haply) two, or more of them, by reason of affinity or likenesse in Phrase, or import, may commodiously enough be handled together. Most of the places com­pelled to serve in this warfare, I finde scituate in the New Testament. The first that commeth to hand, is that of our Saviour unto Peter—and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Mat. 16. 18. From hence it is argued, that those that are once built by Faith upon the Rock, Christ, or upon the truth of the Gospell, are not in danger, or in a possibility of being prevailed against [ viz. to destruction] by all the Powers of darkness whatsoever. I answer,

1. That this promissory assertion of Christ, the Gates of Hell shall not pre­vaile, §. 3. &c. doth not necessarily respect every individuall and single Person, who de praesenti is a Member of his Church, so as to secure him of his Salva­tion, against all possible sins, or wayes of sinning, whereunto he may, or can be drawn by Satan; but may well be understood of the Church in generall, i. e. considered as a body of men, separate and distinguished from the world. Now the Church (in this sence) may be said to stand, and be secured against all the Power and Attempts of the Devill, though not only some, but even all the Particular Saints, of which this body consists at present, should be prevailed against by Satan to destruction. Because the ratio formalis or essence [Page 178] of the Church, in this sence, doth not consist in the Persons of those, who do at present believe, and so are members of it (for then it would follow, that in case these should die, or when they shall die, Christ should have no Church at all upon the Earth, in as much as nothing can be without the essence of it) but in the successive Generation of those, who in their respective times be­lieve, whether they be fewer, or whether they be more, whether they be such and such Persons, or whether others. As suppose there be not now one drop of that Water in the chanell of the River of Thames (as it is like there is not) which was in it seven years since, yet is it one and the same River, which it was then: and so put the case there be not one Person now alive in any of the Companies in London, of which they respectively consisted 40. yeares since, yet are they the self same Companies, which they were then. So then the saying of Christ, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against His Church, may stand clear and firme, though many particular members there­of should be overcome. Therefore there is nothing in this Scripture to evince that universall Perseverance of all Saints which is commonly taught and re­ceived amongst us.

2. When our Saviour promiseth that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile §. 4. against His Church, his meaning (questionlesse) is this, that death, or the Grave (which may very properly be called the Gates of Hell, because they that goe, or are sent to Hell, enter by them thereinto) or else that Hell it self shall not prevaile, i. e. shall not have a full or finall conquest over those, that shall die, built upon the Rock he speaks of, by Faith, as, by Reason of their most formidable strength, they are like to have over all other Men. Ac­cording to this interpretation his meaning only is, that those that shall con­tinue firmly built upon him by Faith, shall in time be rescued and delivered out of the hand of all adverse Powers, yea from death and the grave themselves, the most formidable of all others.

This Exposition fully accords with what Chrysostome hath upon the place. §. 5. If (saith he, Paraphrasing the words of Christ) they shall not prevaile against it [my Church] much more shall they not prevaile against me. Therefore he not troubled when thou shalt heare that I shall be Betrayed, and Crucified [...].. These words clearly imply, that by the prevailing of the Gates of Hell, the Author understands, the finall prevailing of Death, or the Grave; and not the prevailing of Satan by subtilty or temptations in one kinde or other.

Amongst our late Protestant Divines, Cameron, who comonly strikes as §. 6. happy a stroake in opening the Scriptures which he undertakes, as any man, doth not only deliver, but with an high hand asserts, argues, and evinceth this Interpretation. This then (saith he) seemes to have been the minde of Christ in this place: Let those who believe, lie for a time, dead, let death have dominion over them, let death exercise his right [or execute his Law] upon them, hold them fast shut up in the Grave (as in a Prison) bound with bands [or fetters] yet shall he not alwayes have his will over them; he may, or shall doe much against them, but shall never have a full conquest over them Haec ergo Christi hoc in loco mens fuisse vide­tur: Jaceant fideles ad te­pus demor­tui, mors in illos domine­tur, exerceat jus suum, in Sepulchro (veluti in carcere) eos teneat conclusos & vinculis quasi constrict [...]s, haud tamen us (que) & us (que) obtinebit: valebit quidem certè, at non prevalebit, [...].. This Exposition he confirmes, 1. by instancing severall other places of Scripture, [Page 179] as Job. [...]8. 17. Psal. 9. 13. Psal. 107. 18. in all which, by the Gates of Hell, or of Death, is clearly meant, the Grave. To which he add's. Psal. 18. 16. & Psal. 116. 3. as places of affinity with these. 2. By shewing, that the word [...], here translated Hell, is never in Scripture (except once) used to signifie, Hell, (properly so called, i, e. the place, or state, of the damn­ed) but constantly, either the Grave, or the state and condition of those that are dead. 3. By minding us, that [...] and [...], the Grave and Death, are elsewhere termed the enemies of the Church, yea the last enemies, as 1 Cor. 15. 26. to which he adds the consideration of their being cast into the Lake of Fire. Revel. 20. 14. 4. (and lastly) by particular arguments against every other interpretation offered by Expositors.

Musculus, though by the Gates of Hell he understands as well the Policy, §. 6. as Power and strength of the Devill, yet by the Relative Particle, [...], it, ^a Mihi vide­tur certius ut ad Petram, [...]d est, Ecclesiae fundamentum referamus: non quod d [...]bitem de Eccl [...]siae soli ditate, sed qu [...]d ea si. ex p [...]tra, super quam ae­difica [...]a est▪ quae tam est robusta▪ &c. he doth not understand the Church, but the Rock, or Foundation of Doctrine, on which the Church is built. So that his sence of the place seemes to be, this: that that Doctrine, on which the Church is built, is so firme and strong, that all the Policy and Power of Satan, though joyning together, shall never be able to prevaile against it, so as either to evict it of falshood, or otherwise to destroy and cast it out of the World. None of all their interpretations suppose any such thing deducible from the place, as this, that those who are once Believers, or Members of the Church of Christ, shall never be seduced by Satan to destruction. The place speaks nothing of Satan, much lesse of his Subtilty, Policy, or Power to seduce the Church; but supposing the ex­ceeding great and formidable strength of Death and the Grave, asserteth the glorious and finall conquest of his Church over them notwithstanding. So that this passage of Scripture perfectly sembleth with these, and the like. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whoso­ever liveth and believeth in Me, shall never die Ioh. 11. 25, 26.. And againe: And this is the Fathers Will, that hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up againe at the last day Ioh▪ 6. 39.. See also Joh. 5. 25. 28, 29, &c.

That which is pleaded by some for such a sence of the place, which car­ries §. 7. the Doctrine of Perseverance in it, is weake and value lesse. Whatsoever (say these) opposeth the building of the Church upon the Rock, or the con­stant adhering of it unto Christ, is meant by the Gates of Hell prevailing. For, in these words, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it, Christ must needs be supposed to remove whatsoever is contrary, to that, which he had asserted in those, And upon this Rock will I build my Church. But the poli­tique and subtile tentation of Satan to seduce Believers, are opposite to the building of the Church upon the Rock, and to the constant adhering of it unto Christ. Therefore by the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, must needs be meant the defeature, or non-prevailing of the strategems or coun­sells of Satan against Believers; and consequently, their persevering unto the end. For to this I answer;

1. By denying the Major Proposition in the Argument. For that which Christ takes away in this clause, And the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it, is not whatsoever opposeth the building of His Church upon the Rock, but whatsoever opposeth the happiness of it being so built, and adhering con­stantly and perseveringly unto him. For the Pronounce Relative [...], it, doth not Relate to the Verb, [...], I will build, but to the Substantive, [...], Church.

[Page 180]2. Whereas (in the said Proposition) Christs building of His Church, is expounded by, the constant adhering of this Church unto him, that which is the Principall thing in question, is taken for granted: which is very in-ar­gumentative. For the matter in question is, whether the Church of Christ, in all the members of it once built upon the Rock, must, or doth, necessarily so adhere to him.

3. (And lastly) the said exposition renders a sence very preposterous and importune. For upon this account, Christ should speak at no better Rate of of Reason, then thus: The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile, i. e. the Subtilty, Policy, and Machinations of Satan shall not be able to seduce those that are built upon the Rock, i. e. that constantly adhere unto Christ. Which amounts to no more, then if he should have said: the Devill shall not be able to make those inconstant, who shall be, and remaine constant, or to cause those, who shall firmly adhere unto Christ, not to adhere firmly to him. Which strain of discourse, whether it becomes him, who spake as never man spake, I leave unto sober men to judg.

Another Argument urged by some, against the interpretation given, is §. 8. this. If by the prevailing of the Gates of Hell, be meant nothing else, but the eternall condemnation of, or perpetuall prevailing of Death against, the Church, then Christ here promiseth nothing, but only in the behalf of those that are Dead: and consequently nothing, but what may stand, with a totall defection of his Church on Earth▪ But this seems to be contrary to his intention in the place, Ergo. I answer:

1. It is no inconvenience to suppose or grant, that Christ in this place, and in the Promise here mentioned, doth not insure the perpetuall continuance, or Residence of a Church on Earth, no more then he doth in many other Pro­mises, which yet are of very high and blessed importance, in their Respective kinds. In that great Evangelicall Promise, whosoever believes, shall be saved, there is nothing but what may possibly stand with an universall defection of a Church on earth; yet is the Promise great and Precious. It were easie to instance many others of like nature. But,

2. As in the Promise last mentioned, though there be nothing which ne­cessarily includes an un-interrupted succession of Believers in the World, yet is there that, which exceeding much conduceth towards the propagation and raising of such a succession, as viz. a promissory proposall of the grea­test reward that is, unto whosoever shall believe, even no lesse then that of eternall life; so may it be said concerning this Promise of Christ, And the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it. Here is enough said, if Men would but consider and quit themselves like Men, to replenish the Earth with a Gene­ration of Believers like unto the Waters of a River, which fayle not. Therefore,

3. (And lastly) It is not truly said, that this Promise, And the Gates of Hell shall not, &c. (in the sence asserted) relates only to those that are dead. The truth is, that if we speak properly, neither this, nor any other promise whatsoever relates only, if at all, unto the dead, or is made only on the be­half of the Dead: the Dead (in propriety of Speech) are utterly uncapable of Promises, though not of performances of Promises. But cleerly this, and all other Promises are made to the living, and for their accommodation and comfort, though for the letter and reality of the performance of them, they are not to be partakers hereof, untill they have undergone the state and con­dition of Death. It is just matter of joy unspeakeable and glorious to him that [Page 181] is yet living, to know and consider, that though he dieth, yet death shall not have any such dominion over him, but what he shall shake off, and that with a blessed advantage and conquest, in due time. But this exception against the exposition asserted, is but like a moat in the Sun, which darkeneth not at all the Rayes or light thereof, but only gaines, by being here, a discovery of it felf to be a thing inconsiderable, and next to nothing.

