The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…

Professeth it an absurd thing to deny this namely, that every one may believe if he will. Vide nunc utrum quisque credat si noluerit aut non credat si voluerit. Quod si absurdum est &c. And cap. 32. Cum ergo fides in potestate sit, quoniam cum vult quisque credit, & cum credit volens credit. I say to affirm this (namely that a man can believe if he will) is no more then to say, that a dead man can speak if he were alive. For as the Scripture teacheth, that all men are dead in sin, 'till the spirit of regeneration comes to breath into our hearts, the breath of a spiritual life; So this deadness is to be found no where so much, as in the will. And therefore Aquinas professeth, that a man is more corrupt, quoad appetitum boni, then quoad intellectum very. The Heathen could profess, Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor. And in my experience I find that Arminians do not satisfy themselves with this universality of grace, as to say, A man can do good if he will, unless they add, that also potest velle; as I have observed in Corvinus. And those whom I have in private been acquainted with do not rest in this, that All men can believe if they will, but they say also, that by universal grace, the will is enlivened, as I have seen under their hands, and thereby enabled to the willing of any spiritual good, whereto they shall be excited. So that if they rested here, to wit, in saying, that by universal grace all men may believe if they will, there is no grace acknowledged by them, tending to the furtherance of the good of mankind, but we acknowledge it as well as they, and make the extension of it as large as they. And therefore the more vain and void of all reason is their pretence, that we for want of acknowledging such an universality of grace as they do, do drown men in carnal security, and countenance carnal liberty. Only though we grant the reality of that which they maintain, yet we deny that it deserves to be called grace, as touching the first prevenient grace as they call it, which we with Austin say deserves to be called nature rather then grace, as we speak of grace, to wit, as distinct from nature, and indeed supernatural. And as for grace subsequent, that consisting only in concourse, we deny that to be grace;

Professeth it an absurd thing to deny this namely, that every one may believe if he will. Vide nunc utrum quisque credat si noluerit aut non credat si voluerit. Quod si absurdum est &c. And cap. 32. Cum ergo fides in potestate sit, quoniam cum vult quisque credit, & cum credit volens credit. I say to affirme this (namely that a man can believe if he will) is no more then to say, that a dead man can speake if he were alive. For as the Scripture teacheth, that all men are dead in sinne, 'till the spirit of regeneration comes to breath into our hearts, the breath of a spirituall life; So this deadnesse is to be found no where so much, as in the will. And therefore Aquinas professeth, that a man is more corrupt, quoad appetitum boni, then quoad intellectum veri. The Heathen could professe, Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor. And in my experience I find that Arminians doe not satisfie themselves with this universality of grace, as to say, A man can doe good if he will, unlesse they adde, that also potest velle; as I have observed in Corvinus. And those whom I have in private been acquainted with doe not rest in this, that All men can believe if they will, but they say also, that by universall grace, the will is enlivened, as I have seen under their hands, and thereby enabled to the willing of any spirituall good, whereto they shall be excited. So that if they rested here, to wit, in saying, that by universall grace all men may believe if they will, there is no grace acknowledged by them, tending to the furtherance of the good of mankind, but we acknowledge it as well as they, and make the extension of it as large as they. And therefore the more vaine and voyd of all reason is their pretence, that we for want of acknowledging such an universality of grace as they doe, doe drowne men in carnall security, and countenance carnall liberty. Only though we grant the reality of that which they maintaine, yet we deny that it deserves to be called grace, as touching the first prevenient grace as they call it, which we with Austin say deserves to be called nature rather then grace, as we speake of grace, to wit, as distinct from nature, and indeed supernaturall. And as for grace subsequent, that consisting only in concourse, we deny that to be grace;