notwithstanding their most rationall improvements Except the Father draw him not except he draws or surely ingages the Father by improvements but there will be necessity of further inlargements on this from what follows we see here that insteed of being ingaged by promise by naturall improvements we have the contrary he saith not because you have imployed Naturalls therefore according to my promise I will sâ—cond it with grace but contrarily notwithstanding your utmost improvements Yet No man be he ever so accurate in naturall improvements can come except the Father draw him which to do no improvements can draw God You next alleadged another Scripture Luke 13.24 Strive to enter in but as touching this I finde no absolute promise of Grace annexed from Gods being ingaged by naturall improvements therefore not as yet seeing any thing considerable therein whereof to take notice shall step over to what appeares 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 Naturall men dead c. have not such a power of Reason Judgement c. 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 Iohn 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 finde not how it may be read with good sence any other way then as the Indicative Mood ye do search which I ground not onely on my own Judgement though I finde this that the Originall Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scrutamini may as properly be so rendered for as I remember 't is the Judgement of Doctor Homes as in his book Of new Heavens and new Earth I have seen though not since divers moneths by-gone and that it may most properly be thus rendred may as I conceive be most cleerly proved from the context the occasion of all Christs discourse from the 19. verse of that 5. chap. seemes chiefely 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 equall with God c. 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 onely to bear witnesse of himselfe but sent his fore-runner John to bear witnesse which John ye sent to your selves verse 33. who accordingly bave witnesse 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 practise as before in sending to know Johns judgement so here from their own diligent inquiry into the Scriptures ye do search even your selves 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 witnesse against them without Christs Why Because thâ—y perused his writings and so were rendred inexcuseable yea further cleer 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 seemes considerable towards the proof of what 's affirmed Ye search which word imports exact and accurate scrutiny and no marvail for therefore ye search 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because in them ye think to have eternall life upon this very ground they searched and therefore with all their utmost care and diligence as conceiving to finde 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 testifie of me those Scriptures which ye think to have life by from the letter of them testifie of me what it must have reference as I conceive to what they sought for namely eternall life they testifie 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 baptized with water to Christ to be baptized with the Holy Ghost Notwithstanding your searching ye will not come to me that ye might have life which proves that mens naturall improvements do not ingage 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 selfe Justiciaries which sanctuary of justification by works we most obviously finde was the strongest one which the profoundest wisdome of the Jewes 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 ingage 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 ingage themselves in improvements as to ingage 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 naturall powers of reason judgement c. on the wrack as is before shewed by propounding questions rationall discussing them praying for c. But all this did not make Christ confesse I see you have done your utmost therefore I le perform mine engagements to give saving faith no he tearms their strongest reasonings but murmurings adding no promise thereunto and therefore not ingaged 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 murmurings and disputings murmure not c. think not so to prevaile by your reasonings as if God were bound thereon to give you saving knowledge or thereby surely to attaine faith why so 't is added Verse 44. because Gods 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 vertue of your improvements still continuing a free agent in dispensing grace No man can come c. No man whosoever under which indefinite tearm he comprehends all howsoever qualified or improved concluding the ground of all mens being not able or not having power to come to God to be Gods not drawing them Gods 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 naturall improvements he tells them no man can come by which tearme of exclusion he debars all without exception that are not drawne that so these that were most inquisitive according to naturall 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 onely reason of it and not a want of being ingaged by us Publicans and Sinners were as capable of faith as the learned Scribes and did as much ingage God though it be commendable for naturall men to do their utmost yea and most hopefull for as much as they are in Gods way Object Another proof is Rom. 11.7 Israel hath not obtained grace but did he seek for 't yes for 't is 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 toucht on Seek c. that Israel is said to have done here in respect of the outward performance as naturall men the command Seek in Matthew is of the simple Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the duty here acknowledged to be done by them is of the compounded Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requiro