ners, namely, that in the one God works repentance by an irresistible act of his power, fo that he cannot but repent, and denies this grace to the other, without which he cannot poffibly repent. But the fcripture chargeth the deftruction of men upon themfelves, and lays their impenitency at their own door: 0 If rael! thou haft deftroyed thyself; but in me is thy help, Hofea xiii. 9. But where is the help, when the grace abfolutely neceffary to repentance is denied? And how is their destruction of themfelves, if it is unavoidable, let them do what they can? Ifa. v. 3. 4. God appeals to his people Ifrael, that nothing was wanting on his part, that was fit and necessary to be done, that they might bring forth the fruits of repentance, and better obedience: And now, O inhabitanis ef, Jerufalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard: what could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? Is it true that God hath done all that was neceffary to have brought men to repentance? Then if irrefiftible grace be neceffary, he afforded them that; but that was not afforded them, because then they muft unavoidably have repented, and there had been no caufe for this complaint: if he did not afford it, but only the outward means of repentance without the inward grace, (as fome fay); then it is eafy to judge why they did not repent, because they could not; and there feems to be no caufe either of wonder or complaint. Befides, that it will be hard to justify that faying, What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? when it is acknowledged by the affertors of this doctrine, that the main thing was not done, and that without which all the reft fignified nothing, leaving them under the fame impoffibility of repentance, as if nothing at all had been done to them.

But now, upon our fuppofition, that fufficient grace was afforded to them, which they wilfully neglected to make ufe of, the reafon and equity of this com plaint is evident, and God is acquitted, as having

Dd 2

done

done what was needful on his part, and the finner juftly condemned, for not concurring with the grace of God, as he might have done; which fhews, that we are not merely paffive in this work; but fomething is expected from us, after God hath done his part, which if we neglect to do, our deftruction is of ourfelves. Whereas the contrary fuppofition, upon pretence of glorifying God's grace, by making him to do all in the converfion of finners, endangers the honour of his juftice, by laying the impenitency of fin ners, and their ruin confequent upon it, at his door; which is to advance one attribute of God upon the ruin of another: whereas it is a fundamental principle of religion, to take care to reconcile the attributes and perfections of God to one another; for that is not a divine perfection which contradicts any other perfection.

The 3d objection is grounded upon that queftion of St Paul, 1 Cor. iv. 7. Who maketh thee to differ? which they think impoffible to be anfwered, if the efficacy of God's grace depend upon our concurrence and compliance with it. For, fay they, when God offers his grace to two perfons for their repentance, if the true reafon why the one repents, and the other remains impenitent, be this, that the one complieth with this grace of God, and yieldeth to it, the other refifts and stands out againft it; then it is not the grace of God which makes the difference, for that is. equal to both, but fomething in themfelves, and fo it is not God that makes them to differ, but they themfelves.

But this question is impertinent to this cafe. The Apoftle fpeaks it concerning fpiritual gifts, upon account of which they factiously admired fome of the Apoftles above others, and concerning them the queftion is very proper, Who maketh thee to differ? Miraeulous gifts were fo ordered by God, that men were merely paffive in the receiving of them, and contributed nothing to the obtaining of them; and therefore, if one had greater gifts than another, it was merely the pleasure of God that made the difference. But the cafe is not the fame in the graces of God's Spirit,

Spirit, towards the obtaining and improving whereof, we ourselves may contribute fomething; our Saviour having affured us, that to him that hath shall be given. And here the question is not proper, nor is it true that the grace of God makes all the difference. It is indeed the foundation of all the good that is in us: but our different improvement makes different attainments in grace and goodness. Among thofe to ' whom the talents were intrufted, what made the difference between the man who wrapt his talent in the napkin, and buried it, and those who gained doubleby theirs, but that the one improved the grace conferred on him, the other neglected it, and this without any manner of reflection upon, or diminution of the grace of God, or any danger from St Paul's queftion, Who maketh thee to differ? Put the cafe, a pardon is offered to two malefactors, the one accepts, the other refuses it; their own choice makes the difference between them; but he that is faved is nevertheless beholden to the king's pardon for his life; and it were a fenfeless ingratitude in him, because he accepts the pardon, when the other refufeth it, to fay, that he did not owe his life to the grace and fa- · vour of his prince, but might thank himself for it; whereas that he was in a capacity to accept a pardon, was wholly due to the clemency of his prince, who offered it to him when he no wife deferved it. In this cafe the thing plainly appears as it is; by which every man may fee, that it is against common fenfe to pretend, that the grace of God is deftroyed, if there be any compliance on our part with it; that it is no grace, if it be not forced upon us, and we be not merely paffive in the reception of it. I proceed in

