Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	act_n	faith_n	habit_n	4,799	5	10.2629	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46809	The blind guide, or, The doting doctor composed by way of reply to a late tediously trifling pamphlet, entituled, The youngling elder, &c., written by John Goodwin ... : this reply indifferently serving for the future direction of the seducer himself, and also of those his mis-led followers, who with him are turned enemies to the word and grace of God : to the authority of which word, and the efficacie of which grace are in this following treatise, succinctly, yet satisfactorily vindicated from the deplorably weak and erroneous cavills of the said John Goodwin in his late pamphlet / by William Jenkyn ...	Jenkyn, William, 1613-1685.	1648 (1648)	Wing J645; ESTC R32367	109,133	166

This is your detestable Doctrine Reader are there not two who hold that man of himselfe can be able to beleeve In this section you endeavour with wofull weaknesse to draw the forecited place of Master Ball to concurre with this your opinion Thus Master Ball saith No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the command Hence you infer Certainly a man hath power to do that from the d●ing whereof he is not hindered by any difficulty relating to the performance of it If the command of God wherein he commands men to beleeve hath no such difficulty in it whereby they are hindered from obeying it● have not men power to obey it and consequently to beleeve What dotard besides J. G. would have made such an inference Answ Master Ball removes difficulty and unreasonablenesse from the Command Master Goodwin simply all difficulty relating to the performance Master Ball saith No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty of the Command Therefore saith Master Goodwin men have power to obey it But friend be mercifull to the sepulchre of a Saint now in heaven How little did this blessed man thinke when he was on earth that ever Popery and Arminianisme should have found a prop in his writings after his discease Popery I say for might you not as well have argued from Master Balls words that men want no power to keep the whole Law for is it from the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the Law that men performe not the Law or from the weaknesse and corruption of their nature pray passe not sentence upon Mr. Bell before you heare what he can say for himselfe p. 245. Cout of Gr. he saith Impossible in it selfe or in respect of the unreasonablenesse of the thing commanded is not the object of Gods Commandment but an impossible thing to us may be and is the object of Gods Commandment should I request Mr. Goodwin to construe a chapter in the Hebrew Bible he would not be hindered from doing it by any difficulty in the thing which I request of him but if he understands not the Hebrew Tongue he would be hindered through his owne unskilfulnesse if there be no impossibility on the part of the command yet if there be an impossibility on the part of the commanded there will be a falling short of performance 4 You adde besides when Mr. Ball saith A man doth not beleeve because he will not he doth not resolve his unbeleefe into any deficiency of power in him to will or to make himselfe willing as Mr. Jenkin would imply but into his will it selfe into the actuall and present frowardnesse and indisposition of his will therefore what why therefore according to the Glosse of Master Goodwin Mr. Ball asserts a man hath power to beleeve Answ If impudence in an old man be a vertue you are vertuous you shamefully abuse Mr. Ball for he resolves not mans unbeliefe into a present and actuall wilfulnesse or frowardnesse of his will as if the will had a strength and power to beleeve but being in a fit of peevishnesse would not put forth that power or make use of that strength though it could doe so if it pleased but he resolves mans unbeliefe into a frowardnesse not actuall and present but habituall and rooted awd setled such a frowardnesse and oppositenesse to the things of God as that he cannot but be froward and opposite till the Lord makes him to consent habituall frowardnes in mans will being the root of the wils impotency and that this holy man resolves unbeliefe into this habituall frowardnesse is cleare from the scope of this place which is to prove that God is just in requiring faith though he gives not sufficient grace to men to beleeve if they will and from the constant consent of other passages in this and his other books Tract of faith pag. 11. Heare what he saith concerning the production of faith God saith he doth infuse or poure the habit of faith into man whereby he giveth to will to come to Christ this is requisite to faith for as a dead man can doe no act of life untill a living soule be breathed into him c. no more can man dead in trespasses and sins move himselfe to receive the promises of grace untill the free and gracious habit of faith be infused We cannot will to beleeve unlesse God give that