Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination, Interpretation 1 · Question 8
The Eighth and loſt Doubt.
Queſtion 8.
HOw may it appeare, that this makes not three Covenants? The firſt of works, requiring perfect obedience.
The ſecond of grace, promiſing Chriſt and all his graces, even faith in him.
The third, partly of grace, providing a redemption, and promiſing ſufficient help; partly as requiring both what wee can doe of our ſelves, and Gods helpe proceeding with us accordingly.
Anſwer. This frame of Doctrine is ſo farre from making three Covenants, that the ſerious meditation of two Covenants The Examination muſt proceed according to this correction.was one of the principall reaſons that firſt turned the ſtream of my thoughts into this covenant. For when I ſaw that the Covenant of works did in juſtice reward according to works, as well with life upon condition of obedience, as with death in caſe of diſobedience; I began to conceive, that as the purpoſe of election was ſutable to the Covenant of grace; ſo ſutable unto a Covenant of works, muſt bee a purpoſe of retribution. For how ſhall God covenant to retribute or recompence with life or death according to works, if hee have no purpoſe at all of ſuch retribution? How ſhall the Covenant of works promiſe life upon condition of obedience, if the purpoſe of reprobation have abſolutely determined death upon all them within that Covenant, without all reſpect of good or evill, obedience or diſobedience in any of them? the grace of redemption offering the death of Chriſt, and reaching forth ſome fruites thereof unto all, as the promiſing and offering ſufficient help to bring them to the knowledge of God and means of grace: yea, and ſometime beſtowing on them the participation of ſome excellent and common graces, doth not make a third covenant, partly of grace, partly of works, but bindeth ſuch ſo much the more to keep the Covenants of works, by how much the more helps and means God vouchſafeth them to keep it. It is not the helps of grace offered or given, that includeth men with in any part of the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given.
Secondly, if God offer grace and give, though never ſo ſmall, even as a grain of Muſtard-ſeed, and promiſe to uphold it freely for Chriſt his ſake, and not according to our works, it is a Covenant of Grace. But if hee offer and give never ſo many gracious helps, and means, and gifts, and uphold them according to the works of the creature; it is ſtill a Covenant of works, as it was to the Angels that fell, and to Adam, though hee gave to both of them the whole Image of God, and beſides, heaven it ſelf to the one, a Paradiſe to the other, it is but the ſame covenant of works which God made with the world of mankinde after the fall, and with Adam before the fall: though Adam received greater means and helps to keep it, then his poſterity had after the fall.
Becauſe ſtill the condition of the Covenant was the ſame in both, to reward them both according to their works. So is it ſtill but the ſame Covenant of works which God makes with mankinde, when hee offereth them in Chriſt, greater grace and helps to keep it, then after the fall they could have attained unto without Chriſt, becauſe ſtill the condition of the Covenant runneth in the ſame tenour, to deal with them according to their works.
Neither doe I conceive any danger in the point, though by this means obedience to Chriſt, and walking worthy of him, ſhould bee commanded in the Law, which is a covenant of works. For if the infidelity and diſobedience of the men of this world to the Goſpel of Chriſt bee ſin, then are they alſo tranſgreſſors of the Law, and then the contrary vertues are commanded in the Law.
Thirdly, the Ceremonies of the Old Teſtament, which were figures of Chriſt, were commanded in the ſecond precept of the Law, was not Chriſt himſelf under thoſe figures commanded alſo? were they commanded to lay their hands on the ſacrifices, and not withall to lay their Faith on Chriſt? were they commanded to look on the Brazen Serpent, and not withall to behold Chriſt? were they commanded to obey Moſes, and not withall the Prophet like unto Moſes? What then? doe wee confound the Law and the Goſpel? God forbid; The Law indeed commandeth to obey God in whatſoever hee had of old, or in fulneſſe of time, ſhould afterwards reveale to bee his will: but it is one thing to command Chriſt to bee obeyed and revealed, (which after Chriſt is revealed, even the Law alſo doth to all that heare it) another thing it is to give Chriſt freely, and faith to receive him, and the ſpirit likewiſe to obey him, yea and perſeverance alſo notwithſtanding our unworthineſſe to continue in him, all which the Goſpel promiſeth to the Elect of God.
