Peaceable Disquisitions, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Of the cloſer judgement of the Author (in his ſixth Chapter) which is Arminian; and of Election, Free-will, and Grace, upon account of his opinion; Of the ſalvability of Heathen, and other incidental matters.
I Deſcend to his ſixth Chapter, which is to ſhew us, who thoſe are to whom the Spirit is promiſed and given. Theſe perſons are Believers, who yet are not holy perſous. This is his Notion. They cannot be holy till they have the Spirit to ſanctifie them, and yet they muſt believe and pray becauſe that is the condition upon which the Spirit is given. The holy Spirit conſequently and his ſpecial grace is neceſſary to Good works or ſanctification: but Believing is antecedent to it, or muſt be in a mans power, before it.
I muſt confeſs I am made ſenſible of the ſagacity of this Author upon my reading this Chapter, which I did not heed ſo much before, and I perceive which way his mind is hankering. It was this very light which carried St. Auguſtine ſo much in his firſt writings. The doctrine of Pelagius at the firſt broaching, conſiſted mainly in this point, that God did give his grace according to mens merits. This doctrine ſeemed to the Father too arrogant for man, and derogatory to God. That the grace of God and eternal life is given to ſome, and not to others, is manifeſt. That the reaſon muſt be in regard of ſomething that one man does and not another, ſeemed to him undeniable. That good works ſhould be it, appears againſt the Scripture, not by works leſt any man ſhould boaſt. Beſides, if a man ſhould be allowed to be able to do any good works to merit Gods grace by the ſtrength of nature, what need were there of prayer for aid from God or the help of his Spirit? Man ſhould have need of induſtry here, not prayer. If not works then, what muſt it be but that which is ſo often contradiſtinguiſhed to works, and that is Faith? For the Scripture that ſaies not of Works but of Grace, does ſay likewiſe, It is of faith that it may be of Grace. Here then is that which muſt be in mans power. That a man could not do good works without grace St. Auſtine always aſſerted, for this was his meaning when he ſaies that good works do not preceed but follow juſtification, underſtanding by juſtifying, the making a man juſt by inherent grace, as the Schools do after him. But that a man can believe if he will by the uſe of his natural faculties only, is what he did maintain readily, thinking no body could deny it. According to this clear apprehenſion prehenſion as he then took it up, he did proceed to his doctrine of Election, which being defined by the Ancients before his time always ex praeſcientia, he now determines to be of this Faith foreſeen. It muſt not be ex operibus praeviſis, becauſe that will oppoſe grace, but ex praevifa fide, and that will ſalve all objections. We are to conceive of other things to follow agreeably, as Arminius that acute and I think pious Divine hath ſince taken up the notion (when Auguſtine himſelf retracted it) and upon his own ſtock improved it.
It is me now (I muſt ſay) ſomething notable to ſee the ſeeds of the ſame light ſpringing up in this Gentleman as formerly actuared two ſuch ſearching Divines as Auſtin and Arminius were: and I cannot therefore without guilt of diſingenuity paſs over any thing which he hath offered for the farther cultivation of it. For doing this, I obſerve he enters firſt upon an adventure to make ſome change of our terms in Divinity. The ſtate of nature, and a ſtate of Grace are terms that ſignifie Regeneration and Unregeneration with all men, even in our practical Books: and he will have us by a ſtate of Nature to underſtand the state of a Heathen; and by a ſtate of Grace, the ſtate of every one under the Goſpel. The Goſpel now bringing a man into this ſtate, a ſtate of Grace, he diſtinguiſhes of this Grace the Goſpel brings. And it is either that which goes before our Faith, or follows it. That which goes before he accounts it all Common Grace; that which is given after it, ſpecial Grace. Ordinarily, by the way, that grace which is given to the Reprobate, as well as to the Elect, we call Common Grace, and that which is peculiar to the Elect we call ſpecial grace, whether before or after Faith. But he offers his reaſon. The Grace which the Goſpel brings, is either (ſays he) that which is given upon condition, or that which is given upon none. That which is conditional muſt be given only to ſome, becauſe it is ſome only perform that condition, and that which is given but to ſome is ſpecial Grace. That which is given upon no condition, muſt be therefore (or rather may be) appropriated to all, and ſo is Common Grace. Thus he Theologizes, when we ordinarily do not account it common grace, becauſe every one has it; but becauſe the Reprobate as well as the Elect have it: and we do not call it ſpecial Grace only, becauſe ſome have it, but becauſe the Elect only have it: ſo that, that Grace which is given but to ſome, if it be given to any Reprobate as well as the Elect, we call not ſpecial, but common Grace. Well, but theſe terms being premiſed, that Grace now which he calls ſpecial, the grace of the Goſpel, is promiſed on the condition of Faith. It is Faith is the firſt thing upon which all depends. If this be not in the power of every one, the terms of the Goſpel ſhall be unperformable. And that this Faith may be in our power, he will have a preventing Grace (which is not the Grace it ſelf of the Goſpel, that being all conditional, but ſome Divine aſſiſtance accompanying it) as enables every body that hears the Goſpel to believe, unleſs they wilfully reject it, He is afraid of Pelagianiſm, to allow that any do or can believe of their own ſtrength without Grace (though Auſtin when he entertained this mans thoughts, made no ſcruple of that) and therefore he will help out the good Father here very kindly with the intimation of a Grace, that being not confined to any condition, muſt be common, and ſo belong to all who are brought into that ſtate, which is a ſtate of Grace, the ſtate of being under the Goſpel. when Chriſt ſays, Go preach the Goſpel, he that believes not ſhall be damned. It is repugnant (he argues) to the goodneſs and juſtice of God, that he ſhould with-hold that aſſiſtance as is neceſſary to make this condition poſſible, and believing without ſuch Grace is impoſſible. Upon this Grace then, which all have, who have the word preached, a man becomes his Believer. This Faith or bare Chriſtianity with Prayer is the condition of that promiſe, that God will give his Holy Spirit to thoſe that ask him. The Spirit being given, we are to improve his Grace. This improvement is the condition of that farther promiſe, that God will dwell in us. That God will give us his Spirit, and that he will dwell in us, are the principal promiſes of Grace in the Goſpel, I conſent with this Author, underſtanding Grace only of theſe operations. This implies a plentiful communication of farther degrees of Grace for perſeverance. Upon the condition of perſeverance we ſhall be ſaved.
Lo here the notion of this worthy Author, wherein I think I have done him and my Reader right to preſent it with all the light about it, as I was able to draw it from him. I will now requite the ingenuity and liberty of his opinion, with the like freedom in my Animadverſions.
