The Blind Guide, Chapter 4

The Blind Guide · Chapter 4

p. 68CHAP. IIII.

Shewing the weakneſſe and erroneouſneſſe of Maſter Goodwins pretended Anſwers to what I bring againſt his Errours about the power of man to good ſupernaturall.

IN my former Booke called Buſie Biſhop, I charged you with Arminianiſm in the handling this Doctrine of grace and free will; Yo. El p. 43, 44. Sect. 56.you deny not the charge but acknowledge it true, though not penitentially, but impudently: But what ſay you in your owne defence?

1. You ſlight the charge,Yo. Eld. p. 43. as fit to be regarded onelyonly by women and child…en, and not by m…n of worth, parts, &c.

But is it ſo ſmall a matter to be accounted, Anſw. nay, to be a profeſt Arminian? C…nc. Carth…g ſub Aurel. Apud Bin. To. 1. p. 864. Conc. Mileu. 868, 869. Nefarius & ab omnibus anathematizandus error. haereſis nimium periculoſo, error pernitioſiſſimus. Aug. ad Hilar. ep. 94. peſtifeta impietas execrabile dogmald. fidei venena Aug. Contr. Julian.would it never have moved men of worth, parts, &c. Were they men of no worth or parts, &c. that cenſured the Tenets in Pelagius, which afterward revived in Arminius? have none but women and children held theſe forth as accurſed, abominable, moſt pernitious hereſies, execrable, peſtilent impieties, the poyſon and bane of faith? The many holy and learned men who have been moved againſt the errours of Arminius, were ſo far from being children for their deep reſentment of this hereſie, that they ſhew you a childe for ſleighting the charge of it; Neither women nor children ſit in Parliament, and yet the Houſe of Commons in their Remonſtrance to the King, June 11. 1628. profeſſe themſelves no leſſe perplexed with the growth of Arminianiſm than of Popery; that being a cunning way to bring in Popery; and the profeſſors of Arminianiſm they looke upon as the common diſturbers of Proteſtant Churches, and Incendiaries of thoſe States wherein they have gotten head, being Proteſtants in ſhew,Vid. Prin. neceſ. Introd p. 92. but Jeſuites in opinion and practice; Its cleare what Maſter Goodwins eſteeme was of that Parliament, for being ſo moved againſt Arminians; and I doubt not but this preſent Parliament which hath been ſo earneſt in ſuppreſſing Arminians, is yet lower in the opinion of this cenſor.

p. 692. In this ſection you plead that truth is not the worſe becauſe bareticks hold it, I my ſelf (you ſay) hold ſome things that Devills, Phariſees, Arminians beleeve.Yo. Eld. p. 4….

Its confeſt, but this comes not up to your caſe; Anſw. If you hold any truth which the Arminians hold, I blame you not;L…de nup & Conc. c. 3. libe…wn in hom… ne eſſe arbitrium, utri que dicimus, hinc non eſtis Celeſtiani liberum autem quenquam eſſe ad faciendum bonum, hoc vos dicitis, hinc eſtis celeſti…ni. Its for the embracing the errours which they maintaine that I charge you. Its a ſpeech of Auguſtine to the Sectaries. That there is free will in man, we ſay on both ſides, hence therefore it is not that you are called Celeſtians, but that any one hath free will to good, you ſay, and hence you are called Celeſtians; you tell me that the devill holds Jeſus Chriſt to be the holy one of God; but this confeſſion makes him not a devill, its common with the Church of Chriſt; but your tenets are properly Pelagian, Arminian, condemned by the Churches of Chriſt, whom you leave therefore, particularly this Church of England, of which the learned Davenant ſaith: No man can embrace Arminianiſm in the Doctrin… of predeſtination and grace, Prin. Comp. Tr. p. 166.but he muſt firſt deſert the Articles agreed upon by the Church of England. And in this you cloſe with the Jeſuite, building upon that foundation which he laid, and watering that plant which he planted in England and Holland, as a ſoveraigne drugg to purge the Proteſtants from their hereſie.

3. You ſay, That this practice of mine to defame books, by ſaying that thoſe who are erroneous hold them, is an old device of Papiſts, whereby they endeavour to render ſuch truths of God as made not for their intereſts hatefull, you inſtance in one Prateolus.Yo. Eld p. 44.

A triviall paſſage that needs not a reply. Papiſts ſlander truths, Anſw. I diſcover'd errours; where's the harmony? They load truths with imputation of errour, I compare errour with errour. Morton, Cath. Apo…par. 1. c. 24 Spr. de haereſ. p. 1. l. 2, 3. Riv. Cath. Orth. Tr. 1.When you ſhall have cleered your ſelf and opinion from the imputation of Arminianiſm, as Morton, Springlius, Rivet, have vindicated the Proteſtants againſt Prateolus and his compeers, you may ſay I uſed a popiſh ſtratagem, but till then you muſt be under the accuſation of hereſie, for ought I can do to relieve you.

I having told the Reader that your charging the Subſcribers of the Teſtimony with Manicheiſm is as old as Pelagius, Yo. Eld. p. 45. ſect. 57.and by him caſt upon Jerome and Auſtin; This, you ſay, is as if one charged for a ſeducer of the people, ſhould plead thus for himſelfe, The accuſation of ſeducing the people was caſt upon Chriſt by the Phariſees, p. 70&c. by whom have any of your judgement in the point of reprobation, been vindicated from the accuſation of Manicheiſm.

1. Anſw. I do indeed tell the Reader, That this charge of Manicheiſm is as old as Pelagius, that he may obſerve your complyance with that Heretick, Non eſt minon qròd nevi …, cathel is … quibus ex…unt, no…um nomen …, Aug. l. 2. op. imp. n 7.as in your opinions, ſo in your opprobrious calumnies againſt the truth; you know who ſaid it.

Nec lacie lacti, nec ovum ovo ſimilius.

'Twixt milk and milk the likeneſſe is not greater,

Nor egge to egge more parallel in feature.

2. A ſedu…er (ſuch are you) may not plead for himſelfe, by ſaying the Phariſees did caſt the accuſation of ſeducing upon Chriſt, but an innocent perſon may beare up his ſpirit with the recollection to his minde, of the falſe accuſations that have been caſt upon the ſaints in former ages.Cernis cum quibu… maledicta rua …, cernis cum quibus mihi ſit cauſo … is, … qu int… …i per…oſum ſit, tam horrthile …rimen objicere talibus, & quam mihi glorioſion ſit quod libet crimen oudire & talilus. Aug. Contr. Jul. l. 1. c. 4. So perſecuted they the Prophets, ſaith Christ, Mat. 5: 12. And (is Auſtine ſaith) though it be a dangerous thing to reproach ſuch, yet is it a glorious thing to ſuffer reproaches with ſuch.

3. You ask by whom any of my judgement in the point of reprobation, have been vindiceted from Manicheiſm.

1. How know you my judgement in the point of reprobation. 2. What need any of my judgement in the point of reprobation, any vindication from Manicheiſm? doth not this further manifeſt, that you underſtand not what Manicheiſm is? Did the Manichees hold any reprobation at all? You lay upon me the imputation of Manicheiſm; I deny it. 'Tis your part to prove it, who ſay it; but do it throughly leaſt you prove your ſelf not onelyonly a ſimple accuſer, but a falſe accufer. But 3 know that if thoſe whoſe hereſie is your inheritance, have caſe the imputation of Manicheiſm upon any of my judgement, they have been ſufficiently cleared by Auguſtine of old, and by Springlius, cited Buſie Biſhop, page 48. among many Moderne Writers who have done the like.

In this ſection I finde you miſerably flundering in the quagmires of errour, non-ſence, and abſurdity; Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 58.and you would faine perſwade Maſter Ball to ſinke with you, but you cannot; your opinion is this: Men are not wholly deſtitute of all power to do what God requires of them as ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, particularly to repent, and beleeve. Maſter Balls worde are theſe: No man is hindered p. 71from beleeving through the difficulty or unreaſonableneſſe of the command, or through his owne ſimple infirmity, as being willing to beleeve but not able, which inability deſerves pitty, but he doth not beleeve becauſe he will not.

1. I demanded,Yo. Eld p. 46. what is here that gives you the leaſt countenance in your errours? You anſwer by asking, Who either ſaid or thought that here was any thing of ſuch import? I reply, Anſw. If you did not think ſo, you dealt very contraconſcientiouſly to ſay ſo. Your very words, Sion Coll. viſited, pag. 16. are theſe: The ſelf-ſame opinions are countenanced by men of your owne party for which you defame others, and immediately you ſubjoyne this allegation out of Maſter Ball. And Youngling Elder, pag. 46. ſay you not thus: I cite the words not ſo much by way of countenance as concurrence. Here's an open confeſſion that you cite the words by way of countenance as well as concurrence, though not by way of countenance ſo much; but you would faine be lookt upon as a Doctor ſeraphicus, irrefragabilis, reſolutus, (the encomiums of three dunces met in one,) your opinions need no mans countenance, nay, you build your faith no more upon the Scripture, than Chriſt his upon Moſes. You call me childling for but asking what is here that gives you countenance. But friend,Yo. Eld. p. 31. Yo. Eld p. 46. though you be haply a Pythagorus to your deluded followers, you need ſome countenance to beare up your port among others. And its juſt with God if you who have accuſtomed your ſelf ſo much to falſneſſe ſhould not hereafter be beleeved by plaine hearted Chriſtians, without the Countenance of others, though poſſibly you ſpeake the truth; Its the portion of the lyar.

2. You proceed,Yo. Eld. p. 46. Maſter Ball (ſaith Maſter Jenkin) ſaith, That unwillingneſſe to beleeve hinders a man from beleeving, but he doth not ſay, that any man of himſelfe can be willing. But, Maſter Jenkin, when I tell you that Maſter Ball ſpeakes of apples, why do you (by way of anſwer) tell me that he doth not ſpeak of oyſters; where did Maſter Jenkin ever meet with any ſuch aſſertion of mine? who ever ſaid that any man of himſelfe could be willing to beleeve?

I perceive your minde is on your junkets, you had rather be loading the aſſe than diſputing. But (Maſter Goodwin) if you cited Maſter Ball by way of concurrence with you, why do you bring him in ſpeaking of apples, when you ſpeake of oyſters? p. 72if the ſerious Reader compare your words and Maſter Balls, ſhould he finde them to agree, 'twill be with the agreement of harp and harrow.

2.Yo. E… p. 51 Did never any man ſay, That a man of himſelf could be willing to beleeve? why then you have wronged Pelagius in the 51. page of Taungling Elder, charging him to have held, That the adjutory of grace was not ſimply neceſſary for the enabling of the will to do that which is pleaſing to God, but by way of accommodation or facilitation of the worke, citing ſundry places out of Auſtine to prove that this was his opinion, as indeed at firſt it was. Why abuſe you poore Pelagius if he never ſaid ſo?

3. Did I never meet with ſuch an opinion of yours as this, That man of himſelfe can be willing to beleeve? you either forget or underſtand not your ſelf.Yo. Eld. p. 45. ſect. 58. Say you not in this very ſection that your opinion is, That men are not wholly deſtitute of all power to do what God requires of them, as ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, particularly to repent and beleeve? Yo. Eld p. 47Alſo expreſſe you not your ſelf thus in this ſection; Natucall men want no power, no not of being willing, or making themſelves willing to beleeve? Say you not, That men cannot be ſaid to act or do, or to be able to act or do, but onelyonly what is poſſible for them to will, or to make themſelves willing to do? 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. 3Thus 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 p. 73mercifull 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 p. 74this 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 p. 75to 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 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 its evident that you laid theſe p. 76few 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.

p. 773. 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. p. 78And 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 ſay that the words of Auſtin are expre…y contrary to this my information, he ſaying, Dicat Pelagius &c. Let Pelagius ſay that by grace we may perfurme the law of God, and we are friends; you ſhew your ſelfe a va…ne man thus to boaſt of a ſentence you miſunderſtand; Aug. (tis true) deſired only that Pelagius would acknowledge that a man did ſtand in need of the grace of God. But what grace meaneth he? a grace morally ſuaſory, a grace only exciting, that leaves the will to its owne indifferency to be ſaved if it will, that woos only, and doth not work, in a word, Biſhop Goodwins Grace; Impudent ſoul once to imagine it, and thus to fly-blow the Fathers! But to evince that Auſtin did not only require from Pelagius the acknowledgement of the neceſſity of grace as an adjutory, but as this kind of adjutory which I contend for, I adde to the former, theſe allegations out of Auguſtin. de Grâ, Chriſti c. 10. He thus tells you what grace it is that he would have Pelagius acknowledge, Nos iſtam gratiam nolumus, iſtam cliquando gratiam fateatur, qua futurae gloriae magnitudo n…n ſolum promittitur v… rum etiam creditur & ſperatur, nec ſolum revelatur ſapientia, ſed & amatur nec ſuadetur ſolum om…e quod bonum eſt, ſed & perſuadetur. Hanc debet Pelagius gratiam confiteri, ſi vali non ſolum vacari, verum etiam eſſe Chriſtianus. Hug de ſacr. l. 1. p. 6. c. 17. Aug. de bo. perſ. c. 23. Deus ſic in poteſtate ſ…a habet cor noſtrum ut bo …n quod non tenemus niſi proprid voluntate, non tamen teneamus niſi …pſe in nobis operetur & velle. Aug. de praed. ſa. l. 1. c. 20. …on Deus vult id fieri, quod non niſi volentibus hominibu, … et fieri, inolinat corum corda ut hoc velint. Eo ſcil. inclina…te qui in nobis mi… abili & in effabil… modo operatur & velle.before ever he would be friends with him, Pelagius only acknowledging the grace that inlightned the underſtanding, and excited the ſtupid will (my Lords grace) Auguſtin excellently ſaith as followes. Nos iſtam gratiam nolumus, iſtam aliquando gratiam fateatur, &c. We will not have ſuch a grace as he brings. Let Pelagius acknowledge that grace, whereby the greatne…ſe of future glory is not only promiſed, but beleeved, and wiſdom not only revealed but beloved, & we not only intreated but prevaild with to accept of good, this grace muſt Pelagius ackdowledge, if he will not only be cald but be a Chriſtian. It was a grace that workes the goodneſſe of the will in us, which gives to the ſoule a kind of ſpirituall and divine being, a grace that firſt, bonam voluntatem operatur, and then per eam operatur, firſt workes a good will, and then by a good will. Auguſtin ſaith, God ſo hath our hearts in his power, that the good which we lay hold upon with our will, wee lay not hold upon, unleſſe God worke the will. And elſewhere, Cum Deus p. 79vult id fieri &c. When God will have that to be done, which is not to be done but by men that are willing to doc it, he inclines their hearts that they may he willing, namely, he inclinet men, who workes in us after a wonderfull and ineffable manner to will — And de bon. perſ. cap. Tantum ſpiritu Sancto accenditur voluntas eorum, ut ideo poſſint quia volunt, ideo ſie velint, quia Deus operatur ut velint. Aug. de Cor. & Gr. c. 12. Parum eſt permanere in bono ſi velit, niſi etiam efficiatur ut velit. Aug de cor. & gr. c. 11. Eſt in nobis per hanc dei gratiam, in bono recipiendo & perſeverar…er tenendo, non ſolum poſſe quod volumus, verum etiam velle quod poſſumus. Id. Ib.13. nos volumus, ſed Deus in nobis operatur & velle, nos operamur ſed Deus in nobis operatur & operari. We will, but God worketh in us to will; we worke, but its God worketh in us to worke: It would requite a volumne to cite all the paſſages that might be collected out of Auſtine to this purpoſe; namely, to ſhew that the grace which he only admits of is efficaciouſly operative, and determining.

3.Yo. Eld p. 50. In this Section as if you had bid farewell to all wholſome reading and to ingenuity, you ſhamefully abuſe the holy man Auſtin thus: If the queſtion (ſay you) was, whether God doth not invincibly and indeclinably draw or worke upon the will, then the queſtion could not be between Auguſtine and Pelagius what kinde of adjntory the will did ſtand in need of, but whether it ſtood in need of an adjutory or a compulſory; that you may have a pretence for this concluſion, you give your owne interpretation of working invincibly and indeclinably vponupon the will, that is (ſay you) the will muſt of neceſſity follow the working of God, will it, …ill it,Yo. Eld. p. 51 be it never ſo obſtinate, or reſolved to the contrary; ſo that God ſhould come in with an unreſiſtible force upon one, and raviſh the will, and force it to conſent contrary to the preſent bent and poſture of it, now this (ſay you) is not adjuvare to help, but cogere to compell. If ſome ſtout Porter ſhould boyſe Mr. Jenkin upon his ſhoulder againſt his will, this Porter were not an adjutory.

Anſw. But friend, who ever thus interpreted this invincibly efficacious working of God upon the will before your Maſters the Arminians, and the Jeſuits theirs; the Orthodox know the invincibility, certainty, and indeclinableneſſe of the worke of grace upon the will no whit promotes your hereticall inference, that then the will may be wrought upon whether it will or no, and ſo compeld; you ſaw in Buſie Biſhop the contrary maintained, to which you here anſwer nothing. When God by his efficacious p. 80grace works in the will, to will, this efficacious grace, puts into the will a non-reſiſtencie, or taketh away actuall reſiſtencie, there being an impoſſibility that theſe two ſhould co-exiſt and meet together in the will, to be wrought upon with efficacious grace, and to reſiſt this being as impoſſible as for the will in the ſame moment to reſiſt and not reſiſt, to will not to reſiſt and to will to reſiſt. Aug de Cor. & ora. cap. 14. Hwna … voluntates non … ofſunt reſiſtere q…o micus fac…at D…us quod vult, quand q… dem …ttam de ipſis hominan voluntatibus quod valt, cum valt fac…t. Piuna gratia d…ta primo Ad…n eſt qua ſit ut habtat homo juſtitiam ſi velit, ſed gratia potentior eſt in ſecun lo Adam qua ſit ut velit, tanteque … diligat, ut carnis voluntatem contraria concupiſt…n…em voluntate ſpiritus vincat. Aug. de Cor. & … 12 Infi…ms … ut ipſo donante …n victiſſ…ne quod be…m eſt, vellent. Id. ib. Inſpirata gratiae ſuavitate per ſpirium ſanct…m, f…ciente plus delectare quod precip…t, quam delectat quod impedit. … c. 34. Ea quae pert…nent ad juſtiti…m, fic delectant animun ut quiqaid aliud dolor impedit, delectatio ſuperat.Hence is that concluſion of Auguſtine; Humane vo…untates …, &c. Mens wills cannot reſiſt Gods d…ing what he will, ſince God … with the very wills of men as he will, and when he will; Its a … imputation caſt upon the grace of God, that from the inf…llibility of its working upon the will you ſhould conclude a poſſibility of its compelling the will, or …; will nothing prevaile with you to acquit grace from compelling the will, unleſſe putting all the operations of grace that need be put into the ballance, a … free wil muſi turn the … whether a man ſhall be comberted …? If theſe be the inſtitutes of the alley, certainly its as corrit…t as its cloſe, and as narrow in grace as ſpace. No friend, when you ſuppoſe that eſſi…tious grace workes upon the will whether it will, or …, p. 50. you ſpeake contradictions, for that which grace workes is this, to will; and the will is not againſt the working when under the working of efficaciens grace. Its a happy expreſſion of Auguſtines, Inſpiratâ gratiae ſuavitate, &c. The ſweetneſſe of grace inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt, makes the ſoule more to be delighted with what is commanded than with what would hinder it, &c. 34. Ea quae pertinent ad juſtitiam, &c. Thoſe things that belong to righteouſneſſe ſo delight the ſoule, that griefe doth not ſo much hinder, as delight prevaileth, & de pec. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 19. he calls it (ſweetly) Victricem delectationem, a conquering and victorious delight that God puts into the ſoule when he converts it; the will is wrought upon ſo ſweetly that it yeelds it ſelfe to God with the greateſt willingneſſe, and yet ſo powerfully, that it yeelds to him with unfayling certainty.

4. Whereas Auſtine ſaid, that there is a two-fold adjutory p. 81to good, the one, without which a good worke it not done, the ether by and through which a thing is done; and I having ſaid that the Pelagians in granting the former never ſatisfied Auſtine, deaying (as I feare you doe) the latter; hereupon in this Section you ſay, that I am an unhappy man, that neither feares nor faiths but without ground; you (ſay you) freely acknowledge ſuch an adjutory of grace, not only without which a good worke in not done, but by which every good work is done.

A good confeſſion, ſuch an one the Arminians make, Decla… Sent. c. 17. ſuch an one Pelagius, Aug. de Gra. Chriſti. c. 3. ſo that Auſtine himſelfe profeſſeth, Mihi paenè perſuaſerat, hane illam gratiam de quâ quaeſtio eſt confiteri, Ib. c. 37. Pelagius had almoſt perſwaded me that he granted that grace for which I contended, but as he ſuffered not Auſtine, ſo neither doe you the Reader long to retaine any hopes of you, for you inſtantly caſt in your Coloquintida, (a mite you call it,) which you bequeath to my underſtanding (a bountifull man to give away all you have at once) and it is this;Yo. Eld. p. 52. ſuch an adjutory of grace (ſay you) by and through which a thing is done, doth not imply an abſolute neceſſity of effecting that which is effected by it.

But why doe you involve your ſelfe in darke termes? why make you the ſtreame by your pawing ſo muddy? Come, come; off with your Viſard, ſpeake aloud man, and tell the world;Col. Mag. Act. 4. Quoad modum illius co-operatianis illa non eſt irreſiſtibilis. Coruin. Cout. Bogerman, p. 263. Poſitis ommibus operationibus quibus ad gratiam in nobis efficiendam Dens utitur, manet tomen ipſa converſio, ita in noſtrâ peteſtate, ut poffimus non converti. Id. p. 274. Iſtis omnibus operationibus non obſtantibus, fieri poſſe ſtatuimus, ut voluntas non conſentiat.Acts 4 I ſay with my Maſters, The adjutory of grace doth not infallibly produce that effect which is produced by it; putting all the operations of grace that God uſeth to the working of grace in us, yet converſion is ſo in our power as that we may not be cenverted; and no twithſtanding all theſe operations, the will may not conſent. Wherein you fight againſt the Scriptures, which tell us, that the boly Ghoſt workes in them that beleeve according to his mighty power, and that his power towards beleevers is exceeding great; and that he workes even this in us to will, and

This your error attributes more to mans will than to God in converſion, man being converted not becauſe God makes p. 82him ſo, but becauſe he will be ſo; God only perſwading, but man of himſelfe conſenting; God only giving a poſſe velle, a p…ſſ…muerti, a power to be converted if one will, but man determining himſelfe to will or not to will as he pleaſeth; by which opinion that which is the greater, and which ſpecifies the event, man performes of himſelfe, to wit, actually to beleeve, convert, and will, and by all the power of Gods grace the will is advanced but to a middle kinde of ſtate, a poſture of indifferency, or an indifferent profenſion to either hand, and God workes only by way of contingency & ſub h…c conditione, on this condition, that the will by its naturall power will move it ſelfe.Aug. de pee. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 18 Si nob…s libera voluntas ex Deo eſt, quae adhuc poteſt eſſe vel bona, vel mala, bo…a verò voluntas ex nobas ſit, nelius eſt …d quod a nobis quàm quod ob allo, quod non niſi abjurdſſimè dic… poſſit. Aliud eſt adjutorium ſine quo aliquid non fit, & aliud quo aliquid fit, nam ſine al…mentis non poſſumus vivere, nec tamen cum affuerint alimenta, eis fit ut vivat qai mori voluerit, ergo adjuto…iam alimentorum eſt ſine quo non fit, non quo fit ut vivamus, ut vero beatitudo quam non habet homo, cum dara fuerit, continu… … bee adjutorium eſt non ſolum ſine quo non fit, verum etiam quo fit propter quod d…tu… quia & ſida…a ſuerit b…mini beatitudo, couti…uo fit beatus, & ſi data non fuerit, nunquam erit; …l…menta vero non conſequenter faciunt ut homo vivat. Thus Auguſtine expreſſeth himſelfe againſt Pelagius, De pec. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 18. Si nobis libera quaedam voluntas ex Deo eſt, &c. If we have a free will from God which yet either can be good or evill, and the good will be of our ſelves, what we have from our ſelves is better than what we have from God, which is moſt abſurd; ſo that evident it is, that in ſaying you acknowledge with Auſtine ſuch an adjutory of grace by which every good worke is done, you both delude your ſelfe and your followers; for he by this adjutory expreſſeth himſelfe to meane, not ſuch an one by which a man is left to himſelfe, to ſuſſer converſion to be wrought or not to be wrought, but ſuch an adjutory by which it is infallibly wrought Vid. Aug. de cor. & gra…c 12. Aliud eſt adjutorium ſine quo aliquid n…n fit, aliud eſt ad u…orium, quo aliquid fit; nam ſine alimentis, &c. There's an adjutory (ſaith he) without which a thing is not done, and an ad utory by which a thing is done; we cannot live without food, and yet neither doth he live by food who will dye though he hath it; ſo that food is an adjutory without which we cannot live, not by which it is that we d…e live; but when bleſſedneſſe is beſtowed upon a man, he is f…rthwith made bleſſed: this is an adjutory not only without which a thing is not done, but by which that is done for which it is given, becauſe if bleſſedneſſe be given to a man he forthwith bec…mes bleſſed; and if it be not given he ſhall never be bleſſed; p. 83but it followes not that a man ſhall live by having food, onelyonly without food he cannot live. If your adjutory be the ſame with Auſtines tell me; I charged you from your accuſing of the Miniſters with Manicheiſm that you underſtood not what it was.

1. In the next Section you give me an account therefore of your profound knowledge what Manicheiſm is,Yo. Eld. p. 53. and having cited a ſentence out of Auguſtine, Serm. deaemp. 191. They erre who with Manicheus affirme that a man cannot avoyd ſnne, &c. — from this paſſage you ſay it clearly appeares, that one notorious ſtraine of the Manichean errour was this; that men by the eternall, unchangeable, irreſistible decree of God, are put into, or left in ſuch a condition, wherein it is impoſſible but that they ſhould ſinne.

Anſw. Who is the illiterate ſoule now? had you required from me an account of Manicheiſm out of the Fathers, and had I given you ſuch an ignorant anſwer as this, I had deſerved to have changed my Seraglio for the Ware-houſe? From whom have it you, that the Manichees held that man was put into, or left in ſuch a condition of ſin by any decree of God? Is this your knowledge of Manicheiſm? had you held your peace haply you would have been accounted wiſe in this point; but now Schollars are aſhamed of you. Did the Manichees hold that a man could not avoyd ſinne, from the unchangeableneſſe of Gods decree? Jerom would have inform'd you better;Hier ad Ctes. Manichaeorum eſt hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium. It is Manicheiſm to condemne the nature of man, and to diſpoile it of freo will; and Auguſtine haer. 46 Peccatorum Originem non libero arbitrio voluntatis, ſed ſubſtantiae tribuunt gentis adverſae. The Manichees aſſerted impoſſibility to avoyd ſinfrom the very being of nature in it ſelfe, which could not but be bad; and their Principles were: 1. Peecatum eſſe ſubſtantiam, & foreign per ſe viventem & ſubſiſtentem, non autem tantum, qualitatem quandam, affectionemque vel foreign mentis a ratione averſae, quae ſubſtantiae ſuperuenerit; that ſinne was a ſubſtance, living, and ſubſiſting of it ſelfe, and not onelyonly a quality, or an affection of the minde averſe from reaſon, which did ſupervene.

2. They held voluntatem malè agendi nobis à naturâ infitam eſſe, non ex rebellione noſirâ accenſitam, vel inobedientia natam, Dan. de haer c. 46.That the will of doing evill was from the very nature, not fetcht from rebeltion p. 84und diſubedience; Aug. l. 4 c. 3. Contra duas ep. Pel. Aſſerunt malam eſſe naturam, quae…im mutari nullo modo poteſt. A me nunquam audies malam eſſe naturam.for Auſtin chargeth them to hold, that Malum was ex … neſoio quâ fomper m…la, that ſin was from a kinde of nature alwaies evill; And Jerome ſaith they held, That nature it ſelf was evill, and could by no means be changed; he ſaying in that place, That no man ever heard him ſay ſo. Evident it is that the Manichees aſſerted ſuch a neceſſity of ſin, as that it was repugnant to the very being of nature not to ſin; and bluſh you not to caſt ſuch a fenceleſſe imputation upon the Miniſters of Chriſt? Did they whom you accuſe of Manicheiſm ever ſay or thinke that ſin was from any nature unchangeably evill? or that we ſin by a neceſſity of nature? or in regard of the unchangeable decree of God, that nothing can come to paſſe contingently, ſo as that it would have been againſt the nature of the creature to have acted otherwiſe? bringeth not learned**Reſp. Apol, p. 23. Piſcator the inſtance of breaking the legs of Chriſt? ſaith he not that though it were determined by the decree of God, that his legs ſhould not be broken, Quae neceſſitas illius impediat voluntatem, quae …anta vis odio digna imperet (acere, ut non quod vult ſed quod non vult, & odit, facere compellatur? Reſpondebit tu quis … &c.yet by the nature and will of the Souldiers ſuch a thing might have been? And the laſt mentioned Father thus meets with your argument from the unchangeableneſſe of Gods Decrees. Aske the Apoſtle (ſaith he) quae neceſſitas, &c. what neceſſity hinders the will? what force commands it to do things worthy of batred, that it ſhould be compelled to do not what it would, but what it would not and bates to do? Will not (ſaith Jerome) the Apoſtle anſwer, O man who art thou that diſputeſt againſt God? ſhall the thing formed ſay to him that formod it, Why haſt thou made me thus? Object to God a ſtronger calumny, for 'tis ſaid, Eſau and Jacob being yet in the wombe, he hated the one and loved the other; and Auſtine, to whom the Pelagians objected that he brought in Manicheiſm by the Doctrine of the neceſſity of the ſpirit (the making of which objection is pure Goodwiniſm) in ſeverall places ſaith,Vid. voſ. hiſt. Pel. l. 3. p. 2. that the Catholici go in a middle way betweene Manicheiſm and Pelagianiſm. Contr. du. ep. Pel. l. 4. c. 3. A Catholike ſo aſſerts free will, that he ſaith the ſin of Angels and men came not from I cannot tell what nature alwaies evill, which is none, but from the will it ſelf, and this overthrowes the hereſie of the Manichees, nor therefore that the captive will can attaine to a ſaving liberty but by the grace of God, and this over throwes the hereſie of the Pelagians. And Contr. p. 85du. ep. Pel. l. 2. c. 5.Sic aſſerit Catholicus liberum arbitrium, ut non ex natura neſcio quâ quae nulla eſt ſed ex ipſo arbitrio Coepiſſe dicat & angeli & hominis malum, quod eve…it baereſinmanichaeam nec ide… poſſe captivam voluntatem, niſi dei gratia, reſpirare in ſalubrem libertatem quod evertit haereſin Pelagianam. Peccar… Adae arbitririum liberum de hominum na…ura periiſſe non dictmus, ſed in horniuibus ſubditis diabolo, ad bene, pie que vivendum non …lere, niſi, ipſa voluntas hominis fu…rit liberata. Morton Apol. p. 1. c. 30. Alſted. Tuppl. de Not. Ecc. Manichaei, naturam hominis tollebant, i. e. libertatem naturae, nos homini nondum regenito deroganus libertatem gratiae. Pecc…te Adae, &c. We ſay not (ſaith he) that by the ſin of Adam free will is periſht, but that in men that are ſlaves to Satan it hath no ſtrength to holy living, unleſſe the will of men be delivered. To conclude, The Manichees tooke away the very nature of man i.e. the liberty of nature, we deny to a man not regenerate only liberty in reſpect of grace. In your former pamphlet you ſaid that you were about to preach againſt Manioheiſm; I ſuppoſe that the treaſury of your underſtanding is not ſo full as yet, but that it will hold one mite more, take this therefore; but if you conſult with Aug. de civ. d. l. 5. c. 10, 11. and Zanc. de oper. dei l. 4. c. 4. q. 4. youmay receive of their bounty, if at leaſt they give you not more than your treaſury can hold.

2.Yo. Eid. p. 54. In this your ſection you liberally charge**Triglandius and Piſcator. two famous Divines of the reformed Churches with Manicheiſm, but childiſhly prove no more the charge againſt them, than you proved out of your Grammar rules, by which you anſwered Maſter Edwards his Antapologia, that there was no kiſſe of love or anoynting with oyl you know where—Your onelyonly argument whereby you endeavour to prove their opinions guilty of that imputation, being this: If ſuch tenets as theſe be not pure Manicheiſm, I know not what Manicheiſm is. (Who ever ſaid that you did know?) This is ſomewhat like your learned confutation of the diſpectation at Chriſt-Church concerning tithes, where you having weakly and pittifully yeelded the queſtion, you vindicated your ſelf ſhortly after, in your preface to your Hag. with this burly but beggarly dictate, I (infallible John) profes unfeignedly, the two arguments brought for the payment of tithes were no more able to carry the cauſe, than two lambs to draw a wagg…n; ſuch ſtout confutations as theſe are current coyn no where but in the Alloy.

You tell the Reader that ſome paſſages in theſe two learned men (whoſe umbra meridiana you (as yet) are not in underſtanding of Polemicall Divinity) ſavour of Manicheiſin; but you prove it p. 86not, nay you doe not ſo much as pretend to goe about to prove it; I deny it with the ſame facility that you aſſerted it. Aſſerenti incumbit probatio; only I deſire the Reader to take notice, that Manicheiſm cannot be imputed to the former, to Tri glandius, for what he here ſaith, but it muſt be charged upon the Apoſtles, Act. 4.28. and for Piſcator, he is cleared by the acknowledgement of Vorſtius himſelfe, John, Goodwins friend and Piſcators erroneous though farre more learned adverſary.

You goe on;Sect. 65. Yo. Eld. p. 54. you ſay that I underſtand not the will of God in the Scriptures, &c. becauſe from Act. 26. 18. where Paul ſaith, that he was ſent to the Gentiles to open their eyes, &c. I proved that Converſion is the reſtoring of ſight, not of light only; the opening of the eyes, not the bringing of light to them who have eyes already; upon which paſſage of mine you comment thus:

1 You ſay, I am ridiculous in making an oppoſition betweene opening of mens eyes, and bringing light to them who have eyes already, as if men who had eyes to be opened had not (yet) eyes already.

Anſw. Moſt fulſome! In Scripture Phraſe to open the eyes is to give ſight, and not light only. In Job. 9.10.11.21.26.30. the blinde man is ſaid to have had his eyes opened, what's that if not that he had ſight beſtowed upon him? not (according to Mr. Goodwin) that he had light only brought to him having good eyes already. His eyes are ſaid to be opened, though he were borne blinde.

2 Thus you proceed; The Scripture by the opening of the eyes of men in converſion, meane only ſuch an opening as is proper for the light to effect, for as darknes ſhuts mens eyes, and the light of the morning opens mens eyes. So here,

Anſw. If this be ſo, what is the worke of grace upon the underſtanding? The light irradiats or cleares the medium, but gives no ſtrength to the organ; ſo (ſay you) 'tis in converſion, a naturall man hath good eyes already, let the object be but clearly propoſed, and he can ſee it; is not this pure Pelagianiſm, to place grace in the giving of the Word? But know according to Scripture, a naturall man wants ſight as well as light, Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you a heart toperceive, nor eyes to ſee; open mine eyes (ſaith David) Pſ. 119. and Eſ. 42.7. Chriſt is ſaid to open the blinde eyes, Pro. 20.12. The hearing eare, and ſeeing eye are made p. 87by God. And 1 Jo. 5.20. He hath given us an underſtanding to know him. And the Apoſtle tells us, not that we were in the darke, but that we were darkneſſe, Eph. 5.8. you told us, Sion Col. viſit, p. that you have alwaies aſſerted the neceſſity of grace by way of adjutory; now I underſtand what grace you meane, none that conferres any power upon the faculty by which it is inabled to act, but only reſtores it to a capacity of preſent acting. But you deſire to prove your error; 1. by Scripture, Matth. 4.16. 2 Cor. 4.4, &c.

But why ground you not an argument from any or all of theſe Scriptures, that by giving of ſpiritual Iſight is only meant the giving of light, as the Sun or the Morning may be ſaid to open mens eyes? Nay, why doe you not ſo much as recite the words of the text, but only ſet downe the figures of Chapters and Verſes. There's not one of them that make for your purpoſe, and ſome that make directly againſt you, Mat. 4.16. The people that ſat in darkneſſe ſaw great light; Ergo quid? therefore in converſion, becauſe God gives the light by which he doth not alſo give the ſight with which we ſpiritually ſee. Doth his giving the one to this people prove that he did not alſo give the other to thoſe among them, that were ſavingly inlightned; blinde Bartimeus ſees the light when Chriſt recovers him from his blindneſſe, therefore his recovery was only effected by the comming of the light, and not by the worke of Chriſt in beſtowing a power of ſeeing upon his eyee; ſo here the people ſaw great light, that is (according to G. the gloſmaker) they ſaw only by having the light of the Goſpell; for that place out of the 2 Cor. 4.4 The god of this world hath blinded the mindes of them that beleeve not, leſt the light of the glorious Goſpel of Chriſt ſhould ſhine unto them; it makes directly againſt him: 1. The naturall man of whom the Apoſile ſpeakes is here ſaid to be blinded, Yo. Eld. p. 54.which Mr. Goodwin denies; for he only grants that a naturall man is as a man in the darkneſſe of the night, not blinde, but his eyes are good. 2. Its ſaid, leſt the light of the Goſpel ſhould ſhine unto them; evidently importing that their blindnes hindred the light from ſhining unto them, & that though theſe naturall men had the light of the Goſpel ſhining among them, yet they were blinde for all that,Id. Ib. when as Mr. G. tells us, its proper for the light to effect the opening of the eyes of men in converſion; but here was light without ſight: This quotation p. 88ſure (if it be not falſe printed) he laid before him, not to confirme, but to conſute his errou….

But you labour by argument to maintaine your errour thus;Yo. Eld. p. 55. If men ſhould have the eyes of their mindes opened in any other ſence, then that wherein the light nay be ſaid to open them, God muſt be ſaid to worke as many miracles as converſions; and how then can that great Pillar of Presbitery, that Miracles are ceaſed, ſtand.

Anſw. I deſire to know why you call the ceſſasion of Miracles a pillar of Plesbitery; 1. If ceſſation of Miracles be a pillar of Presbitery, I pray take heed leſt in oppoſition to a Pillar of Presbitery, you cry up Miracles as you cry downe the Word; ſome of you (I heare) begin. Your engagement againſt queriſne or ſeeking, mentioned in Sion Colledge viſited, I plainly ſee will come to nothing.Nos non aſſerimus Dei brachium ſic hodie eſſe abbreviatum, ut miracula mulla concedat, praeſerſertim iis qui Evangelium ſincerè conantur inter Ethnicos praedicare, ſednegamus iſta inter Chriſtianos, de ar…iculis nonnullis diſſentientes, ad mittenda eſſe ut veritatis gnoriſi…, aut criteria, Prid. 10. pag. 99. quae inviſibilia & occulta ſunt, miracula non ſunt. Pol. ſynt. Lib. 6. Cap. 58. Rather than Presbitery ſhall not ſinke, you will ſeek. 2. What doe Presbiterians as ſuch, build upon the ceſſation of Miracles. 3. It ſeemes by your arguing, that you know not what a Miracle is; Polanus (I remember) Lib. 6. c. 58 makes this the firſt condition of a Miracle, that it be viſible and externall, and he proves it by many Scriptures: Miracula neceſſe eſt ſenſui expoſita eſſe, qui… debent convincere infideles, &c. Miracles ought to be externall for conviction of unbeleevers, or confirmation of beleevers. You cannot ſay this of the opening of the eyes of mens mindes in converſion, taken either in your ſence or mine, vid. Greg. val…m. To. 1. Diſp. 8. c. 3. p. 3. It's in courtefie that I returne not upon you thoſe undervalewing expreſſions oſ illiterate ſilly-braine, &c. I can eaſily grant the worke you ſpeake of, to be a greater and more admirable work than many Miracles, and yet not a Miracle properly ſo called.

3. In this Section you weakly cavill againſt my quotation, Eph. 2. Dead in treſpaſſes and ſins; you ſay the Apoſtle only meaneth that they were guilty of death, and liable to condemnation.

1 Before you had ſo peremptorily pronounced your glos upon this place (which if you know any thing you know is cited by all writers of Controvetſies agninſt Papiſts and Arminians, as by me) you ſhould have furniſhed your ſelfe with ſtronger arguments.

p. 891 You ſay this their death in ſins and treſpaſſes is explained by their being children of wrath, ver. 3. — but is this to underſtand the Scripture? had i… bin as eaſie for you to have proved as to have ſaid i, we ſhould have had an argument inſtead of a dictate, but you only give the latter, &c. The ſcope of the Apoſtle is to illuſtrate the benefits we receive by Chriſt, this he doth by the calling to minde our former miſery out of Chriſt, this miſery was 1. our ſpirituall b…ndage to ſinne, and 2. for ſinne to wrath. The former contained in the 1. verſ. Dead in treſpaſſes and ſinnes, every naturall man being totally void of ſpirituall life, and ſo under the power of ſinne that he can do nothing holily. The latter contained in the 3. verſ. children of wrath; in which 3. verſ. the Apoſile expreſſeth that practicall unholineſſe (held forth in the 2. verſ. as the fruit of their death in fins) by ſhewing 1. who they were that had lived in it, Jewes as well as Gentiles, alſo we all, &c. 2. By ſhewing wherein it conſiſted, they had converſations in luſts of the fleſh, fulſilling, &c. 3. by ſhewing what they deſerved, or the puniſhment to which they were liable when they lived ſo, they were children of wrath.Calvin in Lo. Non in elligat ſolum fuiſſe in mor…s periculo, ſed realem mortem ſignificat, ac… praeſentem q…â jam erant oppreſſi; omnes mortui naſcimur, donec efficiamur vitae Chriſti participes, unde illud Johannis. O…nis bom… na u… alis mortuus eſt in ha…nativa ſua corruptione, quia nulla pars anitrae peteſt in ſpiriualibus vitalem …ct. o…em exercere. Dav. in 2 Col 13. Amma mornu…, morte gratiae quatenus peccatum ſua impuritate diſſoluit grat…itam animae unicnem ad Deum, in qua ſita eſt vita ſpiritualis. Id. Ib. Piſe. In loc homo natura manciptum eſt diaboli, cui ſervit pepetram…o peccata, ac prcinde eſt filius irae, h. e. reus damnationtis. Piſc. in lec. Quum dicit foreign ſignificat ſe conceptos & natos eſſe in peccato, ac proinde reos mortis, nam ſingulis naturaliter n…ſcentitus imputatur Ad… lapſus, & in ſingulos naſcendo propagatur naturae eorruptio ſeu pravitas.

Thus the moſt learned Calvin upon this place, interprets this of the Apoſtle dead in ſins. Non intellegit ſolum fuiſſe, &c. The Apeſtle underſtands not only (ſaith Calvin) that they were in danger of death (Mr. Goodwin ſaith, liable to death) but he ſignifies a reall and a preſent death; all are borne dead, and live dead till they are made partakers of the life of Chriſt; whence is that of John, The dead ſhall heare the voyce of the Sonne of God, and they who heare ſhall live. So Pifeator alſo upon the place; Homo naturâ mancipium, &c. Man by nature is a ſlave to Satan, whom he ſerves in committing ſin, and therefore is a childe of wrath and guilty of damnation. So Davenant; anima moritur, &c. the ſoule dieth, in as much as ſinne by its impurity diſſolves that union of the ſoule to God, wherein ſtands ſpirituali life. You ſee that Expoſitors underſtand by this death in p. 90ſinne, &c. that our native corruptedneſſe whereby we become guilty, and we are made liable to wrath, not the guilt, and liableneſſe it ſelf.

2 You ſay, that quickning together with Chriſt oppoſed to this death is interpreted, Col. 2.13. to be the forgiveneſſe of ſinnes. You that deny the Scripture, feare not to pervert it; the Apoſtle makes not forgiveneſſe of ſinne the formalis ratio of vivification; by quickning together with Chriſt, he underſtands a ſpirituall reparation, and forming of the Divine Image in us, by which the filth and pollution of ſinne is wip'd away, and we are made his Workmanſhip, created in Chriſt Jeſus to good workes. Davenant, in 2 Col 13. Deus anim…m vivificat all…m repar…n lo, & ſordes peccati detergendo …pſius enim factara ſumus, creat… in Chriſto Jeſu in operibus bonis. — Per vivificationem intelligit … quod ipſum, Rom 6.11. Vocat vivere Deo amhulare in nov…tate vitae. Ro. 6.4. Piſe in loc.Rom 6:11Rom 6:4So Davenant; wherever ſin is remitted, and its guilt taken away, there is this vivification by grace. Piſcator ſaith expreſly upon the place, that by vivification the Apoſtle intends the renovation of nature.

3 You ſay the Scripture expreſſeth the condition of guilt by the terme of death, therefore by dead in treſpaſſes we muſt underſtand guilty of death, &c. 2 Sam. 9.8 — 16.9 — 19.28 Rom. 8.10. 2 Cor. 5.14. 1 Tim. 5.6.

That the Scripture doth often expreſſe the condition of guilt by the terme of death though I deny not, yet the Scriptures which you cite, prove nothing leſſe; thoſe places, 2 Sam. 9.8. where Mephib. ſaith to David, What is thy ſervant that thou ſhouldeſt looke upon ſuch a dead Dog, 2 Sam. 16.9. and Abiſhai cals Shimei a dead Dog, &c. have no other ſence than 1 Sam. 24.14. where David expoſtulating with Saul, asketh him, after whom is the King of Iſrael come out, after whom doſt thou purſue, after a dead Dog, after a flea? in which words the word dead notes not guilty as you moſt ignorantly ſuppoſe,Vivens vita ndturali mortua morte ſpirituali, Piſ. in Loc. but vile, contemptible, baſe; that of 1 Tim. 5.6. where the widow is ſaid to be dead while ſhe liveth, is by moſt underſtood to be meant of ſpirituall death, and by the happy interpreter of Scripture, learned Calvin, its underſtood of her unprofitableneſſe, and her being nothing worth, q. d. thoſe widowes who love to live without all care, and paſſe their times idely and in pleaſure are no more uſefull, profitable in their places then if they were dead; Mortuas vocat quae nulli ſunt uſui, he p. 91cals thoſe dead which ſerve for no uſe; now your interpetation is, the widow that lives in pleaſures is guilty of death, if I may have John Calvin, let who will have John Goodwin for their Expoſitor, That of 2 Cor. 5.14. comprehends both liableneſſe to eternall death, and ſpirituall death alſo, as all interpreters agree.

4 Laſtly, whereas you moſt unworthily and wretchedly aſſert, that dead in ſins is not repreſented by the Apoſtle as the condition of men conſidered as naturall, but of men who have a long time continued in ſinne, the context witneſſeth againſt you; for 1. Firſt the Apoſtle tels them what they were by nature, foreign verſe 3. not only by practice; 2. He makes their walking in ſinne a fruit of their death in it, ver. 2. dead in ſinnes wherein ye walked; 3. this death in ſinne is repreſented by the Apoſtle as common to all, Jewes and Gentiles; and the Apoſtle certainly intends that the death is as extenſive as the quickning, which latter Mr. Goodwin will not limit unto thoſe that have a long time continued in ſins, he intends that all were dead that ever were quickned, old and young. Your Expoſitions are huskes, food fitter for ſwine than ſoules; the Lord grant that your poore miſled followers may no longer lay out their money for that which is not bread.

Upon your ſaying,Sect. 66. Yo. Eld p. 56 Bu. Buſh. p. 25. that by the improvement of nature a man may attaine to ſuch a conviction, as upon which ſaving converſion alwaies followes; I demanded what place is here left for grace? you reply in this Section:

1 By asking me, If a man who is able, through lazineſſe were unwilling to goe an hundred miles in foure dayes for the ſaving of his life, is there not place left for the kindneſſe of his friends to accommodate him with an horſe?

Anſw. There's no place according to this ſuppoſition left for grace, by way of abſolute neceſſity, but only by way of accommodation, and facilitation of the worke, he ſtands in no Abſolute neceſſity of an horſe to carry him, that is able to goe his journey on his ten toes, you now loudly ſpeake your ſelfe a Pelagian: you told me before that the …turall man needed not eye-ſight but light only, and now you ſay he needs not the help of God ſave by way of accomodation, he can of him ſelfe will, or make himſelfe willing to beleeve, only not ſo eaſily; deteſtable doctrine! and yet,

p. 922 In this Section you tell me,Yo. Eld. p. 56. there is place enough for all tha grace of God which the Apoſtle attributes unto him, Phil. 2.13. in working both to will and to doe in mon of his good pleaſure.

Anſw. I flatly deny it; the Apoſtle in that place aſcribes the work of faith to God wholly and neceſſarily, you aſcribe it to him but by way of partiality and convenienty. According to your late reſemblance God comes in, in a ſuper-added way, and makes us to beleeve who yet are able to make our ſelves do ſ…. The Apoſtle ſaith, God workes according to his owne good pleaſure, but you, That God workes according to mans good pleaſure, otherwiſe you ſuppoſe, That God ſhould worke in man whether he would or no, and that grace would be a compulſorium, not an ad utorium.

3.Yo. Eld. p. 56. You ſay, That there is far larger place left for grace by your opinion th…n by mine. If you can evince this, Eris mihi magnus Apollo, my opinion ſaith with the Apo…le, God hath quickned us being dead in treſpaſſes and ſins, till which quickning (the fruit of his rich love) we lye under a preſent, reall, ſpirituall death, and can do no act of ſpirituall life as …o beleeve,Yo. Eld p. 55. &c. You ſay, That this death implyes no impoten…y to believe, but onelyonly conſiſteth in guilt, ſo that as to the being able to beleeve all naturall men are alive. My opinion ſaith, This grace of God is infallibly effectuall; yours, That it may be rejected, and that there's no infallibility in its effecting any thing.Yo. Eld. p. 52. You ſay, That God onelyonly gives light; l, that God gives light and eyes to behold it. In a Word, You hold that God gives food; I, That That he gives life, which is more than meat. And now leaves your opinion a larger place for grace than mine?

4. You endeavour to prove, That your opinion leaves a larger place than mine for that grace which the Apoſtle attributes to God,Yo. Eld. p. 56. Phil. 2.13. You ſay, Its 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 p. 93about the grace of converſion, and the Apoſtle was aſſerting this, and now you flye to the grace of remiſſion. Its 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 ne que lex eſt, ne que 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 nonconverſion; 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 onelyonly 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, p. 94is an act of more grace than to confer them onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 its onelyonly found thus, foreign; 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 p. 95Epiſcopias; 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, and it is man, and not God who beleeveth; but the queſtion is, who maketh him to beleeve? certainly that is not of himſelfe, it is the gift of God.

In the next Section you ſay,Yo. Eld. p. 59. Sect. 68 Evident it is that the Apoſtle ſpeakes not of any difference between man and man, which is made by faith, or by any ſaving worke in either, but of ſuch a difference which ſtands in more or fewer, in greater or leſſer gifts. A difference frequent in the primitive times, and God was indeed the ſole cauſe of ſuch differings.

Anſw. Profound! 1. God was the ſole cauſe (you ſay) of ſptrituall gifts, ſpeaking with tongues, &c. but not of beleeving, for here you ſay, that man himſelfe is a ſubordinate cauſe, its man that beleeves when he beleeves, and not God; but how prove you that God is rather the ſole Author of ſpirituall gifts, than of ſaving graces; I thought that the former, gifts, had not been (as grace) above nature, but had been attaineable by ſtudy and induſtry; you ſay that its man that beleeves, when he beleeves; and is't not man that ſpeakes with tongues, when he ſpeakes; you ſay, that man beleeves and not God, and is't not man that ſpeakes with tongues and not God; take him, not Bedlam, but Beth-lehem.

2 Doth not the Apoſtle make uſe of generall maximes, as that none but God makes to differ, and that there's nothing that a man p. 96hath but he received it, according to that of the third of John, A man can receive nothing unleſſe it be given him from heaven; and drawes not the Apoſtle theſe generall maximes downe to this particular caſe, of which he is ſpeaking.

3 Cannot a man make himſelfe to differ from another in the leaſt things, as more or fewer gifts, and can a man make himſelfe to d…ffer in the greater.

