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…

And the former point concerning the first act of reprobation, being granted, which neither Sir Edwin Sands, nor any Lutheran that I know, denies; the doctrine concerning this latter act of reprobation will be found to contain no difficulty at all, forasmuch as we utterly deny that God either doth inflict, or ever did decree to inflict damnation according to his mere pleasure; but merely for final continuance in sin without repentance. Now let every sober Reader consider, whether there be any harshness in all this: But as M. Moulin discourseth here, so did the Massilienses of old concerning Austin's doctrine, as which they would not have at all broached, as appears in the Epistle of Prosper.—Yet I commend this Author for his ingenuous confession, that the same may be said of the Sublapsarian way. But to our prejudice he tells us that Sir Ed: Sands is of the same mind, and therefore considering the excellency of the book, written by him, whereunto we may add the excellency of the discourse written by this Author; let us for the credit and transcendent sufficiency of these two, renounce not Calvin and Beza only, (poor Snakes as they were) but the whole Synod of Dort; and all the outlandish divines assembled there, and manifesting their concurrence in opinion with those Synodical Divines, yea and Fulke and Whitaker, and the University of Cambridge as they were then affected, when they drave Barret to a recantation; Yet Sir Edwin Sands in the place produced, betrays not his own judgment, but makes relation of the bitterness of Lutherans in opposing Calvinists: In like manner both Jews and Gentiles did oppose Christians even unto blood, for preaching Christ crucified, which was a scandal to the one, foolishness unto the other. And shall the truth of Christianity be any whit the worse thought of for this? why then shall our Doctrine of predestination and reprobation be suspected as untrue, because the Lutheran party, do also bitterly oppose it? especially considering, that we with Austin no otherwise maintain predestination then as it depends and is grounded upon this, that grace is not given according unto works, as Austin professeth to have been his opinion, de bono perseverantiae, cap. 14. And we are ready to renounce whatsoever contradicteth this:

And the former point concerning the first act of reprobation, being granted, which neither Sir Edwin Sandes, nor any Lutheran that I know, denies; the doctrine concerning this latter act of reprobation will be found to containe noe difficultie at all, forasmuch as we utterly deny that God either doth inflict, or ever did decree to inflict damnation according to his mere pleasure; but merely for finall continuance in sinne without repentance. Now let every sober Reader consider, whether there be any harshnesse in all this: But as M. Moulin discourseth here, so did the Massilienses of old concerning Austin's doctrine, as which they would not have at all broached, as appeares in the Epistle of Prosper.—Yet I commend this Authour for his ingenuous confession, that the same may be said of the Sublapsarian way. But to our prejudice he tells us that Sir Ed: Sandes is of the same mind, and therefore considering the excellencie of the booke, written by him, whereunto we may adde the excellencie of the discourse written by this Authour; let us for the credit and transcendent sufficiencie of these two, renounce not Calvin and Beza only, (poore Snakes as they were) but the whole Synod of Dort; and all the outlandish divines assembled there, and manifesting their concurrance in opinion with those Synodicall Divines, yea and Fulke and Whitaker, and the Universitie of Cambridge as they were then affected, when they drave Barret to a recantation; Yet Sir Edwin Sandes in the place produced, betraies not his owne judgment, but makes relation of the bitternesse of Lutherans in opposing Calvinists: In like manner both Jewes and Gentiles did oppose Christians even unto bloud, for preaching Christ crucified, which was a scandall to the one, foolishnesse unto the other. And shall the truth of Christianitie be any whit the worse thought of for this? why then shall our Doctrine of predestination and reprobation be suspected as untrue, because the Lutheran partie, doe also bitterly oppose it? especially considering, that we with Austine no otherwise maintaine predestination then as it depends and is grounded upon this, that grace is not given according unto workes, as Austine professeth to have been his opinion, de bono perseverantiae, cap. 14. And we are ready to renounce whatsoever contradicteth this: