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…

4 Yet by the way I wonder not a little that one thing is pretermitted. For if I mistake not, this very Author is the man that heretofore hath been very full mouthed in censuring, not so much the doctrine it self, as a certain answer I made to an argument brought out of Scripture against it; namely from those words of our Saviour, It had been better for that man if he had never been born. My answer was, that it was spoken according to the judgment of man, though indeed erroneous; and that after this manner phraseologies of Scripture do proceed I there showed. Now this Author hereupon spared not to profess, that if this were true he would turn Atheist. I wished that Friend of mine to whom he spake this, to persuade him the next time he met with him, to enquire and consider well, whether Maldonat the Jesuit doth not embrace the same interpretation. And indeed if such protestations would carry it, this Author would prove a very potent and formidable adversary, I have seen the like under his own hand, namely this, As Plutarch said of the old heathens who sacrificed men that they might pacify their gods: that it had been better with Diagoras to say, There is no god, then to think that God is such a one that delights in the blood of men: And hereupon he adds this Protestation, I protest unto you I think it less dishonourable to the blessed Trinity, to say with the Atheist, there is no god, then to feign such a God, as the decree of Reprobation maintained by the Contraremonstrants maketh him to be. This man I find is resorted unto and consulted with by the Arminians, as if his judgment were an oracle; and I willingly confess he deserves to be in some great place unto them: and no place in my judgment more fit then to be unto the, à protestationibus. Yet I do not prescribe but leave it to their discretion to prefer him as they think good: but how comes it to pass, that here he is silent in reviving the reproaches he cast upon my answer to the Scripture before mentioned? Is it because Maldonat the Jesuit hath been since found by him to embrace the same interpretation? And he is loath to fall so foul in censuring such as he is? Yet here he falls foul on me for professing my approbation, not of School-men but of Austin's discourse. This makes me call to mind what was delivered of him sometimes by a London Minister;

4 Yet by the way I wonder not a little that one thing is pretermitted. For if I mistake not, this very Authour is the man that heretofore hath been very full mouthed in censuring, not so much the doctrine it selfe, as a certain answer I made to an argument brought out of Scripture against it; namely from those words of our Saviour, It had been better for that man if he had never been born. My answer was, that it was spoken according to the judgment of man, though indeed erroneous; and that after this manner phraseologies of Scripture doe proceed I there shewed. Now this Authour hereupon spared not to professe, that if this were true he would turne Atheist. I wisht that Friend of mine to whom he spake this, to perswade him the next time he met with him, to enquire and consider well, whether Maldonat the Jesuite doth not imbrace the same interpretation. And indeed if such protestations would carry it, this Authour would prove a very potent and formidable adversary, I have seen the like under his own hand, namely this, As Plutarch said of the old heathens who sacrificed men that they might pacifie their gods: that it had been better with Diagoras to say, There is no god, then to think that God is such a one that delights in the blood of men: And hereupon he adds this Protestation, I protest unto you I think it less dishonourable to the blessed Trinity, to say with the Atheist, there is no god, then to feigne such a God, as the decree of Reprobation maintained by the Contraremonstrants maketh him to be. This man I find is resorted unto and consulted with by the Arminians, as if his judgment were an oracle; and I willingly confesse he deserves to be in some great place unto them: and no place in my judgmentmore fit then to be unto the, à protestationibus. Yet I doe not prescribe but leave it to their discretion to prefer him as they think good: but how comes it to passe, that here he is silent in reviving the reproaches he cast upō my answer to the Scripture before mentioned? Is it because Maldonat the Jesuite hath been since found by him to embrace the same interpretation? And he is loath to fall so foule in censuring such as he is? Yet here he falls foul on me for professing my approbation, not of Schoole-men but of Austin's discourse. This makes me call to mind what was delivered of him sometimes by a London Minister;