Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Conference 7 – Conference 8
THE Seventh Days Conference Between A. and B. Of SUFFICIENT and EFFECTUAL GRACE.
A.
You have made us hitherto believe that the Controverſies about Predestination and Redemption, are all reſolved into thoſe of Free-will and Grace, and if there be no difference here, there can be none there. Let us now then come to the core of the Controverſie, which is all.
The first Crimination.
1. The Calviniſts deny ſufficient Grace, *By ſufficient Grace is meant that by which a man may be ſaved, and without which he cannot, in q. Vaſqu. in 1. Tho. q. 23. diſp. 97. c. 1. 1. Some ▪ſay that to ſome men for former ſin, God penally denieth Grace ſufficient for Faith and Repentance: So Toſtat. in Mal. 4. q. 12. Greg. Armin. 1. d. 46. qu. unica Cajet. in Joh. c. 19. Roffenſ. Contr. Luther. ar. 26. Tapper. in art. 7. pag. 254. Henric. quodl. 8. q. 5. 2. Others ſay, that auxilium ſufficiens is offered to all, and denied to no man in this life, how obdurate hower, which Vaſq. in 1. Tho. q. 23. d. 98. c. 3. ſaith is the commoner Opinion of the Schools: Ita Adrian. in 4. q. 1. de poenit. Sotus de nat. & gra. c. 18. Driedo de Red. c. 3. & 5. Vega in Conc. Trid. l. 13. c. 13, &c. But Vaſquez ſaith, cap. 5. That ad poenitentiam & ad fidem, it is non omnibus momentis, ſed certis temporibus datum. They commonly agree to Auguſtines words, though none know juſt how God changeth Wills, Certum eſt nos velle cum volumus ſed ille facit ut velimus bonum.—Et certum eſt nos facere cum facimus, ſed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficaciſſimas—De Grat. & lib. arb. l. c. 16. &c. 17. Ut v…limus ſine nobis operatur. Theſe words put his Expoſitors hard to it. And Vaſquez ſaith, That ut is here put finally, and the meaning is that to make us willing, he giveth us (without us) his preventing or operating Grace, or as Greg. his impulſe: And if it mean any more it cannot be true: For doubtleſs man is the Agent or Willer when he willeth. So li. 1. ad Simplician. q. 2. Aliter D…us praeſtat ut velimus, aliter praeſtat quod voluerimus. Ut velimus enim & ſuum eſſe v… luit & noſtrum: Suum vocando, noſtrum ſequendo quod autem voluerimus ſolus praeſtat; id eſt, poſſe bene agere & ſemper beate videre,] where the words alſo are obſcure: but Vaſquez noteth, that here the [ut] is not final as before; and that [Voluerimus] is not preterpefect tenſe, but the future tenſe: as the following words explain it: elſe he ſhould contradict himſelf. Et de Eccleſ. dogm. c. 21. Manet ad qu…r…ndam ſalutem …rbitrii libertas; ſed admonent… prius Deo, & invitante ad ſalutem, ut vel eligat, vel ſequatur: Et initium ſalutis noſtra Deo miſerante habemus: ut acquieſcamus ſaluti-…erae inſpirationi noſtra poteſtatis eſt.and ſo make all men that are damned to ſuffer for meer Impoſſibilities, having no Grace to enable them to eſcape Sin or Miſery; And conſequently that Adam's ſin only was avoidable, for which all the World is caſt into a neceſſity of ſinning, and none but a few elect ones have ever had ſo much as the poſſibility of any true remedy. Yea many of them deny that Adam himſelf had ſufficient Grace.
B.
1. The word [Sufficient] is ſometimes taken, for all that is any way needful, and ſo it is that they commonly deny ſufficiency of uneffectual Grace. More Grace might have certainly produced the Effect. A man is commonly ſaid to have enough who needeth no more. Now more is here uſeful, needful, deſirable to the facilitating and aſcertaining the event. If you are not agreed with them in this, why do you pray for more Grace, and labour for more, and take it to be a ſign of ſincerity to deſire more. For if the Regenerate have not Grace enough, ſurely the Unregenerate have not.
