Ezekiel Hopkins (1634–1690) on the Saveability of All Men by the All-Sufficient Death of Christ

None of you are excluded from a possibility of being saved. The Covenant of Grace runs in most large and comprehensive terms: Whosoever believeth shall obtain eternal life. The death of Christ and his blood is a most sovereign medicine, applicable, not only to all maladies, but to all men, if they will believe. Though it is true, that none shall be saved but the elect; yet is it true also, that a possibility of salvation extends farther than election. Election gives the infallibility of salvation, as reprobation doth the infallibility of damnation: but, yet, as there is a possibility for those, that shall infallibly be saved, to perish if they do not believe; so is it possible for those, that shall infallibly perish, to be saved if they will believe.

The possibility of salvation, therefore, stands, not upon election, but upon Two other grounds.

(1st) The Meritorious and All-sufficient Procurement of Christ.

Whereby he hath procured salvation for all the world, and for all in the world, upon condition of their faith; for that must still be taken in: for, were it not so, how could we preach remission of sins in his name to every creature, were not his death applicable to all? then, though some should believe, yet, for want of a sacrifice offered up and a price paid down for them, they should not be saved, though they should believe. How then is it, that we seriously call all men to repent and believe, that their sins may be pardoned and their souls saved? certainly, unless the death of Christ hath procured salvation for all men upon condition of faith and repentance, such calls would be false in us, and vain to them: for so, we should promise salvation upon believing, to those, to whom, though they should believe, salvation should be denied, because they want a covenant made with them, and a surety to undertake for them. Therefore, I say, Christ’s procurement is general so far, that whoever believes shall receive the benefit of his death.

(2dly) As the death of Christ is applicable to all for salvation if they believe, so Faith, that alone applies this death, is attainable by you all, if you be not wanting to yourselves.

None of you are under an impossibility of believing; and, therefore, not under an impossibility of salvation. Though it be certain, that some shall infallibly persevere in infidelity; yet there is no one, that hears the sound of the Gospel and the outward call of God in his word, but may believe and obey, if he be not wanting to himself. Neither is this doctrine Arminianism; nor is it prejudicial to the efficacious grace of God, whereby the will is powerfully swayed to faith and obedience: for the converting grace of God is not given to make men capable to believe and to be converted, but it is given to make them actually believing and actually converting. The most wicked man that is, without the converting grace of God, is capable to be converted even in his state of unregeneracy; and converting grace gives not any new power to enable us to be converted, but it gives us an actual conversion. Some shall never believe, and why? not because they are under an impossibility, but because they will not believe: it is not because they cannot, but because they will not; unless we would so gratify their sloth, as to call their obstinacy an impossibility. It is true they are obstinate, and that obstinacy can never be cured without efficacious grace; but yet that obstinacy is not properly called an impossibility.

Since, then, salvation is a thing possible, why do you not labour for it, that your souls may be eternally happy? Christ hath the key of David, and he openeth, and no man shutteth, and he hath opened the everlasting gate to you all, and bids you all enter and take possession. There stand no grim guards to keep out you, or you. You cannot complain that you are excluded by a forcible decree: no; you shut the doors upon yourselves, and refuse to enter.

Ezekiel Hopkins, “Practical Christianity, Recommended, Urged, and Encouraged, in Working out Our Own Salvation (Phil. 2:12, 13),” in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Ezekiel Hopkins, D.D., ed. Josiah Pratt, 4 vols. (London: C. Whittingham, 1809), 3:184–86.

Bio:
Wiki

DNB

Asahel Nettleton (1783–1844) on Total Depravity and Free Agency

This doctrine [of total depravity] does not imply that men are as bad as they can be. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.” And all the finally impenitent will wax worse and worse forever. The longer sinners suffer in hell, the more will they deserve to continue there.

This doctrine does not imply that men are not free moral agents. They possess all the faculties which are essential to moral agency—reason, judgment, memory, will, and affections. If they were not free moral agents, they could not be the subjects of moral depravity. To say, therefore, that total depravity is inconsistent with free agency is absurd. It if is, there can be no such thing as sin or blame in the Universe. For if total depravity annihilates free agency, then partial depravity destroys it in some degree. So far as an individual is depraved, so far as he is not free, and of course, not blame-worthy.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 44: Total Depravity (Genesis 6:5),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 394–95. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXVIII: Total Depravity,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D. D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 314–15.

Bio:  

Wiki

Nettles

Augustine (354–430) on His Immoderate Praise of Plato and His Later Views on Romans 7:14

I have been rightly displeased, too, with the praise with which I extolled Plato or the Platonists or the Academic philosophers beyond what was proper for such irreligious men, especially those against whose great errors Christian teaching must be defended.

Saint Augustine, The Retractations, trans. Sister Mary Inez Bogan (The Fathers of the Church Series, vol. 60, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1968), 10; Retr. 1.1.4.

(1) While I was still a priest, we were in Carthage at the same time happened to read the Epistle of the Apostle to the Romans and I, after I, to the best of my ability, replied to certain questions asked me by some of my brethren, they wanted my reply put into writing rather than merely spoken. When I yielded to them, another book was added to my previous works.

In this book I said: “However, what he says, ‘We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal,’ (Rom. 7:14) adequately shows that the Law can be fulfilled only by spiritual men, the kind that the grace of God transforms” (cf. An Explanation of Certain Passages from the Epistle of the Apostle to the Romans 41; cf. Rom. 1:11), I certainly did not want this applied personally to the Apostle who was already spiritual, but to the man living “under the Law” but not yet “under grace” (Rom. 6:14). For prior to this time, in this way I understood these words which, at a later date, after I had read certain commentators on the Sacred Scriptures whose authority moved me (cf. Cyprian, De dominica oratione 16; Ambrose, De paenitentia 1.3), I reflected upon this more deeply and I saw that his own words can also be understood about the Apostle himself: “We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal.” To the best of my ability, I have carefully showed this in those books which I recently wrote about the Pelagians (cf. On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 43 [Retr. 2.76]; Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.17–25 [Retr. 2.87]; Against Julian 2.3, 6.23, 6.70 [Retr. 2.88];  An Unfinished Work Against Julian 1.99; Sermon 154. Cf. also To Simplician 1.1 [Retr. 1.23]; On the City of God 22.21 [Retr. 2.69]). In that book, then, and in the words, “but I am carnal,” and then in what follows up to the place where he said: “Unhappy man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:24–25), I said that this describes the man still under the Law, not yet living under grace who wishes to do good, but, overcome by the lust of the flesh (1 John 2:16), does evil. Only the “grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25) by the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) frees from the dominion of this lust, and the “charity . . . poured forth in our hearts” (Rom. 5:5) through Him conquers the lusts of the flesh lest we yield to them to do evil but rather that we  may do good. Hence, then, the Pelagian heresy is now overthrown (cf. On Heresies 88), which maintains that the charity whereby we live righteously we live righteously and devoutly is not [poured forth] from God in us, but from ourselves. But in those books which we have published against them, we have also showed that these words are more correctly understood also of the spiritual man already living under grace, because of the body of the flesh which is not yet spiritual, but will be at the resurrection of the dead; and because of the very lust of the flesh with which saintly persons are in conflict in such a way that, though they do not yield to it and do evil, yet in this life, they are not free from those movements which they resist by fighting against them (cf. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.10; 1.17 [Retr. 2.87]; On the Perfection of the Justice of Man 11.28 [this work is not reviewed in the Retractations]; On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 39; 43 [Retr. 2.76]). They will not have them, however, in that life where “death” will be swallowed up “in victory” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54–55). Therefore, because of this lust and its movements which we resist in such a way that, nevertheless, they are in us, every saintly person already living “under grace” can say all those things which I have said are the words of the man not yet living “under grace,” but “under the Law.” It would take too long to explain this here and I have mentioned where I have explained it.

Saint Augustine, The Retractations, trans. Sister Mary Inez Bogan (The Fathers of the Church Series, vol. 60, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1968), 96–98; Retr. 1.22.1.

The first two books which I wrote as a bishop are addressed to Simplician, bishop of the Church in Milan who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose. They deal with various questions. I put into the first book the two on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. The first of these is on the passage: “What shall we say, then? Is the Law sin? By no means!” (Rom. 7:7) up to the place where he says: “Who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:24–25). In this question, the words of the Apostle: “The Law is spiritual, but I am carnal” (Rom. 7:14), and other words where he shows that the flesh wars against the spirit, I have explained as though he were describing a man “under the law” and not yet living “under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Long afterwards, to be sure, I thought—and this is more probable—that these words could also refer to the spiritual man (cf. Retr. 1.22.1).

Saint Augustine, The Retractations, trans. Sister Mary Inez Bogan (The Fathers of the Church Series, vol. 60, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1968), 119; Retr. 2.27.

Bio:  

Wiki

Similarly, Longnecker said:

Thus Romans 7:7–25 is not specifically either Paul’s or mankind’s preconversion state or postconversion experience. Nor is it the cry of only “the man under the law” or “the Christian who slips back into a legalistic attitude to God.” It is Paul uttering mankind’s great cry of its own inability. It is Paul’s and humanity’s realization that in our history and experience we have become so bound up by sin that there can be deliverance and victory only through God. This is not the recognition of the legalist. Rather, it is the abiding realization of the sensitive and is felt most by those who are the closest to God.

Richard N. Longnecker, Paul Apostle of Liberty: The Origin and Nature of Paul’s Christianity (Twin Book Series; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977), 114.

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) on Moral Power as Distinct from Natural Faculties

"3. I easily acknowledge that grace giveth such a power as is commonly called Moral, distinct from the natural faculties, as our corrupt estate contains an opposite impotency. But this is but an applying of the terms [Can] and [Cannot] [Power] and [Impotency] to Dispositions and Undisposedness, to Habits and their Privations. 

4. A new heart and spirit, I easily confess necessary. But those words do commonly signify in Scripture, only new Inclinations, Dispositions, Qualifications. It is a new heart, though only the old faculties and substance. I hope you will not follow Illyricus.

