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…

Not any that I know using this phrase Necessitate but Papists, and amongst them none that I know but Bradwardine a man renowned in his time both for eminent learning, and eminent piety, as appears by Sir Henry Savill's preface unto that book of his; and he no where affirming that God necessitates any man unto sin; but only to the substance of the act; & that not so as to make the will work necessarily, as the phrase imports in a vulgar ear, and unto a popular judgment (whereupon alone this Author takes his advantage most unconscionably) but agreeably to 'its nature, that is contingently and freely. For were he able to produce any one of our Divines that affirmeth this, why doth he not? Is there anything throughout this whole discourse that more requires he should name the man, and quote the places, where this is affirmed, then this? Yet here we find a blank; he carrieth it on magnificently upon his own bare word, which deserves no credit at our hands; And is it possible to believe so foul a crimination without all evidence produced, unless faction and partiality hath blinded his eyes? Should he have laid to our charge that we maintain that God necessitates the will to any good act, and to overrule the will therein, we should utterly deny it without distinction. It is true he overrules the will of the flesh, but not the will of the Spirit, the regenerate part, but moves it agreeably to 'its nature, and to work not only voluntarily but freely whatsoever it worketh. For albeit the regenerate part is like a moral virtue (though as much transcendent to it, as a thing supernatural transcends a thing natural) inclining only to that which is good; yet is it always moved to this particular good rather then unto an other most freely. Like as a man's natural corruption inclines a man only to evil; yet to this kind of evil or to this particular evil, rather then to that, Man is moved most freely. So that if we maintain not that God works a man to every good act, otherwise then freely; let the very conscience of our enemies judge, whether we can maintain that God necessitates the will either of men or of Devils unto sin. For it is apparent that God hath a Double influence unto a good act. One unto it as unto an act, and that is influence general;

Not any that I know using this phrase Necessitate but Papists, and among'st them none that I know but Bradwardine a man renowned in his time both for eminent learning, and eminent piety, as appeares by Sir Henry Savill's preface unto that book of his; and he no where affirming that God necessitates any man unto sinne; but only to the substance of the act; & that not so as to make the will work necessarily, as the phrase imports in a vulgar eare, and unto a popular judgment (whereupon alone this Author takes his advantage most unconscionably) but agreably to 'its nature, that is contingently and freely. For were he able to produce any one of our Divines that affirmeth this, why doth he not? Is there anyhing throughout this whole discourse that more requires he should name the man, and quote the places, where this is affirmed, then this? Yet here we find a blank; he carrieth it on magnificently upon his own bare word, which deserves no credit at our hands; And is it possible to believe so foule a crimination without all evidence produced, unlesse faction and partiallity hath blinded his eyes? Should he have laied to our charge that we maintaine that God necessitates the will to any good act, and to overrule the will therein, we should utterly deny it without distinction. It is true he overrules the will of the flesh, but not the will of the Spirit, the regenerate part, but moves it agreably to 'its nature, and to worke not only voluntarily but freely whatsoever it worketh. For albeit the regenerate part is like a morall vertue (though as much transcendent to it, as a thing supernaturall transcends a thing naturall) inclining only to that which is good; yet is it alwaies moved to this particular good rather then unto an other most freely. Like as a man's naturall corruption inclines a man only to evill; yet to this kind of evill or to this particular evill, rather then to that, Man is moved most freely. So that if we maintaine not that God workes a man to every good act, otherwise then freely; let the very conscience of our enemies judge, whether we can maintaine that God necessitates the will either of men or of Devills unto sinne. For it is apparent that God hath a Double influence unto a good act. One unto it as unto an act, and that is influence generall;