2. But in this Controverſie the Dominicans and Jeſuites, by ſufficient, mean that which giveth the poſſe agere, that is, ſo much as is of abſolute neceſſity to the act, without which it cannot be done, and with which alone it can or may be done. And in this ſenſe the Proteſtants generally, and the Synod of Dort particularly deny not that there is ſuch a thing as ſufficient Grace. I have oft told you, that 1. They confeſs it in the inſtance of Adam. 2. They confeſs it in the caſe of common Grace, enabling men to common preparatory duty, which many are able to do, and do not; as I have evinced before in many inſtances, and the Synod, and ſpecially the Britiſh and Breme Divines aſſert. 3. And as to the point of Faith it ſelf, whether any unregenerate man have ſufficient Grace to believe, which is not effectual, I find few medling much with it. 4. But they commonly (I think) agree, that all regenerate men themſelves have ſufficient Grace for many an act of Faith, Love, Obedience which they never do. Is it not one of the Opinions which at Dort and frequently theſe Divines reject, as falſly imputed to them, that a man can do no more good, and forbear no more evil than he doth? And if he can do more, he hath power to do more: And power to act, is that which is called ſufficient Grace.
Therefore I need not trouble you any more with this Controverſie, ſeeing under both the notions of Power and Liberty, it is decided, and confeſſed by you to be ſo before.
Remember that all ſufficient Grace is effectual; but not effectual to the act: It doth efficere potentiam, enableth men to act: but doth not cauſe the act it ſelf, unleſs it be efficax ad actum, as well as ad potentiam. How ordinarily do they profeſs the poſſibility of doing more than is done, by godly and ungodly, and that all the power that men have is not reduced into act. Yea when ſome aſſert Predetermination it ſelf, they ſay that it doth not deſtroy Liberty or Power ad contrarium, but only determine it.
A.
It is bad enough that they deny all ſufficient Grace to believe that is not effectual, though not to other acts.
B.
You wrong them: They do not ſo: Have I not told you now, that they commonly grant that even the godly themſelves have ſufficient Grace to believe, which is not effectual as to many an act of Faith? And as to Unbelievers, 1. They ſay that all have not Grace ſufficient or neceſſary to believe: And ſo ſay the Arminians. 2. But whether any one have or no, who believe not, they rather leave it to the Searcher of hearts as an unknown thing to them, than deny it. But they ſeem to infer that it is moſt likely to be ſo, in that 1. It is ſo with the godly themſelves. 2. And with all other men, as to other acts of common Grace. And they all agree (as I ſaid before) that no man is denied power to believe ſavingly, but for not uſing as he could his antecedent commoner Grace. And I think neither Party knoweth more than this, and in this both are agreed. And he that will aſſert his uncertain Conjectures, and then pretend that this is a Church-Controverſie, is the maker but not the ender of Controverſies.
A.
Some of them ſtick not to ſay that Adam himſelf had not Grace ſufficient to ſtand, or forbear ſinning: and if ſo, then there is none ſuch.
B.
We have nothing to do with any odd perſons words. Who is it that never ſpeaketh amiſs? I confeſs Dr. Twiſſe, Vind. Grat. l. 1. par. 3. de Reprob. ſect. 2. pag. (Vol. minor) 306. ſaith, Gratiam ad peccatum vitandum neceſſariam duplicem eſſe dicimus; aliam ad poſſe vitare peccatum; aliam ad pecatum actu vitandum: illa eſt Gratia Regenerationis—Altera non in eſt homini per modum habitus, ſed per modum paſſionis; & eſt motio quaedam gratioſa in voluntatem influens, & ad omnem ſanctam actionem extimulans.—And ſo one or two ſay that Adam had Grace neceſſary ad poſſe ſtare, non autem ad actum. But this is but a few mens odd Opinion, contrary to plain truth. I mean, If by neceſſary ad actum be meant in the proper School-ſenſe (not all that is conducible to aſcertain it, but) that ſine quo eſſe non poteſt, it is a contradiction to ſay that men have the power to Act, and yet want that which is neceſſary to the Act, that is, that without which they cannot Act. It is plainly, [They Can] and [They Cannot] (For we talk not de potentia paſſiva which a Stone, Tree, or a Beaſt, or a mad Man have). This diſtinguiſhing of things that differ not, muſt be detected, as well as confuſion avoided. To ſay a man can believe, or hath power to believe, and yet wants that without which he cannot believe, is palpable contradiction.