5. Where you say that [without faith a man can no more Receive Christ, nor do ought towards it, than a dead man can walk or speak.] I Reply 1. That proves not faith to be equivalent to a Potentia vel facultas, any otherwise then that it is of as absolute necessity, but not that it is of the same nature. If you show an illiterate man a Greek or Hebrew book, he can no more read in it then a dead man, that is, both are truly in sensu composito impossible: But yet it is but a habit that is wanting  to one, and a power or faculty natural, to the other. And so it may truly be said that a sinner cannot do well that hath accustomed to do evil, no more than a Leopard can change his spots, or a Blackmoore his skin. Yet if you mean that such are equally distant from actual change as a dead man, it is but a dead comparison. A dead man wants both natural faculties, and an inclination or moral power. An unbeliever wants but one."

Richard Baxter, The Reduction of a Digressor (London: Printed by A. M. for Thomas Underhill, at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door, and Francis Tyton, at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet near Dunstans Church, 1654), 131.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Isaac Watts (1674‒1748) on Natural and Moral Impotency

Object. I. But may it not be said here, If there be only an outward Sufficiency of Salvation provided for the Non-elect, by a conditional Pardon procured through the Death of Christ if they should repent and believe, but no inward Sufficiency of Grace provided to enlighten their Minds, to change their Hearts, and enable them to exercise this Faith and Repentance, the Event will be infallibly and necessarily the same, and their Damnation as necessary and certain, as if there were no outward Salvation provided; since they of themselves cannot repent, they cannot believe; for by the Fall all Men are become blind in Spiritual things, and dead in Sin.

Answer. It is granted, that no Sinner will truly and sincerely repent and believe in Christ, without the powerful and effectual Influences of converting Grace; and therefore they are called Blind and Dead in Sin, because God knows the final Event will be the same as if they were under a natural Impossibility, or utter natural Impotence. And for this reason the Conversion of a Sinner is called, A New Creation; Being born again; Giving Sight to the Blind; or, a Resurrection from the Dead: And the Necessity of Divine Power to effect this Change, is held forth in many Places of Scripture.

Yet we must say still, that Sinners are not under such a real natural Impossibility of repenting and believing, as though they were naturally Blind or Dead. 'Tis true, the Blind and the Dead have lost their natural Powers of Seeing and Moving; but when Scripture represents the Inability of Sinners to repent, or believe in Christ, by such Figures and Metaphors as Death or Blindness, it must be remembered these are but Metaphors and Figures, such as the holy Writers and all the Eastern Nations frequently use; and they must not be understood in their literal Sense, as if Men had lost their natural Powers or Faculties of Understanding, Will, and Affections, which are the only natural Powers necessary to believe and repent.

Now 'tis plain that these natural Faculties, Powers, or Capacities, are not lost by the Fall; for if they were, there would be no manner of need or use of any moral Means or Motives, such as Commands, Threatenings, Promises, Exhortations; these would all be impertinent and absurd, for they could have no more Influence on Sinners, than if we command or exhort a blind Person to see, or a dead Body to rise or move; which Commands and Exhortations would appear ridiculous and useless. And since the blessed God, in his Word, uses these moral Means and Motives to call Sinners to Repentance and Faith, it is certain that they have natural Powers and Faculties sufficient to understand and practice these Duties; and therefore they are not under a Necessity of Sinning, and of being destroyed, since there is nothing more wanted in a way of sufficient natural Powers, Faculties, or Abilities, than what they have.

All the other Impotence and Inability therefore in Sinners to repent and believe, properly speaking, is but moral, or seated chiefly in their Wills. 'Tis a great Disinclination or Aversion in these natural Faculties, to attend to, learn, or practice the things of God and Religion*; and this holds them fast in their sinful State in a similar way, as if they were blind and dead, and I said the final Event will be the same, i.e. they will never repent without Almighty Grace. And upon this account that strong and settled Inclination to Sin, and Aversion to God, which is in the Will or Affections, is represented in our own Language, as well as in the Eastern Countries, by Impotence or Inability to forsake or subdue Sin: As when a Drunkard shall say, I had such a strong Desire to the Liquor, that I could not but drink to excess, I could not with-hold the Cup from my Mouth: Or when a Murderer shall say, I hated my Neighbor so much, that having a fair Opportunity, I could not help killing him: Or when we say to a Man of Fury in his Passion, You are so warm at present, that you cannot see thins in a true Light, you cannot hearken to Reason, you cannot judge aright, you are not capable of acting regularly. And that this is the Manner of speaking in the Eastern Countries, is evident from the Bible, Gen. xxxvii. 4. Joseph's Brethren hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him: Yet you will grant all this is but moral Impotence, i.e. a very strong Inclination to Excess of Drink, or Murder, or Passion, or a strong Aversion to the contrary Virtues. Even in the things of common Life the Can-not sometimes signifies nothing but the Will-not, Luke xi. 7. Trouble me not, my Door is shut, my Children are with me in Bed, I cannot rise to give thee; i.e. I will not. And with regard to Faith or believing in Christ, our Saviour explains his own Language in this manner. In one place he saith, No Man can come unto me except my Father draw him, John vi. 44. And in another Place he charges the Jews with this as their Fault: Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have Life, John v. 40. So in the Parable one Excuse is, Luke xiv. 20. I have married a Wife, and I cannot come. All these Citations intend the same thing: their Can-not is their Will-not, i.e. 'tis the Strength of their Aversion to Christ, which is a moral Impotence or Inability to believe in him, and the Fault lies in the Will.

St. Paul speaks to the same purpose, Rom. viii. 7. where he shows, that 'tis the Aversion or Enmity of the Carnal Mind to God, which hinders it from obeying the Law of God, and at last he says, it cannot be subject to it. The Carnal Mind is Enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be: So then they who are in the Flesh cannot please God. The Fault still lies in the Will of sinful Man; and 'tis this makes it criminal, while it is not naturally impossible to be avoided or overcome.

And upon this account God is pleased to use moral Means and Motives, (viz.) Promises, Threatenings, Commands, &c. toward all Men, such as are suited to awaken their Hearts, and excite and persuade their Will to use all their natural Abilities, to set their natural Powers or Faculties to work, to attend to, and learn, and practice Faith and Repentance; and 'tis by these very means God persuades his Elect powerfully to repent and believe. But when Persons will not hear, nor be influenced by these Motives, because of their strong and willful Aversion to God and Godliness, their Crime is entirely their own, and their Condemnation is just. They have natural Powers or Faculties in them, which, if well tried, might overcome their native Propensity to Vice, though they never will do it.

If the great God, in a way of Sovereign Mercy, gives some Persons superior Aids of Grace to overcome this moral Impotence, and conquer this Aversion to God and Goodness‡; if he effectually leads, inclines, or persuades them by his Spirit to repent and believe in Christ, this does not at all hinder the others from exercising their natural Powers of Understanding, and Will in believing and repenting.

Nor can any thing of their Guilt and willful Impenitence be imputed to the blessed God, who is Lord of his own Favours, and gives or with-holds where he pleases, and who shall say to him, what dost thou? Why should mine Eye be evil toward my Neighbour, because the Eye of God is good? Or what Pretense have I to charge God with Injustice, when he does more for me than he is bound to do, though he does more for my Neighbor than he has done for me?

Let this then be constantly maintained, there is a natural, inward Sufficiency of Powers and Faculties given to every Sinner to hearken to the Calls and Offers of Grace and the Gospel, though they lie under a moral Impotence; and there is an outward Sufficiency of Provision of Pardon in the Death of Christ, for every one who repents and accepts the Gospel, though Pardon is not actually procured for all Men, nor secured to them. And thus much is sufficient to maintain the Sincerity of God in his universal Offers of Grace through Jesus Christ, and his present Commands to all Men to repent and trust in his Mercy; as well as to vindicate his Equity in the last great Day, when the Impenitent and Unbelievers shall be condemned. Their Death lies at their own doors, for since there was both an outward and inward Sufficiency for their Recovery, the Fault must lie in their own Free-will, in their willful Aversion to God and Christ, and his Salvation. I think this Distinction of natural and moral Power and Impotence, will reconcile all the various Expressions of Scripture on this Subject, both to one another, and well as to the Reason of things, which can hardly be reconciled any other way.

______________
* I grant this Inability to repent has been sometimes called by our Divines a Natural Impotence, because it arises from the original Corruption of our Nature since the Fall of Adam; and in this Sense I fully believe it. But this Spring of it is much better signified and expressed by the Name of Native Impotence, to show that is comes from our Birth; and the Quality of this Impotence is best called Moral, being seated chiefly in the Will and Affections, and not in any want of Natural Powers or Faculties to perform what God requires: And the Reason is plain, (viz.) That no new natural Powers are given by converting Grace, but only a Change of the moral Bent or Inclination of the Soul, a happier Turn given to our natural Faculties by the sovereign Grace of God and his Spirit.

‡ Whether the Spirit of God effectually persuade the Will to repent and believe in Christ, by immediate Influence upon the Will itself, or by setting the Things of the Gospel before the Mind in so strong a Light, and persuading the Soul so to attend to them, as shall effectually influence the Will, this shall not be any Matter of my present Debate or Determination; for in both the Event and Consequences are much the same: There is no new natural Power or Faculty given to the Soul in order to Faith and Repentance, but a divine Influence upon the old natural Powers, giving them a new and better Turn.

Isaac Watts, The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind (London: Printed for R. Hett and J. Brackstone, at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry, 1740), 247‒254.