as if they had sought with such earnestnesse and confidence as one requiring or commanding which they might justly have commanded if by their seeking they could ingage God to accept them as according to a promise made for God by the law of his faithfulnesse is bound to performe the law of his promises Yes the word here being the compound Verbe 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 naturall power but whence is it they fail'd of their end we shall finde 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 carefull seekers alike shewing t is not seeking for he was found of them that sought him not but Gods free election that diversified their conditions in respect of grace who in respect of naturall endeavours sought one as well as another But what 's the reason the non-election obtained not 't is added the rest were blinded how blinded that 's shewed by rehearsing a sore judgement of spirituall blindnesse which God poured on them denounced in Esay 29.10 God hath given them the spirit of slumber eyes that they should not see c. or God hath suspended the saving discovery of faith without which they have onely their own naturall wisdome to improve which is but as eyes that cannot see we finde no other ground given for the clearing of the matter which place now alleadged being so plainly pertinent for expedition sake I shall commend to your consideration for a more rationall and methodicall 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 finde But declining this shall proceed to another proof wherefore I might as I conceive as fitly alleadge that in Matth. 11.25 Christ blesses the Father for that he hid from the wise and prudent what was revealed to babes what 's the reason is it because the prudent were lesse 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 't was 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 freedome nothing is said to make the difference between each party but Gods revealing and that with infinite perfection of freedome because 't was agreeable to the good pleasure of his will Againe Matth. 13.10 said the Disciples Why speakest thou to them in parables i.e. to the Jewes Christ answers Because to you is given to know the mysteries and not to them Christ uttered himself in a dark mysticall way to them because God who is a free giver of free-grace suspended the gift of his grace whereby to magnifie his freedome and he shewes he doth this in answer to the prophecy of Esay 6.9.10 where 't is Goe tell them heare ye indeed and understand not c. make their hearts fat and their eares heavie c. According whereto he speaks here mystically leaving them to their own naturall blindnesse so that it seemes clear the ground of the difference was from Gods 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 then the Jewes so as to engage God c. 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
holinesse c. 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 holinesse c. of God in any command he therein had need of a power of closing with the truth and faithfulnesse of God in any promise whether of Christ or any other because the self-same power would necessarily have inabled him to each of those acts a-like for it had been impossible for Adam to have had a power to have acknowledged God in his holinesse and not by the same to close with his truth and faithfulnesse both which go together so inseparably as that we finde God himselfe most frequently ratifying the promulgation oâ— 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 Gods holinesse is such a prevailing argument as will inforce 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 Gods 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 confirme to him that office by promises as large as that command Behold I have given to you every Hearb c. 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 needfull for the setling of the dominion upon him so vvas it as needfull for Adam actually to believe that promise that thereby he might undertake that office not vvith doubting but vvith assurance of successe 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 prophaned Gods wisdome in exhibiting it and not believing he had oppugned Gods truth and faithfulnesse 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 universall Soveraignty over the whole creation hence it followes 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 faithfulnesse and grace of God which knowledge being that spring or fountaine whence a true believing in Christ doth alwayes and can alone flow Adam being furnished with could not but have believed the mysterie of Christ because hereby all the Saints have believed and indeed God acts so fully like himself that so far as a man knowes and believes Gods excellencies he cannot but know and believe his revealed acts and contrivances what ever they be but above all others the mysterie of compassing salvation by Christ holds forth so lively a representation of God in all his excellencies of Wisdome grace righteousnesse c. as would have enforced Adam to have beleeved it who before had a knowledge of Gods excellenâ—â—â—â— in being created in Gods own image which consisted in knowledge as also in righteousnesse and holinesse By which Arguments I conceive that both Adams having need and use of 〈…〉 power as could have produced a beleeving in Christ is evinced and the Wisedome of God therein vindicated the vindication whereof is a work of such concernment as will I hope excusâ—â—y largenesse 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 Christs death c. which Argument may be thus destroyed If the essence of a power of beleeving consists not at all in the knowledge of Gods Will before revealed by God then Adam not having power to know the mystery of Christ before revealed by God doth no way prove his not having a power of