Another passage of Scripture compell'd to bear the Crosse of the same service §. 9. with the former, is that, Mat. 24. 24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false Prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, in so much that (if it were possible) they shall (or should) deceive the very elect. From hence it is inferr'd, that the deceiving, or seducement of those who truly believe, is a thing impossible. But whether the drawing of such conclusions as this, from such Scriptures, as that, be not a drawing of darkness out of light, the considerations ensuing will be competent enough to determine.

1. In their Notion, who trie to fetch the Water of Perseverance out of the Flint of the Scripture mentioned, the word, Elect, doth not signifie, Saints, or true Believers, but such as they suppose to have been, in a personall consi­deration, chosen by God from eternity out of the great body of mankinde, with an intent to save them against all possible interveniencies, or oppositi­ons whatsoever. Now that such as these, at least before their calling, are as liable to be deceived, or seduced, as other Men, is their own confession with­out feare. And the Apostle Paul, to whom (questionlesse) they will not deny the grace of their Election, acknowledgeth himself with Titus, to have sometimes been, foolish, disobedient, and DECEIVED Tit 3. 3.. Yea,

2. It is frequently confessed by the same party, that such Elect as they meane, and we lately described, may even after they are called and have be­lieved, by the Just and Wise sufferance of God, fall into Heresie, and this in fundamentall Points, yea and into that fearfull sin of an abnegation and abjuration of Christ, and Christian Religion. If so, then certainly there is no impossibility of their seduction. Yea, the great Patrons of the Doctrine of Perseverance, which managed the Conference▪ at the Hague about these Questions, Anno. 1611. acknowledged, that even true Believers may fall so far, as that the Church, according to the command of Christ, shall be compelled to testifie [against them] that they cannot [beare, or] tolerate them in their outward communion, and that they shall have no part in the Kingdome of Christ, except they repent [or be converted D [...]inde re­spondemus ad minorem, fieri posse ut vere fi­deles eo prola­bantur, ut Ec­clesia ex man­dato Christi co­gatur pronunci­are se in externa sua communione tolerare non posse, neque cos partem in regno Christi habitu­ros, nist resipis­cant. Collat. Hag. p. 399.]. Doubtlesse they, who, having once truly believed, become afterwards uncapable of having part in the Kingdome of Christ, without conversion, or Repentance, give a loud Testimony, that there is no impossibility for true Saints, or true Believers, to be deceived, and that to the highest and most dangerous pitch of all.

If it be here said; yea but the Scripture in hand is to be understood §. 10. of a finall deceiving, or of a being deceived unto destruction: and thus (it is there supposed, that) the Elect cannot possibly be deceived, I Answer,

1. This is to presume, not to argue, or believe. For there is not the least ground, or so much as the smallest sand in either the words, or context, where on to build such an interpretation, as this.

2. The abettors of this interpretation, are wont to prove from the words, not only an impossibility that the Saints should finally be deceived, but also that they should be deceived totally, i. e. so as to be at any time wholy destitute or bereft of that Faith, which is justifying and saving.

[Page 182]3. (And lastly) the same men suppose, that if the Saints may fall away totally at any time, they may fall away finally also. If it be said, that they cannot fall away totally; I answer; if so, then one of these three things must needs follow; either, 1. That true, saving, and justifying Faith may stand, not only with Heresie, and this in fundamentall Articles of Christian Religion, but even with an expresse abnegation and abjuration of Christ himself with his Religion; or else, 2. That their Opinion is false, who affirme, that true Believers may possibly fall, both into such Heresie, and such abnegation, or, 3. (And lastly) that they, who do fall both into the one, or the other, are not seduced, or deceived. This last is manifestly false: the second, is the▪ sence and confession of our adversaries themselves, viz. that true Be­lievers may fall into such Heresie and abnegation. For the first, if saving Faith may stand with such Heresie and abnegation of Christ as is there spoken of, how will that of Christ Himself stand, whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven Mat. 10. 32? To reply here and say, that it is to be understood of a finall deniall, will not at all salve the soare. For there is the same consideration of a deniall of Christ, as to the ejecting of a Man out of his favour, whether it be finall, and in the end of a Mans dayes, or whether it be in the middle of them. Nor hath Christ any whit more reason to be offended with him, that denieth him at one time, then with him who denieth him at an other, if there be nothing but meerly time to make the difference. It is true, he that denieth Christ in the middle of his dayes, and so casteth himself out of His favour, may possibly recover His favour again by Repentance, and a renewed confession of him before men, which he that denieth Him at the instant of death, cannot. But as for the Na­ture and demerit of the sin, and consequently in order to the just judgement of Christ upon it, it is the same in both cases. But,

3. Further to demonstrate the nullity of the aforesaid deduction from the §. 11▪ place in hand, it is to be known and considered, that this Phrase or Expres­sion, [...], if it be possible, doth not alwayes, (if at any time) import the impossiblity of a thing, but only the difficulty of a thing on the one hand, and the exquisite diligence and endeavours of those on the other hand, in respect of such difficulty, who attempt it. Thus the Evangelist Luke, speaking of Paul, saith, that he hasted, [...], IF IT WERE POS­SIBLE for him to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost Acts 20. 16. The light of the Sun at Noon day is not more cleare, then that, if it be possible, doth not here sig­nifie, or imply, an impossibility. For then the meaning must be, that Paul made all the haste he could to doe that, which was impossible for him to doe. To say, that Paul might be ignorant, whether his being at Jerusalem by Pente­cost, was possible, or no, and that he only resolved to make triall of the truth herein, to the uttermost, is to asperse this great Apostle with a ridiculous imputation of ignorance; yea of such ignorance, which is not lightly inci­dent to Men of the shallowest capacities. For who (almost) can be so ig­norant, as not to know whether it be a thing simply impossible to make such or such a port, by such, or such a time or no? It is true, wise men may be ignorant whither they shall, with their best diligence and dispatch, be able to make it within the time they desire, and thus far I can grant that Paul might be ignorant. But that he should be ignorant of so broad and vast a difference, as lieth between a possibility, and impossibility of the thing, I m [...]st borrow some other Mans fancy to conceive. However, let the Apostle suffer the disparagement of such an ignorance as this, yet neither will this [Page 183] evince an impossibility of his being at Jerusalem by Pentecost, to be here im­plied by this phrase, [...], if it be possible; but only some doubtfulnesse or difficulty in the thing, together with his utmost endeavour to compasse it notwithstanding. In the like sence the same clause is used, Rom. 12. 18. [...], if it be possible, as much as in you lieth, have peace with all Men, If we shall suppose, that, if it be possible, here supposeth an impossibility, the sence of the sentence must rise thus: As much as in you lieth, doe that which you cannot doe, or which is unpossible for you to doe: which is a sound that Pauls trumpet was never like to make. Excepting the parallel place in Marke, The Phrase is but twice more (to my present remembrance) used in the New Testament, viz. Mat. 26. 39. and Gal. 4. 15. in neither of which places can it reasonably be supposed to import an impossibility. But, §. 12.

4. Touching the place in hand, that here it only imports a difficulty (as hath been said) of deceiving the Elect, [i. e. Believers] together with the most raised and vehement intentions or desires in the false Prophets to effect it notwithstanding, appeares yet more plainly from the Evangelist Mark, who records the same passage thus: For false Christs, and false Prophets shall arise, and shall shew signes and wonders, [...], TO SEDVCE, if it were possible, the very Elect Mar. 13. 22, i. e. with an intent, raised out of great and strong desires, to draw off Believers themselves, from adhering unto the true Christ and Messiah, borne of the Virgin, and to follow and imbrace them in his stead. Yea, it is no wayes like, but that they had a far greater desire to practise their seducing Arts upon these, and to draw these after them, then any other sort of Men: because these had set up and upheld such a competitor [...]. with them in the World, who was like to carry away the World from them, unlesse they could prevaile with his followers to dis-own and disclaim Him. The great difficulty which was in the Primitive times, and whilest these false Christs rose up one after another in the World, to worke off Believers from a Stquidem edi­cens multos ven­turos signa fact­uros, & virtues magnas editu­ros, aversionem etiam Electo­rum, nec ideo tamen admit­tendos, temera­riam signorum & virtutum fidem ostendit, ut apud Pseudo Christos facilli­mam. Test. ad­versus Marcio­nem. l. 3. c. 3. the true Christ, appeares (in part) by that proverbiall saying in Galen: A Man may sooner unteach men Christianity; or, teach men away from Christ. And Austine somewhat reports, that a Man repairing to Apollo's Oracle, to inquire what course he should take to draw off his Wife from Christianity, received this answer, that he might more easily either write letters in a swift streame, or flie in the Aire. But, notwithstanding the difficulty of the thing, that yet sometimes it was done, appeares from that passage of Tertullian. For, saying (saith he, speaking of Christ) that many should come, and shew signes, and doe great wonders, YEA AND TVRNE AVVAY THE ELECT themselves, and that all this notwithstanding they were not to be received, he plainly shews, that a Faith built upon signes and wonders is rash and inconsiderate, and such as is easie for false-Christs [to attempt, or procure.]

5. If the Phrase, [...], if it be possible, shall here be conceived to im­port §. 13. an absolute impossibility, the necessity, Efficacy, and Power of the Lord Christs Prediction, and caution, will fall to the ground. For he, who would have those, to whom he speaketh, certainly to believe that they are Elect, and againe, to believe also, that it is a thing unpossible for the Elect to be seduced by any meanes whatsoever, certainly hath no necessity, scarce the lightest occasion or pretence that can be imagined, to caution these Men against seducers. And what can be more ridiculous, then in a most grave, seri­ous, and solemne manner, to admonish a man to take heed of that, which yet withall we do assure him is unpossible should befall him? Yea,

[Page 184]6. According to the known Principles of those, with whom we have now to doe, whether the Apostles to whom Christ speaketh in the words in hand, knew themselves to be Elect, or no, yea or whether they were Elect, or no, there could be no great necessity or occasion why Christ should thus solemnly arme them against seducers. If they were Elect, the sence of these men is, that whether they had been thus armed, or no, they could not have fallen in the day of battell: as on the other hand, in case they were not Elected, that nei­ther this, nor any other armour, or cautionary provision whatsoever, could be able to make them stand, or keep them alive. §. 14.

That which is commonly pleaded at such turnings, as this, is very light and impertinent, God (say our Antagonists) as He wills the end, so also He willeth, and injoyneth the means for the accomplishment of the end. So in the Particular in Hand: Christ, as He willeth the non-seduction of the Elect, so He willeth also that they should beware of seducers, as a means tending to that end. For to this we answer;

1. Though it be very true, that God who willeth the end, willeth and prescribeth the meanes also [ viz. when He declares the end not to be other­wise attaineable, then in and by the use of such meanes, as He prescribeth in order hereunto] yet when He hath irreversibly decreed that the end shall cer­tainly be obtained, or that He will interpose by an high and irresistible Hand for the effecting of it, and withall hath declared either the one, or the other, or both of these His decrees unto the World, it is now no wayes con­sistent with His Wisdome to injoyn men the use of any meanes for the ob­taining of this end, especially under the penalty or threatning of a non-obtaining it. Nor can any instance be produced from the Scripture, where any means have been directed or injoyned by Him upon such terms. As for that, which some alledge from Acts 27. Ver. 22. compared with 31. it no wayes reacheth the businesse. For evident it is from that 31. Verse, where Paul saith to the Centurion and Souldiers, Except these abide in the Ship, yee cannot be saved, that that promissory incouragement which He delivers un­to them, ver. 22. upon what was said unto Him in vision by God, ver. 24. viz. that there should be no losse of any mans life amongst them, was but con­ditionall, and not absolute; and consequently, that the saving of their lives did depend upon their continuing in the Ship, and that so, that had they not continued here, they had perished, the Promise of God made unto Paul con­cerning their safety notwithstanding. Which cleerly proves this Promise of God to have been conditionall, and the meaning of it only this: there shall be [...]o losse of any mans life amongst you, viz. if you will follow the Counsell of God for your preservation, and not destroy your lives your selves by rejecting it. There is nothing more frequent in Scripture, then Hypotheticall Promises in categoricall forms; I mean, then conditionall Promises delivered in posi­tive or absolute terms. But hereof we shall have frequent occasion to take knowledge in the present discourse.

2. Though God, who willeth the end, willeth and appointeth means §. 15. for the obtaining the end (upon the terms expressed) yet we cannot suppose that He exhorteth and presseth men to use meanes in order to the obtaining of such, or such an end, which Himself gives assurance unto them that they shall obtain, whether they use the means, or no. For it being the Hope and desire of obtaining the end, which render the means, otherwise un­pleasant and un-acceptable, desireable unto men, evident it is, that He, who gives assureance unto them of obtaining the end howsoever, [ i. e. whether [Page 185] they use the meanes, or no] destroyeth the energy and force of any such ex­hortation, wherein the use of the means shall be recommended unto them▪ or they perswaded thereunto. He that shall insure me, that whether I run, or no, I shall be crowned, and shall afterward exhort me to run, that I may be crown­ed, shall (doubtless) pull down that with his Promise, which He seeks to build up by His exhortation.

If it be replied and said; but God assureth no man that He shall not be de­ceived §. 16. or seduced, but only in, and by the use of means, that He may not be se­duced; I answer; if so, then God hath made no peremptory Decree con­cerning the non-seducement of the Elect, nor other, then with which the se­ducement of them may very possibly stand. For that which depends upon any deliberate or elective Act of the will of man, cannot be said to be posi­tively, peremptorily, or absolutely Decreed by God: nor is it any other, in the Nature and Condition of it, then what may very possibly not be. Now certaine it is, that the use of means to prevent seduction in the Elect, is such an Act, or series of Actions, which depends upon the deliberate Act of their will; at least so far, that it can never take place, or be, without a deliberate concurrency hereof.

If it be yet further said; Though the use of means to prevent seduction in §. 17. the Elect, depends upon the deliberate motions and actings of their wills, thus far, that it cannot take place, or be performed without them; yet may it have such a relation unto, or dependance upon, the absolute will or decree of God, which shall give certainty and infallibility of being unto it notwith­standing. For God is able so to interpose by His excellency of Power in all the deliberations of Men, as to carry and fix the issues, and determinations of them, which way, and upon what He pleaseth; To this I answer; that the Question is not, what God is able by the excellency of His Power to doe in this kinde, but what He is pleased to doe, or what He hath decreed to doe out of the Counsell and Liberty of His Will. And that which we affirme and plead in the cause depending, is not, that God is not able to determine the wills of the Elect to the use of means proper and sufficient to prevent their being deceived, but that He hath no where declared Himself willing o [...] resolved to doe it; and consequently, that it is an [...], a con­ceit above what is written, to think that He doth it. Therefore untill it be proved, either from the Scriptures, or by the light of some solid demonstra­tion otherwise, that God hath absolutely Decreed the non-seduction of the Elect (we still speak of a seduction to destruction) or (which is the same, upon our Adversaries Grant and Plea, lately mentioned) the determination of their wills to the use of means necessary to secure them against seduction, we judge our selves free in Conscience to deny the pretended impossibility of the Saints deception, or seduction.

Another Scripture much discoursed in the behalf of the common Doctrine §. 18. of Perseverance, is, 1 Pet. 1. 5.—who are kept by the Power of God through Faith unto Salvation. From hence it is frequently concluded, that they who once truly believe, and are regenerate, ( Verse 3.) are kept by the ingage­ment of the Mighty Power of God, from falling away to destruction. I Answer,

1. That it is not here said, that regenerate Men are kept simply and abso­lutely by the Power of God unto Salvation, but that they are kept by the Power of God THROVGH FAITH, unto Salvation. Which plainly implieth, that the Power of God here spoken of, ingageth for no Mans preservation, or safe­guarding [Page 186] unto Salvation, but by the mediation of Faith, or any whit longer then their Faith shall continue. Now here being nothing said, or implied, touching the certainty of the continuance of the Faith of the Saints unto the end, nor concerning any ingagement of the Power of God, for the Perpetua­tion thereof, evident it is, that nothing can be concluded from hence for the establishment of the said Doctrine of Perseverance, But, 2. For the cleer sence and importance of the place, it is this; that Men once begotten by God to a lively hope, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Have, or may Have, the greatest security, which the infinite Power of God can afford, that persevering in that Faith, from whence this hope issueth, unto the end, they shall be saved. The place, according to this interpretation, runs pa­rallel in sence and import, with these, and their fellowes; But he that shall endure to the end, shall be saved Mat. 24. 13; ( viz. against all opposition, nnd contra­diction, of impediments whatsoever.) Be thou faithfull unto death, and I will give thee a Crown of life Revel. 2. 10. So with that lately opened:— upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Mat. 16. 18; to which you may add Joh. 10. 18, 19. Eph. 1. 19. with many others.

This exposition perfectly accords with Bullingers Commentary upon the place. In the meane time (saith He) let this suffice us, that eternall happi­nesse is in safety for us [or, to us] which no, either Man, or Devill, can in­tercept [or, deprive us of] unlesse Faith failes us, wherewith, neglecting the things which mortall Men so much seek after, let us wholly depend upon Heaven Nobis interim sit satis quôd ae­terna fae [...]ici­tas nobis est in tuto, quam nullus hominum aut daemo­num possit intercipere, modò ne eos [nos] deficiat fides, quâ, neglectis rebus mortalium, totipendeamus à coelo.. In the clause, modo ne nos deficiat fides, so that Faith faile [...] not, He clearly supposeth, 1. A possibility that our present Faith may faile us: 2. That in case it shall faile us, we may perish, notwithstanding any thing here de­livered by the Apostle, concerning our being kept by the Power of God unto Salvation.

If against this Interpretation it shall be objected, that it greatly depres­seth, §. 19. and (in a manner) quencheth the spirit of the consolation, clearly in­tended by the Holy Ghost to be administred unto the Saints in the words; and that it makes very little for their comfort, to hear of their being kept unto Salvation by God, or by His Power, in case this keeping depends upon their continuance in Faith, especially if this also be uncertain, and depend­ing upon themselves, their diligence and care to procure it; I answer;

1. That the Heart of this Objection was broken in the former Chapter Sect. 21. 22., where we shewed, that in matters of greatest consequence and most desire­able in things appertaining to this life, yea as to life it self, the most timo­rous and cautious Men, neither wish, nor desire any greater security, then to have what they desire assured unto them upon their own willingnesse and care, either for the procurement, or the continued injoyment, of it. The most impotent lover of life under Heaven, and He that lives in the greatest bondage in the World through feare of Death, would (both of them) be highly satisfied, if God would but vouchsafe such a promise as this unto them, that so long as they should desire the continuance of their lives, and take heed of destroying them themselves by unnaturall or desperate courses, as by casting themselves into the Fire, into the Water, down from high Towers, &c. He would secure them against all other interveniences, or means of dissolu­tion whatsoever. In like manner, it is, and ought to be so esteemed by the [Page 187] Saints, a consolation rich and glorious, that God hath undertaken and in­gaged Himself, by the greatnesse of His Power to preserve them against all enemies, and threatning obstacles and oppositions whatsoever, for His Hea­venly Kingdome, only upon condition that they shall not willingly, will­fully, desperately destroy themselves, or render themselves uncapable of such His preservation, by apostatizing from that Faith, in His Son Jesus Christ, which He by His especiall Grace hath Planted in them, and by which they stand at present in favour and acceptation with Him.