Bio:

Wiki

Barry H. Howson on Gill, Brine, Knollys and the Second Tenet of Hyper-Calvinism: The Denial of Duty-Faith

The second important tenet of hyper-Calvinism held by Gill and Brine is akin to the first but a logical step beyond it. Since Calvin believed in the free offer of the gospel to all men it logically meant for him that all had a duty to believe the gospel. This is implied in his comment of [on?] 2 Cor. 2:25, where he writes, "But the question arises how this can be consistent with the nature of the Gospel which he defines a little later as the 'ministry'. The answer is easy: the Gospel is preached unto salvation, for that is its real purpose, but only believers share in this salvation; for unbelievers it is an occasion of condemnation, but is they who make it so."¹⁴⁹ The hyper-Calvinists, however, believed that only the elect were obliged to exercise saving faith and evangelical repentance. To put it negatively, it was not the duty of the non-elect to exercise these graces because they did not have the ability to do so, only the elect did. This was called the "modern question" which both John Brine and John Gill affirmed.¹⁵⁰ It is true that Gill did not directly enter into the debate but his words in many places leave us in little doubt where he stood on the issue.¹⁵¹ For example, Gill maintains in The Cause of God and Truth,

However there are many things which may be believed and done by reprobates, and therefore they may be justly required to believe and obey; it is true, they are not able to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, or to perform spiritual and evangelical obedience, but then it will be difficult to prove that God requires these things of them, and should that appear, yet the impossibility of doing them, arises from the corruption of their hearts.¹⁵²

And again he states,

God never calls persons to evangelical repentance, or requires them to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, but he gives that special grace, and puts forth that divine energy which enables them to believe and repent. God does not require all men to believe in Christ, and where he does, it is according to the revelation he makes of him. He does not require the heathens, who are without an external revelation of Christ, to believe in him at all; and those who only have the outward ministry of the word, unattended with the special illuminations of the Spirit of God, are obliged to believe no further than the external revelation they enjoy, reaches; as that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, &c., not believe these things is the sin of all that are under the gospel dispensations, as it was the Jews.¹⁵³

In another place he writes,

The things spiritually good which man cannot do, have been instances in; as to convert and regenerate himself, to believe in Christ, and to repent of sin in an evangelical manner; and these are things which he is not obliged to do of himself, and will not be damned for not performing of them. There are indeed things which man is obliged to, which he now cannot do, as to keep the whole law; which impotency of his is owing to his sin and fall.¹⁵⁴

Though Gill did not directly enter into the debate concerning the modern question, his friend, John Brine, did. In 1743 he responded to Maurice's pamphlet on the modern question with A Refutation of Arminian Principles. In it he affirmed that only the elect have a duty to exercise saving faith and evangelical repentance. He states, "With respect to special Faith in Christ, it seems to me, that the Powers of Man in his perfect State were not fitted and disposed to that Act." The reason for this, he contends, is that "this Act necessarily supposes a Dependence on Christ for Salvation, as Creatures lost and miserable in ourselves; but 'till Man was fallen and become miserable, he could not exercise such a Trust in Christ, as a Redeemer." He goes on to say that "special Faith in Christ, belongs to the new Creation, of which he as Mediator between God and his People, is the Author; and therefore, I apprehend, that a Power of acting this special Faith in him, was not given to Man, but, or according to the Law of his first Creation." For Brine, this ability comes only to the elect. Again, after examining the subject of repentance in the Old Covenant to the Jews he concludes that "Evangelical Repentance and special Faith, are Duties only of such Persons, to whom God reveals himself in his word, as their Redeemer through Christ." In this place Brine contends that the interpreter needs to distinguish between "natural and evangelical Repentance" and of "historical and special Faith." Only natural repentance and historical faith are required of all humans.¹⁵⁵ And so he can say,

But special Faith in those heavenly Mysteries, the Powers of Man in a State of Innocence, it is apprehended were not disposed to, and fitted for, by his Creation Principles, and therefore it is concluded, that special Faith becomes a Duty, only upon the Supposition of the Infusion of super-Creation-Principles, into the Souls of Men.¹⁵⁶

In other words special faith only becomes a duty for the elect who are given the power to exercise it.

Did Knollys espouse this second important hyper-Calvinist tenet, that it is not the duty of the non-elect to exercise evangelical repentance and saving faith in Christ? Or, to put it positively, that it is only the duty of the elect to exercise these things? It would appear from our study of Knollys' teaching concerning "the offering of the gospel" that he implicitly believed it was the duty of all people to come to Christ. This, however, is not only implicitly but also explicitly stated in at least one place in his writings. In his 1674 treatise The Parable of the Kingdom of God Expounded he writes,

It's the duty of every person, that sees their need and want of Christ, his holy Spirit, and sanctifying Grace to attend upon the Ministry of the Gospel and Administrations of the holy Ordinances of God, and to accept and receive Christ and Grace offered freely, without money or price.... And as it is their Duty to hear, so it is their Duty to believe, 1 Joh. 2. 23. and by faith to accept and receive Jesus Christ offered to them upon Gospel terms of free Grace.¹⁵⁷

It is also explicit from his answer to the Pithay Baptist Church question concerning prayer with unbelievers. Knollys along with several other London Particular Baptists wrote back to the church stating,

Prayer is a part of that homage which every man is obliged to give to God; 'tis a duty belonging to natural, and not only instituted religion.... It cannot be supposed that man being such a creature as he is should not be obliged to love, fear, and obey God.... If hereunto it be objected, that such persons have not the Spirit, therefore ought not to pray; this objection is not cogent, forasmuch as neither the want of the Spirit's immediate motions to, or its assistance in duty, doth not take off the obligation of duty. If it would, then also from every other duty; and consequently all religion be cashiered. If the obligations to this and other duties were suspended merely for want of such motions and assistance, then unconverted persons are so far from sinning in the omission of such duties, that it is their duty to omit them. 'Tis certain no man can, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, either repent or believe; yet it will not therefore follow, that impenitency and unbelief are not sins; if these be sins, then the contrary must be their duty. It cannot be their sin to cry to God for the assistance of his Spirit to enable them thereunto. If a duty be no duty to us, except we be immediately moved to it; then whether sin doth not cease to be a sin, if the Spirit do not immediately hinder us from it; and thus by the same reason we may omit a duty, we may likewise commit a sin; and hereby that great rule of duty God hath given unto men to walk by, is wholly made void, or at least allowed to be but a rule only at some certain times, viz. when the Spirit immediately moves us to the observance of it; till then it hath no authority to oblige us: and so every man is sinless, whatever sin be committed, or whatever duty be neglected, if the Spirit do not immediately hinder us from the one and move us to the other.

Moreover the design of the objection doth as effectually discourage such as are under doubts and desertions, from this duty, as any other person; and thus it would be as that great enemy to the souls of men would have it, namely, that there would be but very few in the world to acknowledge God in this solemn part of his worship: whereas all men are obliged to acknowledge him as the fountain of all goodness; and themselves to be dependent creatures on him, and therefore to supplicate him for those blessings whereof they stand in need: or otherwise it must follow, that they have no wants, and are not dependent on him, but are all-sufficient: or if they be under the sense of wants and of their dependence upon the supreme goodness, yet they must not (at least in the way of prayer) acknowledge those wants, and that dependence, by seeking unto God for the bettering their conditions: but they be obliged hereunto, not only from those innate notions they have of God in their minds, but by the express revelations of their Divine will in the holy scriptures. Christianity improves and rectifies, but it doth not abolish our reason; it helps to better mediums and motives to perform our service to God, but it doth not in any wise make void that which was a duty before.

If yet it be objected, that an unregenerate person fails in the due manner of the performance of this duty, therefore he ought not to pray; not to be joined with in prayer; We answer—the defect in the manner (though a sin) doth not discharge the person from the obligation; for still it is his duty to pray: 'tis true there are such directions given in the holy scriptures as to the right performance of this duty, which the mere light of nature could not give; yet the duty itself of invocating God is so agreeable to the universal reason and sentiments of mankind, that there is nothing spoken of this in the scriptures but what doth suppose it previously to be a duty: therefore, unless we suppose that the law of nature is totally obliterated, we must conclude that mankind are under an obligation to this duty. But if a failure in the manner doth take off this obligation, then every unconverted person is sinless, if he totally neglect this and every other duty. Yea, every Christian, when under deadness and distractions is discouraged from this duty; and thus a door would be opened to all manner of wickedness and irreligion in the world. Again, as the aforesaid defect doth not discharge the person himself from the duty, neither are we so far concerned therein, as thereby to derive guilt and pollution to ourselves, in case we should join in prayer with such a person; for if it would, then may we not communicate in duty with any person of whose sincerity we are not assured. But where such an assurance is made necessarily to our discharge to those duties which jointly are to be performed with others we know not: much more might have been added, but we consider what herein is said may suffice.¹⁵⁸