You conclude this Section with ſinging your Jo Paean; thus you chante to the Reader,Yo. Eld. p. 60. you have ſeene the young mans ankedneſſe in point of arguing; he neither leavies …eaſons nor Scriptures with any pertinency. There's not the leaſt haire of the head of my opinion concerning the naturall mans power to good ſupernaturall falne to the ground; which paſſage I am confident every pious and prudent Reader will interpret thus: You have ſeene the old mans nakedneſſe in point of anſwering, he neither anſwers Scriptures nor reaſons, with either piety or pertinency, and there's not only the haire of the head of his opinion concerning the naturall mans power, &c. but even that very head it ſelſe falne to the ground, being ſtruck off by the ſword of the Spirit, the Word of God, who I deſire may have the only glory of it.

I propounded,Yo. Eld. p. 60. Sect. 69. buſie Biſh. p 54. foure quaeries to you, to know what kinde of adjutory it was which you acknowledg'd grace to be, that you might not under the pretended name of grace obtrude nature, as the Pelagiams of old, and Jeſuits and Arminians of late have done,Yo. Eld. Sect. 69. and now you come to taſte my genius and ſtrength (you ſay) in quaereing. You begin with a ſcoffe; you ſay Ariſiotle cannot anſwer ſo much as an aſſe can aske; you have prefac'd a good apology for the weaknes of your following anſwers for how then, ſay I, ſhould an aſſe anſwer more then ever Ariſtotle could aske? you are ſuch a friend to independency, that your firſt qua…nell againſt my quaerces is, that they have a dependance the three laſt upon the firſt.

My firſt quaeree, is whether grace be an adjutory by way of inſluence into the will, or by way of concourſe unto the work only.

Your anſwer is, you underſtand it not; he hath oppoſed me with his firſt queſtion.

I ſee my miſhap to aske a tallent of him that is not worth a mite, and your audaciouſneſle to undertake to be a Rabbi, and p. 97to pretend to a tractate of the power of naturall mans will to good ſupernaturall, like thoſe foreign that did not know what they ſaid, or whereof they did affirme.

This queſtion is of great weight, famous in the Schooles, and the firſt uſually handled in this controverſie, but I perceive that Jeſuits and remonſtrants are halfe as bad to you as modall Propoſitions in Logick, De quibus non guſtabit Aſinus; what? J. Goodwin appoſed? Yo. Eld. p. 53.he? even he, not underſtand a queſtion ſo frequently agitated? penotrus in his Propugna. bum. lib. L. 8. C. 15. propounds it thus: An concurſus Divinus ſit influxus in ſecundas cauſas, & in illarum effectus, an ſolus ſit influxus cum cauſis ſecundis in effectus, non autem in ipſas ſecundas cauſas? eſſe vero hanc controver ſiam graviſſimam, &c. Whether the divine concourſe be an influx into the ſecond cauſes, and into their effects, or only with the ſecond cauſes into the effects, and not into the cauſes themſelves? So Alvar. de auxil. lib. 3. diſp. 18. &c. and this queſtion was determined in the affirmative by Auguſtine de grâ Chri. c. 16. viz. that the grace of God was an adjutory by way of influence into the will. Certum eſt nos ſervare mandata ſi volumus, ſed quia preparatur voluntas a Domino, ab illo petendum eſt, ut tantum velimus, quantum ſufficit ut volendo faciamus. Certum eſt nos velle cum volumus ſed ille facit ut velimus bouum, de quo dictum eſt quod preparatur voluntas a Domino. Its certaine, ſaith he, that when we are willing we will: but he makes us to will good of whom its ſaid, that the will is prepared of the Lord, But this queſtion is determined negatively by Arminius. Cont. Perkins: Convurſus & influxus Dei, nihil confert creaturae liberae quoad agendum, vel inclinetur vel juvetur, vel confortetur. The influx of God conferres nothing to the free creature, to helpe, incline, or ſtrengthen it. The Schoole of the Arminians follow their Maſter, and joyne with Jeſuits, making the grace of God and mans will the partiall cauſes of mans converſion, as if two men between them both ſhould beare a burden: thus Grevinchovius contr. Ameſ. p. 208. Gratia & arbitrium concurrunt ut partiales cauſae ad converſionem hominis, partialitate cauſae non effectus, eodem planè modo quo pater & fili…s unam, eandem que navem trabunt. Grace and free will coucurre as partiall cauſes to the converſion of man, with a partiality of the cauſe, not of the effect, as a Father and a Son draw between them both the ſame ſhip, the father not p. 98contributing ſtrength to the Son, &c. Such an anſwer as this will make ſhort work, for it leaves no place at all to the grace of Chriſt, but reſolves all at laſt into nature; acknowledging no other influence from God into the will, but that generall influence God affordeth unto it, as the author and preſerver thereof. And what elſe doth Mader Goodwin grant us, when he makes all the influx that God affo…ds us to be onelyonly by way of generall conc…urſe as we are creatures or men whoſe natures are from God, or ſuſtained by God, denying g…any ſpeciall influx of Gods grace into our wils in converſion. Whatſ…ever (ſaith Maſter Goodwin, p. 11. Yo. Eld.) is afribed unto nature, except nature be giv… away from God theres no occaſion given to looke upon it as der…gating from the grace of God; Aug de verb.juſt as Pelagius, Videte tum fratres mei quomodo generalem illam gratiam praedicant, quá creatus eſt homo, qua bomtnes ſumas, & uti que cum imoiis homines ſumus, hane gratiom qua Chriſtiani ſumus, ipſam volumus prae licent, ipſam volumus agnoſcant. Fauſt. Regie…s, de l a. l. 2. c. 8. Qui naturam in bonis ſuis negat praedicari debere, neſcit profecto ſpſum naturae dathorem eſſe, quigratiae.whoſe plea is recited and refuted by Aug. S…bminem Deus creavit, & hamini Deus liberum donavit arbitrium, quiequid poteſt … arbitrio, eujus gratiae debetur niſi ejas qui eum condidit cum libero arbitrio? If Go I created man, and gave him free will, whatever man doth by his free will, to whoſe grace is this due but to his that made man with free will? — Obſerve (Brethren) how they proclaim the generall grace of God whereby we are men, not whereby we are Chriſtians, &c.

2. You anſwer by taking away the ſubject of the queſtim; for I having explain'd to you what I meant by grace its concourſe unto the work, only thus, as two men that between them both carry a barden, yeeld no aſſiſtanre to each other, neither of them contributing ſtrength unto other. You learnedly anſwer that you muſt deny what the queſtion ſuppoſeth, viz that faith hath two ends.

If you had not confeſſed your ignorance in this anſwer, yet you had here groſly bewrayed it Who but you would have ſuppoſed that faith hath two ends? or that this had been the ſubject of the queſtion? Alvar. de arx. l. 3. diſp. 18. would have informed you better, where he ſaith, The queſtion is, utrum neceſſaria ſit praevia dei motio, recepta in ipſa causa, ut de facto producat ſuam operationem, an vero ſufficiat concurſus ſimultaneus pariter influens cum ipſis cauſis in earum effectus. The queſtion is, Whether the p. 99motion of Gods ſpirit he neceſſary, as received into the cauſe it ſelfe, that it may produce its operation, or whether there be required a concourſe beſtowing its influence together with the cauſe upon its effect. Where you may ſee the anſwer in three concluſions, the third whereof is againſt quos dam recentieres theologos, ſome late Divines (he meanes Jeſuites and Arminians) aſſerentes, quòd concurſus ſupernaturalis non ſit in causam ſed cum cauſa in effectum; Who held that ſupernaturall concourſe was not into the cauſe, but with the cauſe in and upon the effect. And yet here was no ſuppoſition that grace had two ends.

And did not you ſay, pag. 99. Yo. Eld. The purging of Jeruſalem was an effect which depended partly upon God and partly upon Jeruſalem, in comporting with God. And page 100. of Yo. Eld. you ſay in theſe words, For men actually to will and do things accompanying ſalvation, depends partly upon God in reſpect of the neceſſity of the motion, and aſſiſtance of his ſpirit thereunto, partly upon man in reſpect of a like neceſſity of their concurrence, and conſenting unto the motion of the ſpirit of God. Did you ſuppoſe when you ſay that the purging of Jeruſalem depended partly upon God, and partly upon Jeruſalem, that this purging had two ends? and when you ſay that a mans willing depends partly upon God, in reſpect of motion, and partly upon man in reſpect of a like neceſſity of their concurrence, that faith hath two ends?

Can there not be a concourſe of two partiall cauſes into an effect, but this effect muſt needs have two ends? Can you not diſtinguiſh with Grevinchonius betweene partialitas cauſae & effectus? May not two cauſes produce one and the ſame effect, which yet partially concur…e as cauſes to that effect?Yo. Eld. p. 61. Sect. 70.

In your next ſection you come to the ſecond quaere that I propounded to you, which was this: If you do acknowledge that grace is an adjutory unto the will by way of influence into it, whether meane you that this influence is morall, ſuaſory, by way of intreaty, that the will would in…ve, or phyſica, that is properly, really, and efficaciouſly operative upon it.

This you ſay contains in it more abſurdities than the former; I wiſh your anſwer bewrayed not more ignorance and malice than your former.

1. You ſay, It ſuppoſeth that there can be no morall influence, p. 100but that which is ſuaſory, or by way of intreaty. When Maſter Jenkin commands his Clerke to ſet a Pſalme, and threatens him, that be will turne him out of his place if he will not do as he is commandeth, hath ſuch an addreſſe any other influence than what is morall, but will Maſter Jenkin call it ſuaſory, by way of intreaty?

I pitty you! Anſw. was there ever a more ſenceleſſe exception propounded by one pretending to be an inſtructor? Are you yet to learn what ſuaſio moralis is? My acute adverſary conceives, that a threatning may be ſaid to have a morall influence upon the will, but it cannot be ſuaſory or by way of intreaty. He will not have Comminations or threatnings to be morally ſuaſory; though you have but a mite of your owne, you might have been acquainted with thoſe that have more; but I ſee that (ſpider-like) you are only beholding to your owne bowels (and truly you go far enough for your cob-webs) otherwiſe you might have obſerved in every author who writes about ſuaſio moralis, that even threatnings are ſuafory; not to give above one or two inſtances in a caſe ſo triviall, ſee Wendelins, Chriſt, Theol. p. 534. de ſanctif. mandata, promiſſiones, comminationes ſaepe non perſuadent quod ſuadent. See alſo ſuffragium Britan. p. 135. where you ſhall have theſe words: Non inficiamur in opere converſionis Deum adhibere Comminationum, promiſſionum, aliarum que hortationum vim ſuaſoriam. I pray ask Price, that puppet incendiary whats the Engliſh of Comminationes ſuadent, in the former, and of Comminationum vim ſuaſoriam in the latter; (the Latine holding him up, haply he may be kept (though hardly) from ſtumbling into a lye) Learne one leſſon more from a novice, Though there be difference betweene threatnings and promiſes, yet they are both in their influence upon the will ſuaſory, the latter ab utili, the former ab inutili.

2. You ſay, That my quaere ſuppoſeth, an inconſiſtency between a morall influence upon the will, and that which is properly, really, and efficaciouſly operative upon it.

Anſw. Where do I ſay or ſuppoſe that theſe two cannot ſtand together? this indeed I ſay, that a morall influence is of it ſelfe inſufficient, but not with an efficatious influence inconſiſtent, That a meere morall influence is operative onelyonly metaphoric…s, & per modum objecti, and gives no power to the faculty upon which it workes, but ſerves onelyonly to excite and draw into act the innate p. 101power, and that the ſoule of man deſtitute of power to ſupernaturals, cannot be wrought upon in ſuch an objective way of morall perſwaſion.

3. You ſay, That if by phyſicall influence Maſter Jenkin underſtandeth any ether kinde of work…ng upon the will by God, than by the mediation of the Word, or than that which is proper to be wrought by ſuch an inſtrument as this, &c. I deny any other phyſicall influence upon the will. It paſſeth my underſtanding to conceive how the will ſhould be wrought or acted into a conſent in any kinde, otherwiſe than by argument, motive, and perſwaſion, unleſſe by force, violence, and compulſion, &c.

Anſw. Your anſwers here are inconſiſtent 1. with themſelves, and 2. with truth. Firſt you deny any worke of God upon the will, ſave by the mediation of the Word, and yet inſtantly you ſay,Yo. Eld. p. 62. You allow an outward excitation of the ſoule, or opening of the heart by the ſpirit, a gracious and immediate ſupporting of the will in the act of conſenting, &c. I would faine know how theſe two can ſtand together.

2. You deny, That God workes any thing upon the will which is not proper for the Word to worke; or that any thing can be wrought upon the will except by perſwaſion, or by argument, &c. If you had attended the ſtate of the queſtion, you would have ſpared much of this twatling; the queſtion is, by what influence of grace, the naturall mans will is ſet right in actu primo, hath a principle of new life infuſed into it, and not by what it is made actually to beleeve, in actu ſecundo, the former is done by the immediate and almighly power of the grace of God, Homines tentum ſunt habitualis converſionis, or…ſio & amecedens condit o…quod praedicato evangedi… reſipiſcent… & fidei, deus ſpir…u regenerante virtutem fidei & reſipiſcentiae …nimis electorum indat, ut habiles ſin… ad par…dun Evangelium, actualis verò converſionis ſum cauſa inſtrumentalis. Gom. p. 154.the other by the ſame power working in the word. You muſt not aſſert that the cauſa objectiva or moralis doth create the faculty but ſuppoſe it. For your further information, herein I refer you to that excellent Tractate of Gornarus de gratia converſionis, particularly to pag. 154. To. 1. at whoſe feet you may fit to reape the bleſſing of his head (as you ſpeak,) but fit not as an inſtructor any more, but as a novice, not as a teacher, but as teachable.

4. You tell me (in this ſection) frequently that you underſtand p. 102not well, it paſſeth your underſtanding, &c. to conceive how the will ſhould be acted into conſent, &c. how men be begotten by the Word, &c. The miſte ies of faith are not to be meaſured by the ſtrength of your underſtanding; will you beleeve nothing but what you can conceive? why do you not turne a profeſſed Socinian?

5. You tell me in this Section that God opens the heart immediately, ſupporteth the will in the act of conſenting, ſuffers nothing to intervene to prevent conſent. You would faine ſeem to ſay ſomething, but hoc aliquid nihileſt, what meane you by ſupporting of the will? Doth not God as immediately ſupport the will when it conſents to evill, as in the act of conſenting to good? and though he prevents externall tentations, yet leaves he not the will it ſelf in …quilibria, to conſent or not to conſent? Is it enough to deliver from externall tentation, unleſſe alſo from our owne internall corruption? What meane you by opening the beart? is it not ſo done by the Word that it paſſeth (as you ſay) your underſtanding, how the will ſhould any other way be wrought into a conſent; meane you not as your Pelagius, who in a fit of zeale ſpake for the working of grace juſt as you do;Aug. de gra. Chr cap. 7. Adj…vat no; Deus per doctrinam & revelarionem ſuam, dam cordis noſtri oculos aperit, du…n nobis ne praeſentibus occupemur, futura demonſtrat, dum diaboli pandit infidiat, &c. Nunquam iſti inimici gratiae ad eandem gratiam vehememius oppugnan lem occultiores mol untur inſidias, quàm ubi legem laudant. adjuvat nos Deus per doctrinam & revelatim…m, &c. God aſſiſteth us by doctrine and revelation, when he opens the eyes of our mindes, when he ſhewes us things to come, leſt we ſhould be intangled in things preſent, when he diſc…vers the ſnares of Satan. Concerning which and the like paſſages Auguſtine ſaith, That the enemies of grace (the Pelagians) did never more ſubtilly oppoſe grace, than when they moſt p…aiſed the Word; in which reſpect, In Con. mileu. Can. 4. was that anathem… denounced,**Conc. Mil. c. 4. Quiſquis di erit gratiam dei propter hoc tantum nos adjuvare ad non peccandion, quia per ipſam revelaiu…, & aperitur intelligentia man lato…um, ut ſciamut, &c. non autem per illam nobis praeſtari ut quod ſaciendum cognoverimu, agere valeamus, anathema ſit. Quiſquis dixerit, &c. whoſoever ſhall ſay, That the grace of God ſerves to help ut againſt ſinne, onelyonly becauſe by that we know and underſtand the commandment, and not alſo becauſe by that grace, power is beſtawed upon us to do what we know, let him be accurſed.Yo. Eld. p. 63

Laſtly you ſay (in this Section) That you do not well underſtand p. 103what I meane by my phyſicall inſiuence of grace upon the will.

Anſw. Where have you lived all your time? have you grown grey in promo…ing Arminianiſm, and yet never heard of the phyſicall influence? go to Ames, Triglandius, Rivet, &c. and you ſhall be informed what it is. I acknowledge it with theſe and ſundry other reformed Divines, to be that gracious and reall working of the Spirit of God, by which a principle of divine life is put into the ſoule of the naturall man, that was dead in ſins and treſpaſſes, by which he is quickned and raiſed from the death of ſinne and of naturall is made ſpirituall, and ſavingly to underſtand and will ſpirituall things.

You acknowledge Sect. 69. that I propounded foure quaeries; Yo. Eld. p. 63 Sect. 72.but now in this your 72 Section, you having thus ridiculouſly (as is ſeene) gone over my two former quaerees, muddily jumble together my two laſt, though not without this deſigne of a more convenient hiding your opinion from the Reader. My third quaere was this: Whether grace be an adjutory uncertaine and reſiſtible, or whether grace be an invincible infallible determinating adjutory to the will.

1. In this 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:

p. 1041. 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.

p. 1051. 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) p. 106or 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.foreign! 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 p. 107'twas 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 onelyonly, 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.Rom 14:15Job 10:28Who 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.Job 6:39Rom 8:38Why (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 p. 108nihil 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….Rom 14:15 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 foreign 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.