will the power to beleeve and will to use that power is of God It is God only and altogether that inableth stirreth up and inclineth the heart to beleeve pag. 12. If God have not left you to a most obstinate obduration of heart you will in your next acknowledge how you have abused Mr. Ball in your saying that he doth resolve mans unbeleefe only into present actuall frowardnesse or a fit of peevishnesse You give us a fifty ninth Section thus just such worke as he makes in interpreting Mr. Balls words to manife st their non-concurrence with me he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 59. the fathers Austine Hierome In this Section you plainly yeeld me Answ Bucer Austine and Hierome acknowledging that I have proved their non-concurrence with you as I have proved the non-concurrence of Mr. Ball with you if you desire the Reader should beleeve that Bucer and the Fathers are still on your side notwithstanding all that I have said to the contrary why give you not so much as one word by way of taking off my exceptions to your allegations out of them which exceptions were largely set downe in my Busie Bishop p. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 c. but all that I say in all these pages in proving the impertinency of your quotations out of the fore-cited Authors you blow away with this learned answer just such worke as he makes in manifesting the non-concurrence of Mr. Ball with me he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer and the Fathers moll strenuously and disputant-like illustrating if not endeavouring to prove this your answer from the example of Josuah quoted in chapter and verse in your margin who as he had done to Hebron and Libnah and to her King so he did to Debir and her King and I promise you a good proofe too as proofes goe now a dayes in the alley But what is become of your friend Testard your chiefe witnesse whom also you alledged as concurring with you whose Doctrine you impudently said was asserted for orthodox by a province of Ministers in France and was the receaved Doctrine of the reformed Churches in France It had been ingenuity in this Reply to have asked pardon of that Province which in your last you so unworthily slandered In your sixtieth Section I reade thus Yon. Eld. Sect. 60. Whereas he quotes severall sentences out of Mr. Ball Bucer Austine c. of a contrary

saith Ames and the forme of the Scripture stands in the manifestation of the true Doctrine in words which came from the immediate revelation of the holy Ghost saith Gomarus Materia Scripturae circa quam est tota verae religi●nis doctrina ad salutem necessariae Ecclesiae forma Scripturae esi t●tius doctrina de ver●● religione ad s●lutem necessariae ex imme●●●●● revelatione sp●● sancti conceptis ipsius verbis significatio Gomar de scrip s●●n Disp 2. Id. Ibid. ut verbum non scriptum sermonis signo enuntiatione sic contra verbum scriptum literarum notis descriptione ●●n ●at and both matter and words are preserved by the providence of God so pure this day Foundation that they are still the foundation of Religion the matter the foundation which we must beleeve or the objectum materiale this you grant the writing by the appointment of God the foundation why we must beleeve or the objectum formale into which our faith must be last resolved and this you deny and I maintaine against your following cavils Religion it being the thing in question betweene us Whereas Religion may signifie either the matter of it viz. the things beleeved or the habit of it i. e. the beleeving of these things I assert that the Scriptures are the foundation of Religion not as Religion is considered in it self or in the matter of it but as it is in us True and proper and considered in the grace and habit of it Whereas you joyne together True and proper words of a vast difference 't is affirmed that the Scriptures are the true foundation though not the proper as Christ when he cals himself the vine the doore spake truly though figuratively and so not properly So that the question is not whether the foundation or fundamentals the great articles of faith be contained in the Scriptures this Master Goodwin acknowledgeth Divine Author pag. 17. repeated in your last book sect 37. Nor is the question whether ink and paper be the foundation a conceit so sencelesse that it would never have come into the head of any man but Master Goodwin and such as are left of God to blaspheme inke and paper being the externall matter of any writings whatsoever as well as the holy Scriptures But the question is whether Christian faith which believeth the truths of Christian Religion necessary to salvation be built upon the divine authority of the written Word in which God hath been pleased to reveale those truths This Master Goodwin denyeth in sundry passages in his Hagiomastix and in his Divine Authority of the Scripture This he disputes against in his Youngling Elder and in this sense he endeavours to answer what I bring in Busie Bishop Hagiom sect 28. he denyes it to