Knollys believed it was the duty of unbelievers to pray, and consequently, to offer to God all that is due Him from the creature. It is evident that Knollys did not hold this hyper-Calvinistic tenet of "no duty faith" but would have affirmed the "modern question" of the eighteenth century.
____________________
149. Calvin, NT Commentaries, X, 35.
150. One can see a hint of this tenet in Skepp when he says, "Conversion Work is not so easy and common, as the Generality of Persons imagine, who think they want only to be told their Duties, and if they will attend, they may perform all that is told them; for this corrupt Notion hath got footing in the Hearts of Men, that God will require no more than they are able to perform; but I have shown, that the Law of God requires more then the Creature is able to give; for otherwise Righteousness would be by the Law, and Christ would have died in vain" (Divine Energy, p. 208). And again, "Without [the Spirit's efficacious and irresistible work upon the soul in regeneration], as the Prophet's Staff in Gehazi's Hand: (for Spiritual Gospel Duties, and Moral Duties too, require more Ability and Skill than most Men seem to be aware of:) forasmuch as all Mankind sustained such a Loss in the Fall of Adam, and received such a deadly blow, and mortal Wound (in a Moral and Scripture Sense) as can never be made up to them, but by the Gift of Grace, and Righteousness through Christ Jesus; together with the Spirit of Life, and Strength, communicated from him, as the Second Adam, and New Covenant Head, in such a Manner as to quicken their Souls, and renew their Hearts; thereby working in them a Principle to will, and also an Ability suited for the Performance of all sorts of Duties, whether Moral or Evangelical" (Ibid., p. 57). Again, "And out of this Part of the Spirit's supernatural and efficacious Work upon the Hearts of God's Elect in effectual Calling, it is, that Faith and every other Grace, Spiritual Duty and Performance do arise" (Ibid., p. 169). Again, "Now Faith is to be consider'd first as a Moral Duty, and so the Law requireth Faith (as well as Mercy and Justice, as our Lord declares) as one of the weighty Matters and of the greatest Moment: Thus, as a necessary Moral Duty He that cometh to God in an Act of Worship, must believe that he is, and that he is the Rewarder of those who diligently seek him. But this is not enough, for there must also to this be added a Gospel justifying saving Faith.... The Soul, thereby is convinced now, that his Work and Duty is not to work for Life, Righteousness, and Acceptance with God, but to believe for Righteousness by laying hold of it as in another, being of meer Grace provided for him" (Ibid., pp. 153-4). Again, "'Tis therefore only Men's Ignorance makes them to think or talk of Faith as some easy Thing; and as if it was no more than a Moral Duty and Act of the rational Creature, assenting and consenting to this and the other revealed Truth and Proposition laid down or to be evidenced and demonstrated from the Word; whereas 'tis, as I have shew'd under the first Head, a new created Principle of the New Creature, and is to be found only in the Souls of the New-born who are born from above.... Faith is not of ourselves, but is the Gift of God, and must be wrought in the Soul by Energy or Operation of God" (Ibid., p. 157). And again, "There is more of the Spirit of God, as to his Efficiency and Energy, and kind Assistances in every gracious Act and Spiritual Duty, than some are aware of, or care to own" (Ibid., pp. 174-5). And again, "I have from the Holy Scriptures and the Saints Experience, endeavour'd to evince something of the passive Work of the Spirit of God upon the Hearts of his Elect, both in and after effectual Calling and Conversion, as the first in all that is Good, in which it appeareth Man is wrought upon, and moved, before ever he can move, so as to perform one Spiritual Act or Duty" (Ibid., pp. 176-7).
151. Even Tom Nettles believes that Gill held this tenet. He states: "Although I think the judgment should still be surrounded with cautions and caveats, there may be compelling evidence that Gill held to [this] distinctive Hyper-Calvinist tenet" ("John Gill and the Evangelical Awakening," p. 153).
152. Gill, Cause of God, p. 158.
153. Ibid., p. 166. See also Ibid., pp. 31-32, 115, 170, and 208.
154. Gill, Answer to Birmingham ... Second Part, in Sermons and Tracts (1773), II, 153. See also Ibid., II, 154. In addition, see his Body of Divinity, where he answers the questions, "Whether faith is a duty of the moral law, or is to be referred to the gospel?" and "Whether repentance is a doctrine of the law or the gospel?" (p. 376).
155. Brine, Refutation, pp. 4-8.
156. Ibid., p. 26. See also Ibid., pp. 19, 29, 44.
157. Parable, pp. 112-113. The phrase "that sees their need and want of Christ" is not spoken in a hyper-Calvinist sense because the context is concerned with offering the "spiritual Oyle unto whomsoever will buy it."
158. Ivimey, English Baptists, I, 417-420. The other signatories were William Kiffin, Daniel Dyke, Laurence Wise, Henry Forty, William Collins, Nehemiah Coxe, James Jones, Thomas Hicks, Joseph Morton, James Hycrigg, Robert Snelling and Thomas Hopgood. Moreover, it should be noted that the 1677/89 Confession similarly states in Chapter XXII. 1,3, "THE light of Nature shews that there is a God, who hath Lordship, and Soveraigntye over all; is just, good, and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the Heart, and all the Soul, and with all the Might.... Prayer with thanksgiving, being one special part of natural worship, is by God required of all men" (In Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, pp. 280-281).

Barry H. Howson, Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: The Question of Orthodoxy Regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599-1691) (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2001), 176–182.

See also: Barry H. Howson on Gill, Knollys and the First Tenet of Hyper-Calvinism: The Denial of the Free Offer

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on Moral Inability

MORAL INABILITY.
First, You inquire "whether any person by nature possesses that honest heart which constitutes the ability to comply with the invitations of the gospel?" I believe the heart of man to be by nature the direct opposite of honest. I am not aware, however, that I have any where represented an honest heart as constituting our ability to comply with gospel invitations, unless as the term is sometimes used in a figurative sense, for moral ability. I have said, "There is no ability wanting for this purpose in any man who possesses an honest heart." If a person owed you one hundred pounds, and could find plenty of money for his own purposes, though none for you; and should he at the same time plead inability, you would answer, there was no ability wanting, but an honest heart: yet it would be an unjust construction of your words, if an advocate for this dishonest man were to allege that you had represented an honest heart as that which constituted the ability to pay the debt. No, you would reply, his ability, strictly speaking, consists in its being in the power of his hand, and this he has. That which is wanting is an honest principle; and it is the former, not the latter, which renders him accountable. It is similar with regard to God. Men have the same natural powers to love Christ as to hate him, to believe as to disbelieve; and this it is which constitutes their accountableness. Take away reason and conscience, and man would cease to be accountable; but if he were as wicked as Satan himself, in that case no such effect would follow.

Secondly, If no man by nature possess an honest heart, you inquire, "Whether, if I be not what you call an elect sinner, there are any means provided of God, and which I can use, that shall issue in that 'honesty of heart' which will enable me to believe unto salvation?" Your being an elect or a non-elect sinner makes no difference as to this question. The idea of a person destitute of honesty using means to obtain it is in all cases a contradiction. The use of means supposes the existence of an honest desire after the end. The Scriptures direct to the sincere use of means for obtaining eternal life; and these means are, "Repent, and believe the gospel;" but they no where direct to such a use of means as may be complied with without any honesty of heart, and in order to obtain it. Nothing appears to me with greater evidence than that God directly requires uprightness of heart, not only in the moral law, but in all the exhortations of the Bible, and not the dishonest use of means in order to obtain it. Probably you yourself would not plead for such a use of means, but would allow that even in using means to obtain an honest heart we ought to be sincere; but if so, you must maintain what I affirm, that nothing short of honesty of heart itself is required in any of the exhortations of Scripture; for a sincere use of means is honesty of heart. If you say, "No; man is depraved; it is not his duty to possess an honest heart, but merely to use means that he may possess it;" I answer, as personating the sinner, I have no desire after an honest heart. If you reply, "You should pray for such a desire," you must mean, if you mean any thing, that I should express my desire to God that I may have a desire; and I tell you that I have none to express. You would then, sir, be driven to tell me I was so wicked that I neither was of an upright heart, nor would be persuaded to use any means for becoming so; and that I must take the consequences. That is, I must be exposed to punishment, because, though I had "a price in my hand to get wisdom, I had no heart to it." Thus all you do is to remove the obstruction further out of sight: the thing is the same.

I apprehend it is owing to your considering human depravity as the misfortune, rather than the fault, of human nature, that you and others speak of it as you do. You would not write in this manner in an affair that affected yourself. If the debtor above supposed, whom you knew to have plenty of wealth about him, were to allege his want of an honest heart, you might possibly think of using means with him; but you would not think of directing him to use means to become what at present he has no desire to be—an honest man!

Thirdly, You inquire, if there be no means provided of God which I can use that shall issue in that honesty of heart which will enable me to believe unto salvation, "how can the gospel be a blessing bestowed upon me; seeing it is inadequate to make me happy, and contains no good thing which I can possibly obtain or enjoy?" If I be under no other inability than that which arises from a dishonesty of heart, it is an abuse of language to introduce the terms "possible, impossible," &c., for the purpose of diminishing the goodness of God, or destroying the accountableness of man. I am not wanting in power provided I were willing; and if I be not willing, there lies my fault. Nor is any thing in itself less a blessing on account of our unreasonable and wicked aversion to it. Indeed, the same would follow from your own principles. If I be so wicked as not only to be destitute of an honest heart, but cannot be persuaded to use means in order to obtain it, I must perish; and then, according to your way of writing, the gospel was "inadequate to make me happy, and was no blessing to me!" You will say, I might have used the means; that is, I might if I would, or if I had possessed a sincere desire after the end: but I did not possess it ; and therefore the same consequences follow your hypothesis as that which you oppose.

If these things be true, say you, we may despair. True, sir; and that is the point, in a sense, to which I should be glad to see you and many others brought. Till we despair of all help from ourselves, we shall never pray acceptably; nor, in my judgment, is there any hope of our salvation.

Let a man feel that there is no bar between him and heaven except what consists in his own wickedness, and yet that such is its influence over him that he certainly never will by any efforts of his own extricate himself from it, and he will then begin to pray for an interest in salvation by mere grace, in the name of Jesus—a salvation that will save him from himself; and, so praying, he will find it; and, when he has found it, he will feel and acknowledge that it was grace alone that made him to differ; and this grace he is taught in the Scriptures to ascribe to the purpose of God, given him in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Andrew Fuller, “Answers to Queries: Moral Inability,” in The Complete Works of Rev. Andrew Fuller (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845), 3:768–69. Also in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, rev. by Joseph Belcher, D. D. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 3:768–69.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Hugh Knox (c.1733–1790) on Moral and Natural Inability

The distinction between natural and moral inability, I have ever thought an important and useful one, when well stated and explained. My worthy and excellent friend president Burr was the first who ever gave me an idea of this distinction. He did it in three sermons preached from Joshua xxiv. 19. "Ye cannot serve the LORD; for he is an holy GOD," &c. He acknowledged they were the substance of Mr. Edwards' book relative to that subject, and expressed a pretty strong desire of having them printed, as some of the most useful and important he had ever preached. All the world I suppose are agreed in the idea of natural inability; and were I to define moral inability, it would be in terms like these; "A natural and contracted disinclination or aversion to the exercises of piety and moral virtue, which becomes faulty and criminal by our resisting motives which would have overcome it, and wilfully neglected to apply to GOD, thro' the REDEEMER, by prayer and the other instrumental duties of religion, for those influences of his HOLY SPIRIT (freely offered to all who seek him) by which it would have been totally subdued, and our volitions and actions engaged on the side of piety and moral rectitude.

Hugh Knox, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Jacob Green, of New Jersey, Pointing out some DIFFICULTIES in the CALVINISTICK Scheme of Divinity, respecting FREE WILL, DIVINE DECREES, PARTICULAR REDEMPTION, &c. and requesting a SOLUTION of them (London: printed for G. Keith, J. Johnson, E. Englefield: and sold by J. Gore, in Liverpool; P. Broster, in Chester; W. Pine, in Bristol; Newton, Clarke, and Harrop, in Manchester; and the princip alsic booksellers in Leeds, 1770), 39.

