A VINDICATION OF FREEGRACE: IN Opposition to this Arminian Position, [Natural Men may do such things as whereunto God hath by way of Promise annexed Grace and Acceptation.]  
First Preached, after Asserted At Stephen's Coleman-steete London, BY Mr JOHN GOODWIN.  
Also an Appendix proving the souls enjoying Christ after death, afore the Resurrection, against some errors hereafter specified.  
Published for the justification of Truth BY S. L.  13. Article of the Church of England. 
Works done before the Grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit, do not make men meet to receive Grace.  
LONDON, Printed by John Macock, for Michael Spark junior, and are to be sold at the Blue Bible in Green Arbour. 1645.   

To the much esteemed the Auditory of Master john Goodwin, increase of grace be multiplied to the completing of Christ's stature in you.  
Greatly beloved in Christ,  
SUch is the peculiarity of mine obligements to that person so Worthy, who under God hath the immediate power over me as would not tolerate my seeking out any besides, to whom to commend this ensuing Treatise, were it not for this reason, because I would not seem in the least to engage a person so eminent, in a business so personal. And amongst you who may seem, and that rightly, in the eyes of others to be as a Garden of many excellent flowers, whereof 'tis hard to pick the fairest: so choice are mine engagements to some, as would render my personal choice most easy to whom in special to recommend the same. But as I have shunned advice from any one, or more, that have been, or are of the whole Auditory, so I choose humbly to tender it to the whole promiscuously; that so without least prejudice all may unanimouny conspire in this design of propagating the truth. Wherein, that I suffer not through your misconstruction, I have next hereto annexed a Breviat of the grounds of my publishing hereof. Concerning which matter, as I humbly crave your excusing the rudeness and prolixity of the former Letter ensuing, the rather, because (though 'twas framed very suddenly) I choose to print the exact Copy of that which I gave in to Mr. Goodwin, thereby to prevent suspicions of wrong or mistake, rather than make an amendment thereof. So touching my Reply I also crave pardon for my boldness, in undertaking an enterprise so weighty; because (all other ways and means of vindication assayed being frustrated) I deem it meet for truth to be in some measure vindicated, though in a weak and unworthy manner, by that very rude pen which hath unwittingly been rendered injurious thereunto. And though I must needs acknowledge this work of mine to be limited by most unhappy confines, not only as it singles out unto me that person to deal with, whom I highly respect; but also as it points out an Auditory so able and judicious to whom to commend it: (which I speak not out of flattery but to the glory of God's grace in you) yet as on the one hand the competition being not between man and man, but man and truth according to that impartial verdict Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas; 'tis no hard matter to determine which of the twain to prefer: so on the other hand, for as much as there is now no sure or probable way left, standing in competition with this made choice of; I thence conclude a necessity of prosecuting this way, though so unworthy of your acceptance. Wherein you may please further to consider that I trouble you not with needless disputations: but this high question whether the terms of the Gospel be free or mercenary, which being the foundation of our faith, is a controversy justified, jude 3. After which I have in the close alleged some reasons against three errors there specified; which I the rather humbly commend to your view; because there be that conceive the substance of the two former, was publicly delivered in Crooked-Lane London, in a Funeral Sermon divers months ago: and that probably before many of you, but by whom I shall not so much as name, supposing the known mischief of these errors to be a sufficient motive to this work: Through all which, that God would guide you to weigh this matter in the balance of the Sanctuary; that rightly dividing this work to the judgement and affections, both may perform their respective offices without usurpation, and so conduct you to the desired Goal; the truth, is the prayer of him who remains,  
Yours in humble meekness, truth, and love, S. L.   

A Breviate of such special proceed with Mr John Goodwin as may sufficiently evince the necessity of publishing the sequel.  
NOt to mention the former passages being Epitomised in the beginning of the ensuing Reply; I divers months passed, desired him to take some time to examine this matter, and having his promise that I should have notice of his first leisure, I contented myself her with for sundry months: after which I renewed my former request, Jan. 2. 1644. whereto receiving this Answer, that I should have notice of his first leisure, by Mr John Price, I contented myself with this also, till necessity forced me to commend to him this following Motion.  
Sir,  
THe drift of your last words to me (Jan. 2. 1644.) being to put me in expectation of your pre-fixing a time for your perusing my Reply to your Sermon, which time you promised to make known to my Loving friend Mr John Price, I accordingly expected the same, and notwithstanding my knowledge of his long absence from London, I was desirous to forbear the renewing of my desire till his return; but there is such an alteration now in hand, touching my proper conditiou, as that I am necessitated without any delay to address myself to you, humbly desiring your perusal of the said Reply: And that both because the next week will be inconvenient because of the Fast, and also that I conceive that my condition afterwards will not permit any longer delay. My desire therefore is, That you would be pleased to take some time this week for view thereof, that I may know your mind concerning this matter; Of which I pray be pleased to return a certain Answer to my loving friend Mr William Milner, whom I make bold withal at the present, because I have a business of much importance to transact this day; and if I may understand that you will pick out a time this week, so as that I may know your mind in it, I shall this morning bring or send the Reply to you, sealed up: Otherwise I conceive I must necessarily consider upon some way of Vindicating the truth, whether by publishing, or otherwise, whereto craving your Answer, I rest  
Coleman-street Feb. 18. 1644.  
for Mr John Goodwin.  
Yours in humility, truth, & love. SAM. LANE.  
IN Answer whereto he prefixed next Thursday's Even, Feb. 20. the day before which I meeting him desired him to dispense with mine absence the time prefixed, because of some special occasions, and in lieu of my coming, to accept of some friends to be with him, whereto he willingly consenting; accordingly Mr. Thomas Weaver and another special friend of mine were present, and read a good part of the Reply: whereto the substance of his Answer was, The he did not hold, nor go about to prove that God is bound to give g●●● upon man's endeavours.  
Which Answer so expressly denying the direct tendency of the first error opposed, and of the following Sermon (both strictly concerning natural men's power towards attaining grace) puts me out of all expectation of his public Vindication of that truth, which he thus denies to have at all opposed. Now forasmuch as the first ensuing Letter, though privately commended, hath occasioned the public preaching of the Sermon following, wherein the Covenant of Freegrace is bitterly reproached; there appears hence a great necessity of public vindication thereof. And yet for a more orderly justification, I shall declare, first, such testimonies as evidence Mr John goodwin's maintaining that error: secondly, why his maintaining thereof should be publicly mentioned.  
The first of which particulars refers to two things, 

1. The Testimonies concerning his first delivery of that error.  
2. Those that concern his Preaching of the ensuing Sermon.    
For the former sort of which Testimonies, I refer in special to the three manual Testimonies subscribed to the extract next ensuing. Which extract twice together contains that error. Besides which I commended two Copies more of the same extract to the perusal of Mr Thomas Weaver, and Mr Thomas Ruddyard, two known exact writers, who both testified, That they found those Copies to be the substance of what he then delivered. Yea Mr Goodwin himself immediately after his Preaching the following Sermon told me he had read the first letter ensuing, (which chargeth him with that error) not disclaiming any jot thereof. All which Testimonies may be looked upon not merely as sufficient, but also as superfluous, if we observe the ensuing Sermon, in which the same error is three times repeated, as in the Reply is after declared.  
And touching the Testimonies concerning the ensuing Sermon; Though I could not obtain Mr goodwin's own Copy, which I desired of him, yet I obtained a Copy from Mr Tho. Ruddyard; one, who by Mr goodwin's Testimony to me, was affirmed to be a very exact writer: Of which Copy though I could not obtain Mr goodwin's Examination, which I also desired; yet I obtained the examinaned of two exact writers, whose subscribed Testimonies are hereafter affixed to that Sermon: Yea, I had also the verbal Testimonies of Mr John Price, and Mr Henry Brandrift, who upon perusal affirmed, that they found it to be the same that Mr Goodwin delivered.  
The second thing to be proved is the necessity of publishing his maintaining the same. For which, I am not to declare how necessary it is that the following errors should be publicly declaimed against, too sadly known to be now most rife in this City; but more strictly to show how needful 'tis to declare according to the ensuing Testimonies, Mr goodwin's maintaining the same.  
First, because his dispute upon this matter have been highly approved of by many: whereof divers give this Testimony, That he hath cut the hair between other Divines and the Arminians. Yea, Mr Goodwin told me he was much desired to Print his disputes against the Arminians, so highly are they esteemed; in the last of which disputes, the ensuing error was pleaded for.  
But secondly, and specially whereas there are (as 'tis conceived) thousands now amongst us, who hold that grand error, That God hath promised grace upon man's doing; two of that Sect, discoursing with a Reverend Divine of this City, told him, That in holding this Tenent, they held but that which Master John Goodwin maintains, in whom they greatly glory. Now 'tis not easy to conceive how great mischief the Preaching and arguing of so eminent a person for that error may do to the confirming of men therein, especially if we consider how highly he hath gratified the maitainers thereof in another way also; as namely, by his earnest pleading for a toleration of any Sect whatsoever.  
Thirdly, I might add the consideration of his so often pressing that error, not only thee several Lords days, on the last of which the ensuing Sermon was wholly spent to maintain it; but also in some of his last exercises against the Arminians, in the last whereof the said error was pleaded for, both by that grand Argument, That God cannot in justice destroy man for not doing that which is altogether out of his power to do, and also that of adam's not having a power to believe. Which two Arguments are a great part of the Sermon ensuing: yea further it hath been often acknowledged by a known member of Mr goodwin's Church that about 7. years ago, he Preached the same matter, and that then divers able Divines of this City did affirm to Mr Goodwin that he Preached Arminianism. Seeing then this error together with its defensive Arguments have been with gre●t zeal so often inculcated for a more sure and through distilling the same into the minds of the hearers, hence its necessary not only to declaim against it, but tanquam digito monstrare, so distinctly and directly to point it out, as that all such hearers may have peculiar admonishment hereof, and that by mentioning the publisher of it. Besides which, other grounds might be urged, but I desire to shun further prolixity herein, which nevertheless I thought needful to glance at, hereby to show that it hath been mine endeavour so to fulfil the Law of truth, as not to transgress the Law of that Christian reverence and respect which is due unto him.  
S. L.   

An extract of some particulars in a Sermon of Mr John Goodwin, of April 12. 1644. which are scrupled.  
ONe particular whereof was a third motive he gave to natural men on that Text 1 Cor. 1.3. Which motive was, that if natural men will but engage themselves withal within them to seek for this grace, they shall surely find it, they shall not miscarry in it; but certainly this grace shall be vouchsafed to them; which for proof were alleged two Texts, Mat. 7.7. & John 6.37. Which was further prosecuted, by answering an Objection touching man's being dead in sins and trespasses: the fi●th part of which answer was this. Fifthly, That men that are in such a sense dead in sins and trespasses, have a natural life of reason, judgement, understanding, conscience, etc. in them: by reason of which excellent principles of nature, reason, etc. Men are able to ponder upon such ways & means propounded, and conceive them probable for that work; they are not so dead, but if they will gave out themselves to do, they may do such things whereunto God hath been graciously pleased to annex a promise of grace, there is a power in men to do such things (if they will give it forth & employ it accordingly) as unto which things God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation: for which, besides those Texts , see Prov. 2.1, 2, 3. & 10.6.27. and strive to enter in at the straight gate.  

One Copy whereof sent Mr. Richard Atkins is thus subscribed.  
Sir, For the sum and substance you have drawn a true draught of that which Master Goodwin did deliver.  
Yours to command Rich. Alkins.  
A second Copy commended to Mr. Laurence Steel is thus subscribed.  
I find nothing in substance differing from my Copy, save only I find not the two first Scriptures in this Sermon, but I suppose I have them in that before.  
L. Steel.  
A third Copy commended to Mr. john weeks, is thu● subscribed.  
Sir, I have perused this, and find it in the main to agree with mine, only it was delivered in more full expressions.  
Yours John Weeks.  
Which 3. Testimonies, as also those two affixed to the ensuing Sermon, are left with Michael Spark signior, lest any calumniate the truth in the Author's absence.    

Errat.  
Page 56. line 7. for Gospel read grossest.   