be any foundation of Religion to beleeve that the English Scriptures or the books called the Bible are the Word of God Div. Auth. page 10 he denyes the English Scriptures and the Hebrew and greek Originals themselves to be the Word of God c. Yo. Eld. page 29. he saith When I deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Religion I meane by the Scriptures inke and paper And whatever else is found in them or appertaining to them besides the truths matter and gracious counsels concerning the salvation of the world which are contained in them c. In direct opposition to which detestable passage I assert that by Scriptures or foundation of faith we are not onely to understand the gracious counsels or their materia circa quam as Gomarus speaks the doctrines of salvation but their form also or the signification from God of these Doctrines in the written Word or in letters or writing And page 39. Yo. Eld. he disputes after his manner dotingly a weak hand best beseeming a wicked work against the written Word If it he impossible saith he to beleeve that the matter of the Scriptures is the Word of God if I be uncertaine whether the written Word be the Word of God or no how came the Patriarchs who lived in the first two thousand yeares of the world to beleeve it since it was uncertaine to them whether such a word should ever be written Here 's more opposed than ink paper viz. the written Word I shall now examine his arguments having briefly premised these following considerations for the further explaining of the question 1. The end of mans creation was to glorifie God and to save his owne soule 2. The right way of Gods Worship and mans salvation could not be found out by the light of nature but there was necessarily required a supernaturall revelation of this way 3. God was therefore pleased to manifest his own will concerning it 4. This he hath done from the foundation of the world diversly after divers manners 5. In the infancy of the Church and while it was contained in narrow bounds God manifested his will without the written Word by dreames visions audible voice c. 6. When the Church was further extended more increased and to be set as a City upon an hill and when impiety abounded in mens lives God commanded this his will formerly revealed to be set downe in writing 7. God did infallibly guide holy men whom he did chuse for his Amanuenses that they did not ●rre in the matter of his will or manner of expressing of it 8. He ordered that his will sh●uld be written in such Languages as were best knowne and underst●od in the Churches unto whom his truths were committed 9. He hath given a charge to his Churches to have recourse to these writings onely to be inforn●ed what were the truths and matters of his will and to try and prove all doctrines by those writings 10. Therefore the onely instrument upon which the Church now can ground their knowledge and beliefe of the truths matters gracious counsels of God revealed for his owne glory and their salvation is the written Word or holy Scriptures These things thus premised I come to your arguments which you are pleased to honour with the name of Demonstrations To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion Arg. 1 Yo. El. pag. 32. your first argument is this If Religion was founded built c. before the Scriptures were then cannot the Scripture be the foundation of Religion but Religion was built and founded beso●e c. therefore Answ Eccius Euchiri Tit. 1. Bailius q. 1. Bellar●de verb. dei l. 4. c. 4. Should I tell you that your demonstration if demonstration if must be called is stollen out of Papists in their writings against Protestants it would by you be accounted but a slight charge brasse cannot blush For answer I deny your consequence Though Religion was built and stood firme before the Scriptures were it followes not that the Scriptures now are not the foundation of Christian Religion Though the Scriptures were not alway heretofore the foundation of Religion it followes not but that

import as he after his weake manner imagines to that opinion which I affirme to be asserted by them in the passages cited by me I would gladly know of him what is the distinct sound that this trumpet makes my intent and drist in citing these Authors was not to prove or so much as to insinuate that they no where else in their writings delivered themselves with any sceming contrariety to the places cited by me 1. Whether it be more weaknesse in me to quote places out of them and also to prove the repugnancy of those places to the errors which you hold forth or in you not to answer the quotations let my very enemies judge if I cited those passages pertinently why tax you me with weaknesse if weakly they had been the sooner answered 2. Whereas you aske why I cited them I answer the tondency of my counter-quotations was to vindicate those godly and orth●dox Authors from your aspersions to manifest how much you abused the truth and them by holding them forth as favourers of your heresies and how farre