faith and persuasion, that it is from the love of Christ, that believers are preserved in that condition wherein he doth and will approve of them. Yea, to suppose that this is all the grace of the gospel, that whilst men are good Christ loves them, and when they are bad he hates them, both which are true, and farther that he doth by his grace neither make them good, nor preserve them that are so made, is to renounce all that is properly so called.

He yet proceeds, first to evert this love which I asserted, and then to declare his own apprehensions concerning the love of Christ. The first in the ensuing words, p. 210. 'But methinks this is a very odd way of arguing from the divine nature; for if the love of Christ as God be so infinite, eternal, unchangeable, fruitful, I would willingly understand how sin, death, and misery came into the world. For if this love be so eternal, and unchangeable, because the divine nature is so, then it was always so; for God always was what he is, and that which is eternal could never be other than it is now; and why could not this eternal, and unchangeable, and fruitful love, as well preserve us from falling into sin, and misery, and death, as love, life, and holiness, into us? For it is a little odd, first to love us into sin and death, that then he may love us into life and holiness; which indeed could not be, if this love of God were always so unchangeable and fruitful as this author persuades us it is now; for if this love had always loved life and holiness into us, I cannot conceive how it should happen, that we should sin and die.'

It is well if he know what it is that he aims at in these words; I am sure what he says doth not in the least impeach the truth which he designs to oppose. The name and nature of God are every where in the Scripture proposed unto us, as the object of and encouragemeut unto our faith, and his love in particular is therein represented unchangeable, because he himself is so; but it doth not hence follow, that God loveth any one naturally or necessarily. His love is a free act of his will, and therefore, though it be like himself, such as becomes his nature, yet it is not necessarily determined on any object, nor limited as unto the nature, degrees, and effects of it. He loves whom he pleaseth, and

as unto what end he pleaseth. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated; and those effects which from his love, or out of it, he will communicate unto them, are various, according to the counsel of his will. Some he loves only as to temporal and common mercies, some as to spiritual grace and glory, for he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. Wherefore, it is no way contrary unto, and inconsistent with, the eter nity, the immutability, and fruitfulness of the love of God, that he suffered sin to enter into the world, or that he doth dispense more grace in Jesus Christ under the New Testament than he did under the Old. God is always the same that he was; love in God is always of the same nature that it was; but the objects, acts, and effects of this love, with the measures and degrees of them, are the issues of the counsel or free purposes of his will. Want of the understanding hereof, makes this man imagine, that if God's love in Christ wherewith he loveth us, be eternal and fruitful, then must God necessarily, always, in or out of Christ, under the old or new covenant, love all persons, elect or not elect, with the same love as to the effects and fruits of it, which is a wondrous profound apprehension. The reader, therefore, if he please may take notice, that the love which I intend, and whereunto I ascribe those properties, is the especial love of God in Christ unto the elect: concerning this himself says, that he loves them with an everlasting love, and therefore, draws them with loving-kindness; Jer. xxxi. 3. which love I shall be bold to say, is eternal and fruitful. And hence, as he changeth not, whereon the sons of Jacob are not consumed; Mal. iii. 6. there being with him neither variableness nor shadow of turning;' James i. 17. so accordingly he hath in this matter, by his promise and oath, declared the immutability of his counsel; Heb. vi. 17, 18. which seems to intimate that his love is unchangeable. And whereas this eternal love is in Christ Jesus as the way and means of making it certain in all its effects, and with respect unto its whole design, it is fruitful in all grace and glory; Eph. i. 3-5. And if he cannot understand how, notwithstanding all this, sin so entered into the world under the law of creation and the first covenant, as to defeat in us all the benefits thereof, at present I can

not help him; for as I am sure enough he would scorn to learn any thing of me, so I am not at leisure to put it to the trial.

His own account of the love of God succeeds, p. 211. 'Not that I deny that the love of God is eternal, unchangeable, fruitful; that is, that God was always good, and always continues good, and manifesteth his love and goodness in such ways as are suitable to his nature, which is the fruitfulness of it. But then the unchangeableness of God's love, doth not consist in being always determined to the same object, but that he always loves for the same reason; that is, that he always loves true virtue and goodness wherever he sees it, and never ceases to love any person till he ceases to be good; and then the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer. For should he love a wicked man, the reason and nature of his love would change; and the fruitfulness of God's love with respect to the methods of his grace and providence, doth not consist in procuring what he loves by an omnipotent and irresistible power, for then sin and death could never have entered into the world, but he governs and doth good to his creatures in such ways as are most suitable to their natures. He governs reasonable creatures by principles of reason, as he doth the material world by the necessary laws of matter, and brute creatures by the instincts and propensities of nature.'

This may pass for a system of his divinity, which how he will reconcile unto the doctrine of the church of England in her articles, she and he may do well to consider. But whatever he means by the love of God always determined unto the same object, it were an easy thing to prove beyond the reach of his contradiction, that persons are the objects of God's eternal love, as well as things and qualifications are of his approbation, or that he loves some persons with an everlasting and unchangeable love, so as to preserve them from all ruining evils, and so as they may be always meet objects of his approving love unto his glory. And whereas these things have been debated and disputed on all hands with much learning and diligence, our author is a very happy man, if with a few such loose expressions as these repeated, he thinks to determine all the controversies about election and effectual grace, with perseverance on the Pelagian side.

The hypothesis here maintained, that because God always, and unchangeably approves of what is good in any, or of the obedience of his creatures, and disapproves or hates sin, condemning it in his law, that therefore he may love the same person one day and hate him another, notwithstanding his pretences that he is constant unto the reason of his love, will inevitably fall into one of these conclusions; either, that God indeed never loveth any man be he who he will, or, that he is changeable in his love upon outward external reasons as we are; and let him choose which he will own. In the mean time, such a love of God towards believers as shall always effectually preserve them meet objects of his love and approbation, is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies. His next reflection is on the manner of God's operations in the communication of grace and holiness, which he says, is not by omnipotent and irresistible power, confirming his assertion by that consideration, that then sin and death could never have entered into the world, which is resolved into another sweet supposition, that God must needs act the same power of grace towards all men, at all times, under each covenant, whether he will or no. But this it is to be a happy disputant, all things succeed well with such persons which they undertake. And as to the manner of the operation of grace, how far grace itself may be said to be omnipotent, and in its operations irresistible, I have fully declared there where he may oppose and refute it if he have any mind thereunto. His present attempt against it in those words, 'that God governs reasonable creatures by principles of reason,' is so weak in this case and impertinent, that it deserves no consideration; for all the operations of divine grace are suited unto the rational constitution of our beings; neither was ever man so wild as to fancy any of them such as are inconsistent with, or do offer force unto, the faculties of our souls in their operations. Yea, that which elevates, aids and assists our rational faculties in their operations on and towards their proper objects, which is the work of efficacious grace, is the principal preservative of their power and liberty, and can be no way to their prejudice. And we do moreover acknowledge, that those proposals which are made in the gospel unto our reason, are eminently suited to excite and prevail with it unto its proper use and exercise, in com

pliance with them. Hence, although the habit of faith or power of believing, be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, yet the word of the gospel is the cause and means of all its acts, and the whole obedience which it produceth. But if by 'governing reasonable creatures by the principle of reason,' he intends that God deals no otherwise by his grace with the souls of men, but only by proposing objective arguments and motives unto a compliance with his will, without internal aids and assistances of grace, it is a gross piece of Pelagianism, destructive of the gospel, sufficiently confuted elsewhere; and he may explain himself as he pleaseth.

His proceed is to transcribe some other passages taken out of my book, here and there, in whose repetition he inserts some impertinent exceptions; but the design of the whole is to 'state a controversy' as he calls it between us and them, or those whom he calleth 'they' and 'we,' whoever they be. And this upon the occasion of my mentioning the fulness of grace, life, and righteousness that is in Christ, he doth in these words, p. 215. They say, that these are the personal graces of Christ as mediator, which are inherent in him, and must be derived from his person; we say, they signify the perfection and excellency of his religion, as being the most perfect and complete declaration of the will of God, and the most powerful method of the divine wisdom, for the reforming of the world, as it prescribes the only righteousness which is acceptable to God, and directs us in the only way to life and immortality.'

I shall not absolutely accept of the terms of this controversy as to the state of it on our part proposed by him, and yet I shall not much vary from them. We say, therefore, that 'Jesus Christ being full of all grace, excellencies, and perfections, he communicates them unto us, in that degree as is necessary for us, and in proportion unto his abundant charity and goodness towards us; and we Christians as his body, or fellow members of his human nature, receive grace and mercy flowing from him to us.' This state of the controversy on our side I suppose he will not refuse, nor the terms of it; but will own them to be ours, though he will not it may be allow some of them to be proper or convenient. And that he may know who his 'they' are, who are at this end of the difference, he may be pleased to take notice,