The first Letter to Master J. G.  
Much Honoured Sir,  
WHether or no I possess honourable and eminent thoughts of yourself, I shall refer you to those expressions, which my Conscience commanded me to dictate to you, before my going into the Army, whereby you may judge; and because the ground on which those expressions of mine to you ward, was that of God which I saw in you; I know no better way whereby to endeavour my retaining entirely my due esteem of you, then to desire; That by, and in you, the ground thereof may continue firm, and immovable; which in mine eye seems at present much to flag and stagger, and that from some assertions, which specially the last Sabbath being April 14. 1644. I received from you therefore to prevent the least besieging such an adversary, whose heart lies fair and open to me, as I well know by experience from that utterly undeserved respect, I have found from you; I shall in the strength of this presumption adventure rudely upon the work intended.  
Wherein I must necessarily content myself, with signifying to you some particulars, which to me seem evidently liable to exception, suspending the least taking notice of such things, which possibly, on due consideration may be found to require more exact scrutiny. Whereof as touching what I shall at present mention, I must satisfy myself to hint things in an indigested, and disorderly manner; having been prevented by the intervening of other unexpected occurrences, therefore for most conciseness therein, though I count it my best course, to have extracted the substance of all, wherein I am unsatisfied, first entirely by itself, yet I may not attempt that, but must only name such particulars of that kind, Immediately before what I shall affirm in order, touching each one respectively: wherein not desiring to depend on mine own Judgement only, lest I might have mistaken you, I by conference, find some others do conceive you so to have delivered yourself in those particulars, as I myself conceive thereof.  
You may therefore remember, that the substance of your third motive to natural men, in reference to their accepting of Grace, according to what you insisted upon, 1 Cor. 1.3. was to this effect, That if such will but engage themselves, and all within them, according to their natural power, to seek for this Grace, they shall not miscarry, but stirring up themselves in good earnest to seek this Grace, they shall surely find it: Which after your glancing at the Antinomians, you pressed more largely, and that by backing this motive with two Texts, John 6. v. 37. and Mat. 7. v. 7.  
Which Scriptures you allege, to prove, That if men improve their Natural abilities to the utmost (which is the strength of the motive) in seeking Grace, they shall find it.  
Concerning which Texts I cannot as yet see any such thing proved by them, for the former whereof, John 6.37. Whosoever comes, etc. This you understand indefinitely, whosoever natural man comes; And in what manner must he come? With, or in the strength of his natural abilities; such a one Isle in no wise cast out; which you acknowledge, imports affirmatively, I will accept, which might be proved to import so much from, John 5. v. 40. Where life is annexed to coming. Now as touching this Text, 'tis true, that whosoever being a natural man, shall through the full improvement of natural powers, so come to Christ, as is here meant, that is, after a saving manner, even with saving saith, which kind of coming can only carry life, as this here doth; Such a one assuredly shall not be cast out by Christ, no more than he which doth the Law perfectly shall yet die: for the Law will keep promise (though none can claim aught thence) namely, That the man that doth them, shall live in them; but this is far from proving, that a man by improving his naturals shall come to Christ savingly by virtue thereof, no more than a man may do the Laws works, and live in them; concerning which Paul peremptorily and rationally concludes in that Gal. 3.11. That no man can live by virtue of his performing that Covenant: but there will be further occasion ministered by what follows, whence to speak further in reference to this place quoted, which was there but briefly touched for a proof of that, which it seems not in the least to do.  
The next alleged is Mat. 7. v. 7. and that for the same purpose to which must refer, as above; concerning which place 'tis most clear, that that Text importing commands pressed, and promises annexed, are laid down in most general terms, therefore for the true understanding of the nature of our duty, or our right manner of performance thereof, we must consult with other Scriptures where 'tis laid down more particularly, and not understand the words in a strict literal sense. That we must not understand it, as barely expressed, without limitation or qualification, I prove from this; that other Scriptures gainsay such a sense, ●s that Jam. 4.3. Ye ask and receive not, Why not? not for want of ask, they did ask, yet 'twas not given: so then, To all that ask it shall not be given; men may so ask as that their ask shall never be given them, the default wherein may be double, from the end of their ask to satisfy lusts. But is that all? No, another default is the want of a due qualification in the ask, which is as necessary as Salvation itself, and that is an ask in faith; so jam. 1.6. in the fifth verse, he gives out a promise indefinitely, If any of you: of whom? Natural improvers? No, of you believers, for that he supposed in the third verse, the trying of your faith, they had faith to try; let such ask in faith, acting that power of faith, created by God's Spirit in them; but let him ask in faith, let him not think it enough to ask in any fashion, but only in faith, which terms, but and faith, exclude all other askings from receiving: which is plainly expressed in verse 7. Let not that man think to receive, what man? that man whosoever, be he ever so able to improve his natural abilities in ask, as long as he asks without faith, let not such a one think to receive, for 'tis to think the scripture lies: if then this place quoted, will prove that natural men improving themselves in good earnest in ask, shall hav●, as you expressly affirmed, than it follows (as I conceive) that a natural man may by improving his own power, be enabled to ask in faith, for such an ask only is sure to receive, but if we will take Paul's judgement, he affirms, Eph. 1.9. That the power by which we believe, is not our own fully improved, but that exceeding greatness of power, which raised Christ from the dead: faith is by grace, and not natural improvement; but you will say this is granted, that 'tis wrought by God; namely, upon natural improvements: to which I reply, 'tis true you expressed that, but yet in these two quotations, you apply or rather subject (as I conceive) these promises under the power of natural men, whom you make to have power in themselves, to put themselves under these Promises, and within the Covenant, else they could not be so certain, touching Gods performing them to themselves; which to prove, you directly alleged them; in which places there's no tittle of any such promise, that upon their improvement, God will give faith, and so they shall be accepted, and yet you undertake to prove, that they may so perform the condition on their side, as reciprocally to make God bound to receive them into his grace thereupon according to his promise.  
Further in reference to that, Mat. 7.7. Ask, etc. but how shall we ask? john 15. verse 16. Whatsoever ye doke in my Name, the Father will give, Acts 4. verse 12. No name under heaven whereby to be saved, or no other power, Therefore no natural, how ever improved, A●sk in my Name, not your own, but so long as we ask by the strength of our natural abilities, 'tis in our own name and power, and therefore shall not avail, because not in Christ's Name.  
Object But may not our natural power be improved to such height, as whereby, and whereupon God may be engaged by virtue of them, to accept us in Christ's Name?  
Answ No, in no wise, for then there's another name or power besides Christ's, which can engage God, which would peremptorily contradict the Scripture.  
Again, this injunction Ask and it shall be given, is chief directed to the Disciples, for 'twas a part of that Sermon Preached to them in special, as whereby they might the better know how to deal with the jews, as the beginning of it shows, chap. 5. verse 1, 2. Yea, the verse immediately foregoing this under censure was primarily in reference to them; Give not that that's holy, Nor cast your Pearls, etc. They were then such as had things that were holy, and pearls, yea to give, and cast; therefore such who not only had those holy things, but had them as Stewards of the Treasures of heaven, thereby directing them, to whom to give them, to which the following promise, Ask and have, fitly belongs: but this liberty befits not a carnal one, 'tis ill trusting such with such large promises, who have no such holy things or pearls, to give or cast.  
But to proceed, you on a fourth subdivided head, undertook to give out the meaning of that term, of being dead in trespasses and sins, which you shown, was meant of such, as were void of all knowledge of God, not as only being in a state of condemnation, but in that they had no enjoyment of the Spirit of God at all, nor of its workings, which works in some kind always wherever the Gospel is preached, Dead, that is, said you, Sat in darkness, and shadow of death, destitute of all means of knowledge, by hearing the Gospel, whereto you added; But you are not so dead, for as much as you live under Gospel's light.  
As touching which, to me as yet, the main or entire design of the Apostle in that Ephes. 2. to verse 9 is to prove that more particularly, which he had avouched, in chap. 1. verse 19 in general; namely, that we believe through the working of that very exceeding great power, which raised Christ from the dead, which he demonstrates from the difficulty of the work of faith; not at all showing by what outward means that power wrought, or by what instrument but the great difficulty of the work, in that 'tis no less than a quickening from the dead, parallel to Christ's, which nothing but an Almighty power could effect; and whether they had the Gospel preached along space to them, or the contrary, that makes nothing to his purpose, for they were quickened by the Gospel, as a means used, and whether God doth it at first hearing as 3000. are conceived to be at once, or whether afterwards; still 'tis done by the same Almighty power alone, improving that means (for faith comes by hearing) and that in one instant, whether sooner or later. And that they here said to be dead in sins, were such as sat in darkness, etc. seems very strange, considering the persons so said to be dead: We were dead; Who? I Paul, and you Ephesians. Whereof concerning Paul, what more controdictory, than to say, Paul had not the light of the Gospel as we have, and therefore not so dead: concerning whom 'tis most certain, from his own affirmation of what he did in point of persecution, that 'twas out of zeal, he followed his light, therefore he so long continued to hear the Gospel, before he persecuted it, as according to his utmost power, to see whether it were falls or true, and after that (seeing ground sufficient, by his light to justify, yea to require his zealous persecution thereof) for a long time, he was engaged in a way of persecution, bearing the Office of a Promoter or Informer, carrying letters, etc. to the chief Counsels, and how pragmatical he was in that design, might be proved at large from Acts 7. the end, and Acts 8. verse 1.2. He must then needs live in the time of the Gospel (when he might have had means of grace, but rejected it all the time wherein he persecuted the Gospel: he could not persecute the Gospel in a time wherein the Gospel was not preached, or professed: he would not fight with his own shadow; Therefore he sat not in the shadow of death.  
Yea, it seems easy to prove, he had the Gospel a long time before, and that upon record, which was in great request with him, being written in the Prophets, which he searched; and that in them he read Gospel, is clear from Rom. 1.17. For therein, In what? In the Gospel of Christ, is revealed faith, etc. How proves he this? It follows, as 'tis written; What's written shall testify to what he asserts, and 'tis written, The just shall live by faith: Where written? In the New Testament? No, that was not written when he spoke this; Where then? In the Gospel preached by Habbacuck chap. 2. ver. 4. So this Paul affirms, Rom. 10.11. The Scripture saith, who believes on him, even jesus Christ, shall not be ashamed; namely, notwithstanding all opposers, even by virtue of his justification: and where doth the Scripture say thus, which is the sum of the Gospel, even in Esay 28.11.  
As touching the Ephesians, in what sense Paul was dead, so were they; We who were dead, he makes his own and their condition jointly one; and that the Ephesians distinctly considered, sat not in darkness, seems hence, in that he directed that Epistle To the Saints at Ephesus, as being a place, where men professed the Gospel, and therefore lived under it.  
But hence, to proceed to the fifth particular, next ensuing the former, to this effect.  
Men that are so dead in sins, etc. have a natural life, of reason, judgement, understanding, conscience, etc. by virtue whereof men are able to weigh and ponder such ways or means tendered to them, yea such a power they have in them, as whereby (if they will put it forth, and employ it accordingly,) they may do such things, as unto which God hath by way of promise, annexed grace and acceptation.  
For which besides the places mentioned; namely, those already questioned, john 6.37. and Mat. 7.7. you further alleged, Prov. 2. verse 1, 2, 3. and joh. 6.27.  
Now in reference to this fifth assertion, I cannot but as yet utterly deny natural men, to be able so to improve natural power, as to engage God, etc. according to the affertion prescript.  
For which end, I shall first deny the same to be proved in the least, by those other Texts alleged.  
For that in Prov. 2. verse 1.2. etc. I yet see no reason at all, why it should be understood as spoken to natural men, but good reason whence to conclude it spoken positively of believers; My Son, Whose son? Wisdom's son, or the son of Solomon, inspired with the spirit of Wisdom, or of him rather, typisied by Solomon Jesus Christ, the wisdom of the Father; My Son, or thou who art begotten again of Wisdom, and my reason why he means not Natural men, I deduce out of the first chapter: a great part whereof, even from verse 8. to 20. is directed to beleavers, in opposition to Natural men, termed sinners, (by which term such are most obviously pointed out in Scripture,) which I gather from verse 7. where, having to the 7. verse, set forth the excellent use of the book, To know Wisdom etc. in the 7. verse he declares to whom they shall become so excellent, or on what terms men attain excellency by studying this book, expressed thus; The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools, etc. So that the fundamental qualification, by virtue whereof men come to be proficients in the School of Spiritual wisdom, is this, That they have the fear of the Lord; that's the beginning of all saving knowledge, the very first lesson, first of all to be learned, as fundamental.  
But shall not natural men upon improving natural abilities, attain sound knowledge? No, all besides such as have the groundwork of all laid in them, even the fear of the Lord, are excluded so long from all spiritual and saving knowledge, as in the term ensuing, But fools despise, etc. Who are those fools? all without exception, that have not this fear; How is that proved? Because that's the very beginning of knowledge; Therefore so long as they are not as yet Ab●darians, having not the beginning of knowledge, they must needs be fools; and that by fools is meant, All that have not the Lords fear in them, and therefore must be a note of exclusion to all that have not this fear, seems clear, because all are comprehended in these two, such as have fear, and fools; and no medium between. According to which double position laid down in vers. 7. showing who they were that learned wisdom by these Proverbs, and and who not: He directs his Exhortation to him that could learn Wisdom; namely, who is possessed with this fear, and that most peculiarly, by way of excluding it from all others: My Son, if sins, verse 10. Again, verse 15. My Son walk not thou in the way with them, so that the holy Ghost, that Spirit of Wisdom, makes a mighty difference between him that is his Son, as one begotten a new by him; who hath God's fear, and all others not having it.  
Object But cannot all others attain Spiritual knowledge as well as he, by exact improving natural abilities? No, for thereby they cannot purchase the groundwork, The fear of the Lord.  
Answ But yet in the 22. and 23. verses, she directs her voice in general to all in the strees, simple ones, scorners, and fools hating knowledge, etc. That they would turn from their folly by Wisdoms reproofs, may not such qualify themselves by their natural improvements, that they may assuredly attain saving Wisdom, or turn from their folly at Wisdoms reproofs? No, for in verse 23. having in the first part of it commanded, Fools, Turn ye at my reproof: to prevent an Objection, How shall we turn? The holy Ghost declares how this work is wrought, undertaking it himself; Behold, or take notice how this great overture is brought about, even thus: I'll pour out my Spirit to you, I'll make known my words to you: First, pour out my Spirit, whereby possessing you with the fear of the Lord, and so will make known, etc. after; laying first the foundation of all saving knowledge.  
Object But how appears it that their improving Naturals did not render them capable by engaging God, etc. even of saving knowledge?  
Answ Even thus, besides what's before, because those whom wisdom undertakes to give saving knowledge to, were not otherwise qualified, than the worst of them, against whom he resolvedly protests, never to give saving knowledge to: Behold, I'll pour out my spirit to you; to whom? you who have improved your natural abilities, so as to engage me? No: to whom then? To you simple ones that love simplicity, scorners delighting in scorning, and to you fools hating knowledge; by which we may judge whether they qualified themselves, or engaged God by Natural improvements: How is the work done then? even by the Spirits overpowering of such that's the only ground of the difference between persons in themselves alike qualified; and therefore no precedent improvement, though ever so transcendent, for the latter sort from whom the Spirit will for ever with hold the saving operation, are expressed to have the selfsame qualifications, to hate knowledge, etc.  
Or if by Son you mean men improving their natural abilities, as that to them the promise is certainly made, it shall be granted you, that be he what he will, Whosoever asks as is there required, he shall have his desire granted; but it follows not therefore that natural men can so ask: The thing promised on ask you acknowledge to import acceptation with God: but shall it be had upon every ask? No, 'tis Wisdom whereof James tells us in the place forenamed, in express terms, it cannot be had but upon ask in faith; so that whosoever be meant by Son here, he must ask in faith; without which his natural improvements engage not God at all. Not but that such must improve natural abilities, for 'tis their duty, but yet thereupon 'tis not God's duty to confer Grace.  
Again, for I decline exact method, as not becoming me; the manner after which this duty is to be done, appears expressly to be with greatest attention and intention; Apply thy heart etc. If thou criest after, liftest up thy voice, seekest her as silver, etc. Now according to that known saying, Ignoti nulla cupido, 'tis impossible mere natural men, not possessed with the fear of God, which is the very beginning of all saving knowledge; should be able so to apply their hearts, cry after it, seek etc. Taking pains as one digging in a mine for hid Treasures: swine are not wont to take such pains for pearls. As yet therefore I cannot conceive this exhortation to be chiefly directed to natural men, as having a power so to perform the duty, as to engage God to instate them in the promise, which to prove you bring it, but in strictness and propriety, as 'tis a promise 'tis only absolutely given to them that have faith, though the condition on our part so concerns natural men, as to inform them what their duty is, as all other of Gods Commands do, with making known of which, God is not bound to enable all that know their duty to do it; so that while natural, 'tis impossible for them to keep any one savingly.  
The next Text alleged is, John 6.27. Labour, etc. For that meat which endures to eternal life, which the son of man shall give to you; namely, (said you) Upon labouring, even Natural men's Labouring, to whom you direct the exhortation, and that to prove the fifth assertion prescribed, to which refer; so that by Labour you understand a man's improving his Naturals with greatest diligence; on which, God according to his promise will give everlasting meat, or saving Grace, whereby to interest them into Christ, who is life everlasting. But that by Labouring here Christ means not their own full improvement of Natural abilities, only or chiefly, as whereunto annexing a promise seems evident; because by Labouring he means true believing, which I prove from 28. and 29. verses, Christ having exhorted them to Labour, etc. Thereupon they perceiving the Exhortation to import Everlasting life, were inquisitive in verse 28. What shall we do, that we might so labour, for the word for Labour in the 27. verse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that in 28. verse following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated might work, are the same, so that their question propounded was in reference to the duty enjoined before, that they might understand the nature of that Command, whereto Christ answers, telling them what labour or work 'twas he required of them; where the word translated work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answers the Verb, whence also the Verb is derived, and so jointly import Labour in all three verses, which work then is to believe in Jesus Christ, as is directly laid down in express terms, verse 29. If then labouring imports the saving work of believing, then 'tis more than utmost improvement of Naturals, because by such improvement, we cannot work the great work of faith: so then by Labour he commands more than Natural improvement. And because 'tis a work far above the reach of man's Natural improvements, he that giv●s it in command undertakes to work his own will, or command in them, which follows, Which the Son of man shall give unto you. So as 'tis here granted, Christ requires them to improve their natural abilities, but yet withal, that also which is infinitely above them all, how fully soever improved, even saving faith, Which the Son of man shall give, they must impove, etc. but yet after all, must rest in nothing but Christ's gift, they were so to labour by natural improvement, as to submit to, or rather close with the Spirits exceeding great inspiring power, whereby it works faith.  
Object But could they not so labour by natural improvement, as to engage Christ to give them everlasting meat, certainly upon their labouring, which 'tis brought to prove?  