In the firſt place I do apprehend that theſe things have lien in the mind of this Gentleman, not yet ſeven years; and I think that a man had need to take no leſs time than Jacob ſerved for Rachel, to conſider well before he wed himſelf to a Party in the controverſie of the Five points, eſpecially if he take to that ſide which ſtands condemned by the Synod of Dort, with our Britiſh Divines in it; who being ſent thither by Authority, were to determine nothing we may be ſure, but what was agreeable to the Doctrine of our Church; and alſo when the Father who firſt ſprang that notion which this Author is in queſt of, did upon moſt mature deliberation himſelf forſake it, and that only (as I believe) upon a full conviction from the Scripture, which led him into the Doctrine of Abſolute Election, which this man as ſuddenly rejects, as he maturely embraced, ſhewing himſelf even fond of it in all his latter Writings, even to the death. Which makes me add this moreover, that foraſmuch as I ſee ſeveral of our younger Divines, being of more quick parts, ſo forward upon theſe points, I will paſs my conjecture, that by that time they have well bred their teeth, they will not perhaps be ſo much in pain (as they ſeem now to be) to run into diſputation (as they do) either with Calvin, or Doctor Owen.
In the ſecond place I cannot lightly give the Gentleman my approbation to his new coin. I am ſenſible of ſo much hurt and ill conſequence that may come of this boldneſs to go about to alter terms that have gotten into our Divinity, when it is not that of the Schools only, but of our Sermons and practical Books, that this Author is not aware of what he does. It is the raw Divine will take up theſe terms, and when he comes to uſe them, he will be ſo confounded himſelf, and confound the people that hear him, that they will be as thoſe that ſpeak in a ſtrange tongue, one to another. For inſtance, what if a green Preacher comes and tells his Congregation after this Author, that all that hear him are in a ſtate of Grace? What if he comes, and preaches on, that the Goſpel gives no ground for us to expect any ſpecial Grace till we perform the condition of the Goſpel? How odd muſt this appear to the hearers in any judicious Congregation, when we know the firſt Grace (we mean effectual) is given without condition? Yet let this Author explain theſe words for him; that by ſpecial Grace we muſt always underſtand Grace promiſed to qualified perſons; ſo that all he means muſt be, that that Grace which is promiſed on condition, is not given till we perform the condition, the matter admits of no contradiction. Beſides this evil, the new forming of terms which are received to other ſignifications in the Church, is methinks but like a man who hath ſome very curious work to engrave, and when he has all thoſe tools in his ſhop that are made on purpoſe for the doing that work, he will uſe his knife only. This may indeed commend the rarity and induſtry, but not the wiſdom of that workman, who could have done his buſineſs better, if he had uſed thoſe Inſtruments which were ready by him, and proper for it.
In the third place there is one thing I muſt needs obſerve, wherein I think this Gentleman in his Hetorodoxy to be a little too Orthodox; and that is in his ordering the ſcheme of his notion ſo, as that the homo Evangelizatus only ſhall be the ſubject of God's Grace: that is, when he does hold forth a common Grace vouchſaſed to all who are under the Goſpel, enabling them to believe, if they will, upon which the promiſe of the Spirit belongs to them, and ſo the ſpecial Grace of it upon Goſpel conditions unto everlaſting life; he does leave all the world beſides in ſuch a ſtate, as is without all Grace, and conſequently in a remedileſs condition. Whereas he may find in the Schools, that there is an univerſal Grace maintained by many, which they call ſufficient (and which indeed is that which this Author means by his common Grace), as no man is without, whether Heathen or Chriſtian; in the improvement whereof, farther degrees are attainable upon the Habenti dabitur, till it comes to be effectual; ſo that it ſhall lie upon the liberty of the will in every body, whether they be ſaved or damned. I know the Author may deſert theſe, and not be ſingular in this point of his opinion, ſo long as he hath the Fathers generally, St. Cyprian and St. Auguſtine more particularly, the Papiſt and Proteſtant Churches, with the eighteenth Article of our own on his ſide: and that which may pleaſe this Author ſomething more. I remember Arminius in ſome place of his works, does expreſly exclude all Heathens from ſalvation; though many that have tread in his ſteps otherwiſe, have been more kind to the Nations. I have ſome little light therefore here (or I believe it to be ſo) to offer to this very ſuſceptible perſon. There is a three-fold Government (in one, to ſpeak accurately) that God hath had in the world over man in reference to his chief end, the ſalvation of his ſoul. The firſt was by the Law of Nature, the ſecond, by the Law of Moſes, and the third by the Law of Chriſt. Before God gave his Law unto Iſrael, the whole world was under that Law, which is written in the heart. God muſt govern man by that only, when there was no other. This Law now, writ in mans heart (we are to know) is two-fold; for Nature coming under a double conſideration, as entire, and as fallen, the Law muſt be double; the Law of innocent nature (or Law of Innocency), and the Law of lapſed nature, which is the Law of Grace or mercy toward man in regard to that condition. To expreſs it more fully, there is Lex Naturae foreign, and Lex connaturalis gratiae; The Law of Nature, and the connatural Law of Grace, as Suarez has it in his Book De Legibus. I am pleaſed much with the terms, though I found not that he did well underſtand them, or explain them himſelf. Only thus much he ſays, that the Ancients before Moſes, who were governed by the Law of Nature only, muſt have this Lex connaturalis gratiae together with it, or comprehended under it; or elſe no man then upon earth could be ſaved: which is a truth ſo evident, as makes the proof of that Law, by that reaſon alone, to be good. When he terms this Law then a Law connatural, I underſtand by it, that this Law of lapſed Nature, this Law of Grace, or remedying Law is written in the heart of man, in regard to his fallen nature, no leſs than the Law of pure nature it ſelf was. The Law of Nature, as I take it, is the dictates of right reaſon, declaring to us our duty to God, to our ſelves, and to our neighbours; and the light of the ſame reaſon will dictate to us, when we have failed in that duty, to repent and turn to God with truſting to his mercy and pardon if we do ſo, and not elſe. We do find it legible in our hearts that God is good and wiſely gratious to pity our infirmities, and conſider our loſt eſtate, and neceſſary frailty, as that there is a God, and any worſhip that is at all due to him. There is mercy with thee that thou ſhouldſt be feared. And theſe Characters thus engraven in the heart of man, is the ſame law of Grace in the practical contents, as is more largely paraphraſed upon, by the Prophets in the Old, and the Apoſtles in the New-Teſtament. There is no difference at all