Glory bee to God in Chriſt, and peace upon Iſrael.
If the ſerious conſideration of two convenants did turn the Exam.ſtream of your thoughts into this *Indeed it ſhould bee not Covenant, as my Copy had it, but current, as a friend ſhewed mee how to correct it.covenant, it ſhould ſeem you doe acknowledge a third covenant, diſtinct from the former two. Therefore I conceive there is an errour in the writing, and that whereunto the ſtream of your thoughts was turned, is not a different covenant from the former two, but rather an opinion concerning reprobation, different from that which is moſt generally received amongſt our Divines. And albeit hereupon you fell on this; yet herehence it followeth not, but that you might hereby fall upon laying a ground for three covenants ere you are aware. Yet do I not charge you with this. As in ſome reſpect you may ſeem to make three; ſo in another reſpect you may ſeem to make but one; if the covenant of retribution according unto works bee but one; For I ſee no reaſon but Gods purpoſe of election, may well paſſe for a purpoſe of retribution; and conſequently, if the purpoſe of election and reprobation bee reduced unto one, why may not the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, by your rules bee reduced into one? As election is Gods purpoſe to beſtow everlaſting life, ſeeing God doth not purpoſe to beſtow it, but by way of reward of obedience, of faith and repentance, and good works; it neceſſarily followeth that Gods election is his purpoſe of retribution. But there is beſides in election, a purpoſe to work a certain number of men unto faith, obedience, and good works, and unto a finall perſeverance in them all. So likewiſe between the covenant of the Law and the covenant of Grace, there is this principall difference: that God inables his elect to the performance of the one, not of the other; but as touching the reprobate, hee inableth them to the performance of neither condition. Subſervient to Gods election of ſome is each covenant. The covenant of works to humble them, not onelyonly upon the conſideration of their ſins, whereby they have merited eternall death; but eſpecially upon conſideration how their naturall corruption is ſo farre from being maſtered and corrected by the Law, as that on the contrary it is irritated and exaſperated ſo much the more. Then the covenant of grace to comfort them, conſidering how the condition of life is adulced and tempered, being from exact and ſtrict obedience changed into faith and repentance; but chiefely upon conſideration that the word of this covenant is a word of power maſtering their corruption, and inabling to perform faith, repentance, and Evangelicall obedience in an acceptuble manner unto the Lord. Subſervient to the purpoſe of reprobation may bee the Law, only writen in mens hearts, which very obſcurely, intimateth (if at all) any covenant made of everlaſting life between God and man. Where the word is revealed, that in generall comprehending both Law and Goſpel, is ſubſervient thereunto in the way of inſtruction and exhortation, and the like, thereby taking away all excuſe.
Of any other end intended towards them I know not, except ſometimes, as Auſtin obſerveth, Ut proficiant ad exteriorem vitae emendationem quo mitius puniantur. And why I pray may not the covenant of workes promiſe life upon condition of obedience, notwithſtanding the purpoſe of reprobation hath abſolutely determined death, upon all them within the Covenant: as well as the Covenant of grace threatens death upon condition of diſobedience of faith and repentance: notwithſtanding that the purpoſe of election hath abſolutely determined life upon all them within that Covenant. And yet like as in election wee acknowledge a reſpect to obedience, conſequent thereunto, in as much as it includes a purpoſe to give grace to work them to obedience, though not any reſpect therto, as antecedent to the decree it ſelf; how much more may you eaſily conceive, that in reprobation wee deny not a reſpect to diſobedience conſequent, for as much as it includes a purpoſe to deny grace, which alone can prevent diſobedience, though not any reſpect to diſobedience as antecedent to the decree of reprobation? And to repeate by the way, that which formerly hath been delivered.