Answ For Answer, as yet I conceive, that they had no promise made on their mere Labour, though to utmost improving natural abilities, which I prove thus clearly, because they did labour according to their power, for they took as good a course as natural reason could prescribe: First, they desired to understand what their duty expressed by the term Labour did import; next they desired in a most rational way, some good ground whereon to establish, or bottom this their duty of believing even by some sign, which was an ancient manner of confirming great matters, in answer whereto he declares himself to be the true sign from heaven, the bread of God; whereupon according to the strength of natural understanding imprinting in them a desire of happiness, because 'tis again, and again affirmed to be the bread of life, they put forth the utmost of their Natural abilities in this great request; Lord ever more give us this Bread, whence Christ again declares himself to be that Bread, and further tells them who should partake thereof, even he that comes to me, or believes in me, (not every coming, for these came, yet to them he saith, ye believe not) shall never hunger, etc. whereby alluring them to come, and yet after their improvement of natural abilities in affectionate askings, Christ tells them, Ye come not so, as to have life.  
But is not their not improving Naturals given as the reason thereof? Object  
Answ No, in no wise, for they improved their Reason, judgement, etc. to the utmost; yet further, to find out how it should be true, That Christ was the bread of heaven, and that by inquiry into his stem, or Parentage whence he was; the best course their natural light could guide them to, which they followed in verse 41. and 42. but doth Christ hereupon tell them; Ye have not yet fully improved your naturals, therefore 'tis you believe not? or doth he express by way of promise, that because you have improved, etc. in reasoning, disputing, begging, etc. Therefore according to my sure promise, engaging me, I'll second your improvement with grace, I will give it you? No, but contrarily, the reason why they cannot come to life, or believe, which he had said in verse 36. he gives them in verse 44. No man can, or hath power to come, Except the Father draw him, which act he was not engaged to put forth on them, notwithstanding their most rational improvements; Except the Father draw him, not except he draws, or surely engages the Father by improvements, but there will be necessity of further inlargements on this from what follows; we see here, that instead of being engaged by promise by natural improvements, we have the contrary; he saith not because you have employed Naturals, therefore according to my promise, I will second it with grace, but contrarily notwithstanding your utmost improvements; Yet No man (be he ever so accurate in natural improvements) can come, except the Father draw him, which to do, no improvements can draw God.  
You next alleged another Scripture, Luke 13.24. Strive to enter in; but as touching this I find no absolute promise of Grace annexed, from Gods being engaged by natural improvements, therefore not as yet seeing any thing considerable therein, whereof to take notice, shall step over to what appears to be of greater moment.  
Wherein, though I conceive it sufficient to have deposed what I conceive, against the proofs whereon you ground your fifth assertion, yet I shall with great presumption on your patience, and candid construction, give my grounds for the contrary; namely, to prove that Natural men, dead, etc. have not such a power of Reason, Judgement, etc. as whereby if they will accordingly put it forth, they may do such things, as whereunto God hath by promise annexed Grace, which I conceive might be clearly made out from sundry Scriptures, whereof to Name, 2. or 3.  
One is, john. 5. verse 39 Search the Scriptures, concerning which, though the first word be usually rendered, as the Imperative Mood, Search ye as a Command given to search, yet for my part, as yet (with Submission to the judicious) I find not, how it may be read with good sense any other way, then as the Indicative Mood, ye do search; which I ground not only on my own Judgement (though I find this that the Original Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Scrutamini, may as properly be so rendered) for as I remember, 'tis the Judgement of Doctor Homes, as in his book Of new Heavens and new Earth, I have seen, though not since divers months bygone: and that it may most properly be thus rendered, may (as I conceive) be most clearly proved from the context: the occasion of all Christ's discourse, from the 19 verse of that 5. chap. seems chiefly to arise, from what's expressed in verse 18. where this is given as one reason, why they sought to kill Christ, because he had said, God was his Father, making himself equal with God, etc. Whereupon Christ all along forward, in a most convincing manner, proves the truth of that for which the Jews would needs have slain him, to which purpose telling them, God sent not Christ only to bear witness of himself, but sent his forerunner John, to bear witness, which John ye sent to yourselves, verse 33. who accordingly bave witness of me; and he was once a man in great credit with you, therefore why might not his Testimony carry it? Yea, after he had named other grounds of testimony from his Works done, and the Fathers own Testimony that sent him, he adds yet a further ground of confirmation in this 39 verse, even from their own practice, as before, in sending to know John's judgement; so here, from their own diligent inquiry into the Scriptures, ye do search, even yourselves do; the scriptures, namely the writings of the Prophets which alone were then written, as of Moses particularly insisted on.  
Again, that they did search them is clear from what follows, Moses shall accuse you, verse 45. whose Accusation shall be a sufficient witness against them without Christ's: Why? Because th●y perused his writings, and so were rendered inexcusable: yea further clear from the concluding clause of that 45. verse, In whom, (viz. Moses) ye trust, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in whom ye hope: now had they not searched diligently, and conformed to his writings, they would not have built such hope thereon; knowledge must precede confidence. Which acception supposed to be most warrantable, seems considerable towards the proof of what's affirmed. Ye search which word imports exact and accurate scrutiny, and no marvel, for therefore ye search, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because in them, ye think to have eternal life, upon this very ground they searched, and therefore with all their utmost care and diligence, as conceiving to find life in them; which Paul himself, that strict Pharisee searched so into, as that he thought, he had found life in them, but yet was dead, whiles so alive, Rom. 7, 8, 9 and they are they that testify of me, those Scriptures which ye think to have life by from the letter of them, testify of me: what? it must have reference (as I conceive) to what they sought for: namely, eternal life, they testify then that what life ye think to have in them, must be had in me, they send you from themselves to the Messia, pointed at by them, as John sent such as he baptised with water, to Christ, to be baptised with the Holy Ghost. Notwithstanding your searching, ye will not come to me that ye might have life, which proves that men's natural improvements do not engage God to give them saving faith, without which, through utmost improvements they could only look on the Scripture while pointing to a Messia, but as a covenant of works and learned by all, but to be self Justiciaries; which sanctuary of justification by works we most obviously find was the strongest one, which the profoundest wisdom of the Jews could erect, Rom. 10.8.  
Object But it may be objected, Christ in Verse 40. charges them with this, Ye will not come to have life, or in faith; doth it not hence seem that they might have power to believe or to engage God to to give faith, which power they did not put forth as they might; and that's the reason why ye believe not?  
Answ Whereto for answer, for the former supposition, that they might have power to believe, that you absolutely conclude against. For the latter, which you avouch, that they might so engage themselves in improvements as to engage God to give faith, this must as yet be denied, because here they did improve to their utmost their naturals in searching, even as for life, and yet God added not faith, which is most undeniably proved in Chap. 6. from Verse 28 to 45. Wherein, the whole discourse most inevitably demonstrates that they did as it were put all their natural powers of reason, judgement, etc. on the wrack, as is before showed by propounding questions, rational discussing them, praying for, etc. But all this did not make Christ confess, I see you have done your utmost, therefore I'll perform mine engagements to give saving faith: no, he terms their strongest reasonings but murmur, adding no promise thereunto, and therefore not engaged thereby so to do; and consequently their not improving naturals is not the reason of Gods not giving faith, which I prove plainly from Chap. 6. Verse 44. where after he had said in Chap. 40. ye will not come, that is in faith, being to life, and repeated it more plainly in Chap. 6. Verse 36. ye believe not, after their great reasoning on the matter, Christ tells them the reason of their not believing, to put an end to their murmur and dispute, murmur not, etc. think not so to prevail by your reasonings, as if God were bound thereon to give you saving knowledge, or thereby surely to attain faith: why so? 'tis added Verse 44. because God's free dispensation is the great reason, No man can come to me except the Father draw him: not, ye cannot come because of not improving naturals. Notwithstanding which, ye come not, because the father must draw, before ye can come savingly, which God is not bound to do by virtue of your improvements, still continuing a free agent in dispensing grace. No man can come, etc. No man whosoever, under which indefinite term he comprehends all howsoever qualified, or improved, concluding the ground of all men's being not able, or not having power to come to God, to be Gods not drawing them: God's suspending grace, which he may do from whom he pleases, is given as the ground of the defect of faith in every man whomsoever that wants it, therefore not the want of natural improvements, he tells them, no man can come, by which term of exclusion he debars all without exception, that are not drawn, that so these that were most inquisitive according to natural light, might not wonder at their exemption, though they had proceeded in a probable way, and course in order thereto. Non-improvement cannot (as I conceive) be a true ground of not believing, because utmost improvement cannot procure believing, and therefore is no true, or certain ground, or reason of our believing, which you make it (as I conceive) and that by making it to engage God to give faith; whereas the Fathers not drawing is given as the only reason of it, and not a want of being engaged by us: Publicans and Sinners were as capable of faith as the learned Scribes, and did as much engage God, though it be commendable for natural men to do their utmost, yea, and most hopeful, for as much as they are in God's way.  
Object Another proof is, Rom. 11.7. Israel hath not obtained grace, but did he seek for't? yes, for 'tis said, what Israel sought for he obtained not: did he not, what God required in order thereto?  
Answ For answer, what God requires, Math. 7. v. 7. fore touched on, Seek, etc. that Israel is said to have done here, in respect of the outward performance as natural men; the command, Seek, in Matthew is of the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the duty here acknowledged to be done by them, is of the compounded Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, requiro, as if they had sought with such earnestness and confidence, as one requiring or commanding, which they might justly have commanded, if by their seeking they could engage God to accept them, as according to a promise made; for God by the law of his faithfulness is bound to perform the law of his promises. Yes, the word here being the compound Verb seems to import, if it might be, greater inteation in seeking then that in Matthew, therefore elsewhere translated expeto, as Matth. 12.39. it appears ' then they sought with utmost intention, according to natural power: but whence is it they failed of their end? we shall find the ground of the difference evidently to be Gods free dispensation, and that from a double demonstration from the ground given, why others obtained grace, but the election hath obtained; what's the reason why some above others, seeing all are said to have sought for't, even by virtue of their election? which is put in opposition to such as attained not, though careful seekers alike, showing, 'tis not seeking (for he was found of them that sought him not) but God's free election, that diversified their conditions in respect of grace, who in respect of natural endeavours, sought one as well as another.  
But what's the reason the nonelection obtained not? 'tis added, the rest were blinded: how blinded? that's showed by rehearsing, a sore judgement of spiritual blindness which God poured on them, denounced in Esay 29.10. God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, etc. or God hath suspended the saving discovery of faith, without which they have only their own natural wisdom to improve, which is but as eyes, that cannot see, we find no other ground given for the clearing of the matter: which place now alleged being so plainly pertinent for expedition sake, I shall commend to your consideration for a more rational and methodical concluding thence, what's proved thereby, especially, as it may most aptly be considered in opposition to what was asserted from Matth. 7.7. for as much as we here see, there's a seeking which shall never find. But declining this, shall proceed to another proof; wherefore I might as I conceive as fitly allege that in Matth. 11.25. Christ blesses the Father, for that he hide from the wise and prudent, what was revealed to babes: what's the reason? is it because the prudent were less able, or diligent? no, that were strange; but the reason is added, even so Father. Why is it so? for it seemed good in thy sight: or thus; because it pleased thee, 'twas the good pleasure of his will; who suspending grace from men most probably capable in the eye of reason, dispended it to Babes, which were in no probable way of attaining it, thereby to honour his own freedom; nothing is said to make the difference between each party but Gods revealing, and that with infinite perfection of freedom, because 'twas agreeable to the good pleasure of his will.  
Again, Matth. 13.10. said the Disciples, Why speakest thou to them in parables? i.e. to the Jews: Christ answers, Because, to you is given to know the mysteries, and not to them. Christ uttered himself in a dark mystical way to them; because, God who is a free giver of freegrace suspended the gift of his grace, whereby to magnify his freedom; and he shows, he doth this in answer to the prophecy of Esay 6.9.10. where 'tis, Go tell them, hear ye indeed, and understand not, etc. make their hearts fat, and their ears heavy, etc. According whereto he speaks here mystically, leaving them to their own natural blindness; so that it seems clear, the ground of the difference was from God's free dispensation, ye understand they not; because to you, is given, to them not.  
Object But it may be objected, did not the Disciples improve their naturals with greater dexterity than the Jews, so as to engage God, etc.  
Answ For answer, Christ gives this as a full and pertinent answer to the question propounded, by which answer he resolves all, into the free grace of God, in giving it to some, and not to others; and whether or not the Disciples diversified themselves from the Jews in point of engaging God, by improvements, let us take the example of that Apostle Matthew, that utters this; who was so fare from improving naturals, whereby to engage Christ to call him, as that he was called sitting at the receir of custom, Mat. 9.9. Which as is generally concluded, was a very injurious oppressing office, or service; and as touching himself a general, he was a Publican, and such we most obviously find in Scripture ranked with sinners, as the most nefarious and profane; so far short of the Pharisees in point of natural improvements, as that they counted it unlawful for Christ to eat with persons so vile, so Matth. 9.11. 'Tis clear then, that in Matthew it must needs be of free gift, without reference to any engagement, upon his improvement; and if so, than whatsoever was the reason, why grace was given to Matthew, from the same ground or reason 'tis given to all the rest; for there Christ gives one reason, for, and concerning, all the Disciples at once; which reason being double, hath no respect to aught done by them, to whom 'tis given, as whereby to be engaged, no nor induced: not to aught undone by them, to whom 'tis not given.  
Object But it may be objected, from that of Matthew. 13. vers. 12. Whosoever hath, etc. This seems to have relation to some thing in the persons, but in reference to this, as likewise the next foregoing; and what may be objected against each, I shall not in the least attempt ought now; because, as I remember, the main of what may be objected against them, may be collected out of your last Exposition-exercise save one; concerning which, as likewise the last of all, I cannot but as yet much dissent from; though since that, have had no opportunity of perusal at all, though upon nearing, I could not but immediately purpose by your savour humbly to crave some satisfaction, which now shall totally decline, yea, and yet for some season.  
Yet another proof, Rom. 10.1, 2, 3. Paul there utters himself in Israel's behalf, as having his bowels ●ouled within him, for them; expressing his pitiful desires, etc. for their salvation: and what's the reason, he is so exceeding desirous of their good? it immediately follows, for I bear them record, etc. But why is he so confident of their zeal as to attest it so peremptorily? Doubtless, because he knew it in himself before conversion, as he affirms. And why not according to knowledge? for they were ignorant of God's righteousness, which is of faith: he here solemnly testifies in the behalf of Israel in general, they had a zeal of God; which must import most ardent affection in them, according to their power: but were they not sparing of their labour 〈◊〉 were they in earnest? Yea doubtless, zeal must import great ardency, as far as their natural knowledge could carry them, but not according to use knowledge: all their fault was, they had not saving knowledge, which is all he charges them with, after he had attested them, to have a zeal of God, or those zealous endeavours after righteousness, which God required; only th●● wanted the saving eye of faith, to guide their zeal, for they did endeavour also; therefore 'tis said, going about to establish, etc. They went about it, or settled to it as their work. And this was the ground of his hearts desire and prayer to God (who had already pardoned Paul's misguided zeal, in persecuting the Church) for them, as putting themselves in God's ordinary way; yet in the end of the Chapter, he shows, most of them miscarried, the reason whereof, the 8 Verse of the succeeding Chapter shows, was Gods suspending grace, as 'tis dilated on before.  
How undeniably might it be proved by the example of Paul, if time would permit, who parallel to us, had the Gospel preached as well as written in the Prophets, to improve, how rational a man was he, how strict in studying and conforming himself to the writings of the Prophets, the rule of life prescribed? so exact therein, as that he affirms himself as touching the righteousness, which was by the Law blameless, so that he was able to justify himself, after his most rational and diligent searching the Law, and inviolable observing thereof, concluding himself to be alive to the law in the letter, in respect of his own natural judgement and account, he could learn no better lesson thence, till the spirit of the Law, or by the law, slew him.  
Object But did not this his accurateness engage God to give him saving faith?  
Answ No, for the contrary is most evident; for after he had to his utmost improved himself, God gave him up to that horrible sin of persecution of the Church, for a great space, as is before showed: which should never have been done, had he been rightly qualified for faith by natural improvements: God suspends not grace from subjects meetly prepared for it; nor could God have suspended grace from him, had he by his natural improvements engaged God to give him grace thereupon: nay, is it not most manifest, as touching all his natural improvements, that by how much the more transcendent they were, they set him at a greater distance from any capableness of saving grace, being so confirmed and confident in his own righteousness so much the more, and so despising the righteousness of Christ; and therefore God smote him in such a wonderful manner in order to his conviction: and if Paul's improvement could not engage God to add grace, which is most undeniable, than neither shall any man's else, while the world stands: for as much as Paul was as arch an improver as can be imagined, which might be abundantly confirmed, but shall not dare; specially, because it would be but a superfluous labour in a thing so obvious; nor yet to enlarge further on this argument at present, though much might be, as I conceive, needfully added, to signify the dangerous conseqeunces inevitably deduceable from these assertions, which seem much to abridge or confine free grace, as dispensed on more free terms to some, then to others: as also the poison which Formalists may suck out of this, who having improved their naturals (as who not in such time of great knowledge, and countenancing of Religion?) may conclude they believe, because God is bound thereon to add it, and will perform his engagements; but I shall at present only insert this following opinion.  
Facienti quod in se est, in viribus naturalibus, Deus tenetur dare gratiam sufficientem adsalutem.  
Which, and that not long since was expressed by an able Divine, to be a main maxim of the Arminians, and how to distinguish between the importance of your fifth assertion, and this sentence, I must profess I am utterly unable.  
But afterwards you gave a distinction by way of caution: namely, that it follows not, that men have a power in them without God's assistance to believe. Wherefore you added, they have a power, but not a disposition, and that we must distinguish between having a power and an inclination; to which, I at present say one word: he that hath not a will, hath not a power, and so wants an executive power; by which I conceive you mean a power whereby to execute, which you affirm a natural man hath. That such want a power, I prove from John 6. verse 44. and 65. where 'tis expressed that a mere natural man, without the Father's drawing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non potest, hath not power; to do what? to come to life, or in faith: so that 'tis clear, as I conceive, that such want a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a power whereby to execute, for he that hath not power to will, hath not power to do, therefore God being said to do all in us, is said to work in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure, 2 Phil. 13. as if the willing an act were the all in all, requisite to produce an act▪ which want of power in man you contradicted, in affirming, All that was wanting in the Jews, or the reason of their not believing is placed in their will, ye will not come, he saith not, ye have no power, ye cannot come, which cannot come is expressly affirmed twice in John 6.44. & 65. But I must most abruptly desist further enlargement as yet, praying the LORD to prosper it for the end intended, even the propagating of truth.  
Whereto yet to add one word; if in any particular here mentioned, any assertion of yours may suffer, blame not me, but yourself; of whom I may justly say, if any such cause may be found for it. Tu te ipsum, tuis ipsis armis visisti, for that God hath communicated much of my strength, by the way of your Ministry.   