2. Though God hath not simply and absolutely undertaken for their pre­severance, §. 20. or continuation of their Faith unto the end, nor upon any such terms, but that if they will be brutishly and desperately carelesse of so high a concernment to themselves as a blessed Eternity is, they may make defecti­on from it, and turne Proselites to Hell; yet hath He laid a rich founda­tion for their Perseverance, in those many precious Promises and incourage­ments, which He hath given unto those, who shall persevere, as also in those most severe and dreadfull threatnings, bent against the faces of all Apostates and backsliders, together with those frequent Promises or Declarations, which He hath made, to continue, yea and to inlarge, upon occasion, the inward contributions of His Spirit, the motions, excitements, and directi­ons thereof, in order to the plentifull inabling of His Saints to persevere, untill they shall willingly and willfully turne their backs upon them, and reject them. Upon the account of all these gracious Promises and Declara­tions made by God unto His Saints, for, or towards, the effectuall accomplish­ment of their Perseverance, the Apostle Paul frequently incourageth them to the hope and expectation of it. But the Lord is faithfull, who shall stablish you, and keepe you from evill 2 Thess. 3. 3. Who shall also confirme you unto the end, that yee may be blamelesse in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 1. 8. God, according to the common Dialect and Notion of Scripture language, is said to establish, confirme, and keepe men from evill, when He doth that, which is of a proper tendency, and sufficient thereunto, whither the effects or ends themselves of establishments, confirmation, &c. be actually obtained, or no, For there is nothing more frequent or familiar in Scripture, then to ascribe the effects themselves, sometimes unto God, sometimes unto Men, only upon their respective actings or doings of such things, which are of a Naturall, Proper, and Direct tendency to produce them, whether they be actually and de facto produced, or no. Thus our Saviour chargeth Him, who shall put away his Wife for any other cause, then Fornication, with causing her to commit Fornica­tion Mat. 5. 32; whether the Woman thus put away, committeth Fornication, or no; viz. because in that act of putting her away upon such terms; He doth that, which hath a proper and direct tendency to cause Her to commit this sin. For it is not necessary to suppose that every Woman thus divourced or put away, committeth, or will commit Fornication. But whether she doth, or no, the sin of Him that put Her away, is one and the same: He (in our Saviours Dialect) caused Her to commit Fornication. Thus also, He who eates to the offence of a weake Brother, is charged by the Apostle with de­stroying him with his Meate, for whom Christ Died Rom. 14 15 20.. i. e. with doing that, which is apt and proper to occasion His destruction, whether He be actually destroyed, or no. In this idiome likewise of speaking, God expresly saith that He had purged Jerusalem; and yet in the same place saith also, that Je­rusalem notwithstanding was not purged. In thy filthinesse, is lewdnesse [i. e. notorious and desperate obstinacy] because I HAVE PVRGED THEE, AND [Page 188] THOV WAST NOT PVRGED, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthinesse any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee Ezek. 24 13. God is said to have purged Jerusalem, because He vouchsafed proper and sufficient means unto Her for Her purging, as the Ministry of His Word and Spirit, frequent Admonitions, Exhortations, Expostulations, Promises, Threatnings, &c. by His Prophets, however Jerusalem by Her rebellious obstinacy, hindered and obstructed the through and kindly working of these means, by reason whereof the desireable effect of Her purging was not obtained. In such a Sence and Phrase as this, the goodnesse of God is said to lead such Men to Repentance, who yet are so far from Repenting, that after their hardnesse, and impenitent heart, they threa­sure up wrath unto themselves against the day of wrath, &c. Rom. 2. 4, 5. meaning, that the goodnesse of God in His Patience and Long-sufferance towards wicked and ungodly Men, ministreth many occasions and opportunities unto them, by the advantage whereof they might easily be drawn to repent, did they not willingly indulge themselves in that hardnesse of Heart, which in the fruits of it tends to nothing but to the treasuring up of wrath to themselves, &c. In the same construction, Christ is stiled the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World Ioh. 1. 29.; and so to be the propitiation for the sinnes of the whole World 1 Ioh. 2. 2; not as if, or because, the sin of the World is actually or compleatly taken away by Him, or so, that this whole sin either is, or at any time must needs be, pardoned, or actually taken away in all the fruits, consequents, or effects of it, because He is said to have taken it away; but because He hath done and suffered that, which hath a glorious efficacy and tendency in it, to, or towards such a taking of it away; so that if it be not actually and com­pleatly taken away, the cause of it is somewhere else to be sought, and found, as viz. in the sinners, or men themselves, and not in Him. In this sence like­wise He is said to be the propitiation for the sinnes of the whole World, not be­cause the sinnes of the whole World are actually, compleatly, or with succes­fulnesse in the event propitiated or attoned by Him, but because that Sacrifice of Himself, which He hath offered in order to a propitiating or attoning the sinnes of the whole World, is so pregnant and full of a propitiatory efficacy and vertue, and withall is so propounded and held forth by God unto the whole World, that if any mans sin remaines actually unpropitiated, or un-pardoned, it is through his own voluntary neglect of this Sacrifice, and not from any intention on Gods Part, that his sin should not be attoned or propitiated by this Sacrifice, as well as any other Mans. It were easie to multiply examples of that propriety of expression now under observation, from the Scriptures. And I desire the rather that it may be carefully minded and remembred, be­cause I verily believe that the non-advertency of it by Men of learning and worth, with some few others of like consideration (whereof we may give notice in time) hath mainly occasioned the dividing of their thoughts and judgements from the Doctrine of Universall Redemption. We shall be in­vited (I suppose) before the conclusion of this discourse, to recruite the Readers memory with a re-mention of this notion of Scripture Dialect. In the mean time we cleerly see by the light of it, how God may be said to establish, to confirme unto the end, to keep Men from evill, though Men neither be actually, or in the event, established, confirmed, or kept from evill; and this without any prejudice, or disparagement in the least, either unto the grace or goodnesse of God, or to His Power, or Effectualnesse of Working, in this behalf.

The next Scripture, which we shall undertake to right, against those, §. 21. [Page 189] who have done it the injury of fathering the common Doctrine of Persever­ance upon it, is this. They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 Ioh. 2. 19. From hence this in­ference is drawn up; that they who are of the Saints, i. e. of the number of those, who are reall and true Saints, will alwayes continue in this number, and never apostatize. But for answer;

1. This inference presumeth many things, for which neither it, nor any the Authors of it, will ever be able to give any good security of Proof; as viz. 1. That this Phrase, they were not of us, imports, that they never were true Believers. This certainly can never be proved, because there is another sence, and this every whit as proper to the words, and more commodious for the Context and scope of the Place, which may be given of them, as we shall see anon. 2. That this expression, they were of us, signifies, that they were true Believers; of the uncertainty of this supposition, we shall give the like account. 3. That these words, they went out from us, signifie their finall de­sertion or abdication of the Apostles Communion, or their totall and finall renunciation of Christ, His Church, and Gospell. This supposition hath no bottome at all, or colour for it. 4. That this clause, they would no doubt have continued with us, signifieth, they would have continued in the same Faith, wherein we persevere and continue. Nor is there any competent reason to inforce this sence of these words, because neither doth the Grammaticall tenor of them require it, and much lesse the scope of the passage (of which in due time.) 5. The said inference supposeth, that John certainly knew, that all those, who for the present remained in his Communion, were true Believers. For if they were not true Believers, they that were gone out from them, (in the sence contended for) might be said to be of them, i. e. Per­sons in the same condition with them. But how improbable this is (I mean, that John should infallibly know, that all those, who as yet continued with them, were true Believers) I refer to consideration. 6, The inference under contest yet further supposeth, that John certainly knew, that they, who were now gone out from them, neither were now, nor ever before, true Belie­vers; yea and that he certainly knew this, by their departure, or going out from them. 7. (And lastly) it presumeth yet further, that all true Believers, doe alwayes abide in the externall Communion of the Church; and that when Men doe not so abide, they plainly declare hereby, that they never were true Believers. Which is not only a manifest untruth, but expresly contrary to the Doctrine it self of those Men, who assert the inference. For they teach (as we heard before) that even true Believers may fall so foule, and so far, that the Church according to the command of Christ may be constrained to testifie, that shee cannot tolerate them in her externall Communion, nor that ever they shall have any part or Portion in the Kingdome of Christ, unlesse they repent. Doubtlesse to be cast out of the Church, according to the Institution and command of Christ, who commands no such thing, but upon very heynous and highly-un- Christian misdemeanours, is of every whit as sad an importance, as a voluntary desertion of the Churches Communion can be, especially for a season. But,

2. Suppose these two suppositions be granted to the Inference-Makers, §. 22. 1. That this Phrase, to goe out from us, signifies voluntarily to forsake the Society or Communion of Christians; and 2. That this expression, to be of us, signifies true and inward Communion with those, from whom they went [Page 190] out, yet will not these contributions suffice for the firme building of the said Inference. The reason is, because the Apostle expresly saith, that they would have continued WITH Us, not, that they would have continued such as they were, in respect of the truth or essence of their Faith. And if the Apostles scope in this place were, to prove, or affirme, that they who are once true Christians, or Believers, alwayes continue such, then when He saith, they would have continued with us, He must of necessity mean, either that they would have continued faithfull, as we continue faithfull: or else, that they would have continued alwayes in our Society, or in the Profession of Christi­anity. But that neither of these sences are of any tolerable consistency, is evident by the light of this consideration; viz. that the Apostle then must have known, that the persons He speaks of, and who went out from them, nei­ther were, nor ever had been, true Christians or Believers, when they thus went from them. Now if He had this knowledge of them, it must be supposed, either that He had it by extraordinary Revelation: but this is very unprobable, and howsoever, can never be proved; or else that He gained or obtained it by their departure, or going out from them. But that this could be no sufficient Argument or Ground to beget any such knowledge in the Apostle concerning them, is evident from hence, because it may very easily, and doth very fre­quently, come to passe, that they who are true Christians, doe not alwayes continue in that Christian Society, unto which they have once joyned them­selves, and adhered; no nor yet in the externall Profession of Christianity it self. Yea, our Opposers themselves frequently and without scruple teach, and affirme, that even true Believers themselves, may, either through fear, or shame, or extremity of sufferings, or the like, be brought to deny Christ, and without any danger of making shipwrack of their Faith, forbear a Profession-making of the Name of Christ afterwards. But,

3. (For the true meaning of the Place) it is to be considered, that the §. 23. Apostles intent in the words, was to prevent, or heale an offence, that weak Christians might take, at that Doctrine, which was taught and spread abroad, by those Anti-Christs, or Anti-Christian Teachers, (spoken of in the for­mer Verse, and there said to have been, many) and that especially because they had sometimes lived and conversed with the Apostles themselves in Christian Churches; and had professed the same Faith and Doctrine with them. By reason hereof some Christians, not so considerate or judicious, as others, might possibly think, or conceive, that surely all things were not well with the Apostles, and those Christian Societies, with which they consorted; there was something not as it ought to have been, either in Doctrine, or Manners, or both, which ministered an occasion unto these Men to break Communion with them, and to leave them. To this the Apostle answers partly by Concession: partly by Exception. First by Concession, in these words, They went out from us. Which words doe not so much import their utter declining or forsaking the Apostles Communion (though there be an expression following which probably doth) as the advantage or opportu­nity which they had to gaine credit and respects both to their Doctrine, and Persons, amongst Professors of Christianity in the World, in as much as they came forth from the Apostles themselves, as Men taught, and Commis­sioned by them to Teach. The same Phrase is used in this sence, and with the same import, Acts 15. 24. where the Apostles write thus to the Brethren of the Gentiles: For as much as we have heard, that certaine which WENT OVT FROM Us, have troubled you with words, subverting your Soules, saying, yee [Page 191] must be Circumcised, and keep the Law, to whom we gave no such [Commis­sion, or] Commanaement. So that in this clause, they went out from us, the Apostle grants, 1. That those Anti-Christian Teachers had indeed for a time held Communion with them: and 2. That hereby they had the greater op­portunity of doing harm in the World by their false Doctrine. But 2. He answers further, by way of exception: But they were not of us, i. e. Whilest yet they conversed with us, they were not Men of the same Spirit or Prin­ciples with us; we walked in the Profession of the Gospell with single and upright Hearts, not aiming at any secular greatnesse, or worldly accommo­dations in one kinde or other: these Men loved this present World; and when they found that the simplicity of the Gospell would not accommodate them to their minds, they brake with us, and with the truth of the Gospell it self, at once. By the way, when He saith, But they were not of us, He doth not necessarily imply, or suppose, that they never had been of them, i. e. sincere and single-hearted in the Profession of the Gospell, as they were: but only that about, and at, the time of their going out from them, or perhaps some­while after, they were thus tainted and corrupted. The cares of this World, and the deceitfulnesse of Riches, and those lusts of other things, which choked the seed in the Thorny gr [...]und, are said to have entered in, ( viz. some while after the seed was sown, and sprung up) Mar. 4. 19. Nor is it said to have fallen among Thorns, because there were Thorns on the ground, when it was sown, but because it fell on such a ground, where it Proved to be amongst Thorns after­wards. Nor is it like▪ that Demas Himself loved this present World, when first he imbraced Pauls company, with that affection, either for kinde, or degree, which he did afterwards. So that it cannot be Proved from this clause, that the Persons spoken of, had never been sincere Christians, but only that they were not such, when John spake these things concerning them. It followes: For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. In these words, the Apostle gives a reason of his exception; telling them to whom he writs, that this was a signe, or argument, that those Anti-Christian Teachers were not of them (in the sence declared) viz. that they did not continue with them, i. e. they quitted their former intimacy and con­verse with the Apostles, refused to steere the same course to walk by the same Principles any longer with them; which (saith he) questionlesse they would not have done, had they been as sincerly affected towards Jesus Christ, and the Gospell as we. In which Assertion, John plainely vindicateth him­self, and the Christian Churches of his Communion, from giving any just occasion of offence unto those men, whereby they should be any wayes in­duced to forsake them; and resolves their unworthy departure in this kinde into their own carnall and corrupt hearts, which lusted after such fleshly accommodations and contentments, that were not to be obtained, or injoyed, in a sincere Profession of the Gospell, with the Apostles, and those who were Perfect in heart with them.

It followes [...], i. e. but that they §. 24. might be made manifest that they are not at all of us, meaning, that God suf­fered them thus unworthily to break fellowship with us, that hereby they might all of them, one or other of those, who thus causlesly deserted us, be discovered to be Men of degenerous and ignoble spirits, and not Principled like unto us, the true Apostles of Christ, or those that walke in uprightnesse of heart with us. It appertaines to the just and righteous Judgement of God, and withall is a dispensation of a gracious tendency and import [Page 192] for the Honour, Peace, and Safety of Christian Churches, and sincere Christians, that Men of corrupt minds amongst them, should be timely discovered.

This being the cleere and undoubted Scope, and Sence of the Place, evident it is, that no inference or conclusion can be drawn from it for the countenance or establishment of the received Doctrine of Perseverance. All that can be made of it towards such an account as this, is, that Men sincerely af­fected towards the Gospell, and free from that adulterous and inordinate love of this present World, which turns such multitudes aside from the way of Truth, whilest they abide in this Posture and Frame, are seldome or never found to desert the Society of faithfull Teachers, or sound Christi­ans. But concerning any absolute necessity of their continuing free, who either have been free, or are free at Present, from the inordinate love of the World, here is not the least overture or intimation. Yea, the non-conti­nuance of those false-Teachers with John, and the good Christians with Him here spoken of, though it argues and imports a worldly and dangerous distemper in their Hearts and Spirits, yet doth it not necessarily or demon­stratively imply a nullity of their Faith.

Another Text of Scripture, from whence the Doctrine of Perseverance §. 25. claimes countenance and credit, is that which speaketh thus: whosoever is borne of God, doth not commit sin: for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is borne of God [...] Joh. 3. 9.. From hence such an Argument as this is levied in defence of the said Doctrine.

To this I answer by distinguishing those terms, sinneth not, neither can sin, made use of in both Propositions. First, by sinneth not, may be meant, committeth no act of sin, sinneth not at all. In this sence of the Phrase, the Minor is absolutely untrue. For he that is borne of God, certainely sinneth (in a sence) i. e. committeth acts, yea many acts, of sin. In many things (saith James) we offend all James 3. 2.; meaning, even the holiest and most regene­rate of all. Secondly, by sinneth not, may be meant, (say some) doth not perpetrate, or commit sin with delight. But this sence (I am confident) cannot be justified, either from the Scripture, nor yet upon any competent ground of [...]eason. Not to sin, doth no where in Scripture signifie, not to sin with delight. I acknowledge, that Words and Phrases are sometimes in Scripture used emphatically; in which cases, over and besides their Proper significations, they consignifie some Peculiarity of manner, or some speciall circumstance relating to the thing or action expressed. But what they signifie in this kinde (I mean, over and besides their strict and Proper significations) is not arbitrary, or left for Men to make what they please; but is to be esti­mated by the scope of the place, and Nature of the matter in hand. I easily grant, that the words under debate, sinneth not, or doth not commit sin, are emphaticall in the Scripture before us. But that the emphasis lieth in any such modification, which should give them this sence, sinneth not with delight, hath no good accord with reason, or with truth. For there are many borne of God, who do Commit sin with delight: yea the delight or pleasure which they take in many sins committed by them, is the chiefe, if not the only reason why they commit them. Yea, it is a question, whether any man commits any sin whatsoever without delight, in one kinde or other.

Thirdly, by, sinneth not, is meant (say others) sinneth not deliberately, §. 26. or without inward reluctation, in the act of sinning. But neither hath this sence any better bottome, then conjecture, (and this obnoxious enough to him that will chew, and not swallow:) For, 1. What necessity is there, that when John saith, he that is borne of God, doth not commit sin, he should mean, committeth it not with deliberation, or premeditation, or without reluct­ance? why may not his meaning as well be, doth▪ not commit sin unto Death? or, customarily, as other Men doe, or the like? 2. Certaine it is, that he that is borne of God, doth, (at least sometimes) commit Sin with delibera­tion, yea and (in the Apostles expression) makes provision for the flesh Rom. 13. 14, i. e. Plots and Projects Means and Opportunities for the committing of it, and digests it, (as it were) into method before hand, that he may commit it the more artificially, as well as wicked men: witnesse David in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah 2 Sam. 11.; witnesse the two Patriarches, Simeon, and Levi, in the matter of the Sichemites Gen. 34.; besides examples in this kinde, which every day (almost) brings forth. 3. Neither is it true, that every one that is borne of God, Sinneth alwayes, when he doth Sin, with inward reluctancy. Doubt­lesse David was not divided in himself, suffered no inward conflict about the committing of those sins lately intimated, considering that (according to the generall opinion of our best Protestant Expositors and Divines) he re­mained for about the space of an whole yeere after the committing of these sins, without any sence of, or remorse for, them. And if the Lord had not sent his Prophet Nathan unto him, to awaken him, who knows but that he might have slept in his guilt even unto Death? Besides, as concerning sins quotidiani incursus, or sins of infirmity (as they are commonly called) which are incident to those that are borne of God, as well as unto others, the case is yet more evident; viz. that these, at least many of them, are com­mitted by them without any such inward reluctancy, as the Exposition now opposed suggesteth; and particularly those, of which they have no know­ledge, or sence, when they commit them. 4. (And lastly, to this) suppose it were granted, that Men borne of God doe not Sin but with inward reluctan­cy, yet that this is not the sence wherein the Apostle ascribes a non-Sinning unto them, is evident from hence; viz. because certaine it is, that the non-Sinning here intended by him to be ascribed unto them, is such, which is ap­propriate to them, and not communicable to wicked or unregenerate Men. But that Men unregenerate, sin, and that frequently, with inward reluctan­cy, is the frequent acknowledgement of these Men themselves; and be­sides is of easie Deduction and Observation from Romans 1. 32. Romans 2. 1. 5. &c. Nor is it, nor can it reasonably, be denied by our Adversaries themselves.

4. When the Apostle saith, that he that is borne of God doth not commit §. 27. Sin, some understand it of committing Sin unto death, or with finall impe­nitency. This Exposition indeed, if it could be made to stand upright, would beare the weight of the controversie depending alone. But it argues much weaknesse for a Man, in an Exposition of Scripture to determine for his own sence in a controversie or question, without giving a very substantiall reason of such his Exposition. Now I can meet with no reason at all from the Assertors of this Exposition, for the confirmation of it. But reasons against it there are these three at hand, and many more in comeing. 1. The Grammar or Letter of the Phrase breatheth not the least aire of such a sence. 2. The Phrase of committing Sin is no where in Scripture found in such a [Page 194] sence; I meane, to sin with finall impenitency, or unto death. The Authors of the Exposition have not yet shewed it, nor (I believe) ever will. 3. Nor doth the Context, or Scope of the place any wayes invite, much lesse in­force, such an Exposition. The intent and drift of the Apostle from ver. 3. even to the end of the Chapter, (as he that doth but run the Context over, may read) is not to shew, or argue, whether the Sons of God may possibly in time so degenerate, as to live sinfully, and die impenitently; but to evince this, that those who claime the great Honour and Priviledge of being the children of God, cannot justifie or make good this claime, neither unto others, nor to themselves, but by an holy and Christian life and conversati­on. Now it is one thing to argue or prove, who are the Sons of God at pre­sent: another, whether, they, who are such at present, must of necessity al­wayes so continue. The former, is the Apostles Theme in the Context: the latter he is wholly silent unto. So then if by not Sinning, the Argument which we have now upon answer, understands the non-committing of any of these foure kinds of sin, or a non-Sinning upon any of the terms explained, the minor proposition is denied, which saith, that whosoever is borne of God, sinneth not: nor doth the Apostle John affirm it (as hath been cleerly shewed) in any such sence.

