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…

So God from everlasting decreed, according to the mere pleasure of his will to bestow the gift of faith & repentance on some & deny it to others. All the decrees of God we acknowledge to be unchangeable from within, irresistible from without. Yet this Author applies these attributes only to Gods absolute decrees, intimating that it is otherwise with Gods conditional decrees: which conceit of his savoureth of the same learning and judgment with the rest. Besides it is his course hand over head to talk of the distinction of Gods decrees, into decrees absolute, and decrees conditional: whereas the decrees of God as touching the acts of God willing, admit no such distinction; the act of Gods will being always absolute and never conditional, as both Piscator theologically hath proved against Uorstius and Bradwardine most scholastically hath demonstrated; and by other reasons may be demonstrated and made as clear as the Sun; some of which reasons I have formerly mentioned in this discourse: only quoad res volitas as touching the things willed this distinction hath place; as both Dr Jackson in his book of Providence acknowledgeth of that distinction of Voluntas antecedens & voluntas consequens (which by Uossius interpretation is all one with voluntas absoluta & voluntas conditionata) namely that it is to be understood only quoad res volitas. And in the same sense is voluntas conditionata interpreted, as appears by the practice of Uossius ^*and of this Author throughout. Now in this sense we do not acknowledge that Gods decrees of Salvation and damnation are absolute, but merely conditional; so that this Author doth but fight with his own shadow in this his argumentation, making as shameful a mistake as ever Don Quixote did, when he conceived the Barbers basin to be the Helmet of Mambrino, and fell furiously upon him, in a zeal of martial glory, to recover Spolia opima, so fat and rich spoils. By the way observe, to alter Gods absolute decrees, is no other thing, then to alter that which is once determined by Gods absolute will. For after this different manner doth this Author express one and the same thing in this Section. Now consider, is not the rising of the Sun the course of Heaven, the revolution of the year, the whole course of nature, some of these things which are determined by Gods absolute will?

So God from everlasting decreed, according to the meere pleasure of his will to bestowe the gift of faith & repentance on some & deny it to others. All the decrees of God we acknowledge to be unchangeable from within, irresistible from without. Yet this Author applyes these attributes only to Gods absolute decrees, intimating that it is otherwise with Gods conditionall decrees: which conceit of his savoureth of the same learning and judgment with the rest. Besides it is his course hand over head to talke of the distinction of Gods decrees, into decrees absolute, and decrees conditionall: whereas the decrees of God as touching the acts of God willing, admit noe such distinction; the act of Gods will being allways absolute and never conditionall, as both Piscator theologically hath proved against Uorstius and Bradwardine most scholastically hath demonstrated; and by other reasons may be demonstrated and made as cleare as the Sunne; some of which reasons I have formerly mentioned in this discourse: only quoad res volitas as touching the things willed this distinctiō hath place; as both Dr Jackson in his booke of Providence acknowlegeth of that distinction of Voluntas antecedens & voluntas consequens (which by Uossius interpretation is all one with voluntas absoluta & voluntas conditionata) namely that it is to be understood only quoad res volitas. And in the same sense is voluntas conditionata interpreted, as appears by the practice of Uossius