A Sermon, in Answer to the foregoing Letter, preached by Mr. J. G. April 28. 1644. taken after him exactly in Characters by M. THO. RUDYARD, a Member of his Church, and by him read over to SAMUEL LANE to Copy out, whose Copy exactly follows.  
WE desire to look back a little to one passage that was delivered the last day, for the satisfaction of some, who it seems did not clearly understand it: the tenor of the motive whereby we persuaded and pressed on men not truly converted to God, to seek for the grace of God, was this; That if they would give out themselves in good earnest in the search, and seek for it with all their hearts, they should find it, having a while insisted on the amplification and enforcement of this motive and cleared the difficulty, how and in what sense God may be said to love or be gracious to men before believing, and in what not; we came to ponder the motive, wherein we put this to consideration, of how great concernment 'twas to them to have fellowship with the Saints of God in the great business of salvation, giving them assurance, that whatsoever their sins had been, and how great soever their present guilt may be; yet, if they were but truly willing to come under the wing of Christ, not a hair of their heads should fall to the ground. In prosecution whereof, we propounded and answered this Objection.  
Object You put us in mind and hope of finding grace with God, if we will make our endeavours to obtain it, but we have little encouragement, for we are dead in sins, etc.  
Answ Which we answered by a gradation of five steps. The fifth was, That though men be dead in sins, in such a sense as was formerly explained, yet men have a light of reason, judgement, etc. by means whereof, they are able to consider of terms and means proposed, etc. though happily not able fully to comprehend them, as to debate, whether faith in Christ, or the works of the Law, or their own righteousness, be likely to carry it in God's sight, wherein they may not be able to come to any certain issue, to comprehend the difference between each, and to resolve in themselves, this is the means that will do it, and that not; or suppose they find no satisfaction in way of reason in either of those means, yet are able to work it on in a way of reason, whether there be any other way besides more likely. Now though 'tis not to be supposed, that they have power to come to such firm bottom, whereon to build without doubtings; yet they are able, and have a scale and balance of reason and judgement, whereby to weigh one reason against another, to see which is most hopeful, without all question men may go thus far; and here reinforcing the argument: we declared to such, that if they would be willing to do unfeignedly and impartially, what God hath appointed them in a way of nature to do; God hath promised success and acceptation in this way; and this was that passage by name, which it seems some could not so well understand or comprehend, fearing lest it should comply with the Arminian tenant, in point of ; or that I should magnify natural abilities above the line of excellency belonging to it. If they will but please to consider for the clearing of the whole business but two arguments, you will clearly see that there is an absolute necessity for maintaining such an assertion for a truth, as this is; namely, that if natural men will put forth themselves to the utmost to what they are able to do to comply with God in the Gospel they shall find an answerable success, and that there is an absolute necessity to maintain it for a truth; for otherwise, we shall expose the truth of God, the covenant of grace, the do●t●i●e of freegrace, which we profess to maintain, we shall expose both the one and the other to an inexpiable and unanswerable reproach & dishonour; and such indeed, as cannot be redeemed by any reason or distinction; or project one or other, that men are able to devise for the relief of it; for that on this 'twill follow, that the assertion we speak of, that men putting forth themselves according to what God hath in●bled them to do in a way of nature, that God will meet them with grace and acceptation, if the former be clearly proved, than this will follow upon it, that this hath no consistence with the opinion of , but doth indeed entrench on the best foundation that that opinion stands upon. We know 'twas an order Christ gave for men to deal between Caesar and God, Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God, etc. And indeed no man can give to God the things that are Gods, except he give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and that because this is one of God's things, even our subjection to the lawful governor set over us by God, in things lawful; and man's foot may soon slide here, even on a pretence of giving all to God liberally, to take away from him by far more than we give; and then we give only in conceit, and take away from him in reality: for the like order here is to be observed by us, in making distribution, between Nature God's Handmaid, and creature, and God himself: We must give to Nature the things that are Natures, as to God the things that are Gods: and as in the other case, so here 'tis most true, That when men think to be most bountiful to God, and take away all from Nature, and cast all on God; men may here dash their foot, and and take away from God while thinking to give him. A man may so fare oppress Nature for God's cause, till he leave not so much to Nature as to bear the charge of its own condemnation; and than if men leave not to Nature sufficient to bring the guilt on it of its own condemnation, than it must necessarily reflect upon God. But if we will consider two Arguments in general, we shall see that the assertion mentioned, that if men do what is in their power, etc. they shall find acceptation with God, must be maintained. Consider this reason, if men must labour for the bread which endures to everlasting life, which Christ is said to give them, and he not give it, than God of necessity must destroy men for not doing that, which is altogether out of their power to do: for, as for actual believing, 'tis a work so fare out of the power of the creature, as that it requires God's power Omnipotent to effect. Now to say God should destroy his creature for want of such an action, as cannot be done by any power inferior to Gods own, which is infinite; this is so hard a saying, and so contrary, and rises up with that fiery contestation against what the Scripture delivers concerning the graciousness of the covenant of God, and mercy by Jesus Christ; yea, it so rises up against all reason & all principles of common sense, that there is no Oil that will mollify it, no reason, nor argument, nor consideration, that is able to make atonement for it, or to reconcile it with any of these, either with any expression in Scripture concerning the tenor of the grace of God towards the world, nor otherwise with the principles of reason and common sense: 'twere as good reason to say, that God destroys the creature for not being God, or for not making another Heaven and Earth like to these he hath made, as to say, he destroyeth them for not doing that which they have no more power to do, than they have to make themselves God, or an Heaven and Earth.  
Neither will it at all here avail to say, that men had power in Adam, while as yet in the state of Innocency, then to believe in Jesus Christ; this will not all ease the business; as if God might in a way of justice, equity, and righteousness, condemn men for not doing that which sometimes they had power to do, namely, in their first Parents though now they have not.  
I answer, 'twill not at all ease the business. First, because 'tis not a truth. Secondly, though it were, yet it would not salve the sore.  
First, that men never had power in Adam to believe in Jesus Christ, especially to justification, may evidently appear by these reasons: that which Adam and himself never had in the state of Innocency, that certainly his posterity could never have: but certain 'tis, that Adam himself had never such power of believing in Christ in innocency, neither therefore can his posterity be supposed to have such a power.  
Now that he had no such power, is evident hence, because there was no necessity, use, or occasion of such a power as this to have been given to Adam in that state; we all know and look on God as the most wise Agent, that ever acted: now 'tis inconsistent with his wisdom and dispensation, that he should create such an excellent power as this of believing is, when there was no necessity nor use thereof. That there was no occasion thereof is evident, because during the time of innocency, he was in a state of righteousness and justification on other terms, and in another way, so that he had no necessity of a power to believe to justification: because as Paul saith, Gal. 2. If righteousness be by the law, than Christ died in vain: so it had been in vain, Adam being under a righteousness by the Law, then for him to believe that Jesus Christ was dead or alive for his justification. What's the reason man had no wings put upon him in the time of innocency, but only that he was well enough in that state; for this is reason enough to prove that Adam had no such power of believing, because well enough without, even in a state of righteousness.  
Secondly, if Adam during his innocency had a power to believe, either for his own, or for any of his posterity their justification and salvation, than he had a power also to foresee his fall; because justification presupposes sin, because 'tis from sin, and consequently a power to believe, presupposeth a sight and a sense of sin: but that he had no such principle in him, whereby to foresee his fall in time of innocency, is evident hence; because had he had a power for to foresee his fall before he fell; then he had a power or principle out of which he might have been made miserable, before he sinned; because it cannot be imagined, but that the foresight of his sin and fall, and posterity with him, and the whole world, that should come out of his loins would have been a very tormenting consideration to him: and therefore it being altogether against the righteousness of God, that man should be miserable before he sinned; hence 'tis clear he had no power then to believe in Christ, because not able to foresee his fall.  
Thirdly, if Adam in innocency had power to believe in Christ, then had he a power to foresee the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ; because none can have a power to believe in Christ savingly but on knowledge of these: now if Adam had a power to belive, etc. It must be supposed he had such a knowledge of Christ's Incarnation, etc. but that he had nor the least whispering of this great Mystery concerning Christ during his innocency, is evident, as from other Scriptures, so especially from that 2 Cor. 2.8, 9 Now certainly if there were any of the deep things of God that were of the deepest mystery, that of Christ's Incarnation was the most deep of all things deep, out of the sphere of the minds of Men and Angels; therefore 'tis certain Adam had no knowledge of this mystery till after his fall. But another Objection.  
Object He had a power to believe in Christ, had this mystery been revealed to him in his innocency, though he had not such a power actually to put it forth, yet had not he such a principle, that had it been revealed, he had been enabled by a principle within him to have believed.  
Answ To say that Adam had any power to believe any thing, but what was some way necessary and sitting for him to believe, whether revealed or not, this reflects on the wisdom of God.  
Now first, that it was not necessary for him to believe in Christ, was touched before, being in a state of justification, so that it had been impertinent; but had it befitted him, then certainly such a revealing should not have been with held by God; 'tis not to be believed that any thing should have been denied Adam especially in point of knowledge, to hinder him from acting any thing convenient for him to do; and therefore doubtless there was no such power in Adam to believe in Christ, no nor on this supposition, That Christ had been revealed to him on that condition.  
Fourthly, this is a demonstrative Argument to prove that Adam in innocency had no power to believe in Jesus Christ, because than Christ was not given as a covenant to mankind, and till Christ be declared as God's covenant for justification, for Adam to have believed in him for justification; this had been so far from being a likely means to justify, that it had been a presumption, and more likely to have condemned him: for as it is with the world since the covenant of Christ hath been revealed; as it would be a very high and fearful presumption for any man to wave this covenant, and to betake themselves to the Law's righteousness, or the first covenant; so on the contrary, during the state of innocency, it had been like presumption for Adam, to have deserted that covenant of works the righteousness of the Law, the only covenant then for justification, and to have raised up another covenant, which he knew nothing of the mind of God, whether believing on him should be justification or no.  
Secondly, suppose it granted, that Adam had such a power as we speak of, yet this will not heal the offensiveness● of that opinion against which we argue; namely, That God destroys man for not doing that, which requires an infinite strength to perform. For first, we know God hath made a new covenant of life with man since the transgression and breach of that covenant, wherein Adam, and consequently all his posterity stood in him, when that power of believing is supposed to have been in him. Now for God to deprive man of the benefit and blessing of that new covenant, and to dash him as it were in pieces upon the pikes of the old, merely for a misprision or sin committed against the other, and that such an one which was impossible for the creature to remedy or redeem himself from; this is such a saying as is wholly inconsistent and destructive to the very nature and essence of the covenant of grace, as for instance. A Noble Family is attainted with High Treason against the Prince, whereby they are at his mercy for life, liberty, honour, and in this case the Prince professes much love to them, and tenderness, and that he is far from taking advantage against them, he hath no desire to destroy this Family, yet nevertheless he will not discharge them of the attainture, but only upon such and such terms; now if they were such terms that neither the Family nor other for them could procure, and yet the Prince professes great care and tenderness, etc. Can any man look on such proceed as any way gracious: nay, will it not rather expose such a Prince to the harder thoughts of men, and had he not better have made use of an advantage against them, saying they have so and so behaved themselves against him; and he will take the advantage then thus to profess love, and that he desires not to take advantage, if they will be redeemed on such and such terms, which yet are impossible for them to perform: as to demand of them to catch all the fishes in the sea, and all the fowls of the air, and make a present of them to him; alas all the world will easily see, here is not the least touch of any such gracious disposition in him, what ever he pretends. So those that will make the saving terms of the Gospel so hard and impossible to be performed by men, that though they should strive, and endeavour, and rise to the utmost pitch of all that they are able to perform; yet they that say they may do all these and yet God no way accept of them, nor they never the nearer the grace and favour of God, doubtless they represent this new covenant of grace and mercy which God hath made with the world, with as much disadvantage and reproach, as those terms which we speak of, of the Prince would be.  
If I were of the judgement of Arminius about the point of , and were to debate the point before men any whit ingenious. I would desire no greater advantage against him that is mine Adversary, be he who he will, if he would maintain his judgement in a way of opposition to me thus, That let men do their utmost all their lives, yet they are never the nearer, nor have the more assurance of grace and favour; howsoever happily I should be never the nearer any demonstrative proof, yet I could have this advantage, to put my opinion into a dress ten times more plausible and consistent with the understanding of reasonable men, than that opinion with all the colours or arguments that may be put upon it.  
Secondly, that power in Adam to believe (supposing 'twere granted he had such) can be no sufficient ground to justify God in point of equity in the condemnation of them that do their utmost that they are able, because Justice and Equity stands in a Geometrical & not Arithmetical proportion, as for instance. We know our Saviour saith, the Widow that cast in her two Mites, cast in more than all, who yet are said to cast in great sums, and matters of great value, because they cast in out of their superfluity, but she casting in two Mites, cast in all her substance: how cast she in more than they all? that is in a Geometrical proportion; that is, more in consideration, all things considered; that is, more for her to cast in, than those great sums for men of estate to cast in; more for commendation, not more absolutely and simply. So the Parable of the Talon, Matth. 25.22. the Master putting forth his Talents to his Servants, gave the same commendation to the Servant that gained but two Talents, as to him that gained five; and the reason was Geometrical; there was as much reason why he that had but two Talents to gain withal, should be commended for gaining two more, as he that had fire for gaining other five; because there was as much diligence required in him to gain two Talents more, as for the other to make five more by way of increase: and the general rule in Scripture in such cases as these and the like is, that where much is given, much is required, where little given, little required, where nothing at all given, nothing at all required: so that God accepts a man according to what he hath, and not what he hath not. Now suppose it granted, that Adam, and in him all his posterity during the time of Innocency, had a power to have believed in Christ; yet in a Geometrical consideration of justice and equity it may be more for a man now, though he hath not the like power of believing in Christ, yet to do the utmost that he is able towards believing; this may be of more value and consideration in the sight of God, than the putting forth an act of believing in Christ, where such a power was.  
Alas, granting a power in Adam in innocency to have believed, his believing had been but like the casting in of the rich men, he had done it out of his abundance; but for men in their lapsed condition under the pressure of so many indispositions, yet notwithstanding to give out the utmost of their strength and power to believe, and that by conflicting with encumbrances; this had been more inconsideration, than a believing rightdown in Adam: and so we have the first reason; if God should destroy men after doing all that is in their power to do, he should destroy them for not doing a work peculiar to his own Arme.  
Another reason in a word; if men may put forth themselves in their utmost power to close with God in the Gospel, and yet not find grace with him, so far as to be endued with strength from on high to believe, than a man may everlastingly be destroyed of God, for want of an executive power, or of a principle or power whereby to act, without any miscarriage or sinfulness at all in the will; whereas the Scripture from place to place, placeth the cause of the equity of God's proceed in condemnation still upon the will of man, or on some corruptions found therein, or on the frowardness, perverseness, and pride in the will, Luke 13.34. Oh Jerusalem, etc. thou wouldst not; 'tis not cast on any impotency in them, not upon any want of power, but the cause is in the depravation of their will.  
john 5.40. Ye will not come, etc. He charges not the Jews with not having power, but they had no will or mind to do it, they stood off in fiery opposition against believing in Christ, and coming to him for justification.  
So Acts 7.51. A stiffnecked generation, ye have always resisted the Holy Ghost: now how did they resist the Holy Ghost which he charged as the main article of their condemnation; they resist not by any defectiveness of power, but by frowardness and desperateness of will, and resolution in that kind.  
Jer. 8.12. and again Jur. 44. We will walk after our own devices, etc. This shows God's judgement on them was from the frowardness of their will; so, Why will ye die O ye house of Israel.  
Esay 44.17. But we will do, etc. And Christ saith, The works of your Father ye will do: ye shall still see that the partition-wall arising between the creature and his peace and acceptation with God, still lies in the crookedness and perverseness of the heart and will.  
Object But wherein differs this Tenent you maintain from that Arminian Tenent of , or how will you answer those Scriptures, denying a power to come to Christ. John 6.44. No man can come, etc. Again verse 65. No man can come, etc. John 12.39. Therefore ye do not believe because Esay prophesied, etc.  
Answ To the former I answer; That the Arminian opinion of  doth not only differ, and that all the Heaven over, from the one end to the other, from all that hath been asserted but it opposes it, and that in two particulars of main consequence.  
For first of all, that places not only a sufficiency of executive power in a man, to do all things in a saving manner towards his believing, but likewise a sufficiency of power in the will, whereby man by the ordinary concurrence of God's providence may draw out that power to the utmost of it.  
That opinion of  doth not assert a sufficiency of executive power to do such things unto which grace is annexed by promise, but they place that whole in such a power in the will, which is able to produce this executive power into action, and that to the utmost.  
Secondly, it not only places an executive and willing power to do what they conceive requisite on man's part towards believing in Christ, but further places such a power in man in both kinds, as without any supernatural assistance, is able to produce a saving act of faith in the soul.  
Now the thing asserted clearly denies both these. For first though it affirms a sufficiency of power for such things as are requisite on man's part, so far to proceed and meet with grace and acceptation, yet nevertheless it denies any such power in the will to produce this executive power into act.  
Secondly, it places neither one kind of power or other, whereby the creature is enable without a supernatural assistance from God, to raise any saving act in the soul; so that here are too main and most considerable differences between the one and the other.  
But what difference make we, between that we call an executive power and willing power, or a principle in man to draw out that other power.  
The difference between these is not hard at all to conceive, because in ordinary discourse we use to make such a distinction between a man's power to do such a thing, and his willingness and inclination. There are many rich men that have power and ability to contribute largely to the public cause of the Kingdom, yet nevertheless are far from acting that power, because they have that malignancy in their will, and gainsayingnesse against that action, that that executive power doth them little service in this kind, towards the safety of the State.  
Prov. 17.16. Why is there a price in the hand of a fool, and no heart to improve it: what's that price, 'tis the opportunity or executive power to do such a thing whereby he might interest himself in the grace of God; and what's the heart he wants, nothing else but an inclination or gracious and holy disposition in the will to give that price; that is, to act those things which he hath a power in his hand to do: so likewise a carnal covetous, voluptuous man, hath an executive power to forego his sensual courses and set up religious duties in his family, and to attend the means of grace as diligently as any; but what hinders them that they are never the nearer doing, even because there is a malignancy and averseness in their will against such purposes.  
Object Do not those whom we call Arminians, hold and maintain, that covetous and voluptuous persons have a disposition and inclination in their will to abandon and leave those courses wherein they are engaged, and frame themselves to better: this seems so unreasonable, that we cannot conceive that they should have an an inclination in their will to relinquish them, and turn to the contrary.  
Answ For answer, 'tis true, they do not maintain, that such persons whiles living in such courses, have the bent, and frame, or disposition of their will standing so, as to abandon the one and take up the other; but they hold, that notwithstanding the present bent of their wills to the contrary, yet that they have a sufficiency of power in themselves, as of knowledge, understanding, etc. to unbend their will from such their courses, and to implant inclinations in themselves to the contrary: there is no such inclination in their hearts to evil, but that there is a sufficiency of power in every kind to unbend their wills from that wherein they now stand; and so to destroy that disposition in them, and plant their wills with other inclinations, such as are meet to comply with spiritual and holy things. Whereas the opinion pleaded for, acknowledges no such power in men, whereby the will being desperately evil, should be able without any extraordinary hand of God to turn head on itself, and to slay those sinful propensions now reigning, and to set up the contrary.  
Object But what shall we say to the Scripture last mentioned, which seems to place the cause of men's perishing in a defectiveness of power, and not in any weakness in their will?  
Answ For what Christ speaks in that John 6.44. No man can come, etc. The meaning is, no man hath or can have any such principle of desire, or any such inclination wrought in him, which will so far carry and prevail with him to put forth himself in any such way, or hold on in any such course, wherein God hath determined and promised to meet men with his grace, except it be given him from on high; except my Father, etc. interpose with some greater power then ordinary, no man can come to me, no man hath any foresight of any complete power of coming to me, except my Father interpose in it; for that is one thing would be taken special notice of, that there may be said to be a double power in a man in reference to such and such effects.  
The first we may call a perfect and complete power; that is, such a power that hath all things as it were by it to reduce itself into act; that we call a complete and perfect power of the will: the other is an incomplete and imperfect power; which is this: that though there be a sufficiency of power in relation to such an effect in one kind, yet nevertheless there is a defectiveness of power in another kind, and this is called a power to do a thing, because there is a sufficiency of power to do the thing in one kind, yet nevertheless called a defective incomplete power, because it hath not all things at hand, which are requisite to reduce it into act. As for example, when a man hath a large estate, he hath wherewith to live generously, but yet this is but an incomplete power, if he hath no other; for 'tis not a fullness of estate that will help him to do it; if he hath a penurious disposition in him: alas he is never the nearer to such a complete life: but if together with a full estate, he hath an ingenuous disposition; now there is a complete and perfect power in a man to live freely; and so we know there are many such expressions in Scripture.  
If thou wilt thou canst make me clean: now there is a plain difference between Christ's will and power: and 'tis very considerable that the Scripture itself uses both kind of expressions, speaking both ways; sometimes giving the n●me of power to a mere executive power, when as there is no will in conjunction to reduce to act, And again, another while there is not a will suitable to an executive power, he denies the very name of a power to him, and this it doth both speaking of God and Man.  
Matth. 3. vers. 9 God is able of these stones to raise up children: here john asserts a power to God to raise up etc. But yet there was no will in God to do it. Again, when there is not a willingness in God to do a thing, there the Scripture denies so much as a power to him: as 'tis said of Christ, he could do no great works there, because of their unbelief. Now there was an executive power in Christ, rich and full; whereby to have wrought any great miracle there; but because he had no will, therefore 'tis said he had not power, meaning no completeness of power, which requires a sufficiency of executive power, and a sufficiency of will and inclination to put that power into act. And so we see the like expressions used, when the Scripture speaks of men, sometime it calls that by the name of power to do a thing, which is only an executive power. Gen. 13.29. 'tis in the power of mine hand to do thee hurt, that is, a sufficiency of strength. Prov. 3.17. Have not I power to eat and drink, etc. that is, we are provided with an executive power.  
But in other places we shall see where there is a sufficiency of power in this kind the Holy Ghost denies a sufficiency of power. John 1.3, 9 Cannot sin. Now he that is most born of God and deepest baptised in the Spirit of Grace and holiness, hath an executive power to commit sin as well as any; but because he hath no disposition thereto, therefore the Scripture denies he hath power to do it, he hath no complete power to reduce that power into act.  
2 Cor. 13.8. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for it; they had an executive power to have uttered words of excommunication, but we can do nothing, etc. That is, his will was averse from making any such use of his power, thereby to act any thing that might hinder the couse of the Gospel.  
Numb. 22.38. Said Balaam, Have I any power to do any thing; that is, have I any will or any ground or reason, to be willing to say any evil which thou wouldst have me: for otherwise he had power enough to pronounce any curse; any evil speaking against God's children, but no ground or reason to incline him.  
And so we see in the close of all, in what consideration the assertion laid down is necessary to be maintained; without maintaining whereof, we shall represent Gods proceed in the Covenant of grace; as a most unreasonable and hard saying; as such a Covenant that hath neither truth, nor grace, nor uprightness in it; but that men should be destroyed without any malignancy at all in their wills, merely for a bare impotency or want of power in them, to do that which is out of their power to do.  
'Twas the saying of Augustine long since, take away men's wills and take away Hell and all; so that it must be some sin committed against this second Covenant of grace after the breach of the first, which must dash men in pieces upon the point of their will. Now there can be nothing that hath the nature of sin in it, but that which hath the influence and concurrence of the will in it. Many other things relating hereto have been spoken of in a dispute lately.  
Now the use of what hath been spoken is this; That since 'tis so easy to expose the ways of God, and his proceed in ways of condemnation, to the reproaches and calumnies of those that are enemies to the truth, by hard, uncouth, and unwarrantable expressions; though perhaps for the substance of the thing, that which is said and asserted, is no more but the truth; we should be very careful to study all manner of expressions, and consult with all manner of Scriptures, if any thing may any way mollify as it were, that in the proceed of God, which is apt to seem grievous and harsh in the eyes of flesh and blood.  
And if so be we cannot come to express ourselves, but that still we shall leave the business very hard and obnoxious to the Adversary, we shall rather excuse ourselves after some such manner as this is, that God hath not given us that ability of utterance and expressions, and that we conceive the business better in our minds, than we are able to give account of to others, but we shall mightily disadvantage the truth, and cause the enemies to lift up their Horn on high, if so be we shall maintain or profess any truth of God in any such ●ea● me, and hard and gift vou● expressions, as make an unacceptable found in the ears of men.  
Doubtless the Scriptures, if so be God would but acc●●●● 〈◊〉 with those that are proper for such an occasion and service as this is, it speaks of all the ways and deal of God with men, even those that seem so hard to flesh and blood, so as to stop the mouths of all Adversaries, that are ready to take advantage from them, and cry out against the truth; and therefore they that desire to stand up in the cause of God, and to plead the truth of God, they must be careful, and take pains how to express themselves in such points, except they be able some way to qualify and soften the hardness of it; otherwise they shall disadvantage more than advantage it.  