they were from affording you succour in your sinne and to let the Reader see what little credit is to be given to you when you cite Authors and this was the intention both operis and operantis 3. Your intent you say in citing these Authors was not to infinuate that they no where else delivered themselves in contrariety to the placece cited by me c. But it s evident that you laid these few passages taken out of Bucer and the Fathers upon the stall in open view to make every Reader thinke that the Books of those eminent writers were shops that contained such commodities within Was it not your desire to have the Reader beleeve that the constant ●enor and straine of the writings of the cited Authors maintained your errours else what is the meaning of that passage of yours Sion Colledge visited p. 17. where you having abused Mr. Ball in citing a passage out of him you tell the Reader This passage fell not from the Authors pen at unawares but the contents of it were his setled and well resolved judgement to which end you produce another passage out of the same Author which also you pretend to speake for you I passe over your 61. and 62. Sections wherein you pretend to nothing but chaffe and scoffes my drift being to follow you only where you would be thought to write about the controversie To the next therefore I having told you Yo. Eld. p. 50. Sect. 6● Busie Bish p. 48. that the great question between Jerome Austine and Pelagius was not whether the will did stand in need of an adjutory of grace for the performance of good but what kind of adjutory it was whether or no an adjutory by way of working of good in the will and that invincibly and indeclinably c. 1. You tell the Reader that I said that this was the question but why pilfer you from my words why clip you why leave you out the word great I said it was the great question had you put in that you had found nothing to reply in this place the state of the question changed foure times between Augustine and Pelagius as you may see collected by Aluar. de auxil Lib. 1. c. 2. by Jansenius in his Augustinus To. 1. l. 5. by Latins and Vossius in Hisioria Pelagianâ 1. At the first pelagius deny'd omne anxilium supernaturale all supernaturall assistance and affirmed that the naturall power of mans free will was sullicient to keep all the Commandments and to obtaine salvation 2. He did acknowledge an adjutory of grace but placed it in the outward Doctrine of the Law and in the example of Christ but denyed this to be simply necessary but only for the facilitation of the act 3. He confessed an adjutory by inward grace viz. the inward illumination of the understanding and the excitation of the stupid will but alwayes denyed that grace by which God works in us to will infallibly 4. His schollar Celestius did confesse that inward grace was simply necessary not to begin but to perfect that which was good Now my asserting that the great question between the Fathers and Pelagius was what kind of adjutory it was of which the will did stand in need is so farre from denying that there was any other question that it clearly implyes there were other 2. You indeavour in this Section to evince that this which I have mentioned was not the state of the question Yo. Eld. p. 50. for say you that which caused the distance between Austin and Pelagius was that Pelagius denyed the necessity of the adjutory of grace for the performance of the Law and this you pretend to prove from Austins words dicat Pelagiut per gratiam nos posse praestare legem Dei pax est Let Pelagius say that by grace we may performe the Law of God and it is Peace But 1. Why have you so learnedly passed by all the places quoted out of Austin in Bu. Bish to prove i.e. that Pelagius did acknowledge the necessity of the help of God to the doing of good Ba. Bish p. 49 Liberum sic confuemur arbitrium ut dicamus nos semper indigere dei auxilio Au. con Pel. l. 1. c. 31. Ita homenis laudamus naturam ut dei semper gratiam addamus auxalium Anathema qui docet gratiam dei per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam Ibid. Diligenter interrogandus est Pelagius quam dicat gratiam quâ fateatur hon●nes adj●vari querimus quo auxilio c. Corur Pel. Cal l. 1. c. 31. fateantur imernâ in effabili potestate operari in cordibus hominum non solum veras revelationes sed bonas voluntates l. 1. c. 24. de gra Deus facit ut velimus praebendo vires efficacissiuas voluntati de●g l. c. 16● as where he saith we so praise nature as that we alwayes adde the helpe of the grace of God and where he pronounceth anathema against every one that thinketh the grace of God is not necessary every houre to every act 2. Why have you passed by all the places brought to prove that Austin was not satisfied with this Concession of Pelagius but saith that Pelagius is to be asked what grace he meaneth Lib. 1. c. 24. de grâ Christi Fateantur c. Let them confesse that there are wrought by a wonderfull internal and ineffable power good wills in the heart as well as true discoveries Aug. degr et l. a l. 16. Deus facit ut velimus faciamus c. God makes us will and doe by affording most efficacious strength to the will Haecgratia à nullo c. this grace is rejected by no hard heart And de cor et gra C. 12. Infirm is servavit c. Hereserved for those that were weake that they should by his gift will what is good most invincibly c. And whereas you

