an irresistible, yet in a very forcible and violent manner. The converfion of three thoufand at one fermon, when the Holy Ghoft defcended in a visible manner upon the Apostles, was certainly the effect of a mighty and over-powering degree of God's grace. And the like may be faid of the fudden converfion of fo many perfons from Heathenifm, and great wickednefs and impiety of life, to the fincere profeffion of Chriftianity, by the preaching of the Apoftles afterwards.

But that this is not of abfolute neceffity, nor the ordinary method of God's grace, to work upon the minds of men in fo over-powering, much lefs in an irresistible manner, is as plain as any thing of that nature can be, both from experience, and the reason of the thing, and the conftant tenor of the fcripture. We find that many (perhaps the greateft part) of thofe that are good are made fo by the infenfible steps and degrees of a religious education, and having been never vicious, can give no great account of any fenfible change, only that when they came to years of understanding, they confidered things more, and the principles that were inftilled into them in their younger years did put forth themselves more vigorously at that time; as feeds fprout out of the ground, after they have a good while been buried and lain hid in the earth.

And it is contrary to reafon, to make an irresistible act of divine power neceffary to our repentance and converfion; because this neceffarily involves in it two things which feem very unreasonable :

First, That no man repents upon confideration and choice, but upon mere force and violent neceffity, which quite takes away the virtue of repentance, whatever virtue there may be in the confequent acts of a regenerate state.

Secondly, It implies that the converfion and repentance of thofe upon whom God doth not work irrefiftibly is impoffible, which is the utmost can be said to excufe the impenitency of men, by taking it off from their own choice, and laying it upon the imVOL. V. poffibility

Cc

poffibility of the thing, and an utter difability in them to choose and do otherwife.

And it is likewife contrary to the conftant tenor 、 of the Bible, which fuppofeth that men do very frequently refift the grace and Holy Spirit of God. It is faid of the Pharifees by our Saviour, Luke vii. 30. that they rejected the counsel of God against themfelves; that is, the merciful defign of God for their falvation: And of the Jews, Acts vii. 51. that they always refifted the Holy Ghoft. So that fome operations of God's grace and Holy Spirit are refiftible, and fuch, as if men did not refift them, would be effectual to bring them to faith and repentance; elfe why are the Pharifees faid to reject the counsel of God against themselves, that is, to their own ruin implying, that if they had not rejected it, they might have been faved; and if they had, it had been without irrefiftible grace; for that which was offered to them, was actually refifted by them. Other texts plainly fhew, that the reafon of mens impenitency and unbelief is not any thing wanting on God's part, but on theirs, as thofe known texts, wherein our Saviour laments the cafe of Jerufalem, because they obftinately brought deftruction upon themselves, Luke xix. 42. If thou hadst known in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace; intimating that they might have known them, fo as to have prevented that defolation which was coming upon them, and was a forerunner of their eternal ruin; but now they are hid from thine eyes; intimating that then God gave them up to their own blindness and obstinacy; but the time was when they might have known the things of their peace; which cannot be upon the fuppofition of the neceffity of an irresistible act of God's grace to their converfion and repentance; becaufe then without that they could not have repented, and if that had been afforded to them, they had infallibly repented. So likewife in that other text, Matth. xxiii. 37. O Jerufalem, Jerufalem, how often would I have gathered thee, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! And in John v. 40. Ye will not come unto me that ye might. have life.

He

He would have gathered them, and they would not; he would have given them life, but they would not

come to him. Are thefe ferious and compaffionate expoftulations and declarations of our Saviour's gracious intention towards them, any ways confiftent with an impoffibility of their repentance? which yet must be faid, if irrefiftible grace be neceffary thereto; for then repentance is impoffible without it, and that it was not afforded to them is plain, because they did not repent. The fame may be faid of that folemn declaration of God, Ezek. xxxiii. 11. As I live, faith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Can it be faid that God hath no pleasure in the death of finners, and yet be true, that he denies to the greateft part of them that grace which is neceffary to their repentance? Upon this fuppofition how can it be true, that if the mighty works that were done in Chorazin and Bethfaida, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented, Mat. xi. 21. fince irrefiftible grace did not accompany thofe miracles for if it had, Chorazin and Bethfaida had repented, and without it Tyre and Sidon could not repent.

The fame difficulty is in thofe texts, wherein God is reprefented as expecting the repentance and converfion of finners; and our Saviour wondering at their unbelief and hardness of heart, and upbraiding them with it, Ifa. v. 4. 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? Mark vi. 6. it is faid our Saviour marvelled at the unbelief of the Jews. And chap. xvi. 14. that he upbraided his difciples with their unbelief and hardness of heart. But why fhould the repentance of finners be expected, or their unbelief marvelled at, or indeed be upbraided to them, by him who knew it impoffible to them, without an irrefiftible power and grace, which he knew likewife was not afforded to them? neither God nor man have reafon to wonder that any man

Cc 2.

does

does not do that, which at the fame time they certainly know he cannot do.

The bottom of all that is faid to avoid this preffing difficulty, is this, "that this impotence and dif

ability of finners is their fin, and therefore can"not be pleaded in their excufe, for their impeni"tency; but God may still justly require that of "them, which they had once a natural power to do, "but wilfully forfeited and loft it; they had this power in Adam, and forfeited it by his difobedi"ence." To fhew how flight this evasion is, I need not run into that argument, how far we are guilty of the fin of our firft parents. That by that first tranfgreffion and difobedience all mankind fuffers, and our natures are extremely corrupted and depraved, cannot be denied ; but the corruption of our natures is a thing very different from perfonal guilt, ftrictly and properly fo called. I will take the bu finefs much shorter, and granting that mankind had in Adam a natural power to have continued obedient to the laws of God, yet fince by one man fin entered into the world, and all are now finners, here is an obligation to repentance, as well as to obedience, and men fhall be condemned for their impenitency. I ask now, whether in Adam we had a power to repent? It is certain Adam had not this power, and therefore I cannot fee how we could lofe it, and forfeit it in him. Adam indeed had a natu ral power not to have finned, and fo not to have needed repentance; but no power to repent in the ftate of innocency, because in that ftate repentance was impoffible, because there could be no occafion for it. He had it not after his fall, becaufe by that be forfeited all his power to that which is fpiritually good. It is faid indeed he had it in innocency, but forfeited it by his fall; fo that he had it, when there was no occafion or poffibility of the exercife of it, and loft it when there was occafion for it; or if he did not lofe it by his fall, we have it ftill, and then there is no need of any fupernatural, much lefs irrefiftible grace to repentance; fo that our impotency, as to the particular duty of repentance, cannot be

char

charged upon us, as our fault, not fo much as upon the account of original fin.

But the want of this power is the confequent and just punishment of our firft tranfgreffion. Be it fo: But if this impotency ftill remain in all thofe to whom God doth not afford his irrefiftible grace, how comes the grace offered in the gospel to aggravate the im penitency of men, and increase their condemnation? For if it be no remedy against this impotency, how comes it to inflame the guilt of impenitency? Or how is it grace to offer mercy to those upon their repentance, who are out of a poffibility of repenting; and yet to punish them more feverely for their impenitency after this offer made to them, which they cannot accept without that grace which God is refolved not to afford them? If this be the cafe, the greatest favour had been to have had no fuch offer made to them, and it had been happier for mankind, that the grace of God had not appeared to all men, but only to thofe who fhall irrefiftibly be made par takers of the benefit of it.

Secondly, Another doctrine grounded upon this me taphor of a new creation, is, that we are merely paffive in the work of converfion and regeneration, and contribute nothing to it; that God does all, and we do nothing at all; and this follows from the former, efpecially if we allow that metaphor as far as it will carry us. For as the first creation of things was by an irrefiftible act of divine power, fo the things that were made were only paffive in their cre ation; and as they could make no refiftance, fo neither could they contribute any thing to their being what they are. And this doctrine is not only argu ed from the metaphor of a new creation, but from feveral other metaphors ufed in fcripture to defcribe our natural ftate; as namely, darkness, blindness and our being dead in trefpaffes and fins; from whence it is inferred, that we contribute no more to our renovation, than darkness doth to the introduction of light, than a blind man can do to the recovery of: his fight, or a dead man to his own refurrection but are wholly paffive in this work. And to coun C & 3

tenance