Bio:

Annals of the American Pulpit

Thomas Scott (1747–1821) on Natural and Moral Ability

But sinners cannot obey the call. This is a truth if truly understood. They are under a moral, not a natural inability. Is this distinction useless and unintelligible? Is there no difference betwixt a covetous wretch, who with a full purse hath no heart; and a compassionate man who hath no money, to relieve a fellow-creature in distress? Both are effectually prevented, but the one from himself, the other by an external hinderance. Every generous man at once indignantly condemns the one, and wholly justifies the other. When the case is put, divested of all false colouring, the one could if he would, and the other would if he could. It is said of God that he "cannot lie." But whence arises this impossibility? Surely not from external restraint, but from the perfection of his essential holiness. Satan cannot but hate his Maker. Not because of outward force put upon him, but through the horrid malignity of his disposition.*

*If there be no real difference betwixt the want of natural faculties, and the want of moral dispositions, there can be nothing culpable even in Satan's opposing God, and endeavouring the destruction of men; for it is as impossible at least that he should do otherwise, as that sinners should perfectly obey the law, or of themselves repent and believe the gospel; and if they are excusable, Satan is consequently so too. Indeed, on this supposition, all characters are reduced to a level; for in proportion to the degree of evil disposition, or moral inability to good, evil actions become excusable: and by parity of reasoning, in proportion to the degree of moral excellency of disposition, or of moral inability to evil, good actions being unavoidable, become less praise-worthy. Thus, the more inwardly holy any man is, the less esteem is his piety, justice, and charity entitled to; for he can scarcely do otherwise. An angel, as confirmed in holiness, is still less entitled to commendation; for in some sense it is impossible he should do otherwise than be holy. He cannot sin. And through necessary excellency of nature it is strictly impossible that God should do any thing inconsistent with the most consummate wisdom, justice, truth, and goodness. He cannot: and, shall we say, this inability (which is the incommunicable glory of his nature) renders him less entitled to our admiring, adoring, grateful love, than otherwise he would be?

Every one must see what confusion would be introduced into civil and domestic concerns, if no regard were paid to this distinction, and an inveterate propensity were allowed as an excuse for crimes: and it introduces equal perplexity into all our discourses on divine things; because it runs directly counter to all our rules of judging characters and actions. A good outward action without the least corresponding disposition, is in reality mere hypocrisy: as the disposition to good and aversion to evil increase, good actions have more genuine sincerity, and the character more amiableness. When we can say with the apostles, "We cannot but do" so and so—we are entitled to as much esteem and approbation as mere men can be. This moral inability to evil is much stronger in angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect; and therefore we are taught to look forward to such a holy state and temper as the summit of our wishes and desires: and God himself, who, being under no restraint, but doing his whole pleasure, cannot but be perfectly and unchangeably holy, is proposed as the object of supreme love, admiring gratitude, and adoring praise.

On the other hand a bad action, if done without intention, or the least disposition to such moral evil, is deemed purely accidental, and not culpable. When it is contrary to a man's general disposition and character, and the effect of sudden temptation, it is considered as more venial than when the effect of a rooted disposition; and for a criminal to plead, "I am so propense to theft and cruelty, that I could not help it," would be to condemn himself as the vilest miscreant, not fit to live, in the opinions of judge, jury, and spectators.

There can be no difficulty in proving, that this distinction is implied throughout the Bible, and has its foundation in the nature of things; and so far from being novel, it is impossible that a rational creature can be unacquainted with it. No man ever yet missed the distinction between the sick servant who could not work, and the lazy servant who had no heart to his work; that is, betwixt natural and moral inability; and no man could govern even his domestics in a proper manner, without continually adverting to it.

"But," say some, "human nature now must be laid low, and grace exalted." Now we ask, Which lays human nature lowest? To rank man among the brutes, who have no power, or among fallen spirits who have no disposition, to love and serve God? Or which most exalts grace? To save a wretch who could not help those crimes for which he is condemned to hell: or to save a rebel, who was willingly an enemy to his Maker, and persisted in that enmity, till almighty power, by a new creation, overcame his obstinacy, and made him willing to be reconciled?

Thomas Scott, “Sermon on Election,” in The Theological Works of the Rev. Thomas Scott (Edinburgh: Peter Brown and Thomas Nelson, 1830), 150.

Bio:
Wiki
BOT

Archibald Alexander (1772–1851) on Natural and Moral Inability

…many adopted with readiness a distinction of human ability into natural and moral. By the first they understood merely the possession of physical powers and opportunities; by the latter, a mind rightly disposed. In accordance with this distinction, it was taught that every man possessed a natural ability to do all that God required of him; but that every sinner laboured under a moral inability to obey God, which, however, could not be pleaded in excuse for his disobedience, as it consisted in corrupt dispositions of the heart, for which every man was responsible. Now this view of the subject is substantially correct, and the distinction has always been made by every person, in his judgments of his own conduct and that of others. It is recognized in all courts of justice, and in all family government, and is by no means a modern discovery. And yet it is remarkable that it is a distinction so seldom referred to, or brought distinctly into view, by old Calvinistic authors. The first writer among English theologians that we have observed using this distinction explicitly, is the celebrated Dr. Twisse, the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and the able opposer of Arminianism, and advocate of the Supralapsarian doctrine of divine decrees. It was also resorted to by the celebrated Mr. Howe, and long afterwards used freely by Dr. Isaac Watts, the popularity of whose evangelical writings probably had much influence in giving it currency. It is also found in the theological writings of Dr. Witherspoon, and many others, whose orthodoxy was never disputed. But in this country no man has had so great an influence in fixing the language of theology, as Jonathan Edwards, president of New Jersey College. In his work on "The Freedom of the Will," this distinction holds a prominent place, and is very important to the argument which this profound writer has so ably discussed in that treatise. The general use of the distinction between natural and moral ability may, therefore, be ascribed to the writings of President Edwards, both in Europe and America. No distinguished writer on theology has made more use of it than Dr. Andrew Fuller; and it is well known that he imbibed nearly all his views of theology from an acquaintance with the writings of President Edwards. And it may be said truly, that Jonathan Edwards has done more to give complexion to the theological system of Calvinists in America, than all other persons together. This is more especially true of New England; but it is also true to a great extent in regard to a large number of the present ministers of the Presbyterian church. Those, indeed, who were accustomed either to the Scotch or Dutch writers, did not adopt this distinction, but were jealous of it as an innovation, and as tending to diminish, in their view, the miserable and sinful state of man, and as derogatory to the grace of God. But we have remarked, that in almost all cases where the distinction has been opposed as false, or as tending to the introduction of false doctrine, it has been misrepresented. The true ground of the distinction has not been clearly apprehended; and those who deny it have been found making it themselves in other words; for that an inability depending on physical defect, should be distinguished from that which arises from a wicked disposition, or perverseness of will, is a thing which no one can deny who attends to the clear dictates of his own mind; for it is a self-evident truth, which even children recognize in all their apologies for their conduct.

Archibald Alexander, “The Inability of Sinners,” in Theological Essays: Reprinted from the Princeton Review (New York & London: Wiley and Putnam, 1846), 266–67.

Bio:
Wiki 

For an example where the distinction has been misrepresented, see Canon XXI in the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675).

More from John Humfrey (1621–1719) on Redemption

As far as I can tell, this paper from John Humfrey has not been referenced or quoted in any other source dealing with moderate Calvinism since the work was originally published in 1673. I accidentally stumbled across his name and this work while doing EEBO searches. It took me some time to type this section on redemption, and I have tried to accurately reproduce the original, so I have retained the older spellings (or misspellings). The italics are also in the original.

Of Redemption.

I do not remember any thing in St. Augustin that is peculiar about this Doctrine; Only I take notice from several passages, that he goes still the Narrow Way: That the Elect only are redeemed: That none but those who are brought into the Church, by receiving all her Articles, and being Baptized, can be of that Number. That no Heathen, no Heretick, no Separatist from the Church, no Donatist, no Infant, though of Believing Parents, that dies unbaptized, can be saved. I must confess here I am not of the mind with this Father. And, as I apprehend, that Justine Martyr, and some such Ancients, who were Philosophers as well as Christians, have spoken more nobly than thus: So do I think that he goes not here the way of the Scriptures. There is the universal Grace of God; and special Grace of God, I count, held forth therein: and both consistent with one another. When Christ sayes, He came to save the World, that The Father so loved the World, as to give his Son, That he tasted Death for every Man, and the like; let not any think, but the Grace of Redemption doth concern all the World: And when we yet maintain special Grace with this, let not any confine the same to this or that Sort or Sect of Religion, but let him judge rather, that the Elect are scattered throughout the Earth; and it is God alone knows who are his. There is the universal Grace of Origen, that all at last shall be saved, of Pelagius, of Arminius. There is also gratia universalis aqualis & Pracedanea, of John Camero; we are not bound to maintain either of these: but there is Gratia universalis simpliciter, which if we maintain not, we must leave our Preaching, and the Gospel. The Followers of Truth and Mediocrity will be afraid to hold any other universal Grace, but such as I suppose St. Ambrose holds in his Books, De vocatione Gentium; that will agree well with the special Grace also and Election of St. Augustine; that is, such only, I count, as may justly lay the

Page 25 begins here--------------------------------

blame of mans Sin and his Destruction, altogether on himself, when it gives the whole Glory of his Salvation unto God. They that observe lying vanityes, forsake their own mercy.

For my proceeding on this point, it is not sutable to my purpose to be critical upon any words in the original Languages that Redemption is expressed by: or, to pretend to curiosity in the Laws and Customs of the Jews or other natious [nations?] about Redemption at large, which might be alluded to: I will rather leave this Note in my way, that, as the curious oftentimes are least apt for plain things, so must I say, that whatsoever notion is offered upon this or any other head of Divinity by any, who perhaps are of more exquisite learning and search in some things than others are, if when they are sufficiently declared, they are not apprehensible by common and ordinary people as well as themselves, I do account them little worth in the Christian Religion. They were plain men who at first Preached the Gospel, and they were plain men for whose sake it was Preached, and is Written. When I see evidently that there must goe more skill to the finding such or such things out, more learning, subtil distinction, and wit, than, I beleeve, any of the Apostles if they were living ever had, I cannot but think presently, There is none of Christs disciples would have delivered this, and it matters not my salvation whether it be so or not.

Neither do I entend a Common place upon this, or other of the Heads which I treat on, but an Exercitation onely, in order to my particular design: you must not expect any more. There is one thing then I account here to be mainly of necessity or moment; and that is, the understanding our Redemption by Jesus Christ but so, as that we may be solidly able to fix upon what that is which indeed accrewes to man from it, or which we may avouch for the immediate and uncontrolable fruit, or benefit, to us by it. I will not therefore make many words. The Redemption of man by Christ, I humbly conceive, does lye chiefly in this, The delivery of him from the Law as it was a Covenant of works, that is requiring of him such conditions as he is not now in his faln estate ever able to perform; and so must inevitably perish, if he were not delivered from it. When the fulness of time was come (sayes the Apostle) God sent his Son, made under the Law. &c. The

Page 26 begins here--------------------------------

Law as given to the Jews was a representative of the Law of Nature or Covenant of Works: and in Christs redeeming the jewes from it as given by Moses, he does redeem the World from that covenant which it represented, and there, I say, does lye the chief point of our Redemption. That very thing then, or that great immediate effect or benefit which accrewes to man from Christs dying for him, is his having other terms procured upon which he may be justified and saved, than those which by the Covenant of nature were due from him to obtain that end. For, God so loved the World that he gave his onely begotten son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. What is the immediate end here of God's giving his Son, That must be the Immediate fruit of Christs coming, dying, and redeeming the World. And what is that, but that Whosoever beleeveth in him, may not perish? That is, The delivery of him from the law of Works, and bringing him under the Covenant or law of Faith, that, upon the performance only hereof (who could not have it else without perfect doing) he may obtain everlasting life. And whether this favour of Christs procuring new terms upon which man may be saved does belong to the Elect only, or to all the world, there will need no more but to ask, To whom the Gospel is to be preached, to decide that question.

It is true, that the freedom of the Jewes from the Mosaical law; the breaking down the partition-wall thereby for the Gentiles to be incorporated into one Church visible; and a power in Christ himself to dispense all assistances necessary to both for their obedience to the Gospel; as also a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin onely, are fruits of Christs death, which may be said too, immediate and universal: but the great benefit which indeed comprehends these and the like in it, and appeares so notorious in the whole New Testament, is, The reconciliation of the world unto God by his death or Redemption. And what else such a reconciliation can eminently consist in, but that I have named, I leave to the understanding to give judgment.

Neither are we to forget that our Redemption in the Scripture is said to be from Sin, and the Devil, as well as from the Law; for the one is the Foundation of the other. When man fell from God, the Devil obtained a right and dominion over him.

Page 27 begins here--------------------------------

This was not a right as Lord, and Proprietour, but as Goaler and Executioner; that is, by vertue of that sentence which the Law as the Covenant of works passed on him. When Christ then by his Satisfaction to the Justice of God, did put an end to that Covenant; this Right which the Devil held thereby, must cease with it. In the Cessation of this Right; As the Slave who is redeemed from his slavery, is redeemed also from the work which he lives in as a Slave: So must all Mankind be redeemed from sin; only this Redemption must be distinguished, in regard of Title, and in regard of Possession. It follows not because the World lies in Wickedness, and the Prince of the Air still rules in the Children of Disobedience; that Christ hath not done His part in their Redemption: No, while the Law which held them under an impossible Duty (that is, the Law of Sin and Condemnation) is taken off, and the New Law is such, as every one is capable to perform the Terms of it, if he will: It is not for want of Right to come out of this slavery; it is not for want of Power; but it is because they are not willing to come out of it, because they love their sins; that the Devil keeps them still in Possession. Even as the Hebrew Servant, when the Jubile came; if he said, he loved his Master, and would not go out free, he was to have his Ears boared to the Door-posts of the House, and remain his Slave for ever. There is a double work, therefore, Christ has to do as our Lord-Redeemer. The one is to procure Deliverance if we are willing; that is, our Redemption in regard of Title: And the other is, To make us Willing, which is, to put us also in Possession. The one of these is that which is properly the work of our Redemption, and Universal: The other is peculiar to the Elect, and hath another name in Scripture; that is, our Vocation, Effectual Calling, or Conversion. Unless when this Possession comes to be perfectly compleat, that is, at Death; and then it is again called the Day of Redemption. Whom he did predestinate (saith the Apostle) them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified: And whom he justified, them he also glorified. If Redemption were not of a larger extent than Election, Vocation, Justification, and Glory, then would the Apostle have said; Whom he did predestinate, he redeemed: And whom he redeemed, he called.

Page 28 begins here--------------------------------

But when we find no such Link in this Chain, it is a convincing Argument to my understanding, for the Universalitie of Redemption.

It is said of Chirst, that he is the Saviour of the world; especially of his own body. In that Sentence we have both universal and special grace together; and the one is Applicatory, not Destructive to the other. The Redemption of Christ is universal: The Grace whereby a Man savingly believes, and repents, and so becomes one of his Body, is special, and belongs to Election. The Death of Christ may be considered, as it redounds to the purchasing Remission of Sin and Salvation upon condition; or, as it redounds to the purchasing the Condition for Remission and Salvation. In the first sense, Christs Redemption and Grace of the Gospel is universal; Doctor Twisse, and the like Divines, will say twenty times over: In the second sense, they will have it for his Elect only. For my own part, I must go from them here, and account, That the work of Christs Redemption and whole Mediation upon Earth, does terminate in the former consideration. The business of a Mediatour between parties, does lie in this, To bring them to some New terms, wherein they may be agreed when they were at odds before. The business of Christs Mediation, Redemption, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Satisfaction; or whatsoever word out of Scripture, or Orthodox Writers is used, does lie, I account, in this altogether, That he hath taken that course with the Father, that he shall not deal with the world according to the Covenant of our Creation; which requires such terms, as no Man now thereby can be justified or saved; but according to the Covenant of Grace, which is such, that whosoever he be, that trusting in his Mercy and Goodness through Christ, does repent, and walk sincerely before him; though imperfectly, shall be Pardoned, Accepted, and Saved, and yet he be Righteous in so doing. This I say, is the res ipsa, (as I take it) the thing it self, intended in all these sorts of words, with the connotations only of the modus also, the mode or qualification thereof, according to such several Expressions.

Here then appears a Truth (as it seems at least) very agreeable to my Reason; and will be found as Consonant perhaps to

Page 29 begins here--------------------------------

the Judicious, with the Scripture; that the Merit, or Purchase of Christ's Death, or the Price he laid down for our Redemption, was not offered to the Father, to procure of Him, that he should give Faith and Repentance to any; but that he should give Remission to those that Repent, and Salvation to those that believe on him. I humbly offer you these Reasons:

1. The holding otherwise than thus, does make Christ's Redemption a double thing; one thing for one man, and another thing for another: It shall be procuring Salvation for Judas, if he repent; and it shall be the procuring Repentance for Peter, that he may be saved. 2. It goes quite against the hair to reason, that Christ should procure the Benefit upon Condition, and only on Condition, and not otherwise; and yet that he should procure also the Performance. To what purpose do we make such a Labour about as this? Why do you not say, He purchased the Benefit rather free altogether without condition? 3. If our Believing, and Repenting, be also purchased, then is there nothing in Man's Salvation but of Purchase; and we shall be beholding to Christ for all, and to God for nothing. But if we are beholding to Christ for his Purchase; that Salvation may be had if we repent, and to God for this Repenting; then do we see, how highly Both are to be magnified for the Contrivance. 4. The Death and Redemption of Christ is for All, for every man; for our sins, for the world's. Distinctions to answer this, are but Evasions. But if Faith and Repentance be the purchase of Christs Death or Redemption, then cannot his Death and Redemption be universal, according to so many Scriptures. Let me double this, and add also, that the Purchase, or Redemption of Christ being universal certainly, as it is in Scripture, if by his Death he had procured the Condition, as well as the Covenant, and abatement of Terms, then must all Men Actually have been saved. I have one Reason yet more to offer; which is, That the want of knowing this, is, I take it, the great Stumbling-block, or Temptation to our Divines, in the receiving universal Grace, to cast special Grace quite off; when they should learn the true Mediocrity of reconciling both these together, according to the Scriptures.

When the Arminian then argues here, Christ hath died for

Page 30 begins here--------------------------------

All and Every man and that is not to be put off with the genera singulorum, or, the Gentiles as well as the Jewes: therefore the grace of God is universal for all and every one to repent and beleeve that they may be saved. I answer, this is manifestly inconsequent, because it is true that what Christ hath done by way of Redemption is universal, and belongs to all the World, and every man alike, which is terminated in procuring these terms to be offered to the World for salvation. But as for mans belief, repentance, sincere obedience, which are the terms, they come directly and immediately otherwise, not from the grace of Redemption, nor from the fountain of mans free will with them, but from the grace of Election. God gives us his Son, and he gives us his Spirit. His sending his Son is one thing, and his sending his Spirit another. The work of drawing persons to Christ, I do observe, is attributed to the Father and the Spirit, because this is Peculiar: when the work which is attributed to Christ in distinction to them, is Generall to all mankind. He sent his Son to purchase salvation, if we Beleeve: he sends his Spirit to work that faith and repentance in us that we may be saved. In the one does lye the mystery of our Redemption, in the other, I say, the mystery of Election. Let it be true on one hand that Christ by his Redemption hath indeed procured no more for Paul and Peter, than for Judas and the reprobate, and so the honour of his Redemption be kept up with the Arminian to the height they contend for it: Yet may it be true, I hope likewise, on the other hand, that the grace of God towards Peter and Paul was more in giving them saving faith and repentance, than to Judas or the reprobate, and so the doctrine of Special Grace and Election need not neither be discarded.