than mine for that grace which the Apostle attributes to God Yo. Eld. p. 56. Phil. 2.13 You say It s a greater act of grace to forgive the sins of one who knowes how to d●well and yet d●th evill than to forgive the sins of him that hath no fower to do well the latter is Mr. Jenkin his sinner the sormer mine Ergo quid therefore your opinion leaves a larger place for that grace which the Apostle attributes to God in working to will and to do Phil. 2.13 1. Whether now Sir have we a wandring Jew or a wandring John you are quite gone from the question we were disputing about the grace of conversion and the Apostle was asserting this and now you flye to the grace of remission It s not this latter that the Apostle in this place Phil. 2.13 attributes to God he speaks not of God pardoning the evill which we have done but of giving the will to do that good which of our selves we cannot do And by the way I cannot but observe your perfect conformity with Pelagius one spirit acts you both Sic Oculos sic ille manus sic ora forebat just so and so with eyes Gra●iam Dei quae neque lex est neque natura in hoc tantum valere ut peccata praeterita dimittantur nou ut futura vitentur c. Quis me liberab● à reatu peccatorum meorum quae commisi cum vitare potuissem Contr. Jul. l. 1. f. 85. hands face he acted Pelagius said that the grace of God which was neither Law nor nature onely did serve for the remission of former sins not for the avoyding of future sins c. So Julian the Pelagian expou●ds that place who shall deliver me from this body of death i. e. Who saith he shall deliver me from the guilt of my sins which I have committed when as I could have avoyded them 2. In proposing the object of this grace a sinner you deale unworthily in concealing both what your self hold and what I hold for your sirner is one that wants no ability either in his understanding to know the things of God or in his will to embrace them the grace he wants is onely outward light for the understanding and morall perswasion for the will which is left to its owne choice whether it will embrace what is offered it or no and when it hath received all from God there 's a possibility of non-conversion Yo. Eld p. 65. whereas my sinner is one that is in spirituall things starke blinde that neither knowes nor is able to receive the things of God that in his will is wholly unable to embrace them this inability arising from his p●avity and lusts which have put out his eyes and made him an Enemy to God so that he hates light and reformation and the grace that I stand for is such as renewes the understanding and changes the will not onely by affording light and perswasion but by an infallibly effectuall power And now let any judge whether of these is the more miserable sinner whether of these the more glorious worke of grace you will have grace for the accommodation and facilitation of the work I maintaine it to be simply necessary Your sinner is but in a sleep and may ●ossibly awake of himself mine is dead and cannot live but by the power of grace 2. You say Yo. Eld. p. 57. For God to give a man strength and power to beleeve twice over or after a forfeiture made by sin of the first donation is an act of more grace than to confer them onely once and that without any such provocation Master Jenkins opinion leaves place only for the latter act of grace whereas my opinion makes rome for the former To say nothing of your non-sence in this passage Answ here is abominable falshood Do I deny that God gives a man strength to beleeve twice over I have ever taught that God created man in his owne image in all the faculties of his soule which when man had defaced and lost and thereby infinitely provoked God that God of his infinite goodnesse by the power of his Word and spirit of grace doth renew in man that image giving him not onely ability to repent and beleeve if he will but working in him to will and to do according to his good pleasure giving repentance and being the ●●thor and finisher of our faith 5. I having demanded of you how this your position upon the improvement of nature a man may attaine to such a conviction upon which saving conversion alwayes followes agrees with that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.7 Who maketh thee to differ from another And I having said that Master Goodwins answer to this question of the Apostle is my self by my improvement of nature 1. You say That these words from another are not in the Originall There it s onely found thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who makes thee differ subtill Sir can there be any difference if there be none to differ from 2. You demand how your opinion leads you to make such an answer as I put into your mouth Relate your opinion and you shall finde the answer at hand You who say That conversion alwapes followes a conviction abtained by the improvement of nature D. a. p. 200. You who say A naturall man may do such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation pag. 26. And hold That after every worke of grace the will remaines in equilibrio and may convert or refuse to be converted pag. 52. 