Reſpect to diſobedience as antecedent to the decree of damnation cannot bee imagined, unleſſe withall you imagine God did firſt decree to permit it, and thereupon for the foreſight thereof decree to damne for it: Whence it followeth that permiſſion of diſobedience muſt bee firſt in intention, in compariſon with condemnation, and conſequently it muſt bee laſt in execution by your own rules, formerly laid down as unqueſtionable foundations. Yet doe not I maintain that God in any moment of nature, doth firſt decree damnation, and then decree the permiſſion of ſin, for which hee damnes them; I make theſe decrees not ſubordinate as moſt doe, but co-ordinate and joynt decrees, being onelyonly concerning meanes tending to the ſame end. And with Aquinas, I ſay that reprobation includes Voluntatem permittendi culpam, & condemnationem inferendi proculpa. The end whereof is the demonſtration of his glory in the way of juſtice. But withall I deſire that culpa in this deſcription of reprobation may bee underſtood aright, and not as Arminius doth, whoſe ſuperficiall conſideration of things is uſually for his advantage, making him thereby the more to abound in arguments for the impugning of his adverſaries opinions, according to his own ſhaping of them quite beſide their meaning. For culpa is not fin in generall in this definition, but onelyonly ſuch a ſin, propter quod quis damnatur, for which a man is damned; that is, finall perſeverance in inſidelity or impenitency. When you ſay the grace of redemption offers the death of Chriſt, and reacheth forth ſome fruite thereof unto all, you walk according to your courſe in the clouds of your own myſteries.
What you mean by theſe fruites you ſpeak of, and by the reaching of them forth, I am utterly to ſeek; neither doth ought you have formerly delivered helpe mee in this. But in theſe particulars it ſeems you love to ſpeak darkly; and keep your ſelf to generall terms. I know no condition propoſed in the Goſpel, for receiving of any benefit from Chriſt, but faith and repentance. But you ſeem to bring in gracious helps for the obtaining of faith and repentance, to bee tendred unto us for Chriſts ſake upon other conditions, I know not what; neither have. I hitherto received any ground of aſſurance from this your diſcourſe, that your ſelf know what. In the next place you ſeem to ſpecifie what theſe fruites are, as when you ſay, that it promiſeth and offereth ſufficient helpe to bring them to the knowledge of God, and means of grace, ſtill keeping your ſelf in the generall, as if you feared to bee underſtood. And I wonder not a little that your ſelf being a man of ſuch reputation, and much exerciſed in giving ſatisfaction, addreſſing your ſelf to give ſatisfactivn in ſo tender and precious points of Divinity as theſe, ſhould deliver your ſelf in ſo ſtrange a language. But let us take the more paines in diſcuſſing the clouds of your Phraſiologies. When you ſay the grace of redemption promiſeth and offereth ſufficient helps; your meaning muſt bee that the Goſpel of Chriſt doth promiſe and offer this, for as much as wee are acquainted with no promiſes of Grace but in the Goſpel. Yet this phraſe of expreſſing, uſed by you, is enough to trouble a Reader, who when the matter wee treat of is difficult enough, might juſtly deſire that hee might not bee put to other trouble, as to interpret mens expreſſions. Yet it may bee you may think to have a ground for this out of Saint Paul, where hee ſaith, The grace of God which bringeth ſalvation hath appeared unto all, teaching us to deny ungodlineſſe; and by which grace hee ſeemes to meane the Goſpel. Bee it ſo, yet Saint Paul doth not call it the grace of redemption, as you doe. Redemption in Scripture phraſe ſignifies forgiveneſſe of ſins, Epheſ. 1. 7. and Col. 1. 14. If this bee your meaning, I finde no congruity in this your affirmation. For what? will you ſay the Goſpel preached, doth promiſe and offer to bring men to the knowledge of God, and means of grace? I had thought rather it had brought the knowledge of God and meanes of grace to them. Or rather is the very bringing of it, or to ſpeak more properly is the very means of grace it ſelf. All which conſidered, I am yet to ſeek of your meaning, I finde it ſo miſerably involved, and that in the very cloſe of all, enough to make any intelligent Reader deſpaire to receive ſatisfaction from you, when in the very laſt act hee ſhall finde himſelfe ſo farre from making any tolerable conſtruction of your words, thereby to pick out any ſober meaning.