For caution, There is the Direct, and Collateral issue (if I may so speak) of Christs merit, purchase or death. It is certain that the Lord Jesus may be said by his death and merit to have procured his own exaltation, and as he is become thereby the Dispensatour of those treasures that are in his Fathers Election, so repentance or faith in a collateral way may be accounted to issue from thence. Whom God hath exalted to be a Prince to give repentance, as well as be a Saviour, to procure remission to Israel. But repentance, faith perseverance, or the condition which God

Page 31 begins here--------------------------------

requires of us, and not of Christ, in the business of our salvation, does not flow to us directly from, or is no direct and immediate fruit of, his Death or Redemption. I know moreover the Scripture tells us that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in him: But that may be true I hope, though some of those blessings only are the purchase of his death, and others the effect of his Intercession: or some the fruit of his Purchasing, others the effect of his Administring of the new Covenant.

This is certain, the Spirit is the Authour of our faith, repentance, all grace: but the Spirit is obtained by vertue of Christs intercession. I will pray the Father, and he will send the Comforter. I offer you one argument. The Spirit proceeds not from the Son alone but from the Father and Son. The mission or giving of the Spirit therefore cannot be the effect of our Redemption which is peculiar to the Son, and belongs to all the World: but is the fruit or offspring of our Election. It is true, we come in the name of Christ to ask his Spirit, and grace, that is, we ask it through Christs merits: but there is the merits of his Person, as well as the merits of his Death; & it is one thing to be the Propitiation for our sins, and another to be also our Advocate with the Father. This is that I will pitch upon, that we are not so to attribute all things to his Oblation, as to make any other part, or parts of his Mediator-ship, more then needs.

There is a distinction the Scripture makes of Christ in the Flesh and in the Spirit. He was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the son of God according to the Spirit, in his Resurrection from the dead, and in his living ever to make intercession for us. What he did for man in the flesh I account he did for all mankind, for he took not on him the flesh of David onely and the elect, but of all man-kind, or of human nature: but what he does in the Spirit, that may be peculiar (in some points at least) onely to his elect. Hence it is, that when he tells us he Laid down his life for the World, yet I pray sayes he not for the World, but for those thou hast given me out of the World. The prayer of Christ is a part of his intercession, which is Distinct from his oblation, and it is no argument from his not Praying for the World, that therefore he Died not for it. If ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more

Page 32 begins here--------------------------------

shall your heavenly Father give his holy Spirit to them that ask him. God hath given his Son to those that never ask him, even to the whole World: but he gives the Spirit of the Son only to his Children, even to such as can cry Abba Father, when they have received it. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, whom the World cannot receive. When he prayes not for the world, that he prayes for is the Spirit, and the Spirit which works grace in the heart whereby we are sanctified, and perseverance to bring us to glory, is peculiar to those whom God does give to Christ, and of whom Christ can say, For they are thine, and all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

You may say, on the one hand, If it be no more which Christ hath purchased for Peter than for all, then Peter might perish for all Christs Purchase. I answer, you may say so, and without ignominy to his Redemption, provided you know also that the Election of God and Christs Prayer will provided for Peter that further which it provides not for all, and Jesus Christ when he hath made his purchase, is the Executor of Gods Election. On the other hand it may be said, But to what purpose is this Redemption universal when none but those that perform the condition are saved? I answer, it is therefore universal, that none of those who performe the condition may misse of Salvation. As also, that though it be all one to him that does not perform the same, in regard of the event, as if he was not all Redeemed: Yet it is not all one as to God, and the Verity of Scripture, and his Judgement according to it. The Scripture sayes often, Christ Dyed for All; and that God will Judge the World according to this Gospel. He that believes, shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be damned; the Foundation whereof is Christs Death, which must reach so far, as to make this good. And who knows not, that the very business of our whole Religion, does depend upon the Establishment of the Verity of the Holy Scriptures?

I must confess, I should most willingly hearken to any, that could make Christs Death more Advantagious; and when his purchase hath procured Faith and Repentance to no body, but Remission and Salvation to All, upon their Faith and Repentance,

Page 33 begins here--------------------------------

if they are willing to say, that there is sufficient Grace also purchased for the World, that all, and every one should Repent and Believe, and apply that Redemption; I am indifferent to the use of their Thoughts: But if when I rather grant a universal Power, arising from Christs purchase, not as a direct fruite of his Death, but as a consequential Event (N.B.) from the Abatement only of the terms; that God is not wanting to any in necessariis, and consequently, that all men have sufficient Light, Spirit, Grace, or Power, to be saved, if they in gratuitis, and to give the Will and Deed it self, is more than to give Power, (as to have given Adam the Ipsum velle, had been more, and a gratuitum wherein he might have abounded, if he had pleased, than in giving him only Posse velle) I cannot see by any means, but when Christs Death is made universal, the Fathers Election must be left still, Per modum decreti efficaciter operantis, By way of a decree effectually operating, free and absolute, in regard to the condition of it's Application. If all men have alike the Posse velle, The Power to will, and no more, then must the reason, Why one man Repents, and is Saved, and not another, be resolved into his own self only, and so may and must he say, it is I, I myself have made the difference, when the Scripture does say, Who is it, O man, that hath made thee to differ? But if we allow (as Redemption to be universal so) a Posse velle from general: (I say, not a Posse velle as to the Covenant of our Creation, but as to the Terms of the Gospel:) And to the Elect, the Ipsum velle from special Grace, we shall neither have any thing to charge God, nor give occassion to Mans boasting. Neither shall the condition be held impossible; nor when we have performed it, shall we rob God of his Glory.

It is pleaded, That unless Faith and Repentance does lie in every Man's own Breast, Christ's purchase of Pardon upon that Condition, is but a Mock. I answer, To deny that to Believe, and to Repent, does lye in our Power, were indeed, to evacuate Christ's Death to All, besides the Elect: But to say, that Faith and Repentance therefore does flow from our Wills, is another matter. I must offer moreover; If Christ had purchased Faith and Repentace for some which All have not, the

Page 34 begins here--------------------------------

Reprobate might here have something to say, That the Reason why he Repented not, as the Elect did, was, because Christ purchased Repentance for the One, and not for the Other: But if Christ hath purchased nothing for One, but what he hath purchased for All (which directly is true,) then cannot the purchase of Christ be a Mock to any, seeing some do reap a real Benefit by it, and if others do not, it must be their Own fault. Indeed those Divines, who confound the Blessings we have in Christ, so as to make them All alike the direct Fruits of his Death with no difference, must be under some manifest Prejudice here against St. Augustine, and his Doctrine. It stands not with reason, that any thing which is part of Christ's Purchase, should be peculiar, for how then hath Christ dyed for All? That which is of meer Favour, is fit for the Elect; that which is of Purchase, should be universal, or for All Mankind. If that Grace then, whereby we Believe and Repent, is a Fruit flowing from Christ's Death, no otherwise than the Covenant itself does, these Divines alone must speak agreeably, who will allow no other, but that which they call sufficient, putting all men into an æqui librium, or equal Ballance, between Choosing and Refusing, and so leaving it upon their own Wills, to make the Difference, Who are saved, and who are not saved? But to what little purpose such Grace as this, is distinguished at all from Nature, and into what inconveniences, especially in reference to our Prayers, they must be lead that maintain it, I shall not be able to say presently. Cur admonemur orare pro inimicis nostris utique nolentibus pie vivere, nifi ut Deus in illis operetur & velle? Item cur admonemur petere ut accipiamus, nifi & ab illo fiat quod volumus, a quo factum est ut velimus. Again, Cur petitur quod ad nostram pertinet potestratem, si Deus non adjuvat veluntatum? Why are we bid to pray for our Enemies, whose Hearts we know are Averse? Why are we to bid to ask any thing which is in our Power, but that it is God who turns the Will? Augustine. Enchir: ad Laur. c. 31. Item De Gra. & alibi passim.

It is certain, that St. Austine, speaking of what Grace Adam had, and what We have (De correptione & Gratia. c.11.) does ascribe the Posse permanere si vellet, The power of standing if he would unto Grace. Prima gratia qua data est Adam, est qua fit

Page 35 begins here--------------------------------

ut habeat homo justitiam si velit: Secunda ergo plus potest, qua etiam fit, ut velit. Again, Posse permanere si vellet, quia dederat adjutorium per quod posset. He could have stood if he would, because God vouchsafed help whereby he could. I must confess, I should have judged it not to be of Grace, that Adam had his Posse perseverare, his strength to persevere, but of Nature, or his Original Righteousness: And that Grace (which he calls Adjutorium) is proper to our falne Estate, for the relieving of Nature. But if it were of Grace, that Adam had the posse only, when he had not the velle, then may we assert universal Grace with the more Authority; while we say, that there is a posse not in Man falne, as to the performance of the Covenant of Grace, no less than in Adam at first, as to his keeping the Covenant of Works: when yet the velle, which is of special Grace, is not vouchsafed.

There may be here indeed, a most difficult Demand, and that must not be baulked; Whether the Power, which is universal, be of Nature or Grace? And I must profess, it is an Entaglement to my Thoughts, to distinguish Nature at all, from that Grace which is universal. Although for the sake I suppose of some Texts, which attribute our sufficiency, our can, our power, as well as our will and deed to God, when they say too it is not of our selves, Divines do it. There is that Concourse, or Operation of God with Us, as reaches to the Endowing us with Power: or that which reaches to the Endowing us with the Will. The last of these only, if I might choose, I would have called Grace: Yet seeing Divines speak otherwise, whether the former also, be called Grace or Nature, so long as it be held universal, I desire to move no Contention. And you see me speak as one indifferent in it.

If we consult the Schools, we shall find them giving as little to the strength of nature as any others can doe. Nullum initium justificationis potest fieri sine gratia, Sive Illud initium sit causa, sive meritum, condigni aut congrui, sive impetratio, dispositio, conditio ad quodlibet aliquid, quocung; modo per se & ratione sui, conducens ad justificationem. There is nothing that we can doe of our own strength without grace that is any cause, merit, disposition, condition, or occasion of our justification, or the beginning of it. Ruiz.

Page 36 begins here--------------------------------

De prædestinationis exordio. Trac. 3. Disp. 17. By justification they understand in effect regeneration, and they distinguish of an occasion which is active or given of men, and passive or taken of God. They will allow indeed that we doe may be a Passive occasion or opportunity to God for the infusing his grace, which is with them to justify us, but no Active. Illa occasiones perse, & ratione sui, nullam Physican, nec moralem causalitatem exercent, ad obtinendam misericordian Dei, sed Deus pro sua intriuseca boxitate & Sapientia, ex illis occasionem accipit. Jb. Dist. 16 Sec. 2. The sum is, that whatsoever man does by the strength of nature, conduces to his effectual conversion onely (as a removens prohibens) by removing the hinderance which otherwise we might put, if we withdrew from the means that God hath appointed to obtain his grace. Licet enim aliquis per motum liberi arbitris divinam gratiam nec promereri nec acquirere possit: potest tamen serpsum impedire ne eam recipiat, sayes Aquinas. Though a man by the motion of his freewill cannot merit or procure the divine grace: yet can he hinder himself from receiving it. They said unto God, Depart from us we desire not the knowledg of thy ways. Quilibet acuis qui a nobis eliciatur per vires nature sine auxilio gratiæ nihil ad gratiam justificantem, nee(?) ad auxiliatricem gratiam influit: nihilue conducit aut convert perse ratione sui, sed solummodo quasi causa per accidens remonendo prohibens, aut tan quam occasio & opportunitas passina & a Deo accepta, non ab hominibus data. Jb. Dist. 20.

Having gon thus far in abasing the strength of nature, we shall find how they make it up again, with advancing an universall Sufficient grace, by the help of which lever the free will of man shall be lifted into the same throne, from when before they threw it down. For when that grace which they set up, must be such only as gives a next power to beleeve and repent if we will, but leaves the will undetermined and uninclined, and this being Supposed to be vouchsafed to all according to the condition they are in, whether Elect or Reprobate alike, it is apparent that mans free will by the cooperation with this grace, or refusal, is that which begins, or puts by his own justification, and causequently makes the difference (in the upshot) between him that is saved, and him that is damned. Supponimus omnibus adultis

Page 37 begins here--------------------------------

nullo excepto, dari auxilia sufficientia ad salutem, & non impedita, sed ita expendita, ut in poestate (?) cujusque sit, illis cooperando, ulteriora auxilia obtinere, quanruis per vires naturæ non possint obtinere auxilia gratis. Again, Barbari ignorantissimi per interiorem gratiam moventur ad cognoscendum (non explicite sed implicite & virtualiter, non certo sed subdubio, non in particulari sed in universali) aliquid supernaturale, atque ad illud desiderandum: Idque sufficit ut illustrationes & inspirationes suit quidditative supernaturales & sufficientes ad justificationis initium. Idem ib Disp. 25. Now what my thoughts are on this, I have offered as I pass; and more particularly, at the end, upon the first Head, of Election. There is universal Grace consistent with the Special Grace of Gods Elect: Or inconsistent with it. The former, I shall like to have well explained. The latter, I take to be against St. Augustine, and the Scriptures. The Grace of God is without, or within us. There is the Love, or Good-will of God to Mankind, who would have All to be saved: Our Redemption by Christ; The remedying Covenant; The Gospel. This is Grace without, and that some Grace there is then sufficient, and universal, that yet hath no Effect on the most, is out of doubt. There is moreover, that Grace which lies in the Help, or Assistance of the Spirit within, and the Fruit of it (Gratia Auxiliatrix, & Infusa) and this our Divines doe distinguish into Common and Saving. By Common, they understand not the universal sufficient Assistance of the Schools before, but some particular Operation of the Spirit, Effecting so much as it is given for, only because those Effects reach no farther than what is Common to the Elect and Reprobate, they call such Help or Grace only Common Grace. Thus far we are safe; As for any Grace besides all this, if there be any, not opposing Electing Grace, I shall be glad to hear it; but my own mind, I perceive, hangs thus. There is a Power to will or nill, to act of not to act, which is the power of Nature: And there is a Disposition on the Will, being touched by the Holy Spirit, to the doing what is good. Between these two, Nature, and Grace, to advance a middle Power, arising from an Assistance sufficient, preceding Effectual, that is to say, To make God by a supernatural Help, to produce a New Power,

Page 38 begins here--------------------------------

which they call, a next Power, in every man, over and above that Power which we have by Nature (which is the Remote Power, though the Schools mean it not so, and which alone will render the Sinner inexcusable without any other) antecendent to the giving the Will and the Deed, wherein effectual Grace does lie: Even a New Power, I say, Supernatural, of Believing, Repenting, or Willing, besides the Natural, antecendent to Faith, Repentance, or the Will it self: I do not see to what purpose else, if it be no a Device under the Cover of that Name, to advance Free-will, and slap off St. Augustine (as I take it to be in the Schooles) it can be made to serve. What need is there of Grace, to put the Will only in æquilibrio, which it is in by Nature? If it encines not the Will, and carries the Heart and Life: What shall I say of it, but as of the Wood or the Vine? Is it meet for any Work? Yet if it be, I refuse not to hang my Vessel on it.

Auxilium, aliud est proxime & immediate sufficiens, quod videlicet formaliter & actualiter continet omnes causas, & conditiones, ex parte principii requisitas ad eliciendum actum quo immediate dispo umur ad justificationem: Aliud vero non sufficit ad salutem nifi mediate atque remote, quatenus immediate sufficiens est ad eliciendum aliquem actum supernaturalem minus perfectum & remote distantem a justificatione; quem actum si peccator eliciat, de congruo merebitur, & impetrabit ulteriora auxilia supernaturalia, quibus possit elicere Perfectiores actus, proximius disponentes ad justificationem, quousque ipsam obtineat. Ruiz De præcip. effec. benevol. Dei erga reprob. Sec. 2. Auxilium vel immediate vel mediate sufficiens, omnibus adultis, quamdiu sunt viatores, tribuitur ad omnes actiones quæ sunt ad salutem simpliciter necessariæ. Ib. Sec. 3. Auxilium remotum simpliciter necessarium cujus virtute fit absolute possibile proximum Auxilium obtinere, nunquam subrahitur, etiam, propter gravissimas culpas. De prin. imped. justif. Sec. 5. I present this to the Reader only for Light, out of courtisie, that he who would without more pains, may yet see, how the Schools order their Matters. And the truth is, if they would order it but a little otherwise, without its Antecedency and Equality, This sufficient universal Grace of theirs might do well. There is an Equality in regard of Quantity,

Page 39 begins here--------------------------------

which no body will contend for: Or in regard of Principle, Ratione principii in actu primo causantis Operationem. The concourse of God, as the first cause, with Nature in all her Acts, and so with Mans Free-will, is one principle of Operation: And that Assistance which we call Grace, is another. Of Grace likewise, the Assistance which is Common, and which is Effectual, are two Principles according to us. If we shall therefore make the Assistance of God, which belongs to all, to be equal, we destroy special Grace: But if we seperate this Equality from the Universality, and tye not an Antecedency to the sufficiency (for what hinders, but God may work effectually on some Persons altogether graceless at once?) I see no hurt in the Maintenance of it, if I were first convinced of a necessity for it.

From hence there is a Point of another sort, that is, of Practical Divinity comes in upon us: To wit, How far a Natural Man may go, and yet fall short of True Grace, and Salvation? To answer which, we are to know, that it is one thing to ask what a Natural man can do? And another, What he may do, and yet be an Unregenerate Man? The first Question, is the Controversial Point in hand, between Us and the Arminians: And I say, it is agreeable to that Righteousness of God, which is Revealed in the Gospel, and to Common Reason, that when Christ dyed to Redeem the World from the Law of Works, because through the Weakness of the Flesh, it was impossible for us to perform the same; the New Terms which he hath procured for us in the Remedying Law, should be so Adapted to our Falne Estate, as to be made no less possible to us, or within our Power now, than the Terms of the Covenant of Nature, was to Adam in the state of Innocency. There is no Interpretation of any Scripture, must be admitted against universal Reason, and the goodness of God. For the second Question: Take a Drunkard, or the like Sinner, I say, this man can, and may presently resolve to keep his ill Company no more; he may command his outward Man, and so his leggs to carry him from the Ale-house, if he will. If he does thus, he leaves that sin, so may he others. He may Hear, Pray, set up Duty in his Family: He may Receive the Word, which is more, and bring forth Fruit,

Page 40 begins here--------------------------------

with this difference only, that the Regenerate man, does it with an honest Heart, which he hath not. There is the matter of our Duty, and the manner of Performance. This Question which seems so difficult, perhaps to many, is easily determined. The Unregenerate Man can do if he will, and may will, and do, that, and all that which the Regenerate man does, in the matter: but as for the manner, this is certain, that the Regenerate man, only does act out of that Principle, and to that End, and with those Circumstances (particularly, in regard to the Predominancy of Gods Interest, over the Flesh and the World) as brings up what he does, to answer the Covenant Terms, and so alone is entituled to the promised Reward, which is to be justified and saved. In conclusion, we see how the Mistery [sic] of Election shews it self; when there is no man but can, if he will, and yet there is no man ever will, as he ought without this special Grace of the Elect; What shall we say, but, Great is the mystery of Godliness! It is he hath wrought us for this self same thing; Blessed be the God of Grace!

And here are there some Socinian, as well as Arminian Disputes might be Touched, under this Head of Christ's Redemption, especially in relation to his Satisfaction. For it may be, that such a less intricate Conception only of what we are to understand by Christ's Satisfaction, might bring the most of several Parties to Agreement. It is a Question, Whether God could pardon a Sinner without Satisfaction? And consequently, Whether there be any necessity of Christ's Dying to that purpose? I answer, There is no Mortal, upon the Terms of Covenant of our Creation, can be justified. (Hence it is (N. B.) that by Nature, we are all said to be the Children of Wrath,) It is necessary therefore, these Terms be altered. This is that which Jesus Christ hath procured for Us by His Redemption, by the Merits of his Life and Death, by his Satisfaction; that is, such a well-pleasing of the Father, in the whole course of his Life and Death, that for his sake, he might (without any Dishonour to him, or to his Law, as Rector) and does condescend to do it: And there should be an end, if I might over-rule the more Intelligent, of such, and the like kind of Questions.

Deo Gloria, mihi Condonatio. J. H.

John Humfrey, The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption (London: Printed for T. Parkhust, at the Three Bibles in Cheap-side, 1673), 24–40.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB