be it so, that this ridiculous example stands good; again, it stands in favour of me. For what I maintain is this: that Free-will is 'nothing,' that is, is useless of itself (as you expound it) before God; and it is concerning its being nothing as to what it can do of itself that we are now speaking: for as to what it essentially is in itself, we know, that an impious will must be a something, and cannot be a mere nothing.

Sect. CXXX.-THERE is also that of 1 Cor. xiii. "If I have not charity I am nothing:" Why the Diatribe adduces this as an example I cannot see, unless it seeks only numbers and forces, or thinks that we have no arms at all, by which we can effectually wound it. For he who is without charity, is, truly and properly, 'nothing' before God. The same also we say of Free-will. Wherefore, this example also stands for us against the Diatribe. Or, can it be that the Diatribe does not yet know the argument ground upon which I am contending?-I am not speaking about the essence of nature, but the essence of grace (as they term it.) I know, that Free-will can by nature do something; it can eat, drink, beget, rule, &c. Nor need the Diatribe laugh at me as having prating frenzy enough to imply, when I press home so closely the term ' nothing,' that Free-will cannot even sin without Christ: whereas Luther, nevertheless says, 'that Free-will can do nothing but sin'-but so it pleases the wise Diatribe to play the fool in a matter so seriFor I say, that man without the grace of God, remains, nevertheless, under the general omnipotence of an acting God, who moves and carries along all things, of necessity, in the course of his infallible motion; but that the man's being thus carried along,

ous.

is nothing; that is, avails nothing in the sight of God, nor is considered any thing else but sin. Thus in grace, he that is without love, is nothing. Why then does the Diatribe, when it confesses itself, that we are here speaking of evangelical fruits, as that which cannot be produced without Christ, turn aside immediately from the subject point, harp upon another string, and cavil about nothing but natural works and human fruits? Except it be to evince, that he who is devoid of the truth, is never consistent with himself.

So also that of John iii., "A man can receive nothing except it were given him from above."

John is here speaking of man, who is now a something, and denies that this man can receive any thing; that is, the Spirit with his gifts; for it is in reference to that he is speaking, not in reference to nature. For he did not want the Diatribe as an instructor to teach him, that man has already eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, mind, will, reason, and all things that belong to man. Unless the Diatribe believes, that the Baptist, when he made mention of man, was thinking of the chaos' of Plato, the 'vacuum' of Leucippus, or the infinity' of Aristotle, or some other nothing, which, by a gift from heaven, should at last be made a something. Is this producing examples out of the scripture, thus to trifle designedly in a matter so important!

And to what purpose is all that profusion of words, where it teaches us, 'that fire, the escape from evil, the endeavour after good, and other things are from heaven,' as though there were any one who did not know, or who denied those things? We are now talking about grace, and, as the Diatribe itself said,

concerning Christ and evangelical fruits; whereas, it is itself, making out its time in fabling about nature; thus dragging out the cause, and covering the witless reader with a cloud. In the mean time, it does not produce one single example as it professed to do, wherein 'nothing,' is to be understood as signifying some small degree. Nay, it openly exposes itself as neither understanding nor caring what Christ or grace is, nor how it is, that grace is one thing and nature another, when even the sophists of the meanest rank know, and have continually taught this difference in their schools, in the most common way. Nor does it all the while see, that every one of its examples make for me, and against itself. For the word of the Baptist goes to establish this:-that man can receive nothing unless it be given him from above; and that, therefore, Free-will is nothing at all.

Thus it is, then, that my Achilles is conqueredthe Diatribe puts weapons into his hand, by which it is itself dispatched, naked and weapon-less. And thus it is also that the scriptures, by which that obstinate assertor Luther urges his cause, are, 'by one word, brought to nothing.'

Sect. CXXXI.-After this, it enumerates a multitude of similitudes: by which, it effects nothing but the drawing aside the witless reader to irrelevant things, according to its custom, and at the same time leaves the subject point entirely out of the question. Thus," God indeed preserves the ship, but the mariner conducts it into harbour: wherefore, the mariner does not do nothing."-This similitude makes a difference of work: that is, it attributes that of preserving

to God, and that of conducting to the mariner. And thus, if it prove any thing, it proves this:-that the whole work of preserving is of God, and the whole work of conducting of the mariner. And yet, it is a beautiful and apt similude.

Thus again--" the husbandman gathers in the increase, but it was God that gave it."-Here again, it attributes different operations to God and to man: unless it mean to make the husbandman the creator also, who gave the increase. But even supposing the same works be attributed to God and to man-what do these similitudes prove? Nothing more, than that the creature co-operates with the operating God! But are we now disputing about co-operation, and not rather concerning the power and operation of Freewill, as of itself! Whither therefore has the renowned rhetorician betaken himself? He set out with the professed design to dispute concerning a palm; whereas all his discourse has been about a gourd! 'A noble vase was designed by the potter; why then is a pitcher produced at last?'

I also know very well, that Paul co-operates with God in teaching the Corinthians, while he preaches without, and God teaches within; and that, where their works are different. And that, in like manner, he co-operates with God while he speaks by the Spirit of God; and that, where the work is the same. For what I assert and contend for is this:-that God, where he operates without the grace of his Spirit, works all in all, even in the ungodly; while he alone moves, acts on, and carries along by the motion of his omnipotence, all those things which he alone has created, which motion those things can neither avoid

nor change, but of necessity follow and obey, each one according to the measure of power given of God:-thus all things, even the ungodly, co-operate with God! On the other hand, when he acts by the Spirit of his grace on those whom he has justified, that is, in his own kingdom, he moves and carries them along in the same manner; and they, as they are the new creatures, follow and co-operate with him; or rather, as Paul saith, are led by him.

But the present is not the place for discussing these points. We are not now considering, what we can do in co-operation with God, but what we can do of ourselves: that is, whether, created as we are out of nothing, we can do or attempt any thing of ourselves, under the general motion of God's omnipotence, whereby to prepare ourselves unto the new creation of the Spirit. This is the point to which the Diatribe ought to have answered, and not to have turned aside to a something else!

What I have to say upon this point is this :-As man, before he is created man, does nothing and endeavours nothing towards his being made a creature; and as, after he is made and created, he does nothing and endeavours nothing towards his preservation, or towards his continuing in his creature-existence, but each takes place alone by the will of the omnipotent power and goodness of God, creating us and preserving us, without ourselves; but as God, nevertheless, does not work in us without us, seeing we are for that purpose created and preserved, that he might work in us and that we might co-operate with him, whether it be out of his kingdom under his general omnipotence, or in his kingdom under the peculiar power of his