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 as Tertullian takes necessity, to wit in opposition unto liberty; So I presume doth Hierome too; otherwise these two Fathers were yoked together unequally in this place. Now we know no such necessity domineering in man, as stands in opposition to liberty. Much less do we maintain any necessity over the will of man, depending upon fatal constellations; And as Epiphanius, and Austin discourse thus of necessity in reference to fatal constellations; So it seems likely that Hierome and Tertullian did discourse of necessity in the same sense. To sin by the will of God in Prosper is to sin by the predestination of God, as appears both by the Objection it self, and Prosper's answer thereunto throughout. Now predestination in the fathers meaning is of no other things, than such as God purposed to work. And accordingly we answer that no evil in the world, as evil, comes to pass by God's will to work it; but only by God's will to permit it. And it is Austin's express professiō, that Non aliquid fit nisi omnipotens fieri velit. Not any thing comes to pass, unless God Almighty will have it come to pass; but how? Not all after one manner, but after a different manner; some by working them, others by permitting them; vel sinendo ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo; either by suffering it to come to pass, in case it be evil, or himself working it, in case it be good. Fulgentius justifies this sense in his sentence here alleged. For to sin by God's will in Prosper, is all one with being made an offender (or made to sin) by God, in Fulgentius. Now we say God makes many a man good by regeneration; but he makes none evil; only he doth not cure that natural or habitual viciousness, which he finds amongst men, in all. For He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth; and indeed he is bound to none. St. Bernard clearly maintains that there is no liberty from sin in any natural man; and consequently every natural man is cast upon a necessity of sinning; and therefore that liberty from necessity which he grants to man, can be no other then liberty from compulsion; And so Dr. Fulke usually makes the distinction run between Liberty from sin, and liberty from coaction; & denying the one he grants the other.

And as Tertullian takes necessity, to wit in opposition unto liberty; So I presume doth Hierome too; otherwise these two Fathers were yoaked together unequally in this place. Now we know no such necessity domineering in man, as stands in opposition to liberty. Much lesse doe we maintaine any necessity over the will of man, depending upon fatall constellations; And as Epiphanius, and Austin discourse thus of necessity in reference to fatall constellations; So it seemes likely that Hierome and Tertullian did discourse of necessity in the same sense. To sinne by the will of God in Prosper is to sin by the predestination of God, as appeares both by the Objection it selfe, and Prosper's answer thereunto throughout. Now predestination in the fathers meaning is of no other things, thē such as God purposed to worke. And accordingly we answer that no evill in the world, as evill, comes to passe by God's will to worke it; but only by God's will to permit it. And it is Austin's expresse professiō, that Non aliquid fit nisi omnipotens fieri velit. Not any thing comes to passe, unles God Almighty will have it come to passe; but how? Not all after one manner, but after a different manner; some by working them, others by permitting them; vel sinendo ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo; either by suffering it to come to passe, in case it be evill, or himselfe working it, in case it be good. Fulgentius justifies this sense in his sentence here alleadged. For to sinne by God's will in Prosper, is all one with being made an offender (or made to sinne) by God, in Fulgentius. Now we say God makes many a man good by regeneration; but he makes none evill; only he doth not cure that naturall or habituall viciousnesse, which he finds amongst men, in all. For He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth; and indeed he is bound to none. St. Bernard clearely maintaines that there is noe liberty from sinne in any naturall man; and consequently every naturall man is cast upon a necessity of sinning; and therefore that liberty from necessity which he grants to man, can be no other then liberty from compulsion; And so Dr. Fulke usually makes the distinction run between Liberty from sin, and liberty from coaction; & denying the one he grants the other.