65. resolving actuall conversion not into the efficacy of the grace of God pag. 52. but into the compliance of mans will And yet will not say with your friend Episcopius Ego meipsum discrevi I have made my self to differ upon this your forbearance you may be lookt upon as more courteous but by no wise man as lesse hereticall than Episcopias if in your next you will determine this question whether the same grace being afforded to two sinners of the same degree one may be converted and not the other you will haply be better knowne to your selfe in this point Your sixty seventh and sixty eighth Section followes Yo Eld. p. 58. Sect. 67. wherein you proclaime your sinne in the former you say that these words who made thee to differ exclude not the creature from being the cause of its differing in a way of inferiour efficiency and causalty for if it be say you the creature it selfe and not God who beleeveth then is it the creature it selfe and not God which maketh it selfe to differ Answ The Apostle removes all cause of glorying from man and therefore leaves no share in the efficiency of this worke to man 2. The Apostle denyes most vehemently that man hath any thing which he hath not received therefore a man hath not this concurrence of his will with the grace of God It is very true that a man beleeves when he beleeves

Section you say That I make the invincibility and infallibility of the working of grace and the certaine determination of the will by grace to be one and the same whereas invincibility and infallibility are but modifications of the act or working of grace and determination of the will is the act it self or the effect of such an act The quaere look't upon will shew you a wrangler Did I ever take it in any other sence than what your self here set downe Bu. Bush p. 54. namely That grace is in the manner of working invincible and infallible and therefore determinating the will and make I not both in the quaere and throughout my booke the certaine determination of the will to be the product or effect of grace working infallibly and invincibly shew your seniority by more seriousnesse 2. You charge me with supposing what is not to be suppos'd For grace you say may invincibly produce such an effect in the soule which answers the nature measure and degree of it and yet not necessarily produce such a certaine determination of the will to a saving consent or a through act of beleeving It being presuppos'd 1. That the question is concerning converting grace and not common And 2. That by necessarily is meant infallibly I demand 1. What that effect is which speciall converting grace workes in the soule which answers the nature measure and degree of it if it be not a certaine determination of the will 2. How this assertion of yours will stand together with that which afterward followes Yo Eld. p. 65. p. 65. The grace of God acting in and toward the conversion of a man subdues and takes away all actuall rebelltousnesse or gainsayingnesse of the will and all inclination toward any rebellion Doth it accomplish all this and not determine the will 3. You say in this Section That I was ridiculous in demanding whether the certaine determination of the will by grace proceedeth from the powerfull nature of grace considering you say that effects do not proceed from the natures of their causes but from the actuall engagement of their causes in a way of efficiency c. Answ But my acute Antagonist was not I enquiring into the efficacy of the grace of God as a cause of conversion in us And doth not every effect proceed from the nature of the cause no say you but from the actuall engagement of the cause in a way of efficiency but this actuall engagement of the cause in a way of efficiency is the nature of a cause as a cause we are not considering of the grace of God absolutely as it is in it self but relatively as it is a cause of an effect in others And I demand whether this effect do depend upon this cause infallibly that wheresoever the cause is by vertue of it the effect shall necessarily follow 4. What you say concerning the obtusenesse of the distinction between an infallibility of the working of grace in respect of the event or what de facto doth come to passe and in respect of the powerfull uature of grace as the cause is not for want of ignorance both because the distinction is most frequently used among the acutest that write concerning this controversie and also in regard that it so directly tends to the declaring of that efficacious causality which is by the Orthod●x claimed and by