And where he maketh Regeneration to give the poſſe, before the Act, he ſpeaketh obſcurely or unſoundly. Gods active Influx on the Will, exciting it to Act, is (at leaſt) part of his Regenerating Grace. A man is not Regenerate before he ever actually believed or rep…nted; though he firſt receive the Divine Influx ad agendum: Nor can he prove that any proper habit goeth before the firſt act. And whether it do or not, moſt certainly the nature, faculty, and the habit, and all together, is truly and formally no power ad hoc, to believe or love God, or do any good, without Gods neceſſary Influx, Concurſe or exciting Grace: No more than a Plant hath a power to fructifie without the Sun or Earth: Of Gods help ad bene eſſe we ſpeak not: But to ſay that Gods exciting Grace is neceſſary ad actum, without which the Act cannot be, and yet that we have a power to do that Act without that Grace, is ſtill a contradiction. This is potentia hypothetica & aequivoca, a term fit to play with: But it is true power, where nothing of abſolute neceſſity ſine quo non eſſe poteſt is wanting, which our Divines do commonly confeſs that Adam had, and that all men good and bad have to more good than they do. Therefore I find not that you are in that diſagreed.
And Dr. Twiſſe, as I told you, oft and vehemently profeſſeth, Vindic. Grat. de Amiſ. Grat. Cont. Bellar. pag. (Vol. Minor) 230. c. 2. & 232. that man hath no neceſſity of ſinning ex decreto, but logical conſequentiae: But if it were true that we wanted that Grace which is abſolutely neceſſary to avoid ſin, it muſt needs follow that ſuch are under an abſolute preſent neceſſity conſequentis alſo of ſinning; as much as of dying, when God ceaſeth to continue life. And if he mean that the Decree neceſſitateth not ſin, but the denying of neceſſary Grace doth, he ſhould have ſaid ſo.
Andr. Rivet Diſput. 7. de Grat. Univerſ. p. 113. ſaith, [Sed non quemadmodum Pomificii & alii qui eorum ſententiam vel ſequuntur vel interpolant, nobis imponunt, ita ut plane negemus ſufficientis Gratiae phraſin poſſe uſurpari, aut dicamus nullam eſſe ſufficientem ullo modo, quae efficax non ſit, vel nullam eſſe efficacem quae ad converſionem & ſalutem non ſit efficax—Id tantum dicimus, non dari omnibus talem Gratiam ſufficientem, quae ita moveat omnium hominum voluntates, ut ſit in poteſtate electionis motioni aut obtemperare, aut reſ…agari: adeo que nullum eſſe qui per talem gratiam non poſſit ad ſalutem pervenire, Deum que id velle omnibus & intendere.] You ſee that he will own no more, but the denial of a univerſal ſufficient Grace for Salvation, intended of God, to all men. And you your ſelves confeſs, 1. That God intendeth not Salvation for all men, unleſs conditionally, if they believe and repent, which from eternity he knew before he made them, that they would not. 2. And that all men have not ſufficient Grace to Salvation, no nor to believe, but only to make them better, and bring them nearer it, and prepare them for it; (which ſome call Grace mediately ſufficient to Salvation; but that's an improper Speech, as long as for want of their Obedience, they never attain to much that is abſolutely neceſſary.)
For my part I doubt not to aſſert, 1. That no man in the World hath Grace ſufficient for Salvation, that is, Glorification, an hour before he dieth: For he cannot be ſaved without more; that is, without the Grace of perſeverance to the end. But every believing Penitent hath Grace ſufficient and effectual to give him a preſent Right to Salvation. And 2. I add, that there is no ſuch thing as Grace ſufficient to Salvation which is not effectual, and doth not ſave. Seeing all that perſevere in holineſs are ſaved; and they that do not, have not Grace ſufficient (that is, neceſſary) to Salvation. 3. And I add, that no man hath Grace ſufficient to give him a Right to Chriſt, and Pardon and Salvation, which is not effectual, and doth not procure it. For every penitent true Believer hath that Right to Chriſt, Pardon and Life: And he that is not a penitent Believer, hath not Grace ſufficient to obtain that Right.