in the Subſtance (as Divines ſpeak) but in the Adminiſtration. It is as one lately hath expreſſed it lively) no otherwiſe than as a Book thrice Printed; the ſecond Edition is larger than the firſt, and the third moſt compleat and perfect. This I will ſay, the Covenant was ſtill on foot; the Condition ſincerity according to their light; men were judged by it, and many ſaved. Here only is the difference, that the foundation on which all this is laid, the Mediation, Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice of Chriſt, comes not to be revealed but in Types, and darker promiſes, till the promulgation of the Goſpel. Now, I ſay, that though the Heathen be not under (or have not) this Law of Grace, in the third and laſt ſetting our, or in the ſtate under the Goſpel; yet they are under it (or have it) in the ſtate of the Ancients, or as they had it in the firſt promulgation; and upon ſuppoſition that any of them do according to the light they have, live up in ſincerity to this Law; I dare not be the man that ſhall deny but through the grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt (procuring this Law or Covenant for them, as for us, and all the world) they ſhall be ſaved even as we, and we ſhall be ſaved even as they. Not to leave this yet. I have learned from Cicero, that all Laws muſt be derived from the Divine Reaſon and Will. I have learned from others, that this Reaſon of God in his Government of all things agreeably to his own nature and the nature of his Creatures is the Eternal Law. I have learned from the Scripture, that there is a Law of Works, and a Law of Grace. I do learn by conſequence that theſe Laws (as frames of Gods Government over man) muſt be reconcileable with the Eternal Law, or the reaſon of his Wiſdom, and Juſtice, and Goodneſs; the one of them being fit for the eſtate of man in Innocency, the other for his Lapſed condition. How theſe Laws do now conſiſt, and not conſiſt with one another, while the Scripture ſaies ſometimes we are freed from the Law, and ſometimes that it is eſtabliſhed, That not a tittle of it ſhall paſs, and that we are not under the Law, but under Grace, I do not intend here any full deciſion. I will draw only one chief ſtroke towards it. The Law may be conſidered as the Rule of man's duty, or Meaſure of Good and Evil according to his own nature, and Gods: Or as the Inſtrument of God's Government over man, or Meaſure of his dealing with us, or judging of us, according to our diſcernings. It cannot be conceived but ſo long as the Nature of God and Man is the ſame, and Good and Evil (which conſiſts in an agreeableneſs to them both) is the ſame, the Law of Nature muſt remain unchangeable as the meaſure of our moral actions: But as it is the inſtrument of Gods Government in the world, it is as certain that through the Mediation of Chriſt (who hath ſatisfied his Father for our breach of it) it is relaxed ſo as we are not dealt withal according to the tenour of the Law, in the matters of this life, or of that which is to come. I diſtinguiſh theſe two things, a Rule of Life, and a Rule for Life. A Rule for Life is expreſſed in theſe words, He that doeth them ſhall live in them. We are freed from the Law upon the later account: we are made free to it in regard to the former. That is, we are under the Law ſo as we are ſtill bound to live according to it: but we are delivered from it ſo as (through mercy, and the merits of Chriſt) we ſhall not be judged by it. There is Norma vitae: and Norma judicii. The Law is of force as a rule of Life, or Duty: but we are not under it as a rule of Judgement. We ſhall be judged ſaies St. James by the Law of Liberty; and Paul ſaies, according to my Goſpel. Bleſſed be God for this truth. Now that the Government of God over the whole world is by the Law of Grace, and not of Works (thus much being ſaid imperfectly only for light in the way), does appear as the Sun or Moon in the Heavens. For God hath not left himſelf without witneſs, in that he does good, and gives us fruitful ſeaſons. Theſe are effects of his mercy, which he could not ſhew to the world as he does, if he dealt with it according to the Law of Works. When Abraham pleads with God for Sodom that he would ſpare it if there were ten righteous perſons in it, it is manifeſt that he muſt account of Gods Government over the earth to be a Government of Grace. That the righteous be as the wicked, that be far from thee (ſaies he) ſhall not the judge of all the earth do right? If God ſhould do but right to the beſt of men according to the righteouſneſs of the Law of Works, there could be no ſuch pleading as this. Neither is there any righteous, no not one, ſaies the Scripture, nor could God have accepted of Abraham himſelf for one, had there been nine beſides, but upon the account of the Law of Grace. It is a righteouſneſs conſiſting in a condecency of his Goodneſs and Mercy, and not in the Rule of his diſtrict Holineſs that Abraham intends. When the Prophets call upon Iſrael to repent and to do righteouſneſs that they may live, it is a perpetual diſcovery that God dealt not with them according to the Covenant of Works. The Law admits no repentance, and there is no righteouſneſs that a man can live by according to the Law. It is ſuch a righteouſneſs then they muſt mean ſtill, which is the ſame with the juſt mans faith, whereby it is ſaid he ſhall live; and that is the righteouſneſs of faith in the Goſpel, or righteouſneſs of God, which lies in a conformity to the law of Grace (See Mediocria, about the beginning of my Paper of the Covenants). We are righteous according to this Law, when we perform the condition: God is righteous according to it, when he accepts us thereupon, unto Pardon and Life. We have a moſt ſignal inſtance in the Ninevites, of theſe two things I do here ſtand upon. If Gods government over the Heathen was not by the Law of Grace, how could the Ninevites by their repentance have diverted his judgments? And if this Law had not been connatural with faln man, ſo as to be written in their hearts, how could they truſt in God, that upon their forſaking ſin, and their turning to him, they ſhould find mercy, and be ſaved from deſtruction? Both theſe things (I ſay) have in this one inſtance their full evidence. And what think we of Cornelius the Centurion and Roman, how could his Prayers and Almes be accepted with God, if Cornelius as well as Paul, a Roman as well as Jew, were not under the ſame Government of Grace, when there is nothing we do but is imperfect, and lyable to a curſe by the Law of Works? And what ſhall we conclude then from both inſtances, but that which Peter upon conviction himſelf concludes? Of a truth I perceive that God is no reſpecter of perſons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteouſneſs is accepted of him. There are three things go to a Law. That it be for the publick good, That it be the will of the Lawgiver, That it be promulgated to the ſubject. That the Law of Grace is good for the world there can be no queſtion; That it is Gods will the world ſhould be governed by it, appears by what is ſpoken, and that this Law hath been promulgated to mankind, appears both in the general notice of it in mens hearts (I will write my Law in their hearts ſaies God in the