A second Copy of which Sermon commended by SAM. LAN● to the perusal of Mr. LAURENCE STEEL, is thus subscribed: I have perused it over, and find nothing contrary to my own Copy.  
A third Copy also is subscribed by Mr. JOHN WEEKS thus▪ Sir, I have perused this Copy, I find it to be the same with 〈◊〉 for the mains, only it is taken more largely.    

The Second Letter to Mr. J. G. In Reply to the SERMON.  
Much respected Sir,  
UPon failing in my expectation, of your perusing that Copy of your Sermon, preached April 28. 1644. being the Sabbath next after my giving you in two Sheets of writing (which Copy I left at your house the night before your journeying, about May 15.) I since have commended Copies thereof to the strict view of some of your known hearers and writers; who upon comparing it with their Notes, find it exactly to agree with what you delivered: which the rather I took care to do, because (as I signified in my Note left for you, with that Copy the night forementioned) I found by the mere reading, and writing that Copy (which alone I had then done) that 'twas mainly intended by way of answer to the Objections in those two sheets presented; and upon further perusal, I find you intent it for a full and perfect answer: wherein you give two Arguments, which you affirm, are for the clearing of the whole business, being for vindication of your fifth assertion opposed, and afterwards you endeavour to clear it from the opinion of , and that because 'tis charged there to be the same with a main maxim of the Arminians there expressed, yea, I can conclude no less from your very next Sermon following, preached May 5. wherein, without the least intimation of any Objections behind not cleared. You intimated your clearing the matter from all Objections, and thereupon proceeded to new matter; and that notwithstanding the Friday b●fore; being May 3. upon my speech with you about those Objections, you informed me, that in perusal you were much straitened in time, and thereupon, at my desire, you seemed to promise further consideration.  
And for as much as I find, that mine end in that discourse given you in being wholly for the truth's advantage, instead of being accomplished is perverted, in that you have thence taken occasion after a grievous manner to defame that truth, which is there grounded on sundry Scriptures against your error: I count 〈◊〉 meet to wards the attaining that first end, to endeavour the ●●●●●cation thereof against all aspersions cast upon it; else will my former endeavour continue very injurious to that truth, which it was intended to advantage.  
Wherein, before my vindicating the main matter, I cannot but take notice of one passage; that whereas upon your inlargements about your fifth Assertion, you gave such an exposition upon Ephes. 2.5. Dead in sins, etc. as is at large proved contradictory to evident reason: yet about the beginning of that clearing Sermon, you rehint the same, in these words [Dead in sins, etc. in such a sense, as was formerly explained,] and that without the least title for its vindication.  
Another thing to be observed, is your expression touching your fifth Assertion, which you say in the beginning of that Sermon, is [one passage which it seems some did not so clearly understand] and afterwards [which some could not so well understand or comprehend;] by which you make the ground of all the Controversy, to be a misunderstanding; whereas you repeat the same in these very expressions wherein 'twas opposed, as namely, thus.  
That if men will be willing to do unfeignedly what God hath appointed them in a way of nature, God hath promised success and acceptation in this way: yea, soon after recited thus, Men putting forth themselves to do according to what God hath enabled them to do in a way of nature, God will meet them with grace and acceptation. Yea, most plainly reitrerated in your after showing the difference between this, and the opinion of , in these words. Their opinion asserts not a sufficiency of executive power to do such things as whereto grace is annexed by promise. By which you diversify your opinion from theirs, clearly showing, that Your opinion asserts a power to do such things, as whereto grace is annexed by promise, which are the very terms opposed; now it is hard to conceive, how I should mis-understand, in opposing your expressions so often given: whereof you give one various expression; namely, That if men do their utmost, etc. they shall have answerable success: which expression directly overthrows your Tenent, That man may so do, as to engage God to give grace; for if upon improvement God gives answerable success, then certainly he gives not saving-grace; for there is an infinite disproportion and unanswerableness between man's natural improvement, and Gods superadding supernatur all grace: such shall have answerable success; namely, in respect of natural endowments, they shall have the use of their naturals continued, augmented, and shall not be given up to vile affections, which Rom. 1.26. is the punishment of abusers of naturals, but this is far short of saving-grace, which you make to be but success answerable. Having therefore received abundant confirmation that I no way misunderstood the error, I shall now take boldness to proceed; wherein, as God shall assist me, I shall endeavour to sound the depths of those two grand clearing Arguments, supposing, that if God shall enable me to level those Mountains lying in the way of mine assertion alleged against your error, there will need no further atonement for that which you make utterly incurable by any mediation of reason, consideration, distinction, project, etc. one or other: Towards vindication of which mine assertion, (namely, That men naturally have not power to do such things, as whereto God hath promised grace;) I conceive it very meet here to premise a very pertinent Observation, which I received from yourself, in a Sermon preached June 12.1639. at Caple; on John 20.31. wherein, when you came to answer Objections, you premised this consideration, When men have a truth well grounded on Scripture, though they should meet with a thousand objections, which they could not answer, yet they must not therefore cast away the truth, if they can see it through them all, because it is easier to obscure and shadow many truths by objections, then to clear one truth from all objections. Seeing therefore the tenant to be vindicated, hath been bottomed on many Arguments from Scripture, I may not in the least question that truth, till those Scripture-grounds be destroyed, and whether you do not rather shadow a truth then oppose an error, in that you destroy not one Argument of many, though from Scripture, but only produce two remote Arguments to prove the necessity of your error, this I commend to any impartial trial: as also whether two Arguments alleged, to arraign and condemn the equity and righteousness of God's proceed according to his Word (though not to all cross reasonings) be sufficient to destroy the truth of his Word.  
Which being premised, I shall in God's Name make 〈…〉 against those two Arguments, at least, as they oppose the 〈◊〉 pleaded for.  
First then, for the first reason; If men must labour, etc. Then God must destroy man for not doing that which is altogether 〈◊〉 of his power to do: which consequence you count most absurd, senseless, etc.  
Touching which consequence so exploded, That God destroys, etc. that this is fully agreeable with God's justice, grace; etc. which you say, it so opposeth, I shall prove clearly from your 〈◊〉 words in your second reason following, viz.  
That the Scripture placeth the cause of the equity of God's proceed in condemnation still upon man's will, or on some corrupt●●, frowardness, or perverseness found therein.  
Whence it thus follows; if it be equity in God no condg●●● man for the sinfulness of his will, than God may in equity condemn man for not doing that which is altogether out of his power to do; but the former you hold and prove true from Scriptures the latter therefore, that God may in equity condemn man, for not doing that which is altogether out of his power to do, inevitably follows, because to purify or rectify man's will, is altogether out of man's power to do; which thing you peremptorily aff●●● against the tenant of : so then, that God destroys men for not doing that, which is altogether beyond their power to do (which here you make so absure, unjust, etc.) this is a direct consequent upon your own ensuing reason; yea, this very reason proves, that Gods destroying man to, is an act of justice and equity.  
Object But yet you further objected in discourse, That God destroys man, not so much for not willing savingly, as for the obstinacy of his natural will.  
Answ For answer whereto; first, this distinction between 〈◊〉 wi●●i●g savingly, and obstinacy of will, on which you ground the Objection, is of no force at all: for he that wils not savingly, is obstinate in his will: so Rom. 8.7. The carnal minds, or the minding of the flesh, is enmity against God: which term flesbly wind, being there opposed to the spiritual minds, takes in every mind that is not spiritual; yea, it includes the will, being a chiefe part of the mind: and so every natural will without exception, is en●●●y, or obstinacy & perverseness, all which, the term enmity imports; so then God destroying man for not willing savingly, doth destroy for obstinacy of will.  
Or secondly, wh●ther God destroy for enmity of mind, and so of will, or whether for not willing savingly, or according to the expression in that Text, for not subjecting itself to the Law of God; still he destroys man for not doing that, which is altogether out of his power to do, which is clear from the end of that seventh Verse; where the reason of the minds, and therein of the wills obstinacy, and of it's not becoming subject to God's law is added, in these words, because it cannot, or because it hath not power, namely to become subject, or to subject itself to God's Law: It must therefore be concluded, that God destroying man upon any of your terms, whether for not willing savingly, or for obstinacy, perverseness, etc. doth destroy man for not doing that which is altogether out of his power to do; and consequently, that according to your own grounds, you inevitably plunge yourself into that very pit of absurdity, which you digged; yea, into such an Abyss, as whereout you conclude, No mediation of reason, project, etc. can redeem: yea, by your very terms, the justice and equity of God, in such a destroying of man, is undeniably confirmed: By which reasons, striking so directly the root of your first Argument, I conceive 'tis clearly removed: nevertheless because there are such strong holds raised to stand by it, I shall according to what power God shall vouchsafe me, assault those also.  
Wherein, for those high aspersions cast upon the consequent of that opinion, which opposeth yours, which you make so contrary to the tenor, truth of the Gospel, etc. comparing these with what you say after in the conclusion, that [perhapse for the substance of it, 'tis no more than the truth] which you give as your final sentence passed upon the same opinion, I cannot but judge that here you little thought what you should speak after, and at the conclusion, you quite forgot what you had said before. But that such a saying rises up with such contradiction against God's justice, grace, etc. as no principles of reason, common sense, etc. can reconcile, etc. this shall, yea must be granted you, yet all so far from the least disparaging its truth, as that it shal● have meat out of this eater: for could the heights and depths of God's justice in ways of condemnation be compassed about by the reason and comprehensions of men, yea or Angels, they could not be themselves incomprehensible, whose judgements are past finding out; therefore to say they are without the line or sphere of the largest created understanding, is to give them their due valuation: whereas, to say that cannot be justice in God, which no reason can reach, this is to make his justice comprehensible, and that we must believe nothing of God's ways above our reason.  
And whereas you affirm, ●t were as good reason to say, God destroys man for not being God, etc. as for not believing, because man can no more do the one, than the other, etc.  
First if it be granted, that man hath no more power to believe, then to become God, etc. it follows not therefore, that us as good reason to destroy man for not being God, or for not creating, as for not believing; for in Adam (in whom you after-say, all his posterity stood) man, in order to his perfect happiness, had a power to perform what ever might have been by God commanded (for without such a power mankind, in Adam, could not have had power to stand happy, but had at best been siable to misery, by disobedience, and that through impotency seeing therefore, that while he could have stood in a state of life, he prophanly changed it for a state of death, with most reason might God require him, to do as much for recovering his happiness, after lost by his own transgression, as before for continuing it, and so may require any act from him (whether faith or any other) who was at first created with a power correspondent; but contrarily, man never had power to be God, nor to create, etc. Therefore 'tis not a like reasonable, to require him to become God, for his recovery, as to believe. Again, 'tis denied, that man hath no more power at all to believe, then to make himself God, etc. For there is such a power in man as may be made a meet subject to receive, and close with God's work of faith; but man is not made a subject capable of the Godhead, nor of the supremacy of creation.  
Next then, to proceed to the chief question, whether Adam in innocency had a power of believing, or not. Touching which controversy it seems most necessary to consider strictly, what 'twas for him to have such a power, or wherein it truly consists, that we confound not ourselves by compounding it with some other thing; because if we consider not what 'tis simply in it felt, we may conceive it not to be, where 'tis; because some other power or thing, taken, or indeed mistaken for it, may not be there also: Concerning which, a power of believing (according to your own definition) may be said to be that, whereby the soul is enabled cordially to assent to, or entirely to close, with what God shall reveal to be believed. Which cordial assenting you expound to be an act which the whole heart closeth with, even the understanding, will, and affections, as in your Sermon forementioned, preached at Caple, o● John 20.31. Which act of closing, whether it may be taken in, without an act of recumbency, which you then understood to be immediately, and as it were inseparably following, or else, as essentially comprehending an act of recumbency; this needs not be questioned here, both agreeing in this, that a power of believing is a power of entire closing with things revealed, and whether only to be closed with, as true, or with relying also, this rather concerns the manner of propounding or revealing, though to follow your definition would be greater advantage to me; which laid down, may be very useful towards the matter in doubt.  
As first, for your first reason against Adam having such a power, because no necessity thereof, etc. suppose it granted, that he had no need to believe; yet this proves not his not having a power, for the use or need of a power given not essence to it, nor is it the essence thereof; there may be a power to do where no need is, else a man hath not power to do any thing whereof he hath not, need; as not a power to walk, speak, etc. because no need: whereas a man hath power to do thousands of acts needless, and God hath a power to raise of stones children unto Abraham, though it be a needless work. So that power is here misunderstood in making power and need to believe, which are two evidently distinct things to be in one individual.  
But secondly, by way of exception against your Argument, that because he needed not to believe to justification, therefore he needed not a power to believe. This consequence may be denied thus.  
If there may be need and use of believing this mystery, in or among such as have no need, nor use thereof unto justification; then Adam's not having need or use of believing to justification, cannot prove his not needing to have believed at all. But the former is true, witness the Angel Gabriel, Luke. 1.26. Who having no need, nor use of believing to justification, had yet need and use thereof for the testifying the truth of this mystery, which he could not have done without a true believing it himself. The like might be proved from that company of Angels solemnising CHRIST'S birth, with a song so befitting it, Luke 2.15. The litter therefore plainly follows, that Adam's not having need to believe this mystery unto justification, cannot prove that he could not have need to have believed for some other end.  
Yea thirdly, and that partly by way of concession, and partly by way of exception, if it be granted, that Adam needed not to have believed this mystery to justification, nor for any other end; yet this proves not that he needed not a power to have believed this mystery: because such a power so excellent might be needful and useful to the producing of other acts needful, though altogether useless for this; and that it was needful so, appears from the next particular.  
Therefore in the fourth place, the thing to be proved is, that he had both need and use of such a power for other ends; that, what you say against God's Wisdom, in giving man such a power, may thereby be overthrown; and that he needed such a power, I prove from this your own Argument alleged to evince the contrary, and that thus: Adam standing righteous by the Law of works (which is your Argument) that he might so do, could not but need a power of true closing with the righteousness, holiness, etc. of God, in every work or command required; for without a right apprehending and acknowledging the excellencies of God, in his commands, he could not have rightly obeyed God in any one command: whence it follows, that in having need of a power of closing with the holiness, etc. of God in any command, he therein had need of a power of closing with the truth, and faithfulness of God in any promise, whether of Christ, or any other; because the selfsame power would necessarily have enabled him to each of those acts alike; for it had been impossible for Adam to have had a power to have acknowledged God in his holiness, and not by the same to close with his truth and faithfulness; both which go together so inseparably, as that we find God himself most frequently ratifying the promulgation o● great promises by the Prophets, by declaring himself the holy One, Thus saith the Lord the holy one of Israel, clearly intimating, that the true apprehending of God's holiness is such a prevailing argument, as will enforce men to close with his truth and faithfulness touching the performance of all his promises.  
Yea, for further clearing, Adam had not only need, but use of a power of believing, as appears from God's method, in stating man in that high office of dominion over the whole creation; wherein, after God had given him command to bear dominion over all creatures, Gen. 1.28. he proceeds in the two following verses to confirm to him that office, by promises as large as that command, Behold I have given to you every Herb, etc. Which shall be to you for meat: which words are a direct promise, in answer whereto Adam needed a power to believe; because, as God added to the command a promise answerable, and all as needful for the settling of the dominion upon him, so was it as needful for Adam actually to believe that promise, that thereby he might undertake that office, not with doubting, but with assurance of success, which could only be confirmed to him, by a promise from the sole Creator, and Lord over all. Yea, contrarily, if he had not regarded that promise he had thereby profaned God's wisdom in exhibiting it, and not believing he had oppugned God's truth and faithfulness touching performance. Seeing then that Adam had both need and use of a power, whereby to believe the truth, yea, the rich grace of God also, in that great promise, which confirmed his universal Sovereignty over the whole creation, hence it follows that Adam had both need & use of such a power, as whereby he could have believed the mystery of Christ (though he needed not, by that power to believe that mystery) which may be fully proved from this reason, because Adam being then upright or perfect, could not but believe that first promise of dominion, from a right principle; namely, from a true apprehension and knowledge of the faithfulness and grace of God, which knowledge (being that spring or fountain, whence a true believing in Christ doth always, and can alone flow) Adam being furnished with, could not but have believed the mystery of Christ; because hereby all the Saints have believed: and indeed God acts so fully like himself, that so far as a man knows, and believes God's excellencies, he cannot but know and believe his revealed acts and contrivances what ever they be: but above all others, the mystery of compassing salvation by Christ, holds forth so lively a representation of God, in all his excellencies of Wisdom, grace, righteousness, etc. as would have enforced Adam to have believed it, who before had a knowledge of God's excellen●●●●, in being created in Gods own image, which consisted in knowledge, as also in righteousness and holiness. By which Arguments, I conceive, that both Adam's having need, and use of 〈…〉 power, as could have produced a believing in Christ, is evinced; and the Wisdom of God therein vindicated, the vindication whereof is a work of such concernment as will I hope, excus●●y largeness herein.  
But to proceed both to the second and third reason, which are one and the same; The first, because he had not power to foreknow his fall, nor secondly Christ's death, etc. which Argument may be thus destroyed.  
If the essence of a power of believing consists not at all in the knowledge of God's Will, before revealed by God, than Adam not having power to know the mystery of Christ, before revealed by God, doth no way prove his not having a power of believing that mystery; but the former is true, That the essence of a power of believing consists not, etc. Because according to your definition ●●is a power of cordial assenting to the truth of a promise of God, that is to say, a promise revealed, or propounded, which must be presupposed; now a power of closing with the truth of what God reveals is far different from a power of foreknowing Gods Will before revealed: for the one, namely the knowledge of the secrets of God belongs only to God, while his revealed will belongs to men: And so God gives a power of believing to many thousands, and yet reserves his secret Council from them all; the latter also, That Adam's not having power to foreknow, etc. follows inevitably, because when two faculities differ in kind, than the absence of one proves not at all the absence of another.  
Next after, you propound an Objection against yourself, for Answer whereto, you first refer to your foregoing argument against God's Wisdom, which is already answered at large, afterwards you close up your answer after this manner of reasoning.  
First, you say, Christ could not be revealed, because not convenient, etc. And thence you infer, that Therefore doubtless Adam had not a power to have believed in Christ; no, not on this supposition, That Christ had been then revealed to him. Which Argument is indeed most contradictory, yea utterly destructive to itself: For first, you ground adam's not having such a power upon this reason, because Christ could not be revealed, and afterwards, you quite destroy that very reason, by supposing, or granting Christ to have been revealed: so that in Answer to a main and most considerable objection, you only repeat a former reason, already answered, and add one new, which you immediately destroy by your own contra-supposition, and so the Objection remains altogether unanswered.  
Next follows your fourth reason, against Adam's having such a power, because Christ was not revealed, which may be destroyed thus.  
If the want of an outward means, though necessary to concur in producing an act, cannot prove the want of the intrinse call power necessary to that act, than it follows, That Adam's wanting the Revelation of the object to be believed, cannot prove his wanting an inward power to believe: But the former is true, that the want of an outward means, &c. cannot prove the inward power wanting, because the outward means, and the inward power are two distinct things: for instance; food, the outward means of feeding is one thing, and the appetite, the inward faculty of receiving food, is another; and therefore the having of either may well consist with the want of either; one man may have an inward faculty of appetite, and want outward food; and another may have outward food, and want an inward receptive faculty: The latter therefore inevitably follows, that Adam's waiting the Revelation, etc. proves not his wanting an inward power, etc. because the Revelation of the object by promise, the outward means of believing, being one thing; and faith the inward power of receiving it another thing, distinct from the former: hence it comes to pass, that either of them may be, where either of them is wanting; Adam then might have a power of believing, and want the word of faith, though now faith comes by hearing even as he was created in God's image, perfectly at once, though Saints now are transformed into the same image gradually and that by means of the Word, 2 Cor. 3.18. and contrarily many now have the Word, and not that power, the Word being not of the essence of that power.  
Secondly, another Argument may be this, if Adam had not power to believe a thing, or object, because the object was not revealed, than 'twill follow that Adam had not a power of sta●●●● righteous by the Law of works, for if he had not power to bel●●ve a thing, because 'twas not revealed, then by the same reason, he had not power at first to obey any command, because 'twas not revealed, for the Revelation of a command is as much necessary to obeying ●s the Revelation of a promise is necessary to the believing thereof; and the mere Revelation of a promise would have infused into Adam no more power of believing, than the mere Revelation of a com●●nd would have infused power of obeying: whence it follows, that Adam in his first perfection was so far from having power to stand righteous, by a Law of works, by performing any thing to be commanded, as that indeed, when he was at first created, according to this your reason, he had not then power to obey any command whatsoever, because his creation was fully finished, before any command was revealed: yea, from that time forward when ever any command had been revealed, he had stood in ●eed of supply of new power to obey, because before 'twas revealed he had not power to obey. Which consequences utterly overthrow that perfect power by standing righteous by works, which you expressly affirm, Adam had, making him unable to perform any work, by his first created power.  
Thus much in Answer to your reasons alleged against Adam's having power of believing, etc. which are all grounded upon a misunderstanding of, and swerving from, the true definition of such a power, and so are made up of an indistinct, and consuled conjumbling of other things with it; for neither the need, use thereof, nor the foreknowledge, or Revelation of an object, are at all essentially necessary to make up such a power, as hath been proved. Touching which matter I must add one word, viz. that it must needs be dangerous presumption to charge such a person with weakness before trial, who for excellency and perfection of nature, is avouched again and again by God himself to be created after Gods own Image and likeness, Gen. 1. and to be made upright, or righteous, Eccles. 7.29. Yea, especially to ground that charge against him upon such reasons, as wholly tend to prove, that he was not in a capacity of being tried; whether he had such a power of believing or not, by which act the grand Masterpiece of God's whole Creation is without all ground vilified.  
Against all which, that I may yet add one passage; I shall endeavour to state the question in most cle●● and full terms, which question being, Whether. Adam had a power of believing in Christ; (the essence of which power consists in a power to believe an object revealed) cannot be truly framed, except with this supposition, That Christ had been revealed, so that to go about to examine, much more to determine, what his power was to believe an object, without supposing that object to be revealed; this is a course inconsistent with the nature of this power, which necessarily presupposeth the revelation of an object, for the trial thereof: for though such a power may be without an outward Object yet there can be no trial of its being without it, as a man may have an inward appetite, but we cannot rightly examine his having it, but by giving him outward food, which question therefore may be fairly propounded thus, Whether Adam had a power of believing Christ, supposing, Christ had been revealed? Answer whereto must be this, That he could not but have such a power, it being essentially necessary to his state of perfection, as appears by these three consequences.  

