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…

Calamity makes a man of a spiteful nature, and when himself is tormented, he takes content in this that others suffer with him. And as the Orator observes, Nullum adversarium magis metuas, quàm qui non potest vivere, potest occidere. No adversary more to be feared, then he who cannot live himself, yet can kill another. This makes a coward resolute; when he must needs dye, he will fight like a mad man, and kill all he can. I say what means this Author to carry the matter hand over head, as if it were without question; That he is not the Author of sin; who only is a Moral cause thereof, but rather he that is the natural efficient: whereas great Divines carry it to the contrary. As namely Dominicus Soto in his first book of nature and grace chap: 18. Although (saith he) there are many that think it hard to explicate, how in the hatred of God, which hath an inward and indivisible malignity, God can be the cause of the entity, but not of the fault: Yet this is not so hard to be understood. Then he proceeds to show how this may be. First laying for his ground what it is to be the cause of sin, thus; In moral actions he is altogether, and is judged to be the cause, who by a law, or help, or counsel or favour or persuasion moves any one either to good or evil. Observe I pray the doctrine of this School-Divine directly contrary to that which this Author supposeth without all proof. For in the judgement of Dominicus Soto, he only is to be accounted the cause ⟨p. 49⟩of another mans sin, who is the moral cause thereof, as by tempting, counselling, persuading thereunto, And upon this ground he proceeds to free God from being the Author of it after this manner. But as for God he by all these ways moves his creatures to that which is good and honest, and none at all to evil. Neither is the doctrine of Dominicus Soto alone; but the common doctrine of the Divines of Salamanca, as Molina confesseth in his disputation 23. And albeit Molina the Jesuit were of another opinion. Yet Vasquius the Jesuit professeth that he was ever of the same mind with Dominicus Soto and the Divines of Salamanca in this; In his 129 disputation upon the first part of his Sums. As for Prosper he hath no such argument. But first observe the Objection whereunto he answereth, was made against the Doctrine of Austin; as the Author acknowledgeth.

Calamity makes a man of a spightfull nature, and when himselfe is tormented, he takes content in this that others suffer with him. And as the Oratour observes, Nullum adversarium magis metuas, quàm qui non potest vivere, potest occidere. No adversary more to be feared, then he who cannot live himselfe, yet can kill another. This makes a coward resolute; when he must needs dye, he will fight like a mad man, and kill all he can. I say what meanes this Authour to carry the matter hand over head, as if it were without question; That he is not the Authour of sinne; who onely is a Morall cause thereof, but rather he that is the naturall efficient: whereas great Divines carry it to the contrary. As namely Dominicus Soto in his first booke of nature and grace chap: 18. Although (sayth he) there are many that thinke it hard to explicate, how in the hatred of God, which hath an inward and indivisible malignity, God can be the cause of the entity, but not of the fault: Yet this is not so hard to be understood. Then he proceeds to shew how this may be. First laying for his ground what it is to be the cause of sinne, thus; In morall actions he is altogether, and is judged to be the cause, who by a law, or help, or counsell or favour or perswasion moves any one either to good or evill. Observe I pray the doctrine of this School-Divine directly contrary to that which this Authour supposeth without all proofe. For in the judgement of Dominicus Soto, he onely is to be accounted the cause