New Covenant, as diſtinguiſhed from that of the Jews), and in the expreſs declaration of God to our firſt Parents, that the ſeed of the Woman ſhould break the Serpents head, and in his Covenanting with Noah, which muſt be underſtood without diſpute in regard to them, and their poſterity. Now when ſuch a Law hath been promulgated to Adam and Noah as belonging to all the world, being to come of them, it muſt be proved that this Law is, or hath been ſomewhere, or at ſome time, again repealed by God, or elſe muſt every man and woman in the world be under this government of God according to it, and conſequently be in a capacity of Salvation. I will to theſe Reaſonings, add one ſyllogiſm. It is not the hearers of the Law, but doers ſhall be juſtified. This is expreſs in one Verſe of the ſecond to the Romons. But ſame Heathen are doers of the Law, though not hearers of it. This is affirmed in the next Verſe. For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, with the reſt following. Ergo, ſome Heathen are juſtified and ſaved. If any cavil and ſay that no man is a doer of the Law, he muſt be anſwered that the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of ſuch a doing only as is ſuppoſed to be among the Jews that were godly, or Jews inwardly in the Verſes after. And I renew my argument. They that are doers of the Law according to the ſenſe of ſuch Texts as make the keeping the Commandments of God neceſſary to Salvation, ſuch as when Chriſt ſaies, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments; and ſuch as when the Apoſtle ſaies, They that by patient continuance in well-doing ſeek for glory, ſhall have eternal life, that is, They who are doers of it, as all that are Jews inwardly and in the Spirit do keep it, and no otherwiſe, to wit, not foreign but foreign, not according to the rigour of the Law, but according to acceptation by the equity of the Goſpel, They, I ſay, ſhall be juſtified and ſaved. But ſome Heathen are doers of the Law in this ſenſe, which is the ſenſe of the Apoſtle. Ergo, ſome Heathen are juſtified and ſaved. I confirm the Minor by the words enſuing, that we may be ſure we have the mind of the Apoſtle. Therefore if the uncircumciſion keep the righteouſneſs of the Law, ſhall not his uncircumciſion be counted for circumciſion? And ſhall not uncircumciſion which is by nature if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumciſion doeſt break the Law? It follows that ſuch as theſe therefore are Jews inwardly, and in the Spirit, though they were not outward Jews, or in the fleſh, or of the Circumciſion, as is apparent in the words already, and the laſt Verſes. They that are Jews inwardly and in the Spirit then (I follow my argument), though not outwardly ſo and in the fleſh, do fulfill the Law in the ſenſe of this place and are juſtified. But ſuch are ſome of the Heathen here according to the Apoſtle. Ergo, ſome Heathen are juſtified and ſaved. And what could be deſired more full and convincing, if it were not for the firſt Verſe which follows in the next Chapter, which does yet add ſuch abounding confirmation to it, as I muſt profeſs my ſelf perfectly ſtriken with the evidence, as with a Beam of light never to be withſtood, or any more to be doubted. What advantage then hath the Jew above the Gentile? Theſe are the words. It cannot be imagined by me now, that this queſtion could be offered after he had ſaid thus much, if there were ſuch a difference between theſe two, as that one of them only was under a poſſibility of Salvation. It is brought in as an objection to his foregoing aſſertion in this ſenſe, that if this be true, there appears no difference in the matter, whether a man be Jew or Gentile, ſeeing he that hath the Law only written in his heart, and keeps it (that is in ſincerity), ſhall have the benefit and be ſaved, as well as he that hath it written in the Bible. The Apoſtle does as good as anſwer, This is true, yet is there a difference, Chiefly becauſe that unto the Jew were committed the Oracles of God. I interpret not theſe words, but give this paraphraſe. The Heathen were under the ſame law of Grace for life, as the Jews, but the Jews advantage was, that they had it in the ſecond promulgation with this priviledge of Ordinances: and our advantage is the like over them, that we have it in the third and laſt promulgation, by the Goſpel. I argue then once more. If this was the chief advantage the Jew had over the Gentile, that one had the Oracles of God and the other had not, then was there not this difference between them, as my Gentleman does make, that one is only in a ſtate of Nature, and the other in a ſtate of Grace; or that one was in a capacity, and the other under an impoſſibility of Salvation; for this were an advantage of a far greater nature. But this was the chief advantage. Chiefly becauſe—Ergo. The Objections againſt this Doctrine are two. The one is from the Scriptures, which in many places in the New-Teſtament do require quire faith in Chriſt, or believing the Goſpel, as the condition of Salvation. He that believeth not ſhall be damned. I anſwer, As the Apoſtle ſaies of the Law, Now we know that whatſoever things the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law: So ſay I of the Goſpel, whatſoever things of this kind the Goſpel ſaith, it ſaith to thoſe that are under the Goſpel. Where the Goſpel is Preached, and the Revelation is ſufficient, ſo that men wilfully reject it, ſuch are left without excuſe. The caſe of ſuch is dangerous indeed, and theſe Texts applicable to them. If ye believe not that I am he ye ſhall die in your ſins. But as for thoſe who never heard the Goſpel, or when the Revelation hath been inſufficient for ſuch conviction, the caſe (I hope) is otherwife, The caſe is (I think) as I have ſaid; and our good God will not require of any, more than he hath given. The other objection is from the authority of men, or of the Church more generally, that condemns this opion: But I count the teſtimony of Chriſtians in this point is for themſelves, and ſo partial; I ſuppoſe it taken again upon truſt, and followed by the moſt for want of light; I believe alſo that if they had had but this light only that I offer, they would have determined as I do. It is true, I grant, as our Church thinks, that there is no Religion by which a man can be ſayed, but one only, that is the true Religion; but this is a great truth here to be received, that Chriſtianity in the root, according to what is ſaid, is indeed the univerſal Religion of mankind (whom therefore ye ignorantly worſhip, him declare I unto you): So that the foreign, thoſe that live according to Reaſon, ſuch as Socrates, Heraclitus, and the like men, were Chriſtans, though they were not ſo called, according to Juſtin the holy Martyr in his Apology, whatſoever Ancients beſides we have for us. Which doctrine nevertheleſs (to ſalve moſt fully the eighteenth Article of our Church at firſt mentioned) is not once to be thought on, or harboured, but as it is compatible with this certain Poſition, that there is no way (for all that) under Heaven whereby a man or woman is, or was, or can be ſaved, but in and through the only Name and mediation of our Saviour. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Chriſt Jeſus.