First, because without it, upon the revealing of Christ (which is here supposed) Adam must have been miserable by opposing the truth of God in that promise, and that through want of power.  
Or secondly, if upon the revelation of this mystery, he had not had power to have believed it, then necessarily he must have, needed supply of new power, whereby to have believed, and so upon this revelation (supposed) his condition, would have been the very condition of unbelievers now, who upon the revealing of this mystery need new power to believe it; both which consequences are utterly inconsistent with the nature of his first complete power of standing happy.  
Yea thirdly, supposing that Mystery to have been revealed to Adam, to be believed, the very revelation hereof would have required, and commanded him to have believed it, and his believing would have been a proper act of Obedience to the Law of that promise requiring faith; If therefore he had not a power to have obeyed the law of that promise by believing, than it follows, That his first power could not have enabled him to stand by a Law of Works, by perfect obedience, which (as you expressly grant) he was fully able to do.   
And yet, before passing from this question, I mi●t 〈…〉 word to prevent the mistaking mine and in answering it, 〈◊〉 is, That I have not endeavoured to prove Adams ●aving 〈◊〉 power, from this reason, because without it God could not ●●●●stice destroy mankind; for whether he had a power of believing or not, is a Question needless and impertiment, touching the ●●●ring of God's justice in man's destruction, as may be made ●●●●fest thus.  
If Adam, in whom (as you acknowledge) all his posterity stood, had such a power, under the first Covenant, as was su●●●●●ent to justify God in the death or destruction of man disobeying then to examine, whether Adam had power to believe a second Covenant is altogether ●●●iceess●ry to clear God's Justice, in ●●stroying man, disobeying; But the former is true, this Adam had &c. because God after stating him in his first power, 〈◊〉 thereupon as a righteous Judge, fore, pass or denounce the ●●●●ning or sentence of death or destruction upon him, if he sho●●● disobey, Gen. chap. 2. vers. 17. Thou shall surely ●ye. W●●●● threatening could not have been justly denounced against 〈◊〉 except his first power and perfection, had such an answerable proportion thereto, as might justify that threatening. The latter also, That to examine, etc. is a needless question for clearing God's justice, etc. follows inevitably, because seeing the est●●ce of Adam's first power was sufficient to justify God in destroying man, disobeying; 'tis therefore needless to inquire, what 〈◊〉 power could produce. Yea, seeing you understand a power of believing, as having relation to the second Covenant only, t●● therefore could not be at all necessary to the clearing of God's justice in man's death or destruction, because the threatening of death was denounced against him; only with relation to the t●a●●● of the first Covenant, which alone he know; which threa●●ing was as just before Gods promising Christ in a second Covenant, upon man's fall, as afterwards, because God made not that promise to clear his justice.  
To proceed now to the second sort of reasonings, being on supposition, That Adam had such a power, yet that this would not avail, because God having made a new Covenant, etc. to which I reset. Touching which it must be affirmed. 1. That for God to daprive man of the blessing, etc. As you there express, this is wholly 〈…〉 with and destructive ●o the ●ss●●●● of a Cove●●●● of Universal goo●●, 〈…〉 enyes that all ●●●e power to obtain Gr●ce or interest thou●●●lves therein, but if we speak of the Covenant of Freegrace, them the truth is for God that he might not deprive any man of the ob●ssing of it, therefore to hold it forth on such terms, as are attainable by man's improvement, as upon which Go●●●gagi●●●●●●●ly by 〈…〉 of th●s Covenant, to grant acceptation and grace, (which you assir●● to uphold the freedom of his grace) this is 〈…〉 and destructive to the very 〈◊〉 and ●outh of that Covenant of grace, which con●●●ws saving grace peculiardy 〈◊〉 so●●● for 'twould be impossible for God 〈◊〉 not to fa●●fi●●e s●●● a Covenant, as should both promise grace to some ●●ely, and not to there, (which the Covenant of grace doth) and yet also should promise the same grace, after the s●●e manner, 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉. It must therefore be 〈…〉, that the 〈◊〉 of the second Covenant are utterly 〈…〉 by 〈◊〉 utmost power, but yet this no way destroys the freedom of God's 〈◊〉 in that Covenant, for though God therein ●●●●●●ds ●●●tai●●ble conditions from all, yet his promise wherein 〈◊〉 work those conditions in some, is of Free grace. God's 〈…〉 do ●●●t make hi● promises of none effect. And touching your instance of a Noble f●●●ly, 'tis wholly impertinent, for all it shows is ●●t this: That the conditions required in the Covenant Gr●●ce, are such as cannot tender all, no, n●r any one capable of grace, by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 st endeavour, which is ●●●d enviably 〈◊〉, ●●●g th●● 〈…〉 of God, to work such conditions in 〈◊〉, i● 〈◊〉 of Free Grace, this is still to be proved. By which instance you deny the Gospel to promise any peculiar thing to some, making it only to 〈…〉 the same conditions from all, whereas i●●●●ed its promises and as large to some, as the command 〈…〉.  
'Tis then most ground le●●t 〈…〉, because the Covenant of Grace is not common to all 〈◊〉 g●●●●lly upon improvement, that therefore 'tis not of grace to some, for grace in i●● own nature is more free and transcend 〈◊〉, because to some only and not to others, Which 〈◊〉 may be p●●●ll●●●ed to the ●●so thus, viz. suppose a Prince 〈◊〉 a No●●● 〈◊〉 guilty of high 〈…〉 so as that without 〈◊〉 of justice, he cannot but condemn them, if now lie will give 〈◊〉 only son, 〈◊〉 be sacrificed, 〈…〉 random for part of them, from the condemnation, because ●e finds nothing in them to satisfy his justice without their destruction: this betokens abundance of grace; y●● further, to work also in them that necessary condition, which he requires; because they cannot attain thereto of themselves: this is also a high strain of Freegrace.  
Next follows your applying that instance, They that make the saving terms of the Gospel, etc. Concerning which it must be affirmed, that in respect of obtaining grace to salvation, man by his utmost improvement, cannot tread as much as one sure or steady step in that way; so that his utmost improvement shall of itself at best be successelesse therein. And this is so far from rendering the Gospel reproach, as that Paul establisheth the freedom of God's dispensation upon this very ground, Rom. 9.16. Where after examples given to set our the freedom of God's grace, Verse▪ 11. in choosing and refusing, according to his good pleasure, without any regard had to any improvement or work done, be lays down this as a sure conclusion, Verse▪ 16. So then, 'tis not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that seems mercy▪ where Paul, that he might lay down and declare the sure ground of salvation, like a wise builder, he first destroys the rotten ground of the Arminians, and that by ●utting off all manner of intailement or engagement of grace, on man's willing, yea, and running; which terms cannot but import greatest intention and extension of abilities: he saith not, upon willing or running, God hath promised mercy or grace, but 'tis not of him, etc. but of God, etc. The Apostle most emphatically expresseth it by the rearme (but) a known particle of opposition; thereby cutting off any binding of the latter, God's mercy to the former, man's improvement. The reason of which method is clear: because if it were of him that willeth or runneth, so as that to, and upon it, grace is ●●nexed, than it could not be free, and without respect to man's improvement; which thing Paul is proving, Verse▪ 11. but must then have been of Grace, engaged upon running.  
Touching your next expression, Were I of the judgement of Arminius, I could, etc. I must with grief of heart say thus much; I fear your left hand hath learned too much of this cunning; and indeed there in that enmity in the understanding of reasonable man against the truth, that is may be more easy to represent many errors plansible to them, than one truth.  
Next follows your second reason, upon supposing Adam's having a power of believing etc. which will not justify God, etc. because justice stands in a Geometrical proportion, etc.  
Which Argument reaches far higher than the tenant it should prove; yea, makes it void: For this proves not that God is engaged by promise, etc. but which is far more intolerable, this makes it but an act of justice in God, to give men life, or save them from condemnation upon improvement. For if after man's falling from his perfect power God cannot in equity condemns man, doing his utmost, and that because justice stands in a Geometrical proportion, or in taking an exact account or consideration of the persons present power and improvement, in answer to their power lost; which (according to your instances produced, and your direct application of all to Adam's case) you understand by those expressions of Geometrical proportion: hence than it follows, that Gods engaging himself by promise to improvement, is no necessary ground of man's salvation; but God's justice beholding them and their improvements, is made a necessary engagement on God to save such improvens: so that without salvation of such his justice cannot be salved, and consequently his grace needs not act in their salvations but for the right improvement of your Argument, I add this. Man's losing his first perfect power of obedience, &c. cannot but in equity justify God in his condemning man, doing his utmost according to his power now remaining; and that from your very reason, Because justice stands in a Geometrical proportion; or in a strict consideration of persons, their conditions, abilities, etc. For if God's justice stands in judging acts according to the abilities, where with the person is entrusted, than it must in reference hereto, count what abilities have been given him: whereupon finding man in Adam, to have been entrusted with a fullness of power; to believe (which power throughout your second reason you suppose and grant) it cannot but require an act correspondent: for as much therefore as man after utmost improvement cannot but fall infinitely short of such an act (which you also grant) God's justice, upon computing both together, must needs be so far from rewarding it with grace; as that it cannot but condemn man, for acting no way answerable to the power given; and that in greatest equity, because of the infinite disproportion between each, which ●ight 〈…〉. If God's justice in judging the 〈…〉, be so ●●ri●t 〈◊〉 counting the 〈◊〉, given 〈◊〉 person in relation to the act, as that a great sa●●●● from a m●●ied 〈…〉 then two ●●iter from a widow, and that because it judgeth according to their respective abilities; then certainly justice weighing spiritual actions, with the power given 〈…〉 Ad●● (which you suppose) cannot but condemn 〈…〉, because his actions ●●●ct utmost improvement, hold a vast disproportion with that power.  
Again, according to the parable of the talon, ●f justice so exactly requires by way of retaliation, 〈◊〉 for ●alout, two for two, five for five, then open r●qui●ing acts, answerable to the power, here supposed to be given man in Adam, it m●st needs 〈◊〉 man falling 〈◊〉 short ●t best.  
So that indeed there is no congruity between the reason and the instances. For first, your reason is mainly grounded on this suppostion, That man had power in Adam, 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 it. But the instances import not the least ●ittle of my power, which 〈◊〉 the Widow or Lords servants had and lost.  
Again, the instances prove it a matter of equity to accept of the endeavours of such as act proportionably to their 〈◊〉, but fall infinitely short of proving the acceptance of such as act no way answerable to their talents.  
Which instances can only be paralleled to your second reason, th●●, That 〈◊〉 the Widow been in●●●sted with a great 〈◊〉 and lewdly spet●● all but two 〈◊〉, yet those m●st in justice have been co●●ted us much as the large contributions of others; because she hath now no more left. And the Lords s●rva●● after ●osing ten talents, being entrusted with one more, upon his improving that to his power, (though not well) his Lord in justice must 〈◊〉 such improvement, and not require satisfaction for the 〈…〉; whereas in just sevei●ty, h●●ust his other servant 〈…〉 darkness, o●●ly for not making profit of ●m single ●alent, though 〈◊〉 misspent it not, but 〈◊〉 it up.  
Yet I would not here be mista●e●, as if I conceived it matter of mo●●nt to show your mis-application of there insta●●●●; for could they be proved to be answerable to 〈…〉 would no way advantage it; for though you 〈…〉 by way of proof, yet in so doing you pervert the use of instances, which may indeed illustrate a matter, but cannot prove it, according to that approved sentence— Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa; or thus, parabolae illustrant non probant.  
And touching your applying all to Adam's posterity, that, though it be supposed they had a power of believing, etc.  
'Twould indeed be tedious work it to reckon up the least part of all the dangerous confequences thereof; for if Adam's fallen posterity may do that, which may be of more consideration in point of equity, etc. as you express. Then it follows, that man's fall is no prejudice at all, but matter of advantage rather.  
Again, hence 'twill follow, that God hath no respect to the state of the person acting, whether he be in a state of acceptation with God, or of rejection; but only to the action done, in that man full of enmity, may do that, which may be of greater consideration in the eye of God's justice, then what spotless Adam could do. Whereas touching the acceptance of the person, in relation to the acceptance of acts, 'tis evident from the general current of Scripture, that the acceptance or non-acceptance of acts, principally depends on the acceptation or non-acceptation of the person; hence, the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, while the prayer of the upright is his delight, Prov. 15.8. so God accepted Abel and his offering; Whence was his offering accepted? even from God's free accepting the person, and not the person for the offerings sake. But here you make God bound by equity, as much, yea more, to accept an accursted man for his improvements sake, than Adam a righteous man, and his righteous works: which argument directly maintains justification by works and merit, in that you say, Man may now do what is as good or better in val●● than Adam, who then stood by works.  
To add yet one word against the force of all your Arguing, upon supposition of Adam's having a power to believe, etc. viz. Man beinging death on himself by breach of the first Covenant, the work of justice hereupon is to inflict death, what ever terms therefore are tendered to prevent death, these are all fruies of freegrace: though then those terms are unattainable by man fallen; God may, notwithstanding without any injustice, suspend the gift of a power answerable to them, though man perish thereby. God was not bound in justice to offer any terms beside those to Adam, Do thus, else thou shalt surely die, much less is he bound, to give a power correspondent to new terms.  
Next follows your second reason, If men putting forth themselves, etc. and not find grace, etc.  
Touching which, I must affirm, that though in my former discourse I gave you no ground to think I feared your opinion to comply with the opinion of  in the Gospel sense, yet am I constrained to affirm, that the force of this second reason, is that very opinion which may thus be proved.  
If mercy putting forth their utmost power, and not finding grace with God, etc. may be destroyed for want of an executive power, without any miscarriage or sinfulness at all in the will, than men may so far put forth themselves by their own power without grace, as whereby, they may be without any sinfulness at all in the will, which is indeed to have full power of . The former whereof is the express force of your reason; the latter also plainly follows; for he that can by his own power attain to a freedom from all sinfulness in his will, cannot but have  to close with God; because without such a free closing with God, the will cannot be free from all sinfulness: so than man by his own power rendering himself free from, or without any sinfulness at all in his will, thereby removeth all that kept him from a power of ; which you afterwards grant in owning that of Augustine, Take away man's will, and take away Hell and all.  
Again, from the conclusion of that your second reason, compared with the former part of it, this dangerous consequence unavoidably proceeds, viz. that man is able of himself to remove all the ground of his condemnation, which appears thus.  
If the Scripture placeth God's justice in condemnation always, upon some sinfulness in the will, and man himself by improvement be able to free himself from all such sinfulness; then man is able of himself to remove all the ground of his condemnation, or to save himself from destruction by his own improvement, not needing grace to salvation. The former, that God's justice is cleared from the sinfulness of the will, you prove from Scripture. Again, that man can render himself free from all such sinfulness; this is the main strength of your reason. The conclusion therefore necessarily follows, that man hath power to take away or remove the ground of his condemnation. For if God in justice can only destroy man for such sinfulness; then man freeing himself from all such sinfulness, takes away thereby all just ground of condemnation; and so lays a sure ground for salvation, which is only opposed by sin.  
And touching those many Texts ensuing, what they prove is granted, which is, that man's condemnation is laid upon some sinfulness in the will; but these are all far from proving, that man hath power to free himself from all the sinfulness of the will, the scope of all which is to set out the obstinacy of the will, in the wicked actings thereof, which is a point distinct from that of showing the main ground of its continuing so perverse: For, there is no necessity of showing, that man wants power to subdue the perverseness of his will in every place, where that perverseness is spoken of: the grounds therefore of such perverseness must be sought for there, where the Holy Ghost distinctly expresseth it: one special place for which, John 6.36. compared with Verse 44. & 65. was proved to be in the discourse given you. But yet among those many Scriptures, I shall take notice of one, which you mainly ground upon; which is Acts 7.51. which you thus allege and open.  
Ye have always resisted; now how did they resist, etc. not by any defectiveness of power, etc.  
Whereas 'tis clear that the former part of the Verse lays down the ground of their perverseness first, as the precedent article of their condemnation, in this clause, ye uncircumcised in heart; whence indeed their resisting arose; so that the question is, whether they had power to take away this main obstacle, the uncircumcision of their hearts; but 'tis certain they cannot; for this is peculiarly within God's power, as Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart. Seeing then they resist from the uncircumcision thereof, it follows, that they resist through want of power, for that they need power from above to circumcise their hearts.  
And so all those other Texts prove not at all mans not wanting a power, etc. From all which you would force in this tenant, That man wants no power to reduce his will to Gods, which is to say he hath a power of , as appears from that, Acts 7.51. whence you say, Man resists not from any want of power; the selfsame from John 5.40. Ye will not come, they wan●●● not power to come: though it be proved in the discourse given you, that the reason thereof is declared to be a want of power, in Chap. 6.44.  
Next you raise a Quere, how your opinion differs from the opinion of ? Which Quere I find you make from this ground, because your opinion is feared to comply with the Arminian tenant of , as you express soon after the beginning of this clearing Sermon. Touching which, what I did, & do fear and find is this; that your fifth and main assertion impleaded, is the same with that Arminian Maxim, there expressed, facienti quod in se est, etc. Which opinion you take to be that of ; and so indeed you may, for both are the same in effect: For if man may so do as to engage God to give grace (which you affirm) he doth thereby that which is as surely effectual to salvation; as  to act savingly: for God cannot but perform what he hath p●●mised to man upon doing. And that this your opinion is the grand tenant of the Arminians, may be proved by the testimony of Doctor Robert Sanderson, in his first Sermon, ad populum, on 3 Kings 21.29. § 26. where he hath this passage.  
It appears from the premises, that Gods thus dealing with wick●d etc. gives no warrant or strength at all, either to that popish or corrupt doctrine of Meritum congrui, in deserving the first grace, by the right use of naturals, or to that rotten principle and foundation of the whole frame of Arminianism, facienti quod in se est, Deus non potest, non debet denegare gratiam.  
Which latter is your very opinion; for, if man may do such things as whereupon God hath promised to give grace (which you affirm) than man may so do, as whereupon God neither aught nor can deny grace; because God for his truth and faithfulness sake, neither can, not aught to violate his own engagements; so that by maintaining your fifth assertion, as a tenant so necessary, you uphold the rotten foundation of the whole frame of Arminianism.  
The same also may be further proved out of Dr. Twisse his dispute about Mr. Perkins and Arminius, where Sect. 2. lib. 3. upon the sixth error, Mr. Perkins charges the Arminian School●men, with this very tenant thus, Si faseret, De● adjuvants, quoth in se est, Deus illum illuminaret supernaturali gratia.  
Yea further, lest it be thought, the Arminians may be wronged, Arminius himself repeats this very tenant, more plainly, in his reply immediately following; yea, which is very considerable, he labours to prove it after that very manner, as you do, by making God engaged by promise, as in these words.  
Anon isto dicto Christi, babenti dabitur, promissio ista contin●atur, qua Deus spondet se gratia supernaturali illuminaturum, qui lumine naturali recte utetur, a●t salt● utetur minus male.  
Which text, to him that hath shall be given, Arminius produceth, instead of those Texts of yours, ask and you shall have, etc. whence he affirms the same with you, saying, that by that promise, to him that hath shall be given; God engages himself to enlighten with supernatural grace, such as rightly use natural light, or at least; who will use it, as much as he can, less evilly.  
So that touching the great difference you make between your opinion, and that of , as if yours were not Arminian, 'tis plain, Arminius holds the one as strongly as the other: yours opposed, he plainly holds, and labours so to prove it, as you do; for instead of perfect freewill, he acknowledgeth some defect in the will, as by that his expression, less evilly, whereby granting some sinfulness therein.  
Yea, that Arminius holds both opinions; how contradictory soever to each other, I find expressly in Doctor Twisse, in his third book and first digression, touching the sense of that Text, to him that hath shall be given, as appears by this sentence. Quamvis requirant gratiam ad r●●te ●●●dum naturalibus, ●amque supernaturalem, tam●u i●rerd●●● diser●e d●ce●●, bo●●inem ista natura vipra●●are posse, which he there proves from C●rvinu●: It appears therefore from these testimonies, that your opinion of engaging God to give grace, etc. which you go about to quit them from, is most usual amongst them, being more plausible; and that which denies a necessity of supernatural grace, is but rarely found among them.  
And touching your compliance with both these opinions, as their former is your fifth assertion, so the latter of  in the gro●●st sense, is directly maintained, by the force of your second reason, as is before proved.  
Furthermore, seeing you profess your ●nd in all, to be the prev●ning of such 〈…〉 p●essions, 〈◊〉 are given by the most against the Arminians (〈…〉 discourse, 〈◊〉 in the ●●d of this Sermon 〈◊〉 intimated) it seems meet to acquaint you, ●ow greatly you have crossed your own design, and that by the second and main point of difference, which you make between your opinion and theirs. For whereas you there charge them with this, as their main and only tenant, viz. That man hath power to produce a saving act, without any supernatural assistance, it appears from those words prescript; Quamvis requirant gratiam, etc. supernaturalem; that when they are their Crafts-masters, they do, and that generally, require supply of supernatural grace; so that you seem uncharitably to take them always at the worst.  
In which alleging of these testimonies, though I cannot but acknowledge my prolixity, yet must I partly justify it, from the necessity thereof, even to establish that truth by the mouth of two or three witnesses, which being only affirmed before, you did so lightly put by.  
And yet must I add one word, to mind you of your politic method, used about denying your tenant to be Arminian; that whereas their opinion of Gods being engaged, etc. (given in those words, facienti quod in se est, etc.) is directly yourfifth assertion; and their main maxim you wholly neglect to prove, wherein your opinion differs from that maxim, contenting yourself only to show how it differs from another Arminian opinion, which you were not at all charged with: so that still your opinion lies under this heavy charge, of being the main● foundation of the whole frame of Arminianism, which is now made good by clear evidence.  
Next you raise a question touching the difference between an executive and willing power, or a principle drawing out that power into act, etc.  
The occasion of your opening which distinction, I find to be from a passage in my discourse given you; where 'tis denied, that man hath an executive power to believe, which now you would farther prove.  
In opening of which power you seem to contradict yourself, for you take it to be a power, whereby to act, and yet by those instances, you understand that to be an executive power, which cannot enable to act: you say A rich man hath an executive power to be liberal, whilst of a penurious disposition, though by that power he is never the nearer being liberal: but how contradictory is it to say, A man by means of such a thing, hath power to ex●●●●● such a work, though by that thing be is never the nearer execution thereof; by this you seem to nullify that power in respect of enabling to an act, which you call a power to act.  
Again, you say he hath an executive power to do, though that power be defective touching doing, but that which is defective in order to an act, cannot be a power to act, for a power to act is inconsistent with defectiveness, or want of power; power and want of power are contraries.  
But for brevity sake, I shall endeavour to grant the utmost extent of your instances, viz. A penurious rich man hath such a power in him, in order to acts of liberality, as an Infant hath principles of reason and understanding, which may of themselves in an ordinary way of nature, become executive to answerable acts, without any supernatural infusion; so a rich penurious man hath such principles as by consideration, council, etc. may be inclined to liberality, without a supernatural change of those principles, but yet whilst penuriously disposed, he is as far, or farther, from an executive power, as a willing; as a child is in the case given.  
And thus may the rest be understood, As that Gen. 31. ●9. 'tis in the power, etc. that is, he had a sufficiency of outward strength and such a natural principle of revenge, as might act revenge, if not hindered by an extraordinary hand, and so, have not I power to eat, etc. man hath a natural receptive faculty for that end.  
The tenor of which instances being thus considered, the maine is to examine; what is in them to serve your purpose, which is to prove, that a man hath an executive power to believe: Between which instances, and the things you would prove, there is as vast a dis-proportion, as between natural and supernatural acts, for all that these prove, is but that men have an executive power to perform such acts, as may be done without supernatural influence, as to be liberal, to frequent the Ordinances, or (to speak in your own language) to sin, revenge, eat, drink, etc. Now 'twere most unadvised to conclude, because men have an executive power to the external acts of Religion, frequenting the Ordinances; to acts natural, eating, drinking; moral, as to be liberal, etc. that therefore they have a like power to supernatural acts. Of all which instances, the most genuine scope, is to prove man's freewill to believe, for the main Argument of both your Sermons, is touching man's power towards attaining faith, which power you call executive, which so called, you demonstrate by making it like that power which those instances hold forth● but to all those several acts, the persons respectively have a power of free will; those concerning men have, because all those acts may be done by man in his pure naturals, those which concern God are much more within his power to will, as they are acts requiring power, for God is not capable of receptive power (though God wills not cheeseparing acts) therefore in making man's executive power to come to Christ, or believe, to be such as those instances have, you necessarily make man to have  ●o believe, else all those instances are to no purpose.  
In brief thou a man cannot be said to have an executive power to any act, but what he can voluntarily do, and is within the li●e of that power, so as to stand in need of no extraordinary divine assistance; 'tis contradictory to say an executive power cannot execute of itself, for if a supernatural power must cooperate to execution, than the other power cannot be executive, but the work of faith cannot be executed, without a divine power infused (which you elsewhere grant) therefore man cannot have an executive power to believe, till he be so inspired; instead therefore of a willingness to draw out an executive power to act faith which you speak of there must be a putting in a new power, before any drawing out to act can be.  
To and this therefore, I desire to know directly what this power is by name, which you call executive, for it forms not imaginable, that the name executive should be any other than a nick name of such a power as cannot execute. Who ever then can distinguish between an executive power, or a principle whereby to act, (●syo●●●pl●mit) and such a principle as 〈◊〉 produce a●●act, such a one will doubtless out the hair indeed.  
But yet between your unfolding the distinction of powers, you insert two particulars, one is a quaere about Ar●●●●● T●●●●●s, which is for substance the same with your opening the dis●●●●ce, between your opinion, and that of free will, which being already ●●ale with, I pass over.  
The other particular is an Objection from Joh●●●: 44. Which in the ●i●●o●●●● given you, is ●llendged, 〈…〉 through was of power; which for answer, you 〈…〉; Now 〈◊〉 come▪ 〈…〉 put forth himself in any such way, wherein God hath promised to meet him with grace.  
By which expression, No man can come, you understand can proceed so far in a way of nature, in order to grace, as wherein God hath promised to meet him with grace; but this destroys the sense, for 'tis most evident, that the expression cometh imports a coming to life with saving grace, which might be proved from many other Texts, some whereof are given in that discourse, as John 5.40. so John 6.37. He that cometh to me, which imports coming with saving faith; which place you have understood so. Now there is a great contrariety between these, for man's doing that wherein God hath promised to meet him with grace, is a doing by himself without grace; upon which doing, you say, God meets with grace; but the coming here is a saving coming, or unto life by saving grace; therefore not a coming in the course of natural abilities, to meet with grace thereupon.  
Again, there appears not the least ground for such an interpretation, because here is never a word spoken of pawing forth in a course of nature, but of coming to Christ, or believing (which in the discourse given, are proved to be terms equivalent) nor yet is there the least tittle of a promise of meeting man with grace upon coming.  
And for that clause, except my Father draweth, which you expound, except be interpose with some greater power than ordinaries that you understand thereby, Gods enabling to improve naturals to the utmost, in order to grace, is plain, in that you make Gods interposing to be a carrying of man so far in a course of nature, as wherein God hath promised to meet him with grace, and so you make Gods drawing to be, but by way of preparation unto grace, promised thereupon; against which 'tis evident, 'tis such a drawing as whereby man cometh unto Christ, or believeth both being one; therefore drawing is an act of divine power, working saving-grace, and not a carrying of man so to do, as upon which doing, God will afterwards meet him with the gift of grace. Afterwards you add another Exposition, no man hath any foresight of any complete power of coming; which implies, man hath in himself a power to come to Christ, before Gods drawing; so that by drawing; God only gives him sight of that power: But this directly opposeth the words which are, no man can or hath a power to come; he saith not, no man hath a sight that he can come.  
For establishment of which exposition, you reassume your distinction of powers already dealt with; by opening of which executive power to come to Christ, you make man's power of coming to Christ, or believing, to be a power of , as is before proved from the instances.  
After that, you expressly conclude from what is delivered in that Sermon, The necessity of your fifth assertion, touching Gods promising grace, etc.  
Concerning all which, to speak truly supposing these two Arguments (which you say are for the clearing of the whole business) were unanswerable, yet would they be far from such a clearing; for all the arguing of Men or Angels shall never prove this, without bringing a promise of God for it; which throughout this Sermon you not where attempt, though all your former texts pretended to contain such promises alleged in your former Sermon, are prowed wholly impertinent, in that discourse given in. The thing you would prove by these Arguments is, That God is engaged by promise to natural improvers; but if this promise be such as God hath been graciously pleased to make (which you affirm) than you cannot prove such a promise by Argument, but only from express exhibition; because what God doth of Freegrace, can proceed from no ground or reason, but his own freeness, for which, being God's essence, no reason can be given.  
Yes, of all grounds, that whereon you build the strength of all your Arguments; namely, the vindication of God's justice, must needs be most weak: it seems of all reasonings most absurd, to say God cannot but freely promise grace, because his justice binds him to it. And seeing you express your maintaining that assertion to be of so great necessity for upholding the truth, etc. of the Gospel. I wonder you omit, both the justifying it, by any one Scripture, after all the Scriptures alleged are proved contrary; and likewise the vindicating it from those pernicious consequences, which in the discourse given you, are showed to be most inevitably deduceable thence; because in what degree that suffers, whereon you make the truth, grace, etc. to depend; so much must the truth, grace, and uprightness of the Gospel, etc. suffer.  
And touching that of Augustine, take away, etc. if it be compared with a passage immediately foregoing, which is, that men may be destroyed without any malignancy in their wills, both put together, plainly make man to have power of ; for you make taking away all malignancy of will to be within man's power, which being taken away, nothing hinders from .  
Next you further refer this controversy to your disputes against the Arminians; divers things, wherein especially in the two last Exercises, seem justly liable to exception, but I shall decline further dealing there with on this ground, because the substance thereof is repeated in this Sermon: and though I intended to have added a word about that Text, To him that hath shall be given, I shall wholly omit it, referring to that learned discourse of Doctor Twisse upon the sense thereof, in his Third Book forecited.  
Touching the use you make of all, in which is employed your great care in all this, to study out mollifying, and to prevent harsh expressions, which (as you intimated in discourse) are given out by most against the Arminians; I may not unfitly insert a passage which you used against the Arminians, being here fitly applicable, viz. While you go out of the King's highway in relation to Freegrace, and seek out byways of man's engaging God by improvement, censuring God's justice, the freeness of his grace, etc. you hereby fall into worse ways, though you endeavour so to pave them, that they may seem most smooth.  
And whilst you profess great care against harsh unsavoury expressions, etc. I know not what expressions can be more harsh than such, as belch out such calumny against the justice of God, the freeness of his grace, etc. of which it may fitly be said, who art thou that repliest against God? nor know I with whom such expressions can be savoury after trial, except with the Arminians themselves.  
And touching your Apology, I commend this Quare to serious consideration, whether it would not be a more ingenuous way of Apologizing to disclaim your own error, and with that mouth to justify that truth whereby you have condemned it, rather than to please yourself with this saying. If so be we cannot come to express ourselves, etc. We shall content ourselves with some such manner of excuse as this is, That God hath not given us that ability and faculty of utterance and expressions, and that we conceive the business better in our minds, than we are able to give account of to others? Which I the rather refer to consideration, because of that fluency of utterance and expression, which God hath vouchsafed you above many.  
And seeing you conclude, The Scripture affords suitable expressions for this matter, and that such are here most necessary, I wonder you omit searching out such from Scripture; and instead thereof take upon you so hard a task, as to create or frame Gospel, or promise of grace, out of reason and argument, without any Scripture-proof.  
And touching your advice, closing up all; seeing in my former discourse I endeavoured to plead for the truth of God. I have in this endeavoured (according to God's assistance vouthsafed) to qualify that hardness, which your Arguments have attempted to cast upon it.  
Yet one word more, touching your scope in propounding and maintaing your fifth assertion, seeing you hold it so necessary for the encouraging of natural men, I wonder you wholly omit to teach them what particular duties are to be done by them in this way of improvement: For whilst you tell them, If they put forth themselves to do what God hath enabled them in a way of nature, they may do such things as whereunto God hath promised grace, you neglect to tell them what those things are. Now you know, Dolus latet in generalibus, deceit lies in generals; and therefore in the issue such general terms must needs become snares of deceit to natural men, who after doing ever so much, are still left to seek out what actions they be, upon which God hath promised grace, which terms (to retort upon you with your own language) are indeed like to the demanding to catch all the fishes in the sea, or fowls of the air; or like the leading men into a Labyrinth, o● into the middle of the boundless Ocean, and there leaving them: For you give natural men a boundless task of doing such things as whereto God hath annexed grace by promise; but what or how many those things are, is not at all showed, but is left to their own judgement; which being wholly erroneous, must necessarily lead them to presumption or despair. Much like in some respect to the doctrine of many heretofore, urging in general a necessity of legal terrors, before any true comfort could be had, by which means multitudes have laid lo●ds of per●●●● upon themselves one after another; and after all, find● no more ground comfort then at the beginning, because they can sin●e not Scripture Standard to measure such qualifications by. Seeing then you count this doctrine (of natural men's doing such things as whereupon God hath promised grace) so necessary; you may do well in a matter so weighty, not to lead and leave them to be beguiled by generals; but let them know in particular, what, and how many actions they are to do, upon doing whereof God hath promised grace; that so after they have finished such a tale, they may sing a Quietus est to their souls through confidence of their happy state, as the Papists do, upon their Opus aperatum, after they have mumbled over the full tale of their prayers, according to the number of their Beads.  
And now in answer to your method, I should shut up all with a word of use, which may be first for caution to such as take upon them to promote the truth of God, viz. forasmuch as error is of so bewitching a nature, as that men are apt to maintain one error by the broaching of others worse, rather than to relinquish and disclaim the first, this should provoke such persons in special, to great jealousy against every error, lest one error received prove an inlet to more and worse.  
Or secondly, by way of direction to men, both in improving the means of grace, and in trial of their state.  
First, then for direction in improving; first negatively, let no man because he labours, in the strength of his naturals, to improve the outward means of grace, therefore address himself to God, with this confidence; Lord I have endeavoured with utmost intention, etc. Therefore do thou, according to thy promise made to these improvements, give me saving grace, for this is to mist in lying vanities, and to go to God with a lie in steed of a promise, because God hath made no such promise; but contrarily, in all thine improvements, acknowledge with thankfulness Gods long suffering, and freedom of dispensation, who might in justice have hurled thee from out of the womb, the place of thy sinful conception, into hell the place of endless woe, as he hath done multitudes; and may now justly leave thee in all thy improvements, to go with the five foolish Virgins to the gate, through which the wise Virgins entered in, ●nd yet shut thee for ever out of the bride chamber; nevertheless wait thou in God's prescribed way, abhorring thyself in all thine endeavours, as being so far from engaging God to give grace, as that the loathsomeness of them all may justly provoke God for ever to suspend his grace from thee.  
Again, in point of trial, sing not this requiem to thy soul, I have earnestly laboured to reach the terms of the Covenant of Grace, therefore certainly God hath added thereto the work 〈◊〉 faith, because otherwise the Gospel could not be a Covenant of Freegrace; but contratily, examine whether the powers of nature in thee, be so carried up above themselves, by divine operation as that they renounce, and abhor thy most choice improvements, as having no worth, no comfort in them, and in steed thereof do cleave vigorously, and entirely unto Christ, as the only fountain of all true comfort; yea, all this done so, as in steed of finding matter of self-boasting in thine own improvements, thou findest great ground of admiring the free dispensation of God's overpowering grace, working such a change in thee, contrary to, & above thyself; this being found may afford much comfort. But I must totally, though most abruptly, decline further progress.   