beleeving that mystery but the former is true That the essence of a power of beleeving consists not c. Because according to your definition â—â—is a power of cordiall 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 reveales is far different from a power of fore-knowing Gods Will before revealed for the one namely the knowledge of the secrets of God belongs onely to God while his revealed will belongs to men And so God gives a power of beleeving to many thousands and yet reserves his secret Councell from them all the latter also That Adams not having power to foreknow c. follows inevitably because when two faculities differ in kind then the absence of one proves not at all the absence of another Next after you propound an Objection against your selfe for Answer whereto you first refer to your fore-going argument against Gods Wisdome 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 c. And thence you infer that Therfore doubtles Adam had not a power to have beleeved 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 it selfe For first you ground Adams 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 onely repeat a former reason already answered and adde one new which you immediately destroy by your own contra-supposition and so the Objection remaines altogether unanswered Next follows your fourth reason against Adams having such a power because Christ was not revealed which may be destroyed thus If the want of an outward meanes though necessary to concur in producing an act cannot prove the want of the intrinse call power necessary to that act then it follows That Adams wanting the Revelation of the object to be beleeved cannot prove his wanting an inward power to beleeve But the former is true that the want of an outward meanes 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 Adams wating the Revelation c. proves not his wanting an inward power c. because the Revelation of the object by promise the outward means of beleeving being one thing and faith the inward power of receiving it another thing distinct from the former hence it comes to passe that either of them may be where either of them is wanting Adam then might have a power of beleeving and want the word of faith though now faith comes by hearing even as he was created in Gods 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 beleeve a thing or object because the object was not revealed then 't will follow that Adam had not a power of staâ—â—â—â— righteous by the Law of works for if he had not power to belâ—â—ve a thing because 't was not revealed then by the same reason he had not power at first to obey any command because 't was not revealed for the Revelation of a command is as much necessary to obeying â—s the Revelation of a promise is necessary to the beleeving therof and the meer Revelation of a promise would have infused into Adam no more power of beleeving then the meer Revelation of a comâ—â—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 â—eed of supply of new power to obey because before 't was revealed he had not power to obey Which consequences utterly overthrow that perfect power by standing righteous by works which you expresly affirm Adam had making him unable to perform any work by his first created power Thus much in Answer to your reasons alleadged against Adams having power of beleeving c. which are all grounded upon a mis-understanding of and swerving from the true definition of such a power and so are made up of an indiâ—tinct and consuled conjumbling of other things with it for neither the need use thereof nor the fore-knowledge 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 adde one word viz. that it must needs be dangerous presumption to charge such a person with weaknesse before triall who for excellency and perfection of nature is avouched again and again by God himselfe to be created after Gods own Image and likenesse 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 tryed whether he had such a power of beleeving or not by which act the grand Master-peece of Gods whol Creation is without all ground vilified Against all which that I may yet adde one passage I shall indeavour to state the question in most cleâ—â— and full tearmes which question being Whether Adam had a power of beleeving in Christ the essence of which power consists in a power to beleeve an object revealed cannot be truely 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 beleeve 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 tryall thereof for though such a power may be without an outward Object yet there can be no tryall 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 appeares 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 beleeved it then necessarily he must have needed supply of new power whereby to have beleeved and so upon this revelation supposed his condition would have been the very condition of unbeleevers now who upon the revealing of this mystery need new power to beleeve it both which consequences are utterly inconsistent with the nature of his first compleat power of standing happy Yea thirdly supposing that Mystery to have been revealed to Adam to be beleeved the very revelation hereof would have required and commanded him to have beleeved it and his beleeving 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 beleeving then it follows That his first power could not have inabled him to stand by a Law of Works by perfect obedience which as you expresly grant he was fully able to do And yet before passing from this question I miâ—t 〈…〉 word to prevent the mistaking mine and in answering it 〈◊〉 is That I have not endeavoured to prove Adams â—aving 〈◊〉 power from this reason because without it God could not â—â—â—â—stice destroy mankinde for whether he had a power of beleeving or no is a Question needlesse and impertiment touching the â—â—â—ring of Gods justice in mans destruction as may be made â—â—â—â—fest thus If Adam in whom as you acknowledge all his posterity stood had such a power under the first Covenant as was suâ—â—â—â—â—ent to justifie God in the death or destruction of man disobeying then to examine whether Adam had power to beleeve a second Covenant is altogether â—â—â—iceessâ—ry to clear Gods Justice in â—â—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 passe or denounce the
