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…

He saith indeed it is against reason, that God who damns the Devil should will that any man should be a Servant to the Devil: but forthwith he expounds himself. 1. Expounding what that condition is of being the Devils servants, whereof the objection did proceed. Now the objection was this, That the greatest part of men were created for this, that they should do, not the will of God, but the will of the Devil: Now this objection saith Prosper proceeds from the Pelagians: Qui Adae peccatum transiisse in omnes diffitentur, who deny the sin of Adam to have passed unto all. So that, to do the will not of God, but of the Devil, is to be in the state of natural corruption, and under the power of original sin, whereby they are not God's servants, but the Devils; this is not the condition of God's children in the state of Grace. Now Prosper shows how original sin passeth over all, not by the will of God; and secondly, how it passeth over all by the will of God: Not by the will of God instituente; but by the will of God judicante: His words are these. Haec servitus non est institutio Dei, sed judicium. This slavery of sin which came upon all by Adam's sin is not God's institution but his judgment. As much as to say it came not upon a man by God's first creation, but by his judgment upon him, because of his first transgression; so that if divine judgment be the will of God; it is apparent Prosper is so far from denying that slavery to have come upon all men by the just will of God, as that he expressly acknowledgeth it. It is true as Fulgentius saith, that, God is not the Author of sin, but the revenger of it. And it is as true that it is as just with God to punish sin with sin, as Scripture justifies; as St. Austin observes, and improveth at large divers Scriptures to this purpose, in his fifth Book against Julian the Pelagian, and third chap. Tertullian in saying, he is not to be accounted the Author of sin, who is the forbidder, yea the condemner of it, falls directly upon the same ground that Dominicus Soto, with the Divines of Salamanca, and Vasquez the Jesuits, in explicating what that is which makes me to be the Author of a moral action; as namely, by commanding, by counselling it, and persuading it; and indeed condemnation is but consequent to a law forbidding this or that.

He saith indeed it is against reason, that God who damnes the Devill should will that any man should be a Servant to the Divell: but forthwith he expounds himselfe. 1. Expounding what that cōdition is of being the Devills servants, whereof the objection did proceed. Now the objection was this, That the greatest part of men were created for this, that they should doe, not the will of God, but the will of the Devill: Now this objection saith Prosper proceeds from the Pelagians: Qui Adae peccatum transiisse in omnes diffitentur, who deny the sin of Adam to have passed unto all. So that, to doe the will not of God, but of the Divell, is to be in the state of naturall corruption, and under the power of originall sinne, whereby they are not God's servants, but the Devills; this is not the condition of God's children in the state of Grace. Now Prosper shewes how originall sinne passeth over all, not by the will of God; and secondly, how it passeth over all by the will of God: Not by the will of God instituente; but by the will of God judicante: His words are these. Haec servitus non est institutio Dei, sed judicium. This slavery of sinne which came upon all by Adam's sinne is not God's institution but his judgment. As much as to say it came not upon a man by God's first creation, but by his judgment upon him, because of his first trangression; so that if divine judgment be the will of God; it is apparent Prosper is so farre from denying that slavery to have come upon all men by the just will of God, as that he expresly acknowledgeth it. It is true as Fulgentius saith, that, God is not the Authour of sinne, but the revenger of it. And it is as true that it is as just with God to punish sinne with sinne, as Scripture justifies; as St. Austine observes, and improveth at large divers Scriptures to this purpose, in his fifth Book against Iulian the Pelagian, and third chap. Tertullian in saying, he is not to be accounted the Authour of sin, who is the forbidder, yea the condemner of it, falls directly upon the same ground that Dominicus Soto, with the Divines of Salamancha, and Vasquez the Jesuites, in explicating what that is which makes me to be the Authour of a morall action; as namely, by commanding, by counselling it, and perswading it; and indeed condemnation is but consequent to a law forbidding this or that.