Then againe, by offering helps, you ſeem to imply ſome termes or condition whereupon it is offered them, but no ſuch condition is expreſſed by you. If it had, perhaps thereby wee might have taken the altitude. I mean the depth of your meaning throughout. The ſame grace of redemption beſtows alſo (you ſay) ſometimes ſome excellent though common graces. I have heard (I confeſſe) you ſtand much upon common graces. But what they are, and to what end they tend, and whether abſolutely or conditionally imparted according to your opinion: when I ſhall bee ſufficiently informed, I will doe my beſt indevour to weigh them in the ballance of Chriſtian and Scholaſticall examination, and accordingly to give them that due reſpect which belongs unto them. It may bee about a third covenant, which they might ſeem to make, partly of grace and partly of works: I ſhould not bee much contentious. Yet it followeth not, that becauſe they doe binde the more to the keeping of the Covenant of works, as having more means and helps vouchſafed unto them; therefore it doth not make a third Covenant: You ſay it is not the helps of grace offered or given, that include men within any part of the covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given: that is, whereupon they are offered or given, to wit, the helps of grace.
Here new myſteries offer themſelves againe, I muſt bee driven Balaam-like to caſt about for divinations: and whether in the iſſue I ſhall finde that I ſeek for, I cannot aſſure my ſelf. You came but now from ſpeaking of common graces, and by the coherence, theſe helps of grace which here you ſpeak of, ſhould bee thoſe common graces, conſidered as helps of grace ſpeciall. Now had you given inſtance, and ſhewed what theſe common graces are, they might of themſelves have diſcovered the reference wherein they ſtand unto grace ſpeciall, which I gheſſe to bee faith and repentance. This you might eaſily have done, and ſaved us a great deale of irreſolution and paines alſo, partly in ſeeking after that which wee cannot eaſily finde, and partly in labouring to diſprove wee know not what. This confuſed courſe proceede in ſome from an ill minde, fearing leſt their oppoſites ſhould have too much liberty by their plaine dealing to impugne them, but in good men it proceeds from the weakneſſe of their cauſe, and from the uncertainty and ambiguity of their thoughts, for the juſtifying of that which they doe maintain. But let us proceed. Theſe helps of grace by which I hope you mean, helps unto faith and repentance, you plainly ſignifie are offered upon a condition, and by the quality of this condition wee may judge whether they to whom they are offered are included within the covenant of grace or no.
Now let us indevour to ſound your meaning; Theſe helps of grace muſt needs bee, either outward means, or inward qualities and habits.
By helps I ſhould underſtand outward means, after mine own phraſe of ſpeech, and by yours alſo I have good cauſe; for as much as in the words immediately going before, you joyn helps and means together, and confound common graces with them both. As for means of grace, they are not given upon condition; for what condition can bee imagined whereupon the Goſpel ſhould bee given to a Nation? ſhall it bee the uſing of their naturalls right? how will you bee able to make it good, that heathen men before they injoyed the Goſpel, did uſe their naturalls right? Did the Corinthians who were carryed away with dumb Idols even as they were led? 1 Cor. 12. 2. And for not honouring God as God, did not God give them up into a reprobate minde, to doe things inconvenient as well as others, thereby to receive the recompence of their errours? Judge of this by that which the Apoſtle mindes them of, 1 Cor. 6. For after hee had told them that neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Wantons, nor Buggerers, nor Theeves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Raylers, nor Extortioners, ſhall inherit the Kingdome of God, ver. 9. 10. forthwith hee addeth foreign, theſe things were ſome of you, as much as to ſay, ſome of you were fornicators, ſome adulterers, ſome Idolaters, ſome wantons, ſome buggerers, ſome theeves, ſome covetous, ſome drunkards, ſome raylers, ſome extortioners; or ſome of them in diverſe kindes, if not in all theſe kindes lyable to condemnation, and utter excluſion out of the Kingdom of God: But (yet for all this) yee are waſhed, but yee are ſanctifyed, but yee are juſtified, in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the ſpirit of our God, ver. 11. And is it not manifeſt that when the Goſpel is firſt preached to any Nation, it is preached as well to the uncivill as to thoſe that are civill: as well to the debauched as to the morall?
Again, In this caſe, the Goſpel ſhould bee beſtowed by way of reward of obedience: but obedience is no obedience, unleſſe it bee performed upon knowledge, in obedience unto ſome Law given. Now how could the Gentiles know of any ſuch Law, that whoſoever uſed their naturalls ſhould bee rewarded with the benefit of the Goſpel; ſeeing this is no where pretended to bee revealed but in the Goſpel? So that aſſoon as any man hears of ſuch a Law, hee already enjoyeth the Goſpel. The two firſt of theſe arguments may as well bee applyed againſt this doctrine of yours, if by helps of Grace you mean ſome habits or qualities beſides that which may bee further alledged upon your ſpecification, what theſe habits and qualities are.
And here is a faire way opened for a third Covenant; for as for the two covenants commonly acknowledged, they are onelyonly for the obtaining of Salvation different wayes: beſides which here is brought in another Covenant for the obtaining the means of grace, and that different wayes alſo, to wit, either by works or by Grace. But when I look unto your former words and conſider them well, as when you ſay it is not the helps of grace offered or given, that include men within any part of the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given, theſe words, It is offered or given, perhaps are not referred to the helps of grace, but rather to the grace it ſelf, yet I interpret them of the helps of grace, with no other minde then to ſalve this rule of yours from manifeſt contradiction.
For by your rule you profeſſe, that the incluſion of ſome within the covenant of grace, and the excluſion of others, depends not upon any indifference in the things offered or given, but onelyonly on the condition whereupon they are offered or given; manifeſtly implying thereby, that the ſame things are given to them that are without the covenant, and to them that are within; but the difference is onelyonly in the condition whereupon they are given.
But if your rule run thus, it is not the helps offered or given, that include a man within the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon the grace it ſelf is given. Hereby you manifeſt that they within the Covenant of grace, and they without are diſtinguiſhed, not onelyonly by the condition, whereupon that which they have is given, but alſo by the things themſelves which are given them: for as much as onelyonly the helps of grace are given to the one, to wit, to them that are without the covenant, but not only helps of grace, but grace it ſelf is given to the other, which ſerves directly contrary to your rule here given: not to ſpeak of the miſerable confuſion that like a Leproſie ſeizeth upon your manner of expreſſion, and which you hold up in the beginning of your next ſection. But before I come to the ſcanning thereof, let mee tell you of your diſ-junctive phraſe, as when you ſaid, offered or given; this is very ill-accommodated to the helps of grace, if you meane helpes outward, ſuch as the Goſpel; for the Goſpel where it is preached, there it is not onelyonly offered, but hoc ipſo given.
The phraſe offered, is as ill accommodated to grace it ſelf in reſpect of the condition, whereupon depends admiſſion into the convenant of grace. For to offer to a man admiſſion into the covenant of grace upon condition, is to offer it upon a condition to bee performed by him to whom it is offered. But ſuch an offering your ſelf confeſſe doth ſavour of a covenant of works, but when the condition is meerly for Chriſts ſake, that you ſay makes the covenant of grace. Now to that which followeth.