A.
Yes, if he have ſufficient to help him to believe.
B.
Not ſo: unleſs he actually believe: For is not Faith in act, ſomewhat more than power to believe? When you confeſs that men are damned that have the Power, but not that have the Act.
A.
Yes; but man cauſeth the Act oft, when God hath given only the Power, and neceſſary concurſe to the production of the Act.
B.
Corvinus and others of you ordinarily confeſs, that Faith it ſelf is the Gift of God, and that Faith is more than a power to believe. And we denominate Gods Grace by the various effects: Therefore I may ſay that a man that hath Grace ſufficient to believe, yet hath not Grace ſufficient to Juſtification, till he have, 1. The Grace of Faith. 2. And ſo the Grace of the moral donation of the Covenant, which is the juſtifying, pardoning Inſtrument.
A.
You ſeem then to deny ſufficient Grace your ſelf.
B.
I aſſert, 1. That godly men have power or ſufficient Grace to many acts of Faith, Love and Duty which they never do. 2. And that all men by common Grace, or ſufficient, are able to do better than they do, in preparation for ſpecial Grace. 3. And that they are bound ſo to do, in order to their Salvation. And ſo that all men have ſome helps and Grace in its kind ſufficient to enable them to ſeek Salvation, and that God will not forſake them till they forſake him.*But I am not able to prove what Vaſqu. aſſerteth in 1. Tho. q. 23. diſp. 98. c. 4. Nunquam occurrere nobis obligationem praecepti, aut tentationem ſine ſufficienti cogitatione qua & hanc vincere, & illud obſervare poſſimus. Loquor de praecept… affirmativ…, cui non ſolum tempu… adeſt quo ſolet obligare, ſed etiam cujus obligatio memoriae occurrit. And he addeth a great untruth, [Nam ſi nulla illius in mentem ſubiret cogitatio, nulla nobis ejus obligatio in…umberet,] unleſs by [ſufficient Grace] he meant meer natural power, and by cogitation the natural power of cogitation, this is odious. As if a man were bound by no. Law of God or Man, if he could but make himſelf ignorant, contemptuous and wicked enough, never ſo much as to think of i….
A.
But doth not your Church of England, Art. 13. ſay, [Works done before the Grace of Chriſt, and the Inſpiration of his Spirit, are not pleaſant to God, foraſmuch as they ſpring no… of Faith in Jeſu Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive Grace, or (as the School Authors ſay) deſerve Grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed, and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of ſin.]
B.
This Article is intended againſt merit of congruity in the works of wicked men. And it is certain, that all their works are ſin, in that they are in defectiveneſs of ends and manner, and in perverſeneſs, the violations of the Law of God, (as to pray to God only to be ſaved from Hell, without love to God, and Holineſs, or hatred of Sin; to give Alms for the ſame ends, &c.) where the love of God, the true end is left out, the action muſt needs be ſin. But we ſay not that it is only ſin, or totally ſin. It is good and pleaſing to God ſecundum quid, though not ſimpliciter: And ſuch Actions as are ſin by deficiency, may have a tendeney to better Actions, and ſo to Salvation, by that good that is in them. He that in meer love to his own Soul, will pray, hear, meditate, avoid ſin, &c. is in a likelier way to Grace and Life, than he that will do none of this.
And 2. The Authors of the Arti…le, by merit of congruity, meant ſomewhat more than preparation for Converſion; For no Engliſh▪ Divines, I think, have denied that.
3. And by [Works done] they meant ſuch as the Papiſts taught men too much to truſt in, as giving Alms, building Hoſpitals, going on Pilgrimages, &c. which went under the notion of Sacrifices and Oblations under the old Law, when God ſaid, He abhor…d the Sacrifice of the Wicked, and bid them be readier to hear, than to offer the Sacrifice of Fools. But it is not, I think, Soul-humbling Repentance, Confeſſion; begging for Grace, conſidering their Ways, hearing the Word, &c. though but ſuch as preparatory Grace may do, which they meant by Works.
4. And that is not done without Grace and the Spirit of Chriſt, which is done but by his common Grace; And yet I could wiſh the Article had been better worded.
