Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…

8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it, and yet ¹not give the total efficacy unto it. This is a main particular to consider; for Pelagius, and Arminius, and Papists, all do acknowledge grace. Pelagius, it's noted of him, that he did four times incrustate his opinion, and held grace in every one of them: Hee did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam, as you heard before; yea, by this means he deceived all the Eastern Churches, and they acquitted him when he said thus: If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act we do, let him be an anathema. So Papists and Arminians, they all acknowledge grace, but not grace enough; Gratia non est gratia, nisi sit omni modo gratuita: As for example; First, they acknowledge grace to be only as an universal help, which must be made effectual by the particular will of man: so that grace is efficacious with them, not by any inward virtue of it self antecedaneous to, and independent upon the Will, but eventually only, because the will doth yield; and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol & homo generant hominem: one as the universal cause, the other as the particular cause. Thus grace and free-will produce a good action; grace as the general cause, and free-will as the particular: but how derogatory is this to grace? how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace? For, If I should ask, Who is the father of such a man? it would be very hard to say, The Sun in the firmament: so it would be as absurd to say, Grace regenerated and converted this man. Again, they make grace a partial cause only; so that it stirreth up our natural strength to work this or that good thing: and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with ²God in the work of conversion; but this supposeth us not dead in sin.

8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it, and yet ¹not give the totall efficacy unto it. This is a maine particular to consider; for Pelagius, and Arminius, and Papists, all doe acknowledge grace. Pelagius, it's noted of him, that hee did foure times incrustate his opinion, and held grace in every one of them: Hee did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam, as you heard before; yea, by this meanes hee deceived all the Easterne Churches, and they acquitted him when he said thus: If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act wee doe, let him be an anathema. So Papists and Arminians, they all acknowledge grace, but not grace enough; Gratia non est gratia, nisi sit omni modo gratuita: As for example; First, they acknowledge grace to be onely as an universall help, which must be made effectuall by the particular will of man: so that grace is efficacious with them, not by any inward vertue of it self antecedaneous to, and independent upon the Will, but eventually only, because the will doth yeeld; and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol & homo generant hominem: one as the universall cause, the other as the particular cause. Thus grace and free-will produce a good action; grace as the generall cause, and free-will as the particular: but how derogatory is this to grace? how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace? For, If I should aske, Who is the father of such a man? it would be very hard to say, The Sun in the firmament: so it would be as absurd to say, Grace regenerated and converted this man. Again, they make grace a partiall cause only; so that it stirreth up our naturall strength to work this or that good thing: and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with