the

Second place, to give a clear ftate of this matter, fo as is molt agreeable to the doctrine of the holy fcriptures, and the effential attributes and perfections of God. In order to which, I will give you a fhort view of the feveral opinions concerning this matter. And there are two extreme and two middle opinions, concerning the operation of God's grace in the converfion of a finner.

3

The first of the extreme opinions is, that which all this while I have been arguing against, namely, That all that are converted and regenerated, are wrought upon in an irresistible manner, and are merely pallive in it; and that those who are not thus wrought upon, their repentance and converfion is impoffible. What the inconveniencies of this opinion are, I have fhewed at large.

The other extreme opinion is, That none are thus wrought upon, because it would be a violence and injury to man's natural liberty; but that fufficient grace is offered to all, one time or other, who live under the gofpel, which they may comply with or refift, and confequently, if they be not brought to repentance, their impenitency and ruin is the effect of their own choice, and God is free from the blood of all men. But this opinion, though infinitely more reafonable than the other, feems not to have any neceffary foundation either in fcripture or reafon. There are fome inftances in fcripture of the converfion of men after a very violent, if not an irresistible manner, which feems to be attributed to a particular predeftination of God; as that of St Paul, who fays of himfelf, Gal. i. 15. that he was feparated from his mother's womb to that work to which he was called; and the manner of his converfion was anfwerable to fuch a predeftination; and there is nothing in reafon against this, fince it is no injury to any man to be made. good and happy against his will.

The two middle opinions are thefe. First, That irrefiftible grace is afforded to all the elect, and fufficient grace to all others who live under the gofpel, (for of thofe only we fpeak, the cafe of others being peculiar, and belonging to the extraordinary mercy of God); but then they fay, that none of thofe to whom this fufficient grace is afforded, fhall effectually comply with it and be faved. This opinion feems more moderate, and hath this advantage in it, that it acquits the juftice of God in the condemnation of thofe who, having fufficient grace afforded to them,

did yet notwithstanding continue impenitent; but yet it hath two great inconveniencies in it.

First, That this fuppofition is to no purpose as to any real effect for the falvation of men, because not one perfon more is faved, notwithstanding this univerfal fufficient grace, which they fay is afforded to all; for they take it for granted it is never effectual;and then it seems very unreasonable to fuppofe, that a means fufficient to its end fhould univerfally prove ineffectual; nay, on the contrary, it is next to a demonftration against the fufficiency of a means, if per. petually, and in all inftances, it fails of its end. This would tempt any man to think, that furely there is fome defect in it, or fomething that hinders the cfficacy of it; if being perpetually and generally afforded, it doth perpetually and univerfally mifcarry, without fo much as one inftance among fo many mil lions to the contrary. So that this opinion feems ra ther to be contrived for a colour and fhelter against fome abfurdity, which men know not how to avoid otherwife, than to ferve any good purpose, or to be embraced for the truth and probability of it.

The other middle opinion is, That fome are converted in an irresistible manner, when God pleaseth, and whom he defigns to be extraordinary examples and inftruments for the good of others, and that fufficient grace is afforded to others, which is effectual to the falvation of many, and rejected by a great many.

And this avoids all the inconveniency of the other opinion, and is evidently moft agreeable both to the tenor of fcripture, and to the best notions which men have concerning the attributes and perfections of God, and gives greateft encouragement to the endeavours of men. It agrees very well with the folemn declarations of fcripture, that God is not wanting on his part to afford men fufficient means to bring them to repentance; that he defires not the death of a finner, but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live; that he would have all men to be faved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; that he would not that any should perish, but that all Should