But if you will ſee the conſent of an hundred and twenty ancient Writers, and ſixty three Proteſtant Synods, Churches and Divines, for Univerſal Grace, read Dallaei, Apolog. part. 4.
A.
I am ſure God ſaith, That he would not the death of a Sinner, but rather that he repent and live, and that he would have all men to be ſaved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, which they deny.
B.
No man denieth it, who denieth not the Scripture. And I can hardly believe that really you differ about the meaning of the words.
Quest. 1. Do you believe that God is abſolutely unwilling that any periſh? and abſolutely willeth that all ſhall be ſaved?
A.
No: but conditionally he is.
B.
Queſt. 2. Do you think that he abſolutely willeth the performance of that condition?
A.
I know you will ſay, If abſolutely, it must come to paſs, or God muſt be overcome. If conditionally, how doth he will that condition? and ſo in infinitum? But I will ſay, that he willeth it abſolutely, and yet is not overcome or ſruſtrate by a greater Power. For he willeth it only voluntate inefficaci, or with a velleity, which is not a willing to do it all himſelf, but that it be done by man.
B.
If he will that man repent eventually, with an abſolute Will, the Impenitent then fruſtrate his Will or Deſire. And it is a note of infelicity to have abſolute Deſires not obtained: If Gods Will be not done, is it not for want of Power or Wiſdom to accompliſh it?
A.
No: it is becauſe he willeth not to effect the thing, but that man effect it.
B.
If you had ſaid, that he conditionally willeth that man effect it, the failure had been no fruſtration: But that had been but to ſay, that he willeth that man ſhall will if he will; or at leaſt, if he excite his own Will; and ſo the queſtion would recur, How he willeth that excitation. But ſeeing you ſay, that God abſolutely willeth that man ſhall will or excite his own Will, you muſt needs mean that God deſireth that which he cannot obtain, and ſo is imperfect?
A.
No: I only ſay, that he deſireth that which he cannot obtain by mans free agency, without exerting more of his own efficient power to obtain it. He could obtain it, if he would do all that he can.
B.
*Hoc v…lt Dtus ut omne… …jus vit… participes ſ…t, circumſta…ti… vero p…n… rum non ipſius v…l…tat… fiunt: ſed pro merito …ru… qui p…ccaverunt infer… t…: Vitam De… cui que propria voluntat… tribuit…ram vero ſibi quiſ que the…aurizat. Baſil. in Pſal. 26.This is no more than to ſay, that either properly he doth not will that man excite his own Will to the act (in that he will not do that without which he knoweth it will not be done); or that he willeth it but conditionally, [If ſo much help will procure it.] And for want of plain opening the caſe as it is, you do but entangle your ſelf in unintelligible words, when you talk of uneffectual velleities of the event which yet are abſolute.
A.
How will you explain it better?
B.
As is ſufficiently done before. 1. God abſolutely willeth that it ſhall be mans duty to repent and believe. Duty is the thing antecedently willed with an abſolute Will. 2. God willeth that Heaven ſhall be his due, if he perform that condition. 3. But if he will not perform it, that Hell be his due. This Will is conditional as to the thing willed. 4. Theſe Volitions of God belong to him as Rector, (ſuppoſing him a Benefactor) giving out his benefits by a Law. And this Will is expreſſed by Gods Law, which actually conſtituteth the abſolute Debitum obedientiae, and the conditional debitum premii vel poenae. 5. The condition being paſt, Gods conſequent Will is abſolute de premiando vel puniendo: He willeth the death of the Impenitent conſequently. And this is but Gods Will, qua judex, expreſſed by his Judgment actually. 6. Though in ſtrict ſenſe, the thing that God antecedently willeth is not the event, but the debitum vel jus, man's duty, and his due thereupon; yet becauſe it belongeth not to a Legiſlator as ſuch to do any more towards the event, than command it (ſuppoſing neceſſary power and helps) therefore after the manner of men, it is ſaid, that God willeth the event (Repentance and Salvation) becauſe he willeth to do ſo much towards it, even all that concerneth him to do as a meer Rector, (beſides the donation of neceſſary power or help as a Benefactor.) And this is all that you mean, in which both ſides are really agreed.
A.