If by Sinneth not, the Argument meaneth, walketh not ordinarily, or §. 28. customarily in any known way, or course, of sin; maketh not (as it were) a Trade or Occupation of sinning (which we have formerly proved to be the sence of the Phrase, [...], in the Scriptures, and more particularly in the writings of this Apostle Cap. 9. Sect. 11.) the said minor proposition is granted, as to this clause: whosoever is borne of God, Sinneth not. For that further clause in it, neither can Sin; this also, as to the Scripture use of the words, can, and cannot, is very ambiguous, and of doubtfull signification. For, 1. a Man may be said to can, or to be able to doe a thing, when the thing is meet, or comely for him to doe: and in opposition hereunto, when a thing is uncomely or unmeet to be done by him, it may be said of him (in Scripture Phrase) that he cannot doe it. How then (saith Ioseph to his mistrisse) CAN I doe this great wickednesse, and Sin against God Gen. 39. 9? which is as if he had plainly said, I cannot doe it. So againe: Can the children of the bride-chamber mourne, (saith Christ) as long as the Bridegroome is with them Mat. 9. 15? meaning, that it was an irrationall or uncomely thing for them so to doe; and in this respect (saith he) they cannot doe it. Thus Exod. 8. 26. where our English Translators reade, It is not meet so to doe, Ierom Translated it, Non potest ita fieri, i. e. it cannot so be done. Thus also the Apostle Paul (to spare other places) For we CAN doe nothing against the truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8 &c. meaning, that it was a most unworthy, and unseemly thing for him to act in any kinde against the truth, or to the prejudice of the Gospell: and in this respect he saith that he could not doe it See also, 1 Cor. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 10. 21, 12 21 Gal. 4. 15. Luke 6. 42. Gen. 24. 50. 29, 8, &c.. Secondly, a person may be said to can, or to be able to doe such or such a thing, when being otherwise provided of strength sufficient, He is under a present disposition or inclination of minde and will to do it. In this sence the Lord Christ is said to can, or to be able to have compassion on the ignorant, Heb. 5. 2. and in opposition hereunto, when a Man wants such a dispo­sition, especially when a contrary disposition rules in him, it may (in Scripture language) be said of him, that he cannot do it. Thus it is said of the Lord Christ himself, that being in his own Country, He COVLD there do no mighty work Mark 6. 5; meaning that he had no disposition of mind or will hereunto (and this because of the general unbelief of the People here, as one of the Evangelists accounteth) [Page 195] for otherwise his naturall, or executive, power of doing mighty workes, was the same here, which it was in other places. So he demands of the Pharises, How CAN yee, being evill, speake good things Mat. 12. 34. implying, that having a dispositi­on in them contrary unto that, by which Men are inclined to speak good things, they were as Men unable, and wanting Power, to speak such things. Again, speaking to the same Generation of Men, he demands, Why doe yee not under­stand my speech? and answers his own question thus: even because yee CANNOT hear my Word Ioh. 8. 43; meaning, that they [...] a mervellous averse disposition as to the hearing or minding of it; which he plainly signifieth in the words im­mediately following: yee are of your Father the Devill, &c. i. e. you are of a devillish disposition, enemies unto God, and goodnesse: and this renders you unable to hear, i. e. duely to minde and consider my words. This signifi­cation of the word, cannot, is most frequent in Scripture. See further upon this account, Gen. 37. 4. Rev. 2. 2. Mat. 20. 22. Mar. 9. 39. Luke 11. 7. 14. 20. &c. Thirdly, the word, cannot, sometimes notes only the difficulty of a thing to be performed. In this sence our Saviour, approving that say­ing of his Disciples, It is good not to marry, saith thus▪ All Men CANNOT receive this saying, Mat. 19. 11. &c. meaning that it was very difficult for some Men to acknowledge the goodnesse of that saying in reference to themselves, or to refraine marrying. For that it was not, or is not, simply impossible for any Man in this sence to receive the said saying. or to judge the forbearance of marriage good for him, and to forbeare accordingly, is in selfe evident; and besides, may be inferr'd from these words of our Saviour following: and there be Eunuches, which have made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdome of Heavens sake. He that is able to receive it, (i. e. whose heart serves him to encounter, and engage against the difficulty, and shall overcome it) let him receive it: i. e. Let him forbeare to marry. For concerning those. of whom he saith, that they have made themselves Eunuches for, &c. evident it is, that he meaneth not by them, either such, who by nature are indisposed to mar­riage, nor such, upon whom an incapacity in this kinde hath been forced (for of these he had spoken plainely in the former part of the Verse;) but of such, who had over-ruled and vanquished their inclinations and desires that way, by the weight and great import of spirituall considerations, proper to obtain a conquest of that nature. In this sence also Amaziah the Priest of Bethel saith concerning the Prophet Amos, that the Land is not able to [or, cannot] beare all his words Amos 7. 10: i. e. can hardly beare them, without falling soule up on him because of them. So when our Saviour saith: A City that is set on an Hill, CANNOT be hid Mat. 5. 14, he doth not import an absolute impossibility of the hiding of it (for doubtlesse there may be means found out to hide a City so scituate, as well as another standing in a valley,) but only a difficulty thereof See also Gen. 32. 12 Gen. 45. 1. Exod. 7. 21. 24.. Fourthly, the Word or Phrase we speak of, cannot, sometimes imports only a present incapacity in a Person, for the doing of a thing, when there is a remote Principle or Power in him notwithstanding to doe it. Thus God Himself saith to his Prophet Ezekiel, Thou art not sent to a People of a strange speech, or of an hard language, whose words thou CANST NOT under­stand, Ezek. 3. 6: implying that there were some People, whose words he could not understand, viz. de praesenti, for the present: not but that there was a Prin­ciple of reason and understanding in him, by the improvement whereof ac­cordingly, he might come in time to be very able to understand them. Thus it is said of the Egyptian Magitians, that they COVLD NOT STAND before Moses [viz. at present] because of the Boyles Exod. 9. 11: but these notwithstanding, [Page 196] they were in a capacity of standing before him another time as, viz. when they should be healed of their Boyles. Thus, it is said that the Children of Israel COVLD NOT stand before their enemies 1 Judg 7. 12, viz. whilest Achans sin was unpunished amongst them: yet were they remotely capable, not only of standing before their enemies, but of vanquishing, yea and making their ene­mies, flie before them. Fifthly, (and lastly) the Phrase, cannot frequently importeth an absolute impotency, or incapacity in Persons in reference to the doing of such, or such a thing. Thus our Saviour (speaking of His sheep.) No Man [or, none] CAN take th [...]m out of my hand Ioh. 10. 29: i. e. either hath, or ever shall have any such Power, whereby to take them out of my hand. And so Gamaliel to his fellowes: But if this Counsell or Work be of God, yee CAN­NOT overthrow it Acts 5. 39, &c. i. e. you are in no capacity at all, either present, or remore, to overthrow it. It were easie to multiply instances of this Sig­nification.

Now if the clause, cannot sin, in the Argument propounded, be under­stood §. 29. according to any of the foure first signification mentioned of the word, cannot, both the Propositions are false: if according to the fifth and last, the major is true, but the minor false. The major Proposition was this: He that sinneth not, NEITHER CAN SIN, cannot fall away from his Faith. 1. If by the deniall of a Power to sin, in this Proposition (which that clause, neither can sin, importeth) be meant nothing else, but an un­meetnesse, or uncomlinesse for a Man to Sin, it is a cleer case that He that cannot sin, may, notwithstanding such a want of Power to sin, very possibly fall away from his Faith. For thousands may doe, yea and doe, things very un­meet and uncomely to be done by them. 2. If by a deniall of the said Power in the Proposition, be meant a present indisposition or incapacity in a Man to Sin by reason of the contrary disposition of holinesse prevailing in Him, in this sence also He that cannot Sin, may very possibly fall away from His Faith. For He, in whom a disposition of holinesse is predominant at pre­sent, may very possibly by degrees, and through a frequency and custome of contrary actions (if not by an impetuous and suddaine turne also of Heart within Him,) devest Himself of that honourable habit, and put on the vile garments of Loosenesse and Prophanesse in the stead. 3. If by, cannot Sin, the Argument meaneth can hardly Sin, or cannot Sin without difficulty (which was the third signification of the word, cannot) neither will this sence give any colour of truth to the said Proposition. For He that can hardly Sin, or not Sin without difficulty, may yet possibly Sin: and consequently, such an inability to Sin notwithstanding, fall away from his Faith. 4. If by cannot Sin, the Argument imports, only a present incapacity of sinning in the Person, not excluding a remote capacity in Him hereunto, and such as may in time, by means suteable, be reduced into act, evident it is, that the Person, this inability to Sin notwithstanding, may possibly fall away from his Faith.

Againe, 2. according to all these Significations and Importances of the §. 30. clause, cannot Sin, in the said Syllogisme, the other Proposition also is false, which saith, that whosoever is borne of God sinneth not, neither CAN SIN. For, 1. He that is borne of God, may very possibly doe that, which is uncomely and unmeet for Him to doe. 2. May be able to doe that by the superveening, or contracting of another habit upon Him, which by reason of a contrary habit prevailing upon Him for a time, He cannot doe. 3. He may possibly doe that, which only is hard or difficult for Him to doe. 4. (And [Page 197] lastly) He may have a remote capacity in Him of doing that in the fu­ture, and in time, (and consequently, may doe it) which at present He is under an inability to doe. Therefore it is a cleare case, that there are four severall Significations of the Word, cannot, (and these frequent in Scrip­ture) wherein both the Propositions, in the argument now under canvass, is false.

If the said argument understands the Phrase, cannot Sin, according to the §. 31. fifth and last import mentioned of the Word, cannot, wherein it sounds an utter and absolute incapacity, or impossibility; though in this sence the ma­jor Proposition be granted, viz. that he that doth not Sin, nor can Sin, can­not fall away from his Faith, yet the minor is tardy, which saith (as we lately heard) whosoever is borne of God Sinneth not, neither can Sin. For He that is borne of God, is in no such incapacity of Sinning (of Sinning I mean, in the sence formerly asserted to the Scripture in hand) which amounts to an abso­lute impossibility for Him so to Sin. But because this seems to be the sence intended in the argument, and the minor Proposition (in this sence) to be built upon the Scripture in hand, let us consider, whether the reason, which this Scripture assignes for the said assertion, Whosoever is borne of God, cannot sin, doth necessarily inforce such a sence thereof. The tenor of the whole Verse is this: Whosoever is borne of God, doth not commit sin: for his seed re­maineth in him: and he cann [...] sin, because he is borne of God. Here are two Propositions or Assertions laid down; and a reason given of either of them respectively. The former Proposition is this; Whosoever is borne of God, doth not commit sin: The reason hereof, is: for his seed remaineth in him: The latter Proposition, this; Whosoever is borne of God, cannot sin: The reason hereof is: because he is borne of God. The sence, and difference, of the two Propositions (according to what we have argued about the place hitherto, and what we judge) is this: [...], &c. every one that hath been borne of God, stnneth not, i. e. whosoever hath by the Word and Spirit of God been made partaker of the Divine Nature, so as to resemble God in the frame and constitution of his Heart and Soule, doth not under such a frame or change of Heart as this, make a Trade or Practise of sinning, or walke in any course of inordinatenesse in the World: yea (saith He, in the latter Proposition) every such Person, doth not only, or simply, refraine sinning (in such a sence) but He cannot sin, i. e. He hath a strong and potent dis­position in him, which carrieth Him another way; or He hath a strong an­tipathy or aversenesse of Heart and Soule, against all sin, especially against all such kinde of sinning. Now the reason (saith the Apostle) why such a Person committeth not Sin (in the sence explained,) is, because his seed, [the seed of God, by, or of, which He was borne of Him] [...]. re­maineth in Him, i. e. (according to the frequent signification of the Word [...], to abide, or remaine, in the Writings of this Apostle) is, or hath an actuall and present being, or residence in Him. And that in this place it doth not signifie any perpetuall remaining or abiding, no nor any abiding with relation to the future, is evident; because the abiding of the seed here spoken of, is given as the reason, why He that is borne of God, doth not com­mit sin: i. e. doth not at present walke in any course of known sin. Now no­thing, in respect of any future Permanency, or continuance of being, can be looked upon as a cause of any present effect, but only in respect of the pre­sent being or residence of it. The reason why the Soul moves▪ and acts the Body to day, is not because it will move or act it to morrow, or because it [Page 198] is in the Body to day upon such terms, that it will be in it to morrow also; much lesse because it is an immortall substance, or the like, but simply be­cause it is now, or this day, in the Body. So the reason why the Angells at this day doe the Will of God, is not because they have such a Principle of Holinesse, or Obedience vested in them, which they cannot put off, or lose to Eternity, but because they have such a Principle, as we speak of, (of Ho­linesse, and Obedience) residing in them at the present. Therefore when John assignes, the remaining of the seed of God in Him, that is borne of him, for the reason, why He doth not commit sin, certaine it is, that by this re­maining of the seed, He means nothing else but the present residence, or abode thereof in this Person. And if his intent had been, either to assert, or imply, a perpetuall residence of this seed in Him that is borne of God, it had been much more proper for Him to have reserved it, for a reason of the latter Pro­position, viz. why He that is borne of God, cannot sin (especially according to their sence, who by, cannot sin, understand, can never sin) then to sub­joyne it as a reason of the former. For though the future continuance of a thing in being, can be no reason (as hath been said) of a present effect, yet may it well be a Ground or Reason of the continuance of a present effect.

