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…

All men in the state of nature, whether they do good as touching the substance of the act; yet they do it not in a gracious manner; Or whether they abstain from that which is evil, they do not abstain from it in a gracious manner; nor can do. Nay since the fall of Adam, who ever lived free from sin, the Son of God only excepted? Doth not holy Paul profess of himself saying, I do not the good that I would, but the evil that I would not, that do I. To will is present with me, but I find not to perform: hat which is good. And if God may justly damn all for sin original as Mr. Hoard affirms, why may not God leave all irrecoverably in it; and that justly? So that herein I find my self in a brake, not can devise with my self in what tolerable or colourable sense he can affirm, that Reprobates are not left irrecoverably in the state of original sin; or in such a state, in which they cannot avoid sin; I say in what sense he can deliver this different from us, I cannot devise. For we willingly grant that there is no particular actual sin from which a Reprobate hath not power to abstain, though he cannot abstain from it in a gracious manner without grace, and that grace we account the grace of regeneration; which is a supernatural principle of gracious actions, both as touching faith in God, and the love of God, to the contempt of our selves. Now I guess his meaning is, that no Reprobate is so left and abandoned in original sin, but that God gives him grace to believe if he will, to repent if he will, to love God if he will, & that above ⟨p. 139⟩all things. I guess, I say, that this is his meaning; but I would have him express it, that I might see it under his hand. For till then I find no apparent difference between him & us, as touching these two principles from whence he deduceth, that God is thereby made The principal cause of sin in the greatest number of men. And if once he deliver himself fairly, and comes to this, the issue of the question to be debated between us will be fair and clear; namely about this their universal grace, whether all men elect and Reprobate by virtue of supernatural grace given unto them, have power to believe if they will, repent if they will. And against this I will dispute after this manner.

All men in the state of nature, whether they doe good as touching the substance of the act; yet they doe it not in a gracious manner; Or whether they abstaine from that which is evill, they doe not abstaine from it in a gracious manner; nor can doe. Nay since the fall of Adam, who ever lived free from sinne, the Son of God only excepted? Doth notholy Paul professe of himselfe saying, I doe not the good that I would, but the evill that I would not, that doe I. To will is present with me, but I find not to performe: hat which is good. And if God may justly damne all for sinne originall as Mr. Hoord affirmes, why may not God leave all irrecoverably in it; and that justly? So that herein I find my selfe in a brake, not can devise with my selfe in what tollerable or colourable sense he can affirme, that Reprobates are not left irrecoverably in the state of originall sinne; or in such a state, in which they cannot avoid sinne; I say in what sense he can deliver this different from us, I cannot devise. For we willingly grant that there is no particular actuall sinne from which a Reprobate hath not power to abstaine, though he cannot abstaine from it in a gracious manner without grace, and that grace we account the grace of regeneration; which is a supernaturall principle of gracious actions, both as touching faith in God, and the love of God, to the contempt of our selves. Now I guesse his meaning is, that no Reprobate is so left and abandoned in originall sinne, but that God gives him grace to believe if he will, to repent if he will, to love God if he will, & that above