If God offer (ſay you) and give it, to wit, [grace] though never ſo ſmall, even as a grain of muſtard ſeed, and promiſeth to uphold it freely for Chriſts ſake, and not according to our works, it is a covenant of grace. But if hee offer and give never ſo many helps, and means, and gifts, and uphold them according to the works of the creature, it is ſtill a covenant of workes, as it was to the Angels that fell, and to Adam. Here you continue your former confuſion; for pretending to maintain the difference between them within, and them without the covenant of grace, as depending meerely upon the condition, whereupon things are given; you notwithſtanding this, make a difference alſo in the things given. For the one thing, given to them within the covenant of grace, you ſeem to make grace it ſelf, though perhaps as ſmall as a grain of muſtard ſeed, and not onelyonly helpes of grace; but the things given to them without the Covenant, are onelyonly gracious helps and means. And withall you deale not fairely in the expreſſion of that which you intend; for you do not make it plainly appeare, that you put a difference between the things given (leſt you ſhould contradict your ſelf, for you place the difference onelyonly in the condition whereupon the thing given, is given) but that which is given to them within the covenant of grace you formerly expreſſed by the relative [it], which made mee in doubt whether I ſhould referre it to grace it ſelf; or to the helps of grace; yet forthwith on the other ſide running again to helps, you doe not ſtyle them helps of grace, as before you did, which doth manifeſtly diſtinguiſh helps of grace, from grace it ſelf, but you call them gratious helps and means, and not contented with that, you adde gifts alſo, as if your purpoſe were not to diſtinguiſh them from grace in the other member of the compariſon mentioned, but rather to confound them therewith. Which I confeſſe ſorts beſt with your rule, which placeth the difference only in the condition of the things given, and not in the things given themſelves. And this is further confirmed by the inſtance given in Angels and Adam, where you plainly give us to underſtand, that by gracious helps and means, and gifts given them, you underſtand the Image of God; which clearly ſignifies not any outward help and means, (after which manner I was prone to interpret this phraſe of yours) but the very inward ſanctification of their natures, which in my judgement is very untowardly called means of grace, or helps of grace.
Whereas it is rather, that holy power wherewith God had indued them to perform that which hee had commanded them. For of Adam, that is undoubtedly true which Auſtin ſaith, namely, that God gave Adam, poſſe ſi voluit; non dedit velle quod potuit, power to obey if hee would, but not a will to doe that which hee could; and queſtionleſſe it is as true of the Angels as of Adam.
And this power I confeſſe had continued in them, had they performed actuall obedience according to that power, whereof by their diſobedience they were deprived. Whereby you give mee good ground to gueſſe, what that opinion of yours is, (which you carry wondrous cloſely, (and I verily beleeve becauſe of the offenſive nature thereof to good men, ſuch as your ſelf) namely, That power to beleeve and repent is given to them as well without the covenant, as to them within; like as both Angels and Adam before their fall, had power to perform obedience to Gods Commands: But to them within the covenant of grace, it is given and upheld onelyonly for Chriſts ſake; to others it is to bee given and upheld onelyonly according to the covenant of worke, that is, upon condition of ſome performance of theirs. But yet of the full pourtraiture of your opinion, I am to ſeek in ſome particulars: As
Firſt, what the condition is upon the performance whereof they ſhall have power given them to beleeve and repent. Whatſoever you ſay, or give inſtance in, if it bee a work of nature, it will neceſſarily follow that grace ſhall bee poſſibly, at leaſt reſolved into a work of nature; then wee are where wee are, and ſtill to ſeek how they came by power to perform that work of grace.
Secondly, I am to ſeek by what means God doth work this power, whether onelyonly by perſwaſion, which is onelyonly a morall action, or by an immediate change of their natures by the inſpiration of Gods Spirit.