Sectaries denyed to the grace of God there being a vast difference betweene an antecedent adjunct the presence whereof an event doth infallibly follow and a cause properly productive of an effect infallibly to ensue 5. To the maine intent of my quaerees you would be thought to answer 1. By saying your sense clearly is According to the ordinary course of the grace of God working in and about the conversion of men there is no man actually converted but might possibly have acted and demeaned himselfe so as never to have been thus converted Answ You pretend to clearnesse but in your performance I finde nothing lesse Why use you this expression according to the ordinary course of the grace of God would you have me beleeve that God hath some other way though extraordinary by which he can do that which you assert simply impossible to be done as you say it is to make a man simply impoccable by the infallibility of the worke of the grace of God 2. You say That possibly the grace of God may take away from the will all inclination toward any rebellion yet it remeves not away all possibility to rebell and do wickedly Answ What you say is nothing to the question there 's no enquiry whether grace doth take away all possibility in the will to rebell but whether it doth not so infallibly take away the act of and inclination to rebellion as that the worke of conversion alwaies followes this working of grace 3. You say Yo. Eld. p. 65. That Master Jenkin maketh a blasphemous claime to an incommunicable property of God he asserteth himselfe under the same impossibility of sinning with God probatur he supposeth it impossible for him to sin when he is converted Though I shall not hope to determine whether ignorance or malice be most praedominant in this charge yet to the matter of it I easily returne this A simple and absolute impossibility to sin is one of the incommunicable properties of God but what say you to an impossibility to sin ex su positione the efficacy of grace supposed though there be a naturall defectibility in the creature may there not be an impossibility to sin Is it not true that good angels and Saints in heaven cannot sin can they actually put forth their defectibility so as to frustrate the grace of God and is it blasphemy to say that they cannot sinne or in so saying do we grant they have an incommunicable property of God But 2. O thou my simple and false accuser though you be not tender of charging me with blasphemy yet take heed your selfe of Blaspheming I claime no share in the incommunicable properties of God when I averre it impossible for my self or any other to frustrase the councell of God for who hath resisted his will or to hinder the worke of speciall grace comming to convert but sadly consider whether you blaspheme not in asserting men to be stronger than God that they can hinder his worke when he acteth with that power which is exceeding great and which raised Christ from the dead 4. You say An man may sinne after his conversion therefore much more at my time befoe Answ Yo. Eld. p. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be left to himselfe he may sinne but can he sinne being under that measure and strength of grace which is put forth in his conversion and so as to overcome it 5. You say Yo. Eld. p. 66. If there be a possibility for a man to sinne at any time before his conversion then is there a possibility in him also to hinder his

〈◊〉 because it is impossible for any man to be converted in an act of sinne Answ From this principle That it is impossible for a man to be converted in an act of sinne you may rather argue for the impossibility of conversion than for the possibility of non-conversion must a man leave his sinne first and be converted afterward why cannot God change the heart and infuse a principle of spirituall life into a man as into Saul Act. 9. while he is actually sinning so that this conversion or passive reception of a new life should be in an act of sinne 6. Yo. Eld. p. 66. I having said bu Bish pag. 52. That the efficatious determination of the will by grace takes nothing away but the pravity and rebellion of it and restores it to its true liberty you tell me If grace takes nothing away but the rebellion of the will then it leaves a liberty of rebellion for there 's nothing more evident than that there may remaine a liberty or power of rebellion in the will when the rebellion it self is taken away There is no question but there may remaine a power of rebellion where there is no actuall rebellion but that this power may be brought into act when the act it self and inclination to it is taken away which you grant may be implyes a contradiction Reconcile these two Gods grace subdues all rebellion and all inclination to rebell and yet rebellion may hinder the worke of Gods grace 7. Yo. Eld. p. 66. You tell me If the adjutory of grace restores the true liberty of the will to it then its that liberty which was naturall to it wherein 't was created c. and then it leaves a liberty in it to rebell