follows not therefore that naturall men can so aske The thing promised on asking you acknowledge to import acceptation with God but shall it be had upon every asking No T is Wisdome whereof James tells us in the place fore-named in expresse termes it cannot be had but upon asking in faith so that whosoever be meant by Son here he must aske in faith without which his naturall improvements ingage not God at all Not but that such must improve naturall abilities for 't is their duty but yet thereupon 't is not Gods 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 expresly to be with greatest attention and intention Apply thy heart c. If thou cryest after liftest up thy voyce seekest her as silver c. Now according to that known saying Ignoti nulla cupido 't is impossible meer naturall men not possest 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 c. Taking pains as one digging in a mine for hid Treasures swine are not wont to take such paines for pearls As yet therefore I cannot conceive this exhortation to be chiefely directed to naturall men as having a power so to perform the duty as to ingage God to instate them in the promise which to prove you bring it but in strictnesse and propriety as 't is a promise 't is onely absolutely given to them that have faith though the condition on our part so concerns naturall 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 inable all that know their duty to do it so that while naturall 't is impossible for them to keep any one savingly The next Text alledged is John 6.27 Labour c. For that meat which endures to eternall life which the son of man shall give to you namely said you Upon labouring even Naturall mens 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 mans improving his Naturalls 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 Naturall abilities only or chiefely as whereunto annexing a promise seemes evident because by Labouring he means true beleeving which I prove from 28. and 29. verses Christ having exhorted them to Labour c. 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. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that in 28. verse following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated might work are the same so that their question propounded was in reference to the duty injoyned before that they might understand the nature of that Command whereto Christ answers telling them what labour or work 't was he required of them where the word translated work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers the Verb whence also the Verb is derived and so joyntly import Labour in all three verses which work then is to beleeve in Jesus Christ as is directly laid down in expresse termes verse 29. If then labouring imports the saving work of beleeving then 't is more then utmost improvement of Naturalls because by such improvement we cannot work the great work of faith so then by Labour he commands more then Naturall improvement And because 't is a work far above the reach of mans Naturall improvements he that givâ—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 't is here granted Christ requires them to improve their naturall abilities but yet withall 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 c. but yet after all must rest in nothing but Christs gift they were so to labour by naturall 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 naturall improvement as to ingage Christ to give them everlasting meat certainly upon their labouring which 't is brought to prove Answ For Answer as yet I conceive that they had no promise made on their meer Labour though to utmost improving naturall abilities which I prove thus clearly because they did labour according to their power for they took as good a course as naturall reason could prescribe First they desired to understand what their duty exprest by the tearm Labour did import next they desired in a most rationall way some good ground whereon to stablish or bottome this their duty of beleeving even by some sign which was an ancient manner of confirming great matters in answere whereto he declares himself to be the true signe from heaven the bread of God whereupon according to the strength of naturall understanding imprinting in them a desire of happinesse because 't is again and again affirmed to be the bread of life they put forth the utmost of their Naturall abilities in this great request Lord ever more give us this Bread whence Christ again declares himselfe to be that Bread and further tells them who should partake thereof even he that comes to me or beleeves in me not every comming for these came yet to them he saith ye beleeve not shall never hunger c. whereby alluring them to come and yet after their improvement of naturall abilities in affectionate askings Christ tells them Ye come not so as to have life But is not their not improving Naturalls given as the reason thereof Object Answ No in no wise for they improved their Reason judgement c. to the utmost yet further to finde 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 naturall 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 naturalls therefore 't is you beleeve not or doth he expresse by way of promise that because you have improved c. in reasoning disputing begging c. Therefore according to my sure promise ingaging me I le second your improvement with grace I will give it you No but contrarily the reason why they cannot come to life or beleeve 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 ingaged to put forth on them
take away from him by far more then 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 Gods 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 't is most true That when men think to be most bountifull 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 farre oppresse Nature for Gods cause till he leave not so much to Nature as to bear the charge of its own condemnation and then if men leave not to Nature sufficient to bring the guilt on it of its owne condemnation then it must necessarily reflect upon God But if we will consider two Arguments in generall we shall see that the assertion mentioned that if men do what is in their power c. they shall finde 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 then God of necessity must destroy men for not doing that which is altogether out of their power to do for as for actuall believing 't is a work so farre out of the power of the creature as that it requires Gods 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 inferiour 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 gratiousnesse 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 Oyle that will mollifie it no reason nor argument nor consideration that is able to make attonement for it or to reconcile it with any of these either with any expression in Scripture concerning the tenour of the grace of God towards the world nor otherwise with the principles of reason and common sense 't were as good reason to say that God destroyes 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 doe then they have to make themselves God or an Heaven and Earth Neither will it at all here availe 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 businesse as if God might in a way of justice equity and righteousnesse condemne men for not doing that which sometimes they had power to do namely in their first Parents though now they have not I answer 't will not at all ease the businesse First because 't is 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 certaine 't is that Adam himselfe 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 't is inconsistent with his wisdome 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 righteousnesse and justification on other tearms and in another way so that he had no necessity of a power to believe to justification because as Paul saith Gal. 2. If righteousnesse be by the law than Christ dyed in vaine so it had been in vain Adam being under a righteousnesse 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 righteousnesse 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 then he had a power also to foresee his fall because justification presupposes sinne because 't is from sinne and consequently a power to believe presupposeth a sight and a sense of sin but that he had no such principle in him vvhereby 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 loynes would have been a very tormenting consideration to him and therefore it being altogether against the righteousnesse of God that man should be miserable before he sinned hence 't is 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 c. It must be supposed he had such a knowledge of Christs Incarnation c. but that he had nor the least whispering of this great Mysterie 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 Christs Incarnation was the most deep of all things deep out of the sphear of the minds of Men and Angels therefore 't is certain Adam had no knowledge of this mysterie 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
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 Geometricall 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 then 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 incumbrances this had been more inconsideration then a believing right-down 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 finde grace with him so far as to be endued with strength from on high to believe then 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 sinfulnesse at all in the will whereas the Scripture from place to place placeth the cause of the equity of Gods proceedings in condemnation still upon the will of man or on some corruptions found therein or on the frowardnesse perversenesse and pride in the will Luke 13.34 Oh Jerusalem c. thon wouldest not 't is not cast on any impotency in them not upon any want of power but the cause is in the depravation of their will Iohn 5.40 Ye will not come c. He charges not the Jewes with not having power but they had no will or minde to do it they stood off in fiery opposition against believing in Christ and comming to him for justification So Acts 7.51 A stiffe-necked generation ye have alwayes resisted the Holy Ghost now hovv did they resist the Holy Ghost which he charged as the main article of their condemnation they resist not by any defectivenesse of power but by frowardnesse and desperatenesse of will and resolution in that kinde Jer. 8.12 and again Jur. 44. We will walk after our own devices c. This shevves Gods judgement on them vvas from the frovvardnesse of their vvill so Why will ye dye O ye house of Israel Esay 44.17 But we will do c. And Christ saith The works of your Father ye will doe ye shall still see that the partition-vvall arising betvveen the creature and his peace and acceptation vvith God still lyes in the crookednesse and perversenesse of the heart and vvill Object But wherein differs this Tenent you maintain from that Arminian Tenent of Free-will or how will you answer those Scriptures denying a power to come to Christ John 6.44 No man can come c. Againe verse 65. No man can come c. John 12.39 Therefore ye do not believe because Esay prophesied c. Answ To the former I answer That the Arminian opinion of Free-will 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 Gods providence may draw out that power to the utmost of it That opinion of Free-will 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 mans part towards believing in Christ but further places such a power in man in both kinds as without any supernaturall assistance is able to produce a saving act of faith in the soule Now the thing asserted clearly denies both these For first though it affirmes a sufficiency of power for such things as are requisite on mans part so far to proceed and meet with grace and acceptation yet neverthelesse it denies any such power in the will to produce this executive power into act Secondly it places neither one kinde of power or other vvhereby the creature is enable vvithout a supernaturall assistance from God to raise any saving act in the soule so that here are too main and most considerable differences betvveen the one and the other But vvhat difference make vve betvven that vve call an executive povver and vvilling povver or a principle in man to dravv out that other povver The difference betvveen these is not hard at all to conceive because in ordinary discourse vve use to make such a distinction between a mans power to do such a thing and his willingnesse and inclination There are many rich men that have power and ability to contribute largely to the publick cause of the Kingdome yet neverthelesse 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 kinde towards the safety of the State Prov. 17.16 Why is there a price in the hand of a Fooll and no heart to improve it what 's that price 't is the oportunity or executive power to do such a thing whereby he might interest himselfe 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 carnall covetous voluptuous man hath an executive power to foregoe his sensuall 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 aversenesse in their will against such purposes Object Doe not those whom we call Arminians hold and maintaine that covetous and voluptuous persons have a disposition
you quite forgot what you had said before But that such a saying rises up with such contradiction against Gods justice grace c. as no principles of reason common sense c. can reconcile c. this shall yea must be granted you yet all so far from the least disparaging its truth as that it shalâ— have meat out of this eater for could the heights and depths of Gods justice in wayes of condemnation be compast about by the reason and comprehensions of men yea or Angels they could not be themselves incomprehensible whose judgments are past finding out therefore to say they are without the line or sphear 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 Gods wayes above our reason And whereas you affirme â—t were as good reason to say God destroyes man for not being God c. as for not believing because man can no more do the one then the other c. First if it be granted that man hath no more power to believe then to become God c. it followes 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 happinesse had a power to performe what ever might have been by God commanded for without such a power man-kind in Adam could not have had power to stand happy but had at best bin siable to misery by disobedience and that through impotency seeing therefore that while he could haue stood in a state of life he prophanly changed it for a state of death with most reason might God require him to doe as much for recovering his happines 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 c. Therefore 't is not a like reasonable to require him to become God for his recovery as to believe Again 't is denied that man hath no more power at all to believe then to make himself God c. For there is such a power in man as may be made a meet subject to receive and close with Gods 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 chiefe question whether Adam in innocency had a power of believing or not Touching which controversie it seems most necessary to consider strictly what 't was for him to have such a power or wherein it truly consists that we confound not our selves by compounding it with some other thing because if we consider not what 't is simply in it felt we may conceive it not to be where 't is 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 soule is inabled cordially to assent to or intirely to close with what God shall reveale to be believed Which cordiall 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 oâ— 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 vvith relying also this rather concernes the manner of propounding or revealing though to follow your definition would be greater advantage to me which laid dovvn may be very usefull tovvards the matter in doubt As first for your first reason against Adam having such a povver because no necessity thereof c. suppose it granted that he had no need to believe yet this proves not his not having a povver for the use or need of a povver given not essence to it nor is it the essence thereof there may be a povver to do vvhere no need is else a man hath not povver to do any thing vvhereof he hath not need as not a povver to vvalk speak c. because no need vvhereas a man hath povver to do thousands of acts needlesse and God hath a povver to raise of stones children unto Abraham though it be a needlesse vvork So that povver is here mis-understood in making povver and need to believe vvhich are tvvo evidently distinct things to be in one individuall But secondly by vvay 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 mysterie in or among such as have no need nor use thereof unto justification then Adams not having need or use of believing to justification cannot prove his not needing to have believed at all But the former is true vvitnesse 