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…

The difference which this Author takes into Consideration is about the object of Predestination; and the difference in opinion thereabouts is usually to be observed threefold (though this Author is pleased to take notice of a secondfold difference,) for some conceive the object of Predestination to be man-kind as yet not created; others conceive the object thereof to be man-kind created, but not yet corrupted. A third sort maintain the object thereof to be man-kind both created and corrupted. Now D. Junius hath endeavoured to reconcile the three opinions, making place for each consideration in the object of predestination; And Piscator after him adventured on the like reconciliation, and hath performed it with more perspicuity and with better success in my judgment, then Junius; And that according to three different acts concurring unto Predestination; The first is, saith he, God's purpose to create man-kind in Adam unto different ends, now this Act doth clearly require the object thereof to be man-kind not yet Created. The second Act he conceives to be God's Decree to permit all men to fall in Adam; Now this Act he conceives as clearly to suppose the object thereof to be man-kind created, but not corrupted. The third & last Act he conceives to be God's decree to choose some, to show compassion on them in raising them out of sin by saith and repentance, and of Reprobating others, leaving them as be finds them, and permitting them to finish their days in sin, to the end he might manifest the glory of his grace, in saving the one; & the glory of his Justice in damning others. Now this third Act he supposeth manifestly to require the object thereof to be man-kind both created and corrupted: Now the Authors of these several opinions have no reason to go together by the ears about these three opinions, but with Brotherly love to entertain one another: First, because the difference herein is not so much in Divinity, as in Logic and Philosophy; difference in opinion about order in intentions, being merely Logical, and to be composed according to the right stating of the end intended, and of the means conducing to the end; it being generally confessed, that the intention of the end is before the intention of means conducing thereunto. And that look what is first in intention, the same must be last in execution.

The difference which this Authour takes into Consideration is about the object of Predestination; and the difference in opinion thereabouts is usually to be observed threefold (though this Authour is pleased to take notice of a secondfold difference,) for some conceive the object of Predestination to be man-kind as yet not created; others conceive the object thereof to be man-kind created, but not yet corrupted. A third sort maintaine the object thereof to be man-kind both created and corrupted. Now D. Iunius hath endeavoured to reconcile the three opinions, making place for each consideration in the object of predestination; And Piscator after him adventured on the like reconciliation, and hath performed it with more perspicuitie and with better successe in my judgment, then Iunius; And that according to three different acts concurring unto Predestination; The first is, saith he, God's purpose to create man-kind in Adam unto different ends, now this Act doth clearely require the object thereof to be man-kind not yet Created. The second Act he conceives to be God's Decree to permit all men to fall in Adam; Now this Act he conceives as clearly to suppose the object thereof to be man-kind created, but not corrupted. The third & last Act he conceives to be God's decree to choose some, to shew compassion on them in raising them out of sinne by saith and repentance, and of Reprobating others, leaving them as be findes them, and permitting them to finish their dayes in sinne, to the end he might manifest the glorie of his grace, in saving the one; & the glorie of his Justice in damning others. Now this third Act he supposeth manifestly to require the object thereof to be man-kind both created and corrupted: Now the Authours of these severall opinions have no reason to go together by the eares about these three opinions, but with Brotherly love to entertaine one another: First, because the difference herein is not so much in Divinitie, as in Logick and Philosophie; difference in opinion about order in intentions, being meerly Logicall, and to be composed according to the right stating of the end intended, and of the meanes conducing to the end; it being generally confessed, that the intention of the end is before the intention of meanes conducing thereunto. And that look what is first in intention, the same must be last in execution.