and to frustrate the worke of conversion and defeat it for the liberty wherein the will was created left the will under a possibility of rebelling Answ Your arguing discovers that you understand not the nature of the wils true liberty which once it had and to which it is by grace restored The true liberty of the will is willingly and freely to obey to be able to sin is no perfection nor any part of true liberty but a defect in the wils liberty I having desired but one page half fil'd with quotations out of Orthodox Writers agreeing with those your opinions transcribed by the Subscribers you hereupon promise to give me measure heaped up Resolving to make up in measure your want in weight and to supply with the abundancy of your quotations the defect of their aptitude to the matter for which you alleadge them Yo. Eld p. 67. Sect. 76. 1. You snarle at this passage in the Testimony thousands of soules which Christ hath ransomed with his blood shall be endangered to be undone here is say you the Doctrine of universall redemption asserted If the ransomed by Christ may perish to eternity then Christ ransomed not the elect onely of whose perishing there 's not the least possibility Answ Rom. 14.15 Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died Job 10.28 Who but such a spider-like reader would have suckt poyson out of so sweet a floure may not the Subscribers say to you with Hicrome as I told you even now hoc non nobis sed apostolo lay this accusation at the Ap●stles doore Rom. 14.15 1 Cor. 8. 11. doth the Apostle meane that any of the Sheep of Christ could perish or that any could take them out of the hand of Christ or that any could perish that are upheld by the power of God through faith or that have the intercession of Christ improved for them c. or that are given to Christ by the Father Job 6.39 Rom. 8.38 Why if either you could or would not your selfe have answered for the Apostle or the Ministers went you not to those reverend and learned Interpreters that have expounded these Texts surely they would have taught you to have given the Ministers better usage Chrysostome would have informed you that those of whom Christ is Redeemer in respect of the sufficiency of the price may perish though not those to whom the price is applyed Paraeus would have taught you That in respect of themselves and left to themselves the best are in danger of perishing Hominibus nihil infirmius In regard of Satans formidable power they might perish In regard of the scandals themselves which without the powerfull sustentation of God are insuperable They might perish but in respect of the counsell and decrce of God in respect they are the sheep of Christ and are sustained with his interce●ion they cannot perish 〈◊〉 would have told you Reader in Yo Elder p. 100. John Goodwin alloweth this interpretation Rom 14 15. In Pauls languare saith he he is said to destroy his brother who doth that which is apt or like to destory him whether he be actually destroyed or no. Yo Eld. Sect. 77 7● 7● 8● That these who are lookt upon with the judgement of charity as these for whom Christ dyed of whom he saith the Apostle speaks may perish though not those for whom certainly Christ dyed You now impudently improve many Sections though with vaine endeavour to make three Reverend learned Ministers guilty of concurring with you in your err neous epinions concerning the power of naturall men to good supera●turall These my Reverend friends Doctor Gouge Master Scudder Master Calamy though one so weakly slanderous as your selfe deserved it not have so far condescended to you as to send me in their severall vindi●ations from that unworthy and hatefull asporsion of complying with you in your fore●aid opinions I shall present them to the Reader distinctly and word for word as they sent them to me under their ewne hands MAfter John G●dwin to demonstrate that the substance of his opinion of the power of a naturall man Doctor William Gouge his Vindication is contained in the Writings of many of the Subscribers produceth sundry sentences of theirs And in particular having gathered sundry passages out of The whole Armour of God he thus saith in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 72. I appeale to any man that will take the painee to comp●re my passages with these whether the one can be Or●hodox if the other be 〈◊〉 Here therefore behold the one compared with the other each in their owne termes and thereby judge whether the one be so like the other as is pretended The whole Armour of God Page 233. In something or other all those which believe not come short of that which they might have done for attaining unto this precious gift of faith and that is it for which another day they shall be condemned unbeliefe is in a mans power Page 604. Let every one of what ranke or condition soever he be be encouraged to apply to himselfe these glad tidings of pardon and seeing God excludeth none let not any of us exclude our selves Page 591. In the order of Redemption God hath made