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 mysterie vvhich he could not have done without a true believing it himself The like might be proved from that company of Angels solemnizing CHRISTS birth with a song so befitting it Luke 2.15 The litter therefore plainly followes that Adams 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 mysterie to justification nor for any other end yet this proves not that he needed not a power to have believed this mysterie because such a power so excellent might be needfull and usefull to the producing of other acts needfull though altogether uselesse for this and that it vvas needfull 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 Gods Wisdome in giving man such a power may thereby be overthrown and that he needed such a power I prove from this your own Argument alleadged 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 righteousnesse
that because justice stands in a Geometricall proportion or in taking an exact accompt 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 Adams case you understand by those expressions of Geometricall proportion hence then it followes that Gods ingaging himself by promise to improvement is no necessary ground of mans salvation but Gods justice beholding them and their improvements is made a necessary ingagement 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 adde this Mans losing his first perfect power of obedience c. cannot but in equity justifie 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 Geometricall proportion or in a strict consideration of persons their conditions abilities c. For if Gods justice stands in judging acts according to the abilities where with the person is intrusted then it must in reference hereto count what abilities have been given him whereupon finding man in Adam to have been intrusted with a fulnesse 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 Gods justice upon computing both together must needs be so far from rewarding it with grace as that it cannot but condemne man for acting no way answerable to the power given and that in greatest equity because of the infinite disproportion between each which â—ight 〈…〉 If Gods justice in judging the 〈…〉 be so â—â—riâ—t 〈◊〉 compâ—â—ng the 〈◊〉 given 〈◊〉 person in relation to the act as that a great saâ—â—â—â— from a mâ—â—ied 〈…〉 then two â—â—iter from a widow and that because it judgeth according to their respective abilities then certainly justice weighing spirituall actions with the power given 〈…〉 Adâ—â— which you suppose cannot but condemn 〈…〉 because his actions â—â—â—ct utmost improvement hold a vast dispropâ—â—tion with that power Againe according to the parable of the talent â—f justice so exactly requires by way of â—â—taâ—iation 〈◊〉 for â—alout two for two five for five then open râ—quiâ—ing acts answerable to the power here supposed to be given man in Adam it mâ—st needs 〈◊〉 man falling 〈◊〉 short â—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 â—ittle of my power which 〈◊〉 the Widdâ—w or Lords servants had and lost Againe the instances prove it a matter of equity to accept of the endeavours of such as act propoâ—tiâ—nably 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 parallel'd to your second reason thâ—â— That 〈◊〉 the Widow been inâ—â—â—sted with a great 〈◊〉 and â—ewdly spetâ—â— all but two 〈◊〉 yet those mâ—st in justice have been coâ—â—ted us much as the large contributions of others because she hath now no more left And the Lords sâ—rvaâ—â— after â—osing ten talents being intrusted 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 seveiâ—ty hâ—â—ust his other servant 〈…〉 darknesse oâ—â—ly for not making profit of â—m single â—alent though 〈◊〉 mis-spent it not but 〈◊〉 it up Yet I would not here be mistaâ—eâ— as if I conceived it matter of moâ—â—nt to shew your mis-application of there instaâ—â—â—â— for could they be proved to be answerable to 〈…〉 would no way advantage it for though you 〈…〉 by way of proofe 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 Adams posterity that though it be supposed they had a power of believing c. 'T would indeed be tedious work it to reckon up the least part of all the dangerous confequences thereof for if Adams fallen posterity may do that which may be of more consideration in point of equity c. as you expresse Then it followes that mans fall is no prejudice at all but matter of advantage rather Againe hence 't will 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 Gods justice then what spotlesse Adam could doe Whereas touching the acceptance of the person in relation to the acceptance of acts 't is evident from the generall 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 Gods 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 then Adam a righteous man and his righteous works which argument directly maintaines justification by works and merit in that you say Man may now do what is as good or better in valâ—â— then Adam who then stood by works To adde yet one word against the force of all your Arguing upon supposition of Adams having a power to beleeve c. viz. Man beinging death on himself by breach of the first Covenant the work of justice hereupon is to inflict death what ever tearmes therefore are tendered to prevent death these are all fruies of free-grace though then those tearmes are unattaâ—â—able 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 tearmes beside those to Adam Doe thus else thou shalt surely dye much lesse is he bound to give a power correspondent to new tearms Next followes your second reason If men putting forth themselves c. and not finde grace c. Touching which I must affirme that though in my former discourse I gave you no ground to think I feared your opinion to comply with the opinion of Free-will in the Gospel sense yet am I constrained to affirme that the force of