I confeſs we uſe to explain it by his Antecedent Will, and ſaying that quantum in ſe, he would have all repent and live. But by quantum in ſe, we do not mean that God doth as much as he is able to it: Therefore your explication ſeemeth true, as well as conciliatory, that he doth quantum in ſe as Rector per leges, ſuppoſing alſo his neceſſary help.
B.
So God delighteth not in the death of Sinners, becauſe it is not his Antecedent Will that they die, but only his conſequent, on ſuppoſition of impenitency which he willeth not: And alſo becauſe it is the good of Juſtice, and not our death and hurt as ſuch, or for it ſelf that God loveth and delighteth in. But when men return and live, they fulfil his antecedent Will, and do that which he loveth as good in it ſelf.
And he would have all men come to the knowledge of the Truth, and be ſaved; that is, He obligeth both Miniſters to preach to them, and others to pray for them and help them, and themſelves to obey and receive his Grace; And he giveth them means, and giveth Chriſt and Life by free donation to all, on condition they will but accept the Gift. And he that ſtrictly willeth this much, may be ſaid after the manner of men, to will the event. And this is all that both ſides mean, if they underſtood themſelves.
The ſecond Crimination.
A.
The great difference between us, is, that they hold Gods Grace to be unreſistible; *Okam, Gabriel, and Catherinus do hold, that there are three ranks of men in Gods Decree: 1. One of perſons eminently predeſtinated, to whom God will give ſuch extraordinary Grace as ſhall ex ſe aſcertain their Converſion and Salvation: 2. Another of the the ordinary Elect, who are fore-ſeen to uſe well ſufficient Grace, and ſo elected to Glory upon that fore-ſight. 3. The Reprobates who are decreed to Hell for their fore-ſeen ſin. Vide Okam in 1. d. 41. q. 1. Gabr. ibid. q. 1. a. 2. & de hiſce Vaſqutz in 1. Tho. q. 23. diſq. 90. c. 1. who contradicteth them, cap. 2. & 23. Yet denieth that in man there is any cauſe condition, or occaſion of his predeſtination, diſp. 91. Tilenus againſt Camero layeth all upon the reſiſtibility of Grace, but never ſufficiently explaineth the word. The Arminians Synod, p. 15. aſſert, Etiam ſupernaturalem potentiam voluntati conferri, & hac ratione Deum immediate in voluntatem agere; modo illa actio voluntatem non neceſſitet, antecedenter, & libertatem potentiam que non volendi tollat. Hear a Jeſuite, Ruiz de Praedef. d. 6. ſect. 4. p. 91. Vocatio efficax ſuum effectum infallibiliter ſortitur, quoniam ſuam efficacitatem accipit ex praeſcientia & propoſito Dei, movente noſtram voluntatem ut conſentiat:—Nam inſuperabilis virtus Vocationis ſecundum propoſitum eſt. Bradwardine, l. 3. c. 27, 28. aſſerting the neceſſitation of all that cometh to paſs, would prove that yet Sinners deſerve damnation, though they could not ſin leſs than they did, becauſe Chriſt merited Glory that could not ſin.] But it's a deceit from the ambiguity of the words, [Can and Cannot]. It was not for want of Power that Chriſt could not ſin, but by perfection of holineſs: But it is for want of natural power to overcome God, that he ſeigneth men to be Sinners and damned.As if it did move man as a ſtone, or a dead body, and did neceſſitate or force the Will of man: Whereas we hold, that God worketh by ſuch moral, internal and external ſwaſion on the Will, as taketh not away the power of reſiſting and doing the contrary.
B.
I confeſs this is the Point that maketh the greateſt noiſe. But let us enquire how far indeed you differ.
1. Reſiſtance is Paſſive (as a hard block reſiſteth the wedge) or Active (as Fighters do reſiſt each other.)
2. Reſistance is effectual (when the Reſiſter overcometh) or uneffectual (when it is overcome.)
3. The Act of Reſiſtance, muſt be diſtinguiſhed from the power of Reſiſtance: And to overcome actual Reſiſtance, from the deſtroying of the Power.
4. Phyſical and moral Power of reſiſting muſt be diſtinguiſhed as is aforeſaid.
5. Real and Logical Power of Reſiſtance alſo muſt be diſtinguiſhed as afore.
A.
Well: How do you apply theſe distinctions?
B.
1. All the gracious Operations of God on the Soul of a Sinner, are not only reſistible, but ever reſiſted, both paſſively and Actively, in ſome degree. 1. Materia paſſiva qua talis, is ſaid to reſiſt the motion of the active nature, in that its own nature is averſe to Action, and the motus muſt be violentus. And though mans Soul be not material, yet as under God it is ſubstantia paſſiva, and ſo paſſively may be ſaid to reſiſt, in a lower ſort, that is, to require the exerting of the Power of the Agent to its motion: Though this putteth God to no difficulty. 2. But ſinful Privations and Indiſpoſitions make the name of paſſive reſiſtance to the Grace of God, yet more apt. 3. And the contrary operations and re…itence of a vitious Mind and Will, are an active reſiſtance. Though it be above our reach to know in what ſenſe it may or may not be called a Reſiſtance as to Gods Act in it ſelf (God being not paſſive); yet that it may be called a Reſiſtance, as to the effect, is paſt doubt; (As I reſiſt a mans Work, if I undo what he doth, though I touch not him.) All penitent mens conſciences tell them that they reſiſt God in all the good that he perſwadeth them to, and doth them.
2. No man actively reſiſteth God, but by his own power: That is, 1. God as the Author of Nature, keepeth up natural Power, and concurreth with it. 2. Man vitiateth and perverteth this, in morals. 3. God by outward and inward motion doth Operate towards the rectifying of it. 4. Man uſing his natural power viciouſly againſt thoſe rectifying Operations, ſtriveth by it againſt Gods gracious Work, and ſo reſiſteth him by his own ſtrength.
3. When ever Grace effecteth the Faith, Repentance, Obedience which it moveth us to, it overcometh all our actual reſiſtance. Grace is not always overcome, when it is reſiſted. To ſay that effectual Grace overcometh reſiſtance, is but to ſay that it is effectual.
4. All Grace which is ſufficient, that is, which giveth all that is abſolutely neceſſary to the effect, is not victorious or effectual; and ſo it is reſiſtible, as that ſignifieth ſuperable, and that uneffectual; that is, all neceſſary ſufficient Grace is not effectual.
5. It is an improper phraſe to ſay that Gods Power is overcome: For it is not done by a greater Power. But when God will put forth but a certain degree of Power in his gracious motions; the motions of natural power perverted by Vice, may be greater than them: And when they bring forth a contrary effect, are ſaid to overcome them.
6. Therefore whether Grace be de facto reſiſted or not reſiſted, overcome or not overcome, is no matter of controverſie, ſeeing the event doth decide the queſtion.
7. Grace where it overcomes, is not properly ſaid to overcome the meer phyſical Power or Act as ſuch, but as perverted, and viciouſly uſed againſt God.
8. The power of ſinning may be ſaid to be overcome, when it doth not perform the preſently-endeavoured act, but the contrary.
9. The Power may be ſaid to be overcome, when it is deſtroyed, and is no longer a Power ad hoc. And ſo the natural power is never properly ſaid to be overcome by Grace, but to be determined.
10. The vicious moral Power, which is but the evil habit or diſpoſition, is always overcome by effectual Grace, as to that act where Grace prevaileth. But not always thereby overcome in it ſelf as a habit, and deſtroyed; till the contrary habitual Grace deſtroy it.
All this is paſt all Controverſie on both ſides: And if ſo, tell me what difference about the irreſistibility of Grace remaineth.
A.
It will put a mans brains hard to it to follow you, as you mince the matter by ſo many diſtinctions and propoſitions.
B.
And you put mens Conſciences hard to it, to fire Gods Church, by contending where you differ not, or can ſhew no difference.
Queſt. 1. When you ſay that Grace is reſistible, do you mean that de facto, it is never effectual and overcometh our reſiſtance?
A.
No: then no man ſhould be ſaved.
B.
Queſt. 2. Do you mean that mans Will is more powerful than God?
A.
You need not ask me ſuch a queſtion.
B.
Queſt. 3. Do you mean that God never putteth forth ſo much power in his work of Grace as man doth in reſiſting it?
A.
Here I muſt diſtinguiſh alſo: 1. Power is ſo called either as in ſe, in the virtue, or in the effect. 2. Power in man is ſo called either as meerly mans, or as Gods that worketh in man. And ſo I anſwer, 1. Gods Power in it ſelf which way ever it worketh (in man or out of him) is the ſame, neither greater nor leſs than it ſelf, for it is God. 2. Power in it ſelf as Gods is infinitely greater than mans as ſuch. 3. As power is ſo called from the effect, it is no Controverſie: For the event ſtill telleth which is the greater, or prevalent therein.
B.
You have anſwered well. Queſt. 4. You do not mean I know that in the inſtant of acting, the Soul that willeth can nill the ſame thing at the ſame time, in the ſame reſpect, much leſs after the act is paſt, that it hath a contrary power ad praeteritum? It is, I ſuppoſe, only in the inſtant, antecedent to the act that you ſay Grace is reſiſtible?
A.
You may eaſily be ſure of that.
B.
Quest, 5. If you mean only that the natural faculty was potentia libera activa ad utrumlibet, till Grace procured it to determine it ſelf: And ſo that Grace deſtroyed not the natural Power or Liberty; do you know any that differ from you in that?
A.
No, if they may take freedom in their own ſenſe.
B.
Enough of that, I hope, before. Quest. 6. If you mean that the moral Pravity of this natural faculty, was ſuch as could have prevailed againſt Grace, though it did not; do you not ſpeak unintelligibly? For either you ſpeak of a Logical poſſibility only, or of a real ſtrength or power; If of the former, you equivocate; and you differ not from others: For you oft confeſs, that Gods meer Preſcience that it will not be, doth infer a Logical neceſſity conſequentiae, and ſo a Logical impoſſibility of the contrary. But if by [Could] you mean a real ſtrength or oppoſite power, you miſtake the matter. Moral pravity is not ſtrength or power at all; But the perverſion or diſeaſe of ſtrength or power.
So that the caſe is not unſearchable: when a man is converted, what hath your queſtion reſpect to, in the word [Reſist] but the Act, the vicious habit and privation, and the natural faculty? Is there any thing elſe to be conſidered?
A.
Not that I remember; what then?
B.
The Act you confeſs is procured, and therefore not reſiſted (effectually.) 2. The privation reſiſteth but paſſively, and ſo hath no active power. And to ſay that the privation of Faith could have reſiſted the Grace that wrought Faith, implyeth a falſhood, if you mean it of active power or reſiſtance. 3. The contrary habit is not a power, but the ill diſpoſition of a power. Therefore if it be de facto, overcome as to the act by actual Grace, or in it ſelf by habitual Grace, it is on a falſe ſuppoſition to ſay, that it had power to have reſiſted, when as it hath no power, nor is a power. But if you ſpeak of Logical poſſibility, its impertinent equivocation. 4. All that remaineth then is, that the natural faculty in the antecedent inſtant wanted not power or freedom to the contrary act; which is true, and none of them that are intelligent deny. For God by determining a free power, doth not destroy it, but uſe it, and determine it. And Gods change of the Mind and Will, is not by any diminution or fraction of the power of it, but by a ſapiential and loving efficacy, acting it aright, and more advancing it. Even in our after lives, he doth not take away our natural power to will and do evil, but he taketh away the vicious diſpoſition of it, that we may certainly will and do well. Tell me yet then where is the difference?
A.
Though you over-whelm me by diſtinctions, you cannot ſo blind me, but I know a difference between theſe two Opinions, [when Paul firſt believed, he could have reſiſted and not believed,] and [He could not reſiſt, and not believe.]
B.
That is, you have learnt of the Maſters of Confuſion and Diſſention to ſtrive about words, which you underſtand not; and having the Foot-Ball before you, you will drive it on. But little know you whither? nor how little thanks the great Shepherd of the Flock will give you at the laſt. Either ſhew us the difference, or be aſhamed to pretend a difference.
A.
I perceive that the Controverſie about Reſiſtance is reſolved into that of power: [Can and Cannot reſiſt], which was opened before.
THE Eighth Days Conference Between B. and C. of SUFFICIENT and EFFECTUAL GRACE.
B.
I now expect your ſharpeſt Charge againſt your Adverſaries about the nature, efficacy and extent of Grace.