Now the firſt of theſe cannot bee; for perſwaſion hath no power to change the nature of ought, and work new powers in it, which are not wrought without giving a new life. And indeed perſwaſion tends rather to move men to doe that which they have power to doe, then from thence to receive a power of doing. Wee doe not perſwade men, ut poſſint aliquid facere, ſed ut velint, & ut faciant, to bee able to do ought, but to move them to bee willing to doe it.
If by immediate inſpiration giving a new life, then it follows that regeneration is a common grace, poſſible at leaſt, given to them as well without the Covenant of grace, as to them within: to the Reprobates as well as to the Elect, and that upon performance of a work of nature. And becauſe it were in vain to ſpeak of upholding it after it is given, unleſſe it were given indeed, you imply hereby that even this power is given to Reprobates. But whereas it is to bee upholden but upon condition, yet you doe not expreſſe what this condition is. But I gueſſe the condition hereof is the exerciſing of this power; like as upon the exerciſing of the power which God gave Angels and Adam, before the fall, they had been confirmed in their integrity. But what if they do not beleeve or repent for a year or two together; yet I preſume you will not ſay they are thereupon deprived of this power, but that it continueth for ought wee know to the contrary to their lives end; though it fell out quite contrarily with Angels and Adam, who immediately upon their diſobedience were deprived of this power. What is your meaning when you ſay, God offers mankinde in Chriſt, greater grace and helps to keep the Covenant of works, then after the fall they could have attained to without Chriſt, I cannot eaſily comprehend, and throughout finde you very cloſe and reſerved hereupon, which to ſpeak like a free man, is no good dealing.
Firſt, I know not what that grace and help is, which here you ſpeak of. If your meaning bee no more but this, that they have more power to perform the Covenant of works through Chriſt, then otherwiſe; (as I gueſſe it will come to no more in the end) I pray you what think you of mankinde before Chriſt came into the world, had they this power you ſpeak of through Chriſt? If you think they had, I pray you how came they by it? If onelyonly it hold of mankinde ſince the preaching of the Goſpel; I demand whether of all, or ſome? if of all, then you muſt acknowledge the Goſpel to bee preached to all. If only of them to whom it is preached; yet the queſtion ſtill is, whether it bee wrought by perſwaſion or inſpiration.
Secondly, in ſaying that in Chriſt they have greater grace to help to keep it, your phraſe doth imply, that even without Chriſt men have grace and helpes and power to keep the Covenant of works. In a word, dare you ſay that any naturall man hath any power to bee ſubject to the Law of God, or to doe that which is pleaſing in Gods ſight? If you ſay they have any ſuch power, I demand whether ever any were found ſubject to the Law of God, or did that which was pleaſing in Gods ſight? It is very ſtrange that never any ſuch act ſhould proceed from a power ſo generall. If they were, or did that which was pleaſing in Gods ſight, then they were not in the fleſh, for they that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God.Rom. 8.
Laſtly, when you ſay, theſe helps or this power is offered them in Chriſt, it implies that upon ſome condition performable on their parts it is offered unto them. Now it were very requiſite you ſhould deale plainly, and expreſſe this condition, which you doe not. I confeſſe I ſee no danger in acknowledging that God purpoſeth to deale with mankinde according to their works; nay I wonder you ſhould exclude the elect from the number of thoſe with whom God deales in this manner, when the Apoſtle profeſſeth ſo directly, wee muſt all appeare before the judgement ſeat of God, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that hee hath done, whether good or evill, 2 Cor. 5. 10. OnelyOnly for Chriſts ſake God giveth faith and repentance to ſome, working in them that which is pleaſing in his ſight through Jeſus Chriſt; and doth not deale in the like mercy with others.
The reſt of this Section I diſlike not.
Glory bee to God in Chriſt, and peace upon Iſrael, In ſubmiſſion unto his Truth.
For why ſhould wee lye for God, as man doth for man, to gratifie him?