Now that the word [...], to remaine, or abide, frequently signifieth (es­pecially in the Writings of this Apostle) only a present residence, or being, §. 32. whether of a Person, or Thing, without any reference unto, or implicati­on of, a future, appeares by many instances. But yee know him (saith our Saviour to his Disciples, speaking of the Spirit) [...], i▪ e. because he remaineth, [or abideth] with you, and shall be in you. Here the latter clause, and shall be in you, will be found a meere tautology, if the other Phrase abiding with them, imports a perpetuall residence, or inbeing. In the same Chapter, Verse 25. where the originall hath it, [...], i. e. remaining [or abiding] with you, our English Translation renders it, being yet PRESENT with you. So where this Apostle saith, that he that loveth not his Brother, [...], abideth in death 1 Ioh. 3▪ 14, the meaning is, that such a Man is in an estate of Death or condemnation; not that he will, much lesse of necessity must, abide for any space of time after, least of all, for ever, in that estate. For then it would follow, that whoever at any time did not truly love his Brother, never after became a Child of God. Which saying how insupportable it is to the greatest part of those, who say they believe, yea and doe believe indeed, any mans first thoughts may sufficiently determine. It is familiar with John (saith a late Writer, from Cameron, and Hugo Grotius) to use the Word [...], which properly signifieth to remaine, for the Verb Substan­tive, to be Familiare Johanni [...] ponere simplici­ter pro, esse; ut Ioh. 5. 38, & 15. 11. & 1 Ep. 2. 6. 10. & cap. 3. 15. & 2. Ep. 2. Et alibi. Ed­ward Leigh. Critic. Sacra. p. 259. in verbo, [...]..

Besides, that in the place in hand, it must needs signifie, only a present abode, or being, not a future, or perpetuall, is evident from hence; because such a signification of it, would render a sence altogether inconsistent with the plaine scope of the Apostle in the Context, which is, to exhort Christians unto Righteousnesse and love of the Brethren. Now it is contrary to all reason, yea to common sence it self, to signifie unto those, whom we ad­monish, exhort, and perswade to any duty, any such thing, which imports an ablolute certainty, or necessity of their doing it, whether they take care, or use any meanes for the doing it. or no. And a cleare case it is, that the cer­tainty of a perpetuall remaining of the seed of God in those, that are borne of him, imports a like certainty of their perpetuall performance of the duties, whereunto they exhorted.

If it be here objected and said; yea▪ but the seed, of which those that are §. 33. borne of God, are begotten, is said to be an immortall, or incorruptible seed 1 Pet. 1. 23: and therefore cannot perish or decay in those, who are begotten of it, or in whom it ever takes place. I answer;

1. That seed, which the Holy Ghost affirms to be, not corruptible, but in­corruptible, is expresly said to be, the Word of God Ibidem.. Now certaine it is, that the Word of God is not therefore said to be immortall or incorruptible, be­cause it cannot be lost by those, who once receive it, or in whose Heart it hath been once sown; but partly because it is in the Nature and Essence of it incorruptible, in respect whereof, though all the World, who are now partakers of it, should reject and cast it out of their Hearts, so that it were no where to be found under Heaven, yet it would be in the Nature and Es­sence of it, every wayes the same, and suffer no alteration or change hereby at all; partly also, because it is endued with such an excellent vertue or pro­perty, that it is able to derive and confer immortality and incorruption upon those, who are begotten of it, yea and will actually derive and confer these glorious Priviledges upon them, if they suffer not the spirit of this Heavenly Birth to be extinguished and quench'd in them, before the season of the actuall collation thereof comes. For as that seed, which is corruptible, is not therefore termed corruptible, because it may be transferr'd or removed from the subject or soyle, wherein it remaines at present, but because, according to the Nature and Elementary constitution of it, it may be corrupted, and suffer a change of being; as also because it is naturally apt to produce and yeild such bodies or things, which according to the course of Nature are corruptible likewise: in like manner the seed of the Word of God is not therefore said to be an incorruptible seed, because it cannot be taken from, or forsaken by, those, in whom it hath a residence for the present; but because, whether it be taken, or not taken from, whether it be forsaken, or not forsaken by, these, it retaines its proper Nature, which is to be incorruptible. For it is meerly extrinsecall and accidentall to the Word of God, to be either imbraced, or refused▪ to be either retained, or let goe or lost, by Men: nor doe any of these things make the least alteration in the nature of it, no more then the taking up, or removing a corne of Wheat, or of any other corruptible graine, from the Ground or Field, wherein at present it resteth, or the let­ting of it there alone; altereth the Nature or Essentiall Properties there­of. But,

2. It may be some question, whether by the seed of God in the Scripture §. 34. in hand, said to remaine in him that is borne of him, be meant precisely the Word of God, and not rather that which the Scripture elsewhere calls, the Di­vine Nature, which is the proper effect of the Word of God, according to that of Peter; Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious Pro­mises, that by these you might be partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1. 4, &c. toge­ther with that of the Apostle James: Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth Iames 1▪ 18, &c. If you ask me, what this Divine Nature is; I answer, it is a certaine Heavenly impression made by the Gospel, in, or upon the Heart or Soul of a Man; or a Divine Principle, Quality or Disposition wrought in him by the Word of God, by which he resembles God Himself, and is effectually inclin'd to walke and act according to those Principles of Righteousnesse and Holinesse, in all things appertaining unto him to doe, by which God Himself walketh and [...]acteth in the World. If you aske me further; but why doe I conceive that by the seed of God (in the Scripture [Page 200] in hand) the Apostle should meane such an impression, or disposition as this; I answer; because some such thing must of necessity be meant by it, which is very spiritfull, vigorous, and active in turning the Heart and Soul of a Man against sin. First, the metaphoricall expression of seed, impor­teth as much; I meane, somewhat that is very spirituous, full of Vigor, Power, and Efficacy, (in the kinde of it.) Naturall Philosophy and expe­rience joyntly teach, that it is the nature of Seed to be full of spirits, and thereby exceedingly vigorous and operative. Secondly, the effect here as­cribed to it, the keeping or preserving of the Man, in whom it remaines, from sinning, which requires a Principle of very great Strength and Power to effect, implieth the same. Now such a Principle, genius, or quality in a Man, as the Holy Ghost calls, the Divine Nature, may well be conceived to be very spiritfull and vigorously operative according to the kinde and ten­dency of it, in which respect it is frequently termed, Spirit; and consequent­ly, to be sufficiently active and powerfull to preserve its subject from sinning. Yea, our Apostle, in assigning the reason of his latter Assertion in this place, which is, that he that is borne of God, cannot Sin, the reason whereof he al­ledgeth to be this, because he is borne of God, supposeth the seed here spoken of (whatsoever is meant by it) to be so actuous and powerfull, that it doth, not only actually and de facto preserve him, in whom it remaines, from Sinning, but also renders him impotent or unable to sin. For this reason, because he is borne of God, is the same in effect, and for substance, with that of the former assertion; for his seed abideth in him: only it doth somewhat more emphatically import, that the reason why the Seed of God remaining in a Man, is so potently exclusive of sin in the same subject, with it, is the absolute Holinesse, or most perfect hatred of sin, which is in God Himself, of whom the Person is begotten againe, by such his seed. As the reason why a Lion hath courage, strength, and other like leonine Properties, is, be­cause he came of a Lion, a Creature naturally endued with the same Pro­perties. But whatsoever is here meant by the Seed of God, whether the Word of God, or the Divine Nature (so notioned as hath been described) evident it is, by what hath been argued, that no inseparablenesse of it from the pre­sent subject, (nor consequently any impossibility of falling away from Faith,) can be inferr'd from any thing spoken of it, as attributed to it, in this Place.

There is only one objection more (as far as I am able to apprehend) that §. 35. lieth with any seemingnesse of strength against the Premisses. The tenor hereof is this. If the Seed of God (whatever it be) remaining in a Man rege­nerate, worketh in him the greatest and strongest antipathy against, or alie­nation and abhorrency of minde and affection from, sin, that can lightly be imagined (which hath been granted all along in the traverse of the Scrip­ture in hand) how is it possible that such a man should fall away, especially totally and finally, from his Faith? It is no wayes reasonable to suppose, that it is possible for a Man so to fall away from his Faith, without sinning, no nor yet without sinning very grievously: nor is it much more reasonable (if not as unreasonable altogether) to suppose, that a Man may sin, and that grievously, who hath the greatest and strongest antipathy against sin, the deepest aliena­tion and abhorrency of minde and will from sin, that lightly can be conceived. Therefore how is it possible for him that cannot sin (even in this sence) to fall away totally or finally? I answer,

He that hath the greatest and strongest antipathy against sin, that flesh [Page 201] and blood is capable of, yet retaines that essentiall character, or property of a creature, mutability, which supposeth a possibility (at least) of Sin­ning; if not in sensu composito, i. e. whilest such an antipathy remaines in its full vigor and strength; yet in sensu Diviso, i. e. in case, or when, this anti­pathy shall abate and decline. As though Water made hot to the highest degree of heat whereof the nature of it is capable, cannot possible coole any thing, whilest it remaines under such a degree of heate, yet this hinders not but that it may in time, its present heat notwithstanding, returne to its na­turall coldnesse, and then coole other things: in like manner, a Man may by the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration, be carried up to a very effectuall and potent antipathy of minde and will against Sin, by meanes whereof, he is in no Capacity or Possibility of sinning, (in the sence formerly declared) whilest it continues thus effectuall and potent: but the present effectualnesse or Potency of it, in a subject that is mutable, and successively capable of both contraries, is no sufficient Argument to Prove, that therefore it must needs alwayes continue Effectuall, or Potent, in the same degree. And if it may abate or fall one degree, why not another? and if two, why not all; considering that all and every Degree hereof is but of one and the same Nature?