In the fourth place, I muſt require a better explanation from this Author, how every man and woman that hath the Goſpel preached to them, are brought into ſuch a ſtate of grace, as to have that aſſiſtance from the Spirit of God which enables them to believe, and many of them effectually unto Salvation: and yet that it is the Believer only is the Object of that promiſe that God will give his Spirit to them that ask him. There are two of his Chapters where he enumerates the effects of the Spirit, and he does in both make faith to be one and the chief of thoſe effects (that he may not find here any evaſion): yet does he make faith the condition of that promiſe. How will he come off here? Untill a man be a Believer, or have faith, the promiſe of Gods giving his Spirit belongs not to him, and yet is faith (and teachableneſs in order to it) an effect of the Spirit. That which is promiſed on a condition, is not obtained but by our performance of the condition, himſelf argues ſomewhere. If Faith then be the thing promiſed, how can it be the condition of the Promiſe? If the Spirit that works Faith, or the Spirit in regard to this effect is promiſed to the Believer, then is Faith made a condition for obtaining it ſelf, when it is made ſo, for obtaining the Spirit that gives it. If we muſt believe that we may have the Spirit, how comes Faith to be the effect of having it? To be the condition which is antecedent to it, and to be the effect alſo which follows it, is methinks incompoſſible. He may ſhiſt perhaps, and diſtinguiſh. There is a Faith that makes a man a Chriſtian or his Believer: and a faith that makes a man holy and is ſaving. The one may be the condition of the other. Well, I will ask him then of the former, Is that faith I pray, the effect of a mans own ſtrength or freewill: or of the Spirit? If he ſay the firſt, what thinks he of that ſaying of our Lord, Without me ye can do nothing, that is, nothing to any ſaving purpoſe (to uſe the apt words of this Author otherwhere) when it is ſomething I think to purpoſe to do that as ſhall qualifie a man to be the Object of this promiſe, that God will give him his Spirit upon his asking, and the promiſe otherwiſe did not belong to him: Eſpecially ſeeing this Gentleman thinks it Pelagianiſm to allow ſo much without grace, and therefore does he ſet up his common grace to avoid that danger. If it be not of our ſelves, but of the Spirit, then have we here one of his Operations, (though the Spirit is promiſed in Luke in regard to all its effects and operations, if that which the Author ſaies in two Chapters about it, be valid) and ſo the difficulty returns. How ſhall a man have the Spirit for this operation or effect before faith, and yet faith be the condition of the Spirit and its operations? If he ſay that the grace which he calls common, or the Spirit as not promiſed, does work in a man truly one ſort of faith, or ſo much of a ſaving faith, as goes to the condition of the promiſe: and that another ſort of faith then, or ſo much more as is lacking to our faith, does flow (as the effect only thereof) from the promiſe after, when we perform this condition, he will be put very hard to it in ſuch a work as was that of Pauls converſion, and be forced to more curioſity than enough, in ſo critical a determination.
In the fifth place, I have one argument to advance againſt this Doctrine of his, which is known Arminian. I will urge but one, becauſe it is the common cauſe, and he may find out as many more as he will in others. It is this. If there be that grace which he calls common vouchſafed to all under the Goſpel without any difference of election, ſo that there is the ſame and no other prepared for him that believes, and for him that believes not, which common grace then is left to the liberty of the will of every individual perſon to co-operate with it or not; and as a man does ſo, or does not, he brings himſelf into a ſtate of Salvation, or remains in a ſtate of wrath (this is the opinion), then muſt Man himſelf, or then muſt the Will of every man for himſelf, make the difference between him and another. But this, according to the judgement of moſt after Auſtin, is flat againſt the Scripture, Who hath made thee to daffer from another, and what is there, O man, that thou haſt not received? I muſt add by way of ſtrength to the Argument, that upon this Hypotheſis it follows, that, that which is the leſs only, or leaſt conducing to mans Salvation is attributed to God, and that which is the greater and moſt conducive thereunto is aſcribed to man himſelf. It is more to believe and repent, than it is to have power to believe and repent. The promiſe of Life and Salvation is not made to him that is enabled to believe, but to him that does believe, and obey the Goſpel. Now by the Arminian doctrine there is this grace carefully provided, which ſhall enable every man to believe and repent, ſo that the fault ſhall not lye on God if they do not, but on a mans own will: but the will or willing it ſelf muſt ariſe from that liberty which they are as careful to reſerve unto man. That which is the leſſer thing then (I ſay) the ability (through divine Help, Aſſiſtance or Grace which is ſufficient for the impowring every one) to believe and be ſaved, is aſcribed to God, and acknowledged from him: but that which is the greater, which is the chief, that which does the work, the act it ſelf of willing, of believing and performing the terms of the Goſpel, is made the effect of mans own free-will. And yet farther to confirm the ſame argument. The power to do is one thing, and the will and doing another; The grace one thing, and the co-operating with it another. If we have power now or aſſiſtance only from God, and the will be of our ſelves, then is there ſomething, even this willing it ſelf, this believing it ſelf, this will to believe (or co-operating with this common grace) that is the greateſt thing, which we have not received, but is of our ſelves, or from our own ſtrength. I do not doubt but I may preſs this yet more cloſely if this Author ſhould give the occaſion; and I muſt adviſe him heartily to be very conſiderate, what he anſwers to this argument; becauſe I have pickt it out as that which I take to be the moſt momentous of any which are ordinarily urged by the Orthodox in this matter. I will cloſe it up with that Text, Work out your ſalvation with fear and trembling, ſaies the Apoſtle. This implies that a man hath power, or that if he will work he can. It is in vain to exhort any to do that which is not in their power. That which is leſs than [the power to do if we will] is I count in man: but that which is the greater [the willing and doing] is aliunde, of God, as it appears in the words following. For it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleaſure. So contrary are my apprehenſions here to this Gentlemans. A man muſt have power (he thinks) by all means from God (to this end he brings in his common grace), but the will muſt be of himſelf. I think now quite otherwiſe that power is of nature, for that is the leſs: and to reduce that power unto act, to will and to do, that is of grace, for that is the greater, or that which is moſt. It is not of him that willeth and runneth (to wit, that he wills and and runs, ſaies the Father) but of God that ſheweth mercy.
In the ſixth place then, I have a mind to tell him ſome little of what I think of this grace he calls common. The term Grace (we muſt know) which is all one with Favour, does import a reſpect ſhewn to ſome which is not to others, and does horein differ from Juſtice, which reſpects no perſon above another, but does diſtribute that which is due to every one without partiality. It is otherwiſe in Grace, for there are two things quite contrary muſt go to the making any thing a matter of Favour; it muſt be a thing not due, or of right, for then there is place to exerciſe Juſtice, but not Grace, and it muſt be given out of Choice, it muſt be vouchſafed to one and not another, when it is due to neither. When this Author then, and the Schools do ſpeak of a Grace that is Common and Univerſal, they ſeem to be teachers of ſomething wherein they underſtand not what they ſpeak, or whereof they affirm. There is the grace of the Goſpel, or that Grace which the Goſpel publiſhes, which brings Salvation to all men, the Objective grace of it, conſiſting in that faithful ſaying worthy of all acceptation, that Chriſt died for ſinners, or that thoſe that believe and repent ſhall be ſaved, or that God is Good, and thoſe who turn to him, though they have ſinned, ſhall find merey, which is the ſubſtance of the whole two Teſtaments, and that indeed is. Univerſal, and belongs alike to all the world. There is no man or woman, or no people but they are under the Law of Grace (purchaſed by Chriſt) for life and ſalvation, I have ſaid; and ſay, that the Goſpel of this Grace, or the diſcovery of it, is ſo far univerſal alſo, as there are none but by tradition from their Parents, or by ſome Teachers, as Noah was to the old world, teaching this Law (for there never was any other righteouſneſs ſince Adam fell, but of this Law only to ſave any), or by the dictates of their own hearts, did, or do underſtand it in ſome meaſure, ſo that if they live up to this Law according to the light only which they have, they are not only under the poſſibility, but in a ſtate of Salvation. This is a noble truth and worthy of God and his goodneſs, and I cannot part with it. But for that Grace which is the ſubjective grace of God, conſiſting in thoſe operations of his Spirit that bring over the hearts of men to perform thoſe terms which this law of grace requires of us, To ſpeak of that as common and belonging to all, is (I ſay) to ſpeak of what this Author knowes not, becauſe theſe Operations are for certain ſecret and indiſcernible; and to affirm of that which he knows not, what is inconſiſtent with the nature of what he ſpeaks. For if thoſe operations belong to all, and are not vouchſafed to ſome peculiar perſons only with diſcrimination from others, they are not Grace. This is ſo true, that when I ſay, the grace of the Goſpel which is Objective is univerſal to all mankind, if there were not other creatures beſides men, to whom Redemption and Reconciliation is not vouchſafed as to us, it could not be called Grace. It were a Benefit, and infinitely great, but not properly Grace. There is a world of fallen Spirits, as well as men, and there was nothing due to the one or the other but puniſhment: yet when no kindneſs was due, the Son of God came from Heaven, and took on him our nature to redeem us and not them, this makes the Redemption of Chriſt to be grace to us. And now when the benefit, or benefits purchaſed by Chriſt are applied to particular perſons by the operations of the Spirit working Faith and Repentance (which are the conditions upon which they are applied) in ſome perſons and not in others, if theſe operations were indeed common and vouchaſafed to thoſe that believe and repent not, as well as thoſe that do, this Application were not of Grace. Where there is none refuſed, there is no election. If one be not preferred, and not another, or before another, there is no Grace. The ground of this opinion of ſufficient grace common to all, hath aroſe as I conjecture, from an apprehenſion that the help or aſſiſtance of God (which we call grace) is converſant about the Power which is in man, ſo that a man is enabled thereby only to act, but the Will or actual willing is of himſelf. St. Auſtine, I remember, does tell us, that this was the conceit of Pelagius, and he ſets himſelf therefore to prove, that Grace is converſant about the will; it is Grace (ſaies he) that inclines the will, it is of God to work in us to Will and to Do of his own good pleaſure. And indeed I do not ſee how it can conſiſt with the nature of the Spirit of God, who is God, that is, with the ſimplicity of the Divine Nature, which is devoid of all compoſition, Subject and Accident, Power and Act, how any operation can be attributed to him, but in regard of ſome effect. If there be ſuch an operation then imagined, which is ſufficient only to produce ſuch an effect on man, but it is hindred by the reſiſtance of his will, here being no effect, there is no operation can be aſcribed to God, in whom there is but one eternal ſtanding Will, the Will being not taken for the Faculty neither, but Act. Beſides this determination of the Schools that God is a Pure Act, and can be capable of no new operations, but only as he is denominated an Agent from ſuch continued new effects (wherein my own underſtanding, I confeſs, muſt be ever at a loſs); there is this plain thing to be thought on by every body, that no wiſe perſon who is not deſtitute of power, does operate without Effect. 'Tis true, that the Scripture ſomewhere ſpeaks of reſiſting the Spirit, and receiving his grace in vain: but this is not to be underſtood (I ſuppoſe) ſo, as if there were no effects wrought on ſuch ſouls, but that there are farther effects, ſaving effects, and it is to be attributed to the obſtinacy or wickedneſs of their Wills, that thoſe effects are not wrought alſo. I muſt therefore deliver here my opinion of this univerſal ſufficient Grace which I find in the Schools, and in the Arminians, but confined to thoſe under the Goſpel by this Author; and I do think really it is an invention only to put off St. Auguſtine, and to eſcape the condemnation of Pelagius, in a point, which in the ſubſtance of it, they judge fit to be maintained. The point is this, that if man does doe what lies in his power, God in his juſtice will give him his grace, Facienti quod in ſe eſt Deus non poteſt, nec debet denegare gratiam, which I mention the rather, becauſe I ſee this Doctrine laid down in ſome good Books of late without ſuſpicion of Pelagianiſm in it. Well! If any ſay now, that man by doing what he can of his own ſtrength does obtain Gods grace, this ſhall be Pelagianiſm, and be anathamatized by the Schools themſelves: but if he ſay, that by doing through Gods grace what he can, he ſhall obtain (or merit) more grace, and ſo juſtification and life, it ſhall be the doctrine of the Church. Let it here be but ſuppoſed then, that God gives his Grace or aſſiſtance to All that they may act, and that which Pelagius would have, is brought in for good Doctrine without any hereſie at all in it; and this is the device of the Arminian from the Schools, which if it were in rerum naturae, as in mens Books, I do apprehend that Pelagius or Auſtine would have light upon it; and then would the one have received Pelagius opinion with more candor, and the other would have defended it ſo cleverly, as never to have been condemned. But if this univerſal ſufficient grace was indeed never thought upon till after their time, I wonder not that Pelagius and Auſtine could not be agreed, but I do wonder that any who believe this knack ſhould make ſo much matter of it whether they agreed or no. I think it really but much at one to hold that every one hath power by Nature, as to affirm that all have Grace. If Grace be as common as Nature, why is it called Grace? Not that I ſee any hurt in holding Sufficient grace, provided that Effectual be held alſo. If univerſal grace be brought in for excluſion of ſpecial grace, I can by no means admit of it, for that ſome perſons have that grace from God whereby they are effectually wrought upon and ſaved, and not others, is beyond diſputation. If ſufficient grace common to all, and ſpecial too, be held ſo, as it be conceived that no man for all the one, does ever ſavingly believe and repent, or is truly converted, till he have the other alſo, there is no hurt in it, but I ſee no need of it. What need is there of Grace only to bring us power, which we have already? There is no man ſhall be condemned for his cannot, but his will not. Every man then muſt have power. A man hath his faculties, his Underſtanding, his Will and his Executive power. the object is propoſed, His duty known; There is nothing to hinder, He may act if he will. The Scripture indeed ſpeaks of a Cannot, that we can do nothing, that we are dead in treſpaſſes and the like: but all theſe expreſſions put together comes to this, to wit, ſuch an indiſpoſition on the ſoul, as that a man certainly never will of himſelf. This is the Scriptures cannot truly defined. (See Mediocria, in the Paper of Election), which otherwhere therefore is ordinarily called a will not. You will not come to me that you may have life. There is Natural power ſtill, where yet there is Moral impotency, as others have it. And it is no abſurd thing (I hope) to ſay a man can do what he can; that is, he can do, what he hath natural power to do. Here then I will ſtick, Power is of Nature (I ſaid it before), but to exert that power into act, is of Grace. Power is of Nature, but to Will and to Do, is of God. There is no people but have the Object (I count) and ſome light of it (in their meaſure) ſo that every body may live according to what he hath, and be accepted if he will. I grant this to the Pelagian, to the Schools, to the Arminian, that every one may, if they will: The Spirit ſaies come, and the Bride ſaies come, and whoſoever will let him come. What … I ſay more? Whoſoever will believe and repent, may believe and repent; whoſoever will be ſaved. may be ſaved. This I ſay with them, but I muſt then ſay again with the Orthodox, that if any will, it is of the grace of God. If he will, it is of Gods grace againſt Pelagius. No man cometh to me unleſs the Father draw him. If he will, it is of Gods ſpecial grace againſt the Arminian. But ye believe not, becauſe ye are not of my ſheep. As many as were ordained to ſalvation believed. In ſhort then, whoſoever will, may (or can): but no man will (though he can) without grace, and this grace. Here is the deciſion of this great controverſie. And as for the Arminian grace, what good of that, which if one had it not, he ſhould have pleaded a Cannot, and been excuſed: but by having it he muſt be condemned?
