5. Austin professes lib. 1, De Gen. Contr. Manich. cap. 3. “That all men may believe if they will,” and justifies it in his Retractations. But if the will of man be corrupt, and averse from believing. We justly say, such a man cannot believe as our Savior says, “How can you believe that receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that comes from God,” Joh. 5:44, yet this is an impotency moral only, which is to be distinguished from impotency natural. For notwithstanding this, it may be truly said, “All men may believe if they will” and herein consists the natural liberty of the will. The moral liberty consists, rather in a sanctified inclination unto that which is good, whereby it is freed from the power of sin and Satan; and then in a power to do good if they will, and not otherwise. But I never find that Arminians do distinguish these.

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love, (Oxford: Printed by L.L and H.H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:1.72. [That is, Book 1, Part 1, page 72] [Some minor reformatting; some spelling modified, and underlining mine.]

To be continued . . .

[Note: Ironically, the Second Helvetic Consensus (1675), authored by Heidegger, Turretin and Gernler, if taken absolutely, condemns the first president or chairman of the Westminster Assembley not only on the grounds of his affirmation of Hypothetical Universalism but also for his affirmation of the classic moral-natural distinction, which Twisse sources in Augustine, no less.]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 11:11 am and is filed under The Distinction Between Natural and Moral Ability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)