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…

Now truly this Theologue taketh very profitable pains to prove that sin is not nothing; and exuberates in the proof hereof to the very solid conviction of all those that imagine it to be nothing, if there be any such creatures in terra Australi incognitâ, which is not very likely; but rather in the Lunary world, or in the Jovial world which is waited upon with four moons, as they that came lately from the discovery thereof, have made report unto us. But by the way, I hope he doth not juggle with us, and under colour of making sin to be some thing, labour to draw us to an acknowledgement that it is some positive thing, as Doctor Jackson in his last book the 8th, as I take it of his Commentaries upon the Creed laboureth to prove with great strength of affections; Like as in the same vigour of resolution he professeth that whether God punisheth sin necessarily or no it is not determinable by the wit of man; but he is not over prodigal of his reasons for either. We are very willing to grant that every sin as sin is something privative, and as touching the act substrate, it is something positive also; And when the Apostle defineth sin by [Greek or Hebrew] if in that word the first letter be [Greek or Hebrew] privative, clearly the form of sin is made to consist in privation, as much as to say an incongruity to the law of God; that is a privation of congruity thereunto. Now we are come to an end of this, let me admonish the Reader of the wisdom of this Author; All along; he supposeth that by our doctrine sin comes to pass by absolute necessity, this I say he supposeth, he proveth it not, though we utterly deny, that any such necessity is consequent to our doctrine. And this himself knows full well. Alvarez, who maintains that God determines the creatures will to every act thereof, even to the act of sin, utterly denies that any absolute necessity of humane acts followeth hereupon; or any necessity that stands in contradiction to humane liberty. Bradwardine also sometime Arch-Bishop of Canterbury elect maintains, that ⟨p. 120⟩God necessitates the will to every act thereof, yet denies peremptorily that humane acts comes to pass by absolute necessity, or by any necessity that stands in opposition to the liberty of the creature; Only he saith that some kind of necessity, and that antecedent may well consist with the liberty of the creature.

Now truely this Theologue taketh very profitable paines to prove that sin is not nothing; and exuberates in the proofe hereof to the very solid conviction of all those that imagine it to be nothing, if there be any such creatures in terra Australi incognitâ, which is not very likely; but rather in the Lunary world, or in the Joviall world which is waited upon with foure moones, as they that came lately from the discovery thereof, have made report unto us. But by the way, I hope he doth not juggle with us, and under colour of making sin to be some thing, labour to draw us to an acknowledgment that it is some positive thing, as Doctor Iackson in his last booke the 8th, as I take it of his Commentaries upon the Creed laboureth to prove with great strength of affections; Like as in the same vigour of resolution he professeth that whether God punisheth sinne necessarily or no it is not determinable by the wit of man; but he is not over prodigall of his reasons for either. We are very willing to grant that every sin as sin is something privative, and as touching the act substrate, it is something positive also; And when the Apostle defineth sin by if in that word the first letter be privative, clearely the forme of sin is made to consist in privation, as much as to say an incongruity to the law of God; that is a privation of congruity thereunto. Now we are come to an end of this, let me admonish the Reader of the wisedome of this Authour; All along; he supposeth that by our doctrine sinne comes to passe by absolute necessity, this I say he supposeth, he proveth it not, though we utterly deny, that any such necessity is consequent to our doctrine. And this himselfe knowes full well. Alvarez, who maintaines that God determines the creatures will to every act thereof, even to the act of sin, utterly denies that any absolute necessity of humane acts followeth hereupon; or any necessity that stands in contradiction to humane liberty. Bradwardine also sometime Arch-Bishop of Canterbury elect maintaines, that