In the laſt place, ſeeing I perceive this Gentleman is liſted for Arminianiſm, I care not if I tell him yet ſome more of my heart about it. I am pretty ſenſible how things hang together. If God intend to give grace and ſalvation to a few particular perſons, it is ſuitable that ſuch only ſhould be redeemed; and if this grace be free as decreed abſolutely to theſe, it is ſuitable the will be not free, ſo as to be able to chooſe or refuſe it; It is then agreeable that thoſe be kept by the ſame almighty power to ſalvation. Here are the five points on one ſide. On the other hand, If a man that hath grace, is to take heed leſt he fall, it is ſuitable that grace be ſuch as might be refuſed at firſt, as well as it may (after) be loſt; That the will conſequently is free, ſo as to co-operate with it or not; That Chriſt therefore hath purchaſed but the ſame grace for one as well as another; That Election then be of ſuch perſons as uſe their own liberty, and Gods grace, as they ought, when thoſe that do not, are juſtly rejected and condemned. I muſt declare now, I find here no averſion in my mind againſt the laſt ſet of opinions, but rather ſome diſinclination to the former. I feel my genius more afraid of a captivity by that we call Orthodoxiſm, than by any thing elſe; which makes me come with leſs prejudice to read Vorſtius, than Rutherford, or Twiſſe. I have no preocupation, therefore I am ſure on my affections, whatſoever I have on my judgement in theſe points. Nevertheleſs there is a chain laid on my ſoul from the holy Scriptures, which holds it faſt. The chain conſiſts of theſe links, Perſonal Election, Regeneration, and that, Few ſhall be ſaved. Theſe three Doctrines I muſt ſay, are ſo concatenated (in my mind) one with another, that ſo long as any one of them will hold, it is in vain to make any attempt to get looſe from either of the other. I cannot but confeſs many times they are grievous to my mind, and I could wiſh they were otherwiſe, but if they are the dictates of holy writ, I muſt pray to God to forgive my reluctancy, and ſubmit to them. I have had indeed ſometimes in my ſoul ſome other notion of Election than is expreſſed ordinarily by others. I have lookt methinks on the deliberations of the Almighty with his Son from eternity (to ſpeak after the manner of men), to be how they ſhould be glorified moſt in the Salvation of man: and there are two waies to that end, the way of Works, and the way of Grace. If man being made after Gods image, does live according to the law of his Creation, and ſtand in that eſtate he muſt be happy and glorifie his Maker in a method of works: but if he be left to himſelf, and fall, and be recovered by the rdemption of the Son, and then have a new Law for his faln condition, and continued help, to live according to it, then ſhall God glorifie himſelf in mans ſalvation, by the methods of his moſt wonderful grace. Now what if Gods election from eternity be nothing elſe but this deſign, that mans ſalvation ſhall be in a way of Grace, and not of Works? He hath choſen us in him (ſaies the Text) that we ſhould be holy. I put the Emphaſis on the words, in him. It is Chriſt hath procured the new Law, according to which we may be holy and accepted, when elſe we could not be holy by the Law of our Nature; and ſo it is not by the works of righteouſneſs which we have done, or works by that Law, but by the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, or his aſſiſtance to perform the Law of Grace; ſo that when it is ſaid other-where, Not of works leſt any ſhould boaſt, it is added, For we are his workmanſhip created in Chriſt Jeſus to good works. We were created at firſt to a law of righteouſneſs, but this being once broken, unleſs we had had a new Law purchaſed by Chriſt, and a new Creation through him, we could not have been righteous any more; ſo that it is not of works, which are properly mans own, according to the Law of his Nature, but of thoſe which we are created to in Chriſt Jeſus; to wit, thoſe which are called the righteouſneſs of God (as being of his invention or appointment) in oppoſition to the Law, that we are ſaved. This is typed in the children of the Fleſh, and the children of the Promiſe; and this may be the meaning of theſe words, It is not of him that willeth and runneth (that is, it is not in the way of works) but of God that ſheweth mercy (that is, but of Grace). This is delivered here, I know, roughly and darkly: yet may it ſerve another man to think upon, when I my ſelf do not purſue it. There is in the Papers called the Middle way, ſomething of this in that of Election p. 15, 16. and ſomething more accurately in that of the Covenants p. 6, ad 13. There is another notion of Election; To wit, the chooſing of perſons or a people to a Church-ſtate, or the priviledge of Ordinances, and ſo unto the peculiar government of God or Chriſt over them upon that account. He hath given his Statutes to Iſrael, he hath not done ſo to other Nations. Thus Abraham is the firſt Elect we read of. Thou didſt chooſe Abraham, and broughtſt him out of Ur, and madeſt a Covenant with him, in Nehemiah. That was by way of preamble to Gods gathering a Church out of his ſeed, who was to be his people. Hence is he ſaid in ſeveral places to have choſen them, not for their deſerts, or their number, but becauſe he loved thy Fathers, therefore he choſe their ſeed after them; and hence have they the titles of a peculiar people, and a choſen generation, with many the like expreſſions. In the New-Teſtament likewiſe we find thoſe who receive the Goſpel have the ſame titles, They are ſaid to be engrafted into the Jews Olive, that is, into their external Covenant and Church-ſtate, and to be a choſen generation (as the Jews were) a royal Prieſthood, and a peculiar people, inſomuch as when the Apoſtle writes to a whole Church, he calls them Elect, as well as Saints and ſanctified in Chriſt Jeſus; And the faith of Gods elect may perhaps be thus interpreted the Chriſtian faith. Bleſſed is the Nation whoſe God is the Lord, and the people whom he hath choſen for his own inheritance. Theſe notions I mention, but muſt travail no further in the ſearch of them, becauſe I am held by the other doctrines I have named, Regeneration, and That few ſhall be ſaved. For if theſe two Doctrines be not capable of ſome other notion alſo than what is commonly underſtood by them, they muſt fix me in the like received notion of Election. If there is ſuch a thing then (in the firſt place) as Regeneration, that is a work