Sir,  
Post Script.  
HAving laid by this Work of Vindication for divers months, and that in hope of commending it, in some most convenient time, to your perusal, and finding after so long expectation, multiplicity of occasions, more and more flowing in unto you to the greater disappointment of such your convenient leisure, as I hoped for, powdering withal the so great importance of this matter, so greatly concerning the doctrine of the Gospel, to which as supreme, subordinate matters of order and discipline, aught to give the right hand of pre-eminence: I count it my duty without further delay, to crave both your perusal thereof, as also your impartial care and zeal to vindicate a truth so choice and fundamental, so far forth as it hath been defamed, that so after my being made by accident, an occasioner of your defaming truth, viz. by my former discourse, I may by this be made the occasioner of your vindicating the same; and that you also (who after your most solemn undertaking to destroy the Arminian doctrines, have laid again the main foundations thereof, and so according to Paul's expression, have made yourself a transgressor) may not longer continue so to be, by upholding those rotten principles. Which service for truth, in all bumility, and respect committing to your timely performance, as you are a promover of truth, I devote myself steafastly to continue.  
Tuus usque ad Aras veritatis SAMUEL LANE.    

Certain Reasons alleged to prove the Souls enjoying CHRIST after death, before the Resurrection, And that against these three ensuing errors.  

1. That the Scripture speaks nothing of the state of the Souls from Death to the Resurrection.  
2. That it no where declares the Souls happy 〈◊〉 glorious state from Death to the Resurrection.  
3. That the Soul is mortal and dyeth with the body.   
ABout which, I shall only allege one proof, viz. 2 Cor. 5. v. 6, 7, 8. Whereof a word touching the coherence. The Apostle having in the four first Verses spoken of 〈◊〉 eternal house in Heaven, and of their gor●ing to be clothed upon therewith, laying down v. 5. two grounds to prove that they shall be clothed therewith, & testifying that assurance, v. 6. Therefore we are always confident; he proceeds in the middle of v. 6. to discuss the happiness of the soul after death, as also his desire thereof. Knowing that being present in the body we are absent from the Lord, and consequently that our presence therein is matter of disadvantage, which he proves by the reason annexed, v. 7. For we walk, etc. viz. whilst in the body: by faith, or by believing the glory to come, the things not seen, as in cap. 4. v. ult. And not by sight, i. e. a beatifical vision of glory. And thus the teams walk describes glory to come, Rev. 3.4 Shall walk with me in white. Yea thus also our being with, and beholding God, are put together, john 17.24. May be with me and behold, etc. Implying, that when our state is changed from being present in the body, and absent from the Lord, as v. 7. into an absence from the body, and presence with God, as v. 8. then we shall walk by sight. And that this is fully employed appears, because the not walking by sight is alleged to prove absence from God, and therefore contrarily, presence with him must argue walking by sight. Next in v. 8. he further enlarges upon the former, beginning thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may well be rendered we are confident therefore: or from those grounds foregoing, namely, the disadvantage of our present state expressed, & the advantage of the future employed. And thus the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is elsewhere used, for which of many places see especially 1 joh. 4.18. where 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the therefore that feareth; for though some translations omit therefore, yet the sense necessarily requires it; because that last clause is a conclusion drawn from the major, or main proposition beginning the Verse; There is no fear in love, therefore he that feareth, etc. It follows, And we are willing or approve rather, to be absent out of the body & present with the Lord, of two states preferring the better: And so he doth Phil. 1.23. Destring to departed and to be with Christ, which is far better? better then what; see v. 22. then ●o live in the flesh 〈◊〉 All which may be summed up thus; as we know that in stead of our earthly house dist●lved, we shall be clothed upon with one eternal, which we gr●●● after●, so we know that in the mean time, that is to say, the time of the soul's absence from the body, we shall be 〈◊〉 with the Lord, 〈…〉 〈◊〉 in the ●o●y. Which being t●u● opened, 〈◊〉 shall 〈…〉 Frist against the first error, viz. That the Scripture speaks nothing of the state of the soul from death to the resurrection, and that 〈◊〉: If the 〈…〉 the state of the soul when absent from the body, than the Scripture declares what the state thereof shall be a●ter death unto the Resurrection. But the former is true, that the Scripture declares the state of the soul when a●●ent from the body, for Paul confidently concludes, it shall then be present with the Lord. The Fat●er therefore, that the Scripture declar● what the state of the soul shall be after death, etc. is as evident; because there being no time wherein the soul can be absent from the ●ody, besides the time between death and the Resurrection; therefore what the Scripture speaks of the soul as ●●sent from the body, can concern only the state of the soul between death and the Resurrection, at which resurrection the soul becomes present in the ●ody again.  
The second error following upon the former, viz. That the Scripture 〈◊〉 where declares the happy or glorious state of the soul from death to the resu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; may be thus destroyed. If the Scripture doth determine the state of the st●t● from death to the resurrection, to be more desirable the● the sta●● of the soul before death, living by faith, then 'tis certain that the Scripture declares the state of the soul happy after death. But the former, that the Scripture doth determine the state of the soul, etc. i● true: for the Apostle expressly desires that state, which shall be when the soul in absent from the body, rather than the life of faith in the body. The latter the●, that the Scripture concludes the state of the soul to be happy after death follows inevitably; because as the state thereof when absent from the body by death, could not be more desirable than living in the body by faith, except it were more happy; so being the more happy of the two, ●s therefore tran 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lie happy in itself; because that state which is less happy, even the life of faith, is throughout the Scripture declared a happy & bl●●●ed state in itself.  
Secondly, if the soul from death to judgement shall be present with God, the certainly the state thereof shall be a state of glory. But the former, that the soul shall be then present with God, Paul is most confident of. The latter therefore, that this shall be a state of glory, follows clearly, because the state of glory is throughout the Scripture described to be a being present with the Lord, or walking with, or being with the Lord, or with the Lamb, as frequently throughout the Revelation, so 1 Thess. 4.17. Io●. 7.14.  
Yea thirdly, if the soul after death shall see that glory, the things eternal, etc. which in the body it only apprehends by faith, then certainly the state thereof after death shall be a state of glory. But the former is fully employed as is before clearly proved. The latter therefore, that the state thereof after death shall be a state of glory, follows necessarily; because the Scripture frequently makes the seeing or beholding God's glory, to be the special and eminent effect of the state or glory: for which, besides Ioh● 17.24. , see Matth. 1●. 20 Heb. 12.14. Rev. ●2. 4. Yea further, because the seeing of his glory cannot but transform th● beholders into a state of glory according to that, 1 I●●● 3.2 We shall be like him, s● we shall see 〈◊〉 as he is: So 2 Cor. 3. 2●. upon beholding (by faith) we 〈◊〉 cha●ged much more seeing God as he is.  
And whereas it may be here objected, and that truly, That the Scripture alleged in the two last reasons, do refer to the state of glory at the Resurrection, and not to any state preceding; yet because the state of the soul when absent from the body is here described by these very ●ea●●● of seeing and being with the Lord, which elsewhere describe the perfect state of glory, therefore both states must needs be the same in nature or quality, (though not in degrees) both having the self same description.  
The third error, That the soul is mortal and dy●● with the body, must f●ll, if the Arguments against the former error be available: for if the soul be happy after death, than not moral. But yet I shall add one Argument against this third error, viz.  
If the soul when absent from the body shall be present with the Lord, as really as 'tis present in the body before death, then certainly the soul dyeth not with the body.  
But the former, that the soul when absent, etc. is true; for the Apostle expresseth the presence of the soul with the Lord, by that very word whereby he expresseth the presents of the soul in the body, both which therefore ●●port a like real presence. The la●er therefore, that the soul dyeth not with the body, follows necessarily; because as the soul cannot have existence or be present in the body except it lives there, so much les●e can it be present with God, that quickeneth all things (1 Tim. 6.13) except it lives with him. Seeing then the soul is present with the Lord as living (after absent from the body) therefore it dyeth not with the body.  
Object But possibly some may say; you under●●ke to prove the state of the soul from that Scripture, which doth not at all mention the soul.  
Answ For answer; though the soul be not expressed, yet that the state of the soul is meant there, is most evident; because there is an apparent division made between soul o● body, both in v. 6. We being present in the body; wherein is expressed both the body, and we present in it. And again v. 8. there is a body, and then we to be absent from it, and present with the Lord; which we being to express Paul and other Believers, must of necessity be understood of their personal essence; but their corporal essence it cannot be, for the body is expressed besides in both Verses: by we therefore must needs be meant the soul, as appears undeniably; because there is nothing besides the body that can be of the essence of man but the soul alone. And therefore when the Scripture speaks distinctly of an humane person, it divides him into these two parts, Soul and Body; so Matth. 10.28. or into mind and flesh, so Rom. 2. ult.  
Secondly, another Argument might be urged from that clause, we w●lk by faith, if compared with the Context; which clause by faith holds forth the proper act or state of the soul before death (for with the heart man believes, Rom. 10.10.) though soul be not expressed; and so v. 8. holds forth the act and state of the soul to come after death, though soul be not expressed there.  
Object But there is yet another Objection, viz. That the 〈…〉 the set day of recompensing every man according to what he hath done, a● 2 Cor. 5.10. and many like places; and therefore it seems contradictory, that the soul should at all partake of that recompense before the set time.  
For answer, though the Scripture denominate the day of judgement to be the great day of recommence; yet this proves not that the s●●●● of men are altogether excluded from glory and wrath till then, because 〈◊〉 Scripture doth frequently ascribe the p●o●er denomination of a work 〈◊〉 the last accomplishmention, or finishing of it though much of the work be●●●● before: to clear which, for brevity lake, I will only instance in the ●●●●●sions of Scripture touching this ve●y day of recompense. which is called Ephes. 4.30. the day of redemption: now as that cannot be understood ●●●●sively, as if the Saints receive no part of their redemption till th●● 〈…〉 most evident 1 Pet. 1. 1●. that the Saints do in a degree pa●●●● really 〈◊〉 redemption here, by being 〈…〉 their veins ●●●●●sation through the precious blood of Christ; but 'tis therefore called the day of redemption, because then shall be the consummation thereof, both in soul and body, the body being then raised, which therefore is called distinctly in R●●. 2. ●3. the redemption of the body. So is it also the day of recompense, not exclusively, as if God conferred no happiness on the soul till th●n, but because then the happiness shall be perfected; ye● the glory of that recompense, th●● shall be so transcendent, as that the ●ec●mp●●●e which the soul shall receive in the ●ean time, may in comparison of that m●st perfect recompense, be counted as no recompense, according 〈◊〉 that parallel expression 2 Cor. 3.10. Even that which was made glorious, had 〈◊〉 glory, etc. In the manner this day of redemption is called the ad●pti●●, as in that R●●. ●. ●●. Waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body; not that the Saints 〈…〉 not of adoption till the redemption of their bodies, for in vers. ●6. ●5. 〈◊〉 ●●●●fore, they are expressly showed to be the ad●●ted s●●s of God 〈…〉 ●●●ving the spirit, and 1 I●●●. 3. ●. Now 〈…〉 the sons of God, that 〈◊〉 present privilege. So that the perfect possession of that ●●●●●●ance of God's sons, whereto they are adop●ted in called adoption, as it actually accompl●sheth the privileges of adoption, though they be really adopted before.  
FINIS.   

Imprimatur,  
Ja. Cranford.