If it be here said, yea but such a strong antipathy against Sin, as you sup­pose §. 36. and grant in Regenerate Men, is inconsistent with any such abatement, or declining, cannot reasonably be looked upon as capable of any Falling; Sinking, or Losing so much as one Degree of its strength, in as much as such a Falling or Losing as this, cannot be without Sin: and till there be such a declining as this in that Holy Principle we speak of, the Person is supposed to be full of the hatred and abomination of Sin. Therefore unlesse he shall be supposed capable of Sinning even in sensu composito, i. e. whilest He is yet under the greatest and most perfect hatred and abhorrency of Sin, (which seemes to be dura suppositio, and to need good Proof) he must be supposed uncapable of any declining at all in such his Principle, and consequently much more uncapable of falling away, either totally, or finally. To this I answer,

1. That according to the known Sence and Principles of our adversaries themselves in the cause depending, Faith in Men Regenerate, or the Grace of Regeneration it self, to what Degree or Perfection soever raised or advan­ced in the subject, may notwithstanding very possibly decay or decline, though not totally, or in all the Parts or Degrees of it, yet in some, yea in many; yea so far, that in appearance it may seeme utterly and totally lost. If so, then every Particular Grace in such a Person, may possibly abate in the strength, and fal from the height of it: and consequently that antipathy or hatred against Sin, which is in him, how perfect soever it be, may lose ground also, and abate of its perfection. Therefore,

2. When we suppose, or grant, a strong antipathy against Sin in those that are borne of God, we doe not suppose withall, either this antipathy to be un-impaireable, or any such Principle, which cannot decline in the strength and Power of it; or that it can be impaired or decline, without Sin in him, who suffers an impairement of it to be made in him. When we suppose the greatest antipathy against Sin in a Man, that flesh and blood is lightly ca­pable of, we doe not hereby suppose him without the reach of temptation, or a Man not subject to incogitancies, forgetfulnesse, and other humane frailties. We may very well (and ought to) suppose Solomon to have been [Page 202] the wisest of Men; and yet suppose him withall, even in the height and ex­cellency of his wisdome, to have been a man capable, or under a possibility, of doing weakly, or foolishly. Nemo omnibus horis sapit. There is no ac­quired habit, or created Principle whatsoever, seated in the heart or soule of a Man, that doth at any time act him, or cause him to act congruously to it, without the actuall intention of the minde upon, and the like concurrence of the will with, the action. Again, 2. most certaine it is, that the minde of a Man, being a finite faculty, cannot intend plurality of objects, actions, or occasions, at once, or at one and the same time. 3. As certaine it is, as either of the former, that neither the minde, nor will of a Man, are compell'd or necessitated by any habit, inclination, or disposition whatsoever, alwayes, or, (indeed) at any time, to intend them, or their motions and actings, or to concur with them herein▪ but are in some degree (at least) of liberty and power, to tu [...]ne aside from them, to severall other objects and occasions, as they please. It is true, habits and inclinations, especially when they are much grown and rooted in the Soul by frequent and long-continued actions, have a great Power over Men to intice and draw them into a frequent repe­tition of the same kinde of action, by which they were first introduced, and whereunto they have so long prevailed with such Men to accustome them­selves. And in respect of this Power it is, that the Scripture so frequently ascribes a kinde of morall impotency unto Men to act contrary to the tenor of such actions, whereunto they have much accustomed themselves, yea or to suspend or forbear them upon opportunities: and (upon the same ac­count) represents Persons as servants, as in subjection and bondage to those respective kinds of actions, or courses, whereunto they have voluntarily inured themselves for any considerable time. Of this notion are such passages and sayings as these. Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever committeth Sin (i. e. frequently and customarily, as we formerly interpreted the import of the Phrase in the Writings of the Apostle John Cap. 9 Sect. 11.) is the SERVANT of Sin Io [...]. 8. 34.. So againe, Know yee not, that to whomsoever yee give your selves as ser­vants to obey, his SERVANTS yee are, whom yee obey, whether it be, Rom 6. 16. &c. So also CAN the Ethiopian change his skin, or the Leopard his spots? then may yee also doe good, that are accustomed to doe evill Jer. 13. 23.. Of like consideration is that also of our Saviour: A good Tree CANNOT bring forth evill fruits: neither CAN a corrupt Tree bring forth good fruit Mat. 7. 18.. (To omit many others.) But, 4. (And lastly) when the Scripture supposeth, or asserts a morall impo­tency in Men (as in the passages now cited, with their fellows) either wholly to cease from their long-accustomed actions, or to act contrary to them▪ it neither supposeth, nor asserts, a naturall, simple, or absolute impotency in respect of either. For it is the Nature, Property, and Condition of all habits or created Principles in Men whatsoever, by discontinuance or long suspension of their appropriate actions, to languish, and abate of their wonted strength and vigor, and in time, wholly to expire. So then, it re­maining still in the Power of the minde and will of a Man, even under the greatest captivity or subjection unto any Habit, Disposition, or Principle whatsoever, whether sinfull, or holy, to suspend and discontinue (as hath been proved) their proper actings respectively, by denying or withholding their concurrence with them in order towards such actions, evident it is, that they have Power, and may shake and weaken every such Habit, dispo­sition, or Principle in themselves to what degree they desire, yea and in time, wholly enervate, dissipate, and expell them. Therefore it is no dura a suppo­sitio, [Page 203] no hard supposition, to suppose, that a Person invested with the strong­est antipathy against sin, whereof he is capable, (especially in the State and Condition of mortality) may notwithstanding, even in sensu composito, i. e. This antipathy standing, either doe that which is sinfull, but especially omit, or neglect the doing of that, which is his duty, yea and of great concern­ment likewise unto him, to doe.

Thus we have at last, fully and cleerly (we suppose) acquitted that Scrip­ture, 1 Joh. 3. 9. more vehemently suspected and charged, then all his fellows, with confederacy against that Doctrine, which affirms a Possibility of a totall and finall defection in the Saints.

Another Scripture hath the same imputation cast upon it for speaking §. 37. only thus: My Father, which gave them me, is greater then all: and no Man is able to take them out of my Fathers Hand Ioh. 10. 29. From hence it is argued and con­ceived, that God ingageth himself with his Omnipotency to preserve the Saints or Sheep of Christ, from either totall, or finall, apostasie; and conse­quently, that it is unpossible but that they should be preserved. But to this place of Scripture a sufficient answer hath been given already in this Chapter Sect. 18. 19, 20, &c.: where we shewed, that the ingagement of the mighty Power of God for the Protection and safeguarding of the Saints, as such, or remaining such, against all adverse Power whatsoever, is frequently asserted in Scripture, but no where for the compelling, or necessitating, of them to Persevere or continue such. Nor is there the least intimation of any such thing in the Text before us. And yet here I shall further add (in reference unto it.)

That by the tenor and carriage of the Context it appeares, 1. That that se­curity, for which our Saviour ingageth the greatnesse of His Fathers Power unto his Sheep, is promised or ascertained unto them, not in order to the effecting or procuring their finall perseverance, but rather by way of toward to it. 2. That this promise of eternall safety made by Christ unto His Sheep, doth not relate to their estate or condition in this present World, but to that of the World to come. My Sheepe (saith he, verse 27. hea [...] my voyce, and I know them, and they follow me. In which expressions of hearing his voyce, and following him, he intimates, or includes their perseverance Intellige au­tem loqui Christ­um de ovi [...]us, qu [...] tales sunt ac ma [...]ent▪ Hag. Grot▪ in locum., as appeares by the words immediately following. Verse 28. And I give unto them etenall life. This gift of his presupposeth the finall perseverance of those to whom it is given. It followes: and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. In these words he seems further to ex­plaine, how, and in what sence he calls that, life eternall, which he promi­seth to confer upon them; as viz. that by the eternalnesse of it, he doth not only meane, such a constitution or condition of it, which secureth it from perishing or dissolving, in respect, or by means, of any intrinsecall cause, (up­on which account the lives they live in the flesh, are perishable) but which secureth it likewise against all externall means, or power, that may seem to threaten or indanger it. And for a further confirmation, that the life which he promiseth unto his Sheepe, hearing his voyce and following him [viz. as was said, perseveringly] is eternall (in the best, largest, most comprehen­sive, most desireable sence of the word) he subjoynes the words in hand, Verse 29. My Father which gave them me, is greater, viz. in power, then all: and none is able to pluck them out of my Fathers Hand; as if he should have said, God Himself, by whose grace they became my Sheepe and followed me, and whose power is abundantly sufficient for the work, would maintaine and [Page 204] make good unto them to the uttermost, that life, which I shall give unto them, against all dangers, all enemies, all adversary powers whatsoever. This being the naturall and cleer disposition of the Context, it is a plaine case that here is not the least aire or breathing of any ingagement of the great power of God, to bring about the perseverance of the Saints upon those terms of infallibility, or necessity, which are so much contended for.

Another Scripture much intreated in the behalf of the Doctrine of perse­verance, §. 38. is that of the Evangelist John concerning our Saviour: having loved his own, which were in the World, he loved them unto the end Ioh. 13. 1.. Out of this light some draw this darknesse: Therefore whom Christ once loves, He loves alwayes, or unto the end. Which inference (they suppose) is further strengthened by that of the Prophet: For I am the Lord: I change not Mal. 3. 6.. I Answer;

1. From the passage in John, there can nothing more be concluded (in Reference to the Question in hand) then (by way of immediate deduction) the greatnesse and constancy of Christs love towards such of His Disciples, who continued in their obedience and faithfulnesse unto him (for the Evan­gelist, I suppose, did not intend Judas amongst those, whom Christ loved unto the end) and, 2. (By way of Proportion, or Rationall consequence from this deduction) that the love of Christ is great and constant towards all those, who persevere in love and faithfulnesse unto him. This is the constant Doctrine of the Scriptures; but no wayes concerns the present Dis­pute. Yet for the pass [...]ge it self, if it hath any aspect at all upon it, it is ra­ther by way of favour and countenance to that side, against which, then to that, for which, it is commonly alledged. For if the love of Christ towards His Disciples, unto the end, necess [...]rily supposeth, or requireth, the concur­rent continuance of the same affection in them towards him, it plainely fol­lows▪ that if men shall draw back from Him, His Soul will have no further pleasure or delight in them. And this indeed was the expresse Doctrine of that Man of God, who was sent to meet King Asa, and the People with him, upon the late Presence of God with them against their enemies. O Asa, and all Juda, and Benjamin; hear yee me: The Lord is with you, while yee be with Him: and if yee seeke Him, He will PE FOVND of yo [...], but IF YEE FORSAKE HIM, He will forsake you 2 Chron. 15. 2. Which cleerly supposeth, 1. A pos­sibility of their forsaking God, who for a time are truly and really with Him: 2. A certainty of Gods forsaking those, who forsake Him.