of grace on the ſouls of ſome perſons whereby they are begotten again to a holy life, as well as to the relation of the children of God, then is Election, I muſt ſay, actuated in ſuch perſons. The Schools diſtinguiſh between Eternal and Actual Election, and this work of ſaving converſion or effectual vocation they call Actual election. Election is the preparation of effectual grace for ſome perſons that they may be ſaved, and not for others. This effectual grace then vouchſafed to any particular perſon in, or for his regeneration, is the execution of Election. Such dependance have theſe doctrines upon one another, that we ſhall not need to enquire farther what is Election, which we underſtand, and prove by this effect Regeneration, better than by any mans definition, or arguments. If we cannot come off therefore about Regeneration, as well as Election, we muſt be determined by the one, in our judgement concerning the other. For the helping us out here, this Author hath ſaid ſomething; That to be regenerate is to become the Diſciple of Chriſt, and that is to be brought into the Church or Church-ſtate, which agrees with the ſecond Notion before of Election. He that is a Diſciple muſt be baptized, and to be baptized is to be both again by water, and incorporated into Chriſt, and he that is but externally in Chriſt is a new creature, as one of that world to come in the ſecond to the Hebrews, which is ſaid to be put in ſubjection to Chriſt, that is the Chriſtian Church under the Goſpel. Agreeably hereunto this Author tells us out of Dr. Hammond, that the proſelytes of the very Jewiſh Church were called recensnati upon this ſame account. Regeneration then may be a Relative term only, or but Relative grace, whether in regard to a Spiritual, or External relation. What this may do now with others, I know not. This Author does make Regeneration to conſiſt in a Real work on the ſoul as well as others, while he defines the regenerate man to be one that does not only become a Diſciple, but a ſincere Diſciple of Chriſt; for this includes that effectual grace which proceeds from Election. And yet if we could get off from both theſe Doctrines, Election and Regeneration, there remains farther the third Doctrine, That few ſhall be ſaved, from which there is no man I ever yet read, Arminian or Antiarminian that ſought an eſcape. They are words out of our Lords own mouth [Few there be that find it], and the Evangeliſt that ſet them down could not be miſtaken in Chriſts meaning; There is no mans heart can ſerve him to think ſo, becauſe they were inſpired in what they writ, If this be a truth then, that few ſhall be ſaved, it is a truth that it is Gods will that few ſhall be ſaved; and conſequently if his will, his decree. If it be Gods decree then, that few ſhall be ſaved, I cannot be ſolicitous any farther about Perſonal or Abſolute Election, There appears to me really to be a greater diſhonour put upon Gods goodneſs and infinite mercy to make him decree ſalvation to all, on ſuch conditions, as a few perſons only (left to their liberty) ſhall thereupon be able to be ſaved, than can be caſt meerly on his juſtice or righteouſneſs, to decree that grace, or ſuch grace to theſe few perſons, that ſhall effectually bring them to that end. And what though, Salvation ſometimes be taken alſo as Election in Scripture, in reference to a mans being brought into the Ark, that is, into the Church, and ſo we are ſaid to be ſaved by baptiſm, as it is ſaid, Save your ſelves from this untoward generation, and as they which were added to the Church are ſaid to be ſaved, and as ſalvation is ſaid to be of the Jews? What mans reaſon can ſerve him to believe that Chriſt ſpeaks of this ſalvation? If it could, Are there not more that come into the Church, than are eternally ſaved? There is doubtleſs a double Election and Salvation in Scripture, Temporal in this ſenſe before ſpoken, in relation to a Church-ſtate, and Chriſts government of us by the Goſpel: and Eternal in this ſenſe of Salvation whereof Chriſt is ſpeaking, when he ſaies, And few there be that find it. Such is our Election, and ſuch is this Salvation; Election from Eternity, and ſalvation to eternity, and both meet in Regeneration. For regeneration, is Actual Election, and Inchoate Salvation. There are three that bear record in Heaven, and three in Earth, ſaies St. John. Theſe three agree in one, and thoſe three are one. I will ſay ſo here, There are three things that bear record in Scripture, Election, Regeneration, and That few ſhall be ſaved. Theſe three agree in one, that is, in their teſtimony for the Orthodox againſt the Arminian, and ſo for St. Auſtine, the Synod of Dort, and Dr. Owen, againſt this Author. And theſe three are one, in their concatenation one with another. Election is the preparation of that ſpecial effectual grace which works our regeneration, and our regeneration is the begetting in us that life, that ſpiritual life which runs on to eternity. Effectual grace is the Execution of Election, and entrance of Salvation. Grace is glory in the infancy, and Glory is grace in full age, at maturity, or in conſummation. Theſe things are thus linked, and this is the Chain that holds me. I do endeavour to make the chain as caſie as I can, and get as much room in it as I can by going the middle way, but I am held under it. If you cannot break every link, you ſhall never break any one of them; or if you could, it were in vain to do it. And now would I look into this Gentlemans heart how it can ſerve him to meditate a reply to theſe things. I will tell him in his own words the iſſue it muſt come to. But what if the Scriptures teach, that the promiſe of Regenerating grace are made only to thoſe that are abſolutely elected to glory (This hereby, I count, is proved in the very root of it)? I anſwer (ſaies he) If this can be once ſhewn, I have done; or if it can be made to appear but probable by the Scriptures, I ſhall begin to ſuſpect all my reaſoning againſt it. For I heartily believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, and all my Reaſonings ſhall ſubmit to this one Propoſition, Whatſoever God hath ſaid that is true. This is ſaid well, and ſo well ſaid as I will end this Chapter with it, and I think we muſt both end the Controverſie with it. They ſhall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb ſhall overcome them: for he is the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings; and thoſe that are with him, are called, and faithful, and choſen.