but could not obtain it And whereas he saith It is no more I that is in the vulgar sense as to denominate not proceeding to the choice for his countenanced loved prevailing choice was the contrary It was against his will which was most strictly his will though too much his will and so God would accept it to Salvation Sixthly I add this as an overplus Was there as full a willingness as our frail and naturally defective humane Nature is capable of there could be no actual sin I mean so full a willingness only as to exclude every degree of unwillingness For where the reason why men do not is not at all Because in part they will not there it must necessarily be only Because they cannot and therefore no fault This is the sum of what is here said If there be a willing mind as to the prevailing degree to obey every command God will in mercy accept it to Salvation But was there a willing mind to any thing so willing as to have nothing of unwillingness God would not in this case account sin at all nay though it was not done through some other hindrance Those that would freely give if they had it without any unwillingness it will not be sin they did not give You may see also by this farther than I thought to have spoken that we have the Natural power though not of undoing the sins we have done yet of unsinning actual obedience for the future else we should not sin in not performing perfect actual obedience we onely want will Which may much humble us would we well consider it I shall Transcribe to you a passage out of Mr. Fenner's Willfull Impenitency which speaks as high as the most ingrateful expression I have used page 25. Rom. 7.18 I quote this place the rather saith he because many wrest it to their own destruction O sayes a wicked man I have a good will I would as Paul sayes but I cannot perform Thus men mis-interpret this place for look how far Paul would he could perform for the will hath potentiam executricem and an Imperative force over the man what he did will he did perform he performed it in his heart and tongue and hand c. But he would draw his will forwarder than it was but could not his very will was partly unwilling he could not indeed perform so much as he would that is he could not draw on his will so strongly as he would His will was not perfectly sanctified no Saint in this world hath any compleatness of will and therefore his performance is not perfect because his will is not perfect I say If thy will be converted to God thou art Converted obedience ever goes as far as the will And therefore if thou art willing it is certain thou art obedient Isa 1.19 whosoever is willing to obey that man does obey in some measure because the Will hath power of Execution and the whole man at command This is the reason why Divines say that The sincerity of the will is the condition of the Gosspel Thus he verbatim and page 86. We never sin against the Gospel but only upon Will-nots indeed we sin against the Law in every of our Cannots This last passage I confess I do contradict and so I think he doth himself in the passage before-cited and also in the following page 87. Conscience can never condemn us but only upon Will-nots If any should yet be dubious and unsatisfied or contentious and quarrelsome as indeed one may easily take occasions the saculties of the Soul being such abstruse things I shall appeal to them though they object either on one hand or on the other First To those that should affirm a Natural Impotency First Dare you think that God hath promised to men Salvation if they do and will punish them if they do not things they cannot do if they would never so fain etiamsi maxime velint If so Can you think that an Act of Mercy and this of Justice would not this be a punishment for no fault Do you not say that the reason why a Deaf man is not bound by the command of hearing or a Poor man of giving or the Fool by the command of understanding the Gospel is because they cannot do it or else they would be bound by these general commands as others Is not this to grant that Gods Laws oblige to obedience only quoad posse nosse as Lawyers speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None can possibly evade here but by saying as some do It is true such Impotent people are not obliged and the consequence that all are by the same reason exempted from doing what they cannot do would be good if this was the cause or reason why men are not obliged by such general Laws but this is not the reason but the reason is Because God doth not require it of them else the blind would be as much obliged to read and the deaf to hear c. But I would ask one thus replying such questions How doth he know since the Law is general that God doth not require the deaf to hear c. but by knowing this that God doth not require men to do what they cannot do Again Do you think that if God or man should require things which we cannot do that the Law would be as equal as a Law requiring what man can do and would the man be as much to blame in not doing as if he could And why doth not God require the deaf man to hear the Minister is there no reason of it in the Nature of things Suppose you should have read a Command in Scripture requiring you to forget all injuries Would not Natural reason and the notion you have of the injustice of requiring things impossible dictate to you to interpret such a Scripture Metaphorically To forgive all injuries And would you not have given this as your reason of so interpreting the words Because a man cannot forget a great injury if he would hath not the Natural power of so doing the Memory not being totally subject to the Will A man may forgive but cannot forget who it was that injuriously lam'd him or put out his eye So also if a promise had been of a great reward If we forget all injuries would you not give this as your reason why you cannot interpret the words according to the first and properest sense of the word Forget because if you do no thanks could be due for such a promise it would not be gracious but lusorious Secondly Did your hearts ever rereproach you as sinning in not doing that which you could not do or omitting that you could not but omit Tell me or rather your selves When and where and for what I except Melancholy people out of this Appeal for some of those I have known to have had great trouble of mind for things they could not help yea though your Natural Impotency came from sin as I think all
proportionably it lessens that particular fault if almost deprived of Reason Yet I dare not say with Augustine lib. 22. Contr. Faust Manic cap. 44. Culpandus est Lot non quantum ille Incestus in ebrietate admissus sed quantum illa ebrietas meretur That this that Lot was to be blamed for his Drunkeness but not for his Incest Because Expositors are not agreed of the meaning of the place And I durst less say it of his second Incest for he might be guilty of Incest interpretatively it not being enough against his will while he had the use of it if he before his second Drunkeness knew what had fallen out in the first and might not improbably suppose the like might follow again But I should be tiresome if I should endeavour too great exactness You see the thing in thesi made plain and that is enough here Suppose a Master find his Servant Drunk to a total senselesness and then should utter such words as these I command thee now to go immediately such a Journey would it not be irrational in the Master to be angry at his Servant not only which he may be for making himself Drunk and unfit for hearing and obeying his commands both which he could not have done when he did them But also for his not going the journey at that time when he knew he could not Secondly Others make this Exception that all Natural Impotence doth excuse except the man think he is able and that he hath the Natural power to do the thing he is commanded and then it doth not excuse then it is his fault not to do the thing commanded though he cannot The instance they use to bring is this If a Servant be bound in his bed that he cannot rise he knowing nothing of it and his Master calls him and bids him rise but he resolvedly lies still and will not This is easily answered For any one may see that the fault here is not That he did not rise which he could not but that he did not will desire or endeavour to rise which he could do This Instance rather confirms what I say And again this Instance is very improper for the thing it is commonly brought and as it is commonly applied for this seems to take for granted that the wicked are in no fault in that they do not Repent and Believe and so that the commands of Repenting and Believing do not oblige them but only it is their fault they do not desire will and endeavour to do these and it is to grant they may will desire and endeavour to obey the Gospel as having no Impotency to these but only cannot do the thing desired Whereas I must deny this as pelagianism and must say that in the sense they cannot believe and obey they cannot desire will and endeavour it and I can shew you that to will so far as to come to the prevailing choice would be Saving Yet these mean the prevailing degree For when they tell men they cannot believe the Gospel but wish them do what they can viz Will it they do not mean that they exhort them by this to will to obey the Gospel in such a low degree and so remisly as yet to will prevailingly to reject the Gospel This again implies to make it sense That if wicked men did know as the Objectors suppose themselves do that they have no Power then it would be no fault for them to reject the Gospel And then it would be Ministers duty indeed or they are very cruel to Souls to tell them they have no Natural power to Repent and Believe to free them from this supposed errour that they might be free from fault and know they are not bound to comply with the Gospel Object But is it no aggravation of the very not doing any thing when a man thinks he can do it and cannot I Answer Not in the least For Natural Impotency cometh not in the least within Morality You may as well say it would lessen a mans fault before God that thinketh he hath no greater an estate then will meerly serve his Family-necessities and spends it on a great Feast to have a superfluous Estate before that 's faln to him that he knew not of Thirdly Others make this Exception to the general rule That mans Natural Impotency to obey doth excuse from obedience except the reason why men obey not be not because they cannot though they cannot but because they will not and this say they is the common cause of mens not Believing and Repenting they cannot with this proper cannot distinct from will-not and yet that is not the reason why they do not Repent and Believe but because they will not now though such design the same I believe that I do in this discourse yet to bring these dark words into the light is enough to shame them Either they that make use of this evasion mean by cannot the Natural Impotency of doing the very same thing that he cannot do or else only deny the power of doing the thing he hath an Impotency to but grant a power notwithstanding of doing another thing required of him different from that he wants the Natural power of doing 1. If they mean it in the first sense ad idem that a man cannot do the same thing required but the reason why he doth it not is not because he cannot First It is a Contradiction as you may see in any instance keeping to the same If a man have not the Natural power of Willing this cannot but be a cause yea a sufficient cause yea the only cause of his not Willing It would be a strange idle kind of hindrance that hinders not a strange kind of Impotency to doing that hinders not that doing that is no reason of the not doing This is to say A mans blindness is no reason or cause of his not seeing or not the only cause Secondly It is contrary to express Scriptures to say their cannot is no reason of their not Believing We must say that a mans Impotency of Believing in what sense soever we take his Impotency is the cause and reason of his not Believing For that Impotency that Christ speaks of is given as the reason why men Believe not on him John 6.64 65. There are some of you that Believe not For Jesus knew from the begining who they were that Believed not and he said Therefore said I unto you that no man can come unto me except it be given him of my Father So John 843. Why do you not understand my speech Even because you cannot hear my Word you are of your Father the Devil that is You are so wicked you are of such Devilish qualities II. If they mean by these words that the fault is notwithstanding their Impotency that they do not some other thing than that they have the Impotency to and so the meaning is He hath an Impotency to somthing but his fault is that he doth not that
Saints in Heaven love God but God in them loves God Thirdly He cannot pray that God would make the Gospel prevail effectually in the world Destruunt orationes quas facit ecclesia sive pro infidelibus Doctrinae Dei resistentibus ut convertantur ad Deum Sive pro fidelibus ut augeatur ' eis fides preseverent in ea Aug. Haeres 88. Si fides est tantummodo liberi arbitrij nec daturà Deo propter quod pro iis qui nolunt credere oramus ut credant Quod prorsus faceremus inaniter nisi rectissime crederemus etiam perversas fidei contrarias voluntates Omnipotentem Deum ad credendum posse convertere Aug. lib. de grat lib. Arb. or in his Congregation if a Minister he cannot pray after his Preaching when he hath Sown and Planted and Watered that God would give the increase nor can he Pray for such things for his Relations but must mean no more than this that God would give them that free VVill which they have already and all men besides even the Natural powers and that they may be able to obey the Gospel if they will And by the way neither can they pray very earnestly for this power or ability to obey the Gospel which it is granted they may pray as earnestly for as a man may pray that God would not deprive him of the right Natural use of his faculties of understanding and will to be given or continued to themselves or others since they viz. that maintain this power is al that the Grace of the Holy Ghost gives hold they cannot sin or be guilty or inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel without this power and so could not be condemned for not obeying the Gospel if God denyed it them especially also considering they must hold consequently to this principle that God is bound in Natural justice ether to give this power whether they Pray or Pray not for it or not to condemn them for not obeying the Gospel because God will not do unjustly whether men Pray or Pray not Yea further since it may well be questioned whether it be lawful to Pray God to do that which he is bound by Natural equity and justice to do though I confess it is otherwise when only bound by promise or not to do that which he is bound by Natural justice not to do It is therefore questionable whether it can be maintained lawful according to the principles of those that hold that the only effect of Grace in dispute is giving that power without which men could not sin or which is all one be inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel to Pray God to give themselves or others that which they hold is the only effect of this Grace viz. this power of obeying the Gospel for this end viz. for this That they may not be condemned for disobeying it since he could not as they say in justice so condemn them if he gave them not this power And further Such as hold that the only effect of this comonly called the Grace of the Holy Spirit or commonly called subjective and internal Grace different from the objective and external Grace consisting in giving and promulgating the Gospel and external providences prosperous or afflictive objectively fitted and suited to cause Obedience to the Gospel concerning which objective take notice I do not speak nor move any Controversy is only the giving that power to obey the Gospel without which they could not be too blame or inexcusable or condemned for not obeying it I say such as these can give but very cold and heartless thanks for Grace causing them to obey the Gospel comparatively to the thanks they of other apprehensions can give But this on the By for I am now only professedly speaking of these things in the sense wherein they cannot as not pray at all so neither praise God at all for them which now I return to again Secondly He cannot praise God for such things named before as being done by God if he hold they are not he cannot say Cordially what the Pharisse is represented speaking with his lips God I thank thee I am not as other men are Extortioners Vnjust Adulterers or even as this Publican I would not wrong any I mean he cannot say this * Prorsus non gratias Deo agimus sed nos agere fingimus si unde alli gratias agimus ipsum facere non putaâ—â—us Aug. Epist 107. adlem heartily except he mean no more than this I thank thee thou didst as much for me as for these men but that I differ from them in these respects I had the power indeed from thee as they had but that I used it better than they I owe to my self free Will Whereas using this common Grace is surely the chief prime matter Oh but he received this power from God to use it It is true but yet a man that knoweth he hath done some good thing or avoided Evil more than others if he be of this opinion he accounts it was not therefore done by him as because he received more from God than others in the same circumstances with him but holds that he owes nothing here for any special Grace or help from God for though that which God did for him was the cause according to his Hypothesis of his goodness differing taken absolutely yet not at all taken comparatively in the sense now in hand it was no cause of the difference taken as a difference take this instance Two men had equal great stocks given them one increaseth his estate the other prodigallizeth all away if the reason be asked absolutely How one of them cometh to such a great Estate far greater than the other the Stock given was a cause and so thanks are due to him that gave it but if the reason be asked comparatively why he differeth from the other he ows that to himself and his good Husbandry and not to him that gave him the Stock no thanks is due here at all in this sense for this was no cause of and so no thanks due for his differing taken comparatively and not absolutely in which sence I am now speaking And then if God did afterward do great things for a man give him subsequent Grace be it what it will it was not from any peculiar favour or good pleasure without respect to any thing in him but because he used the preventing general Grace be it what it will rightly which others had in as great a measure as he and did not So if a man have fearfully declined from his wonted integrity and is after recovered he cannot thank God for this as coming from any special Grace if he hold that God doth not because he cannot without unjust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give imparia paribus but holds God did no more to recover him than to others going yet on in such degeneracy whereas others can say if they were more noble like the Beraeans Acts