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…

2. Observe how sluttishly he carrieth himself in the next reason taken from removens prohibens. His rule proceeds both of withdrawing and withholding a thing which being present would hinder an event. But he gives instance only in withdrawing, as in cutting a string whereon a stone• hangs; which who so doth, is the cause of the falling of the stone: And in withdrawing a pillar upholding an house, which who so doth, is the cause of the fall of that house: which is most true in natural things, yet not the immediate cause, that is to be referred to the nature of the stone, and house; which being heavy things do naturally move downwards. But this Author contents not himself with conforming the condition of Agents voluntary to the conditions of Agents natural and necessary; but changeth his terms also, and puts the phrase of withdrawing, ⟨p. 146⟩into the place of the former phrase, which was withholding. Now it is true God withholds that grace from Reprobates, which he gives to his Elect; but he withdraws and takes no inward grace from them. Yet this phrase of withholding is very improper; For it signifies a forcible restraint of that which was going; Whereas God being Master of his own grace, gives it to whom he will, and denies it to whom he will; For he is bound to none. And is it not lawful for him to do what he will with his own? But albeit he carry himself very sluttishly in opposing us, yet I willingly confess he carrieth the matter very clearly in contradicting himself; as when he concludeth, that God in withholding that power (that is that grace) which would keep them from sin (for this alone is our Tenet) hereby becomes a true moral cause of their sin. I say, herein he contradicts himself very handsomely. For himself confesseth that God could hinder any man from sin, but he doth not: And doth it not herehence evidently follow, that God hereby becomes the Author of sin, yea of every sin that is committed in the world? But I see what he will reply by the face of his discourse, namely this; He saith not that God by withholding that grace which would keep him from sin, becomes the Author of sin; but only by withholding that grace which might keep him from sin. And indeed so he doth; but mark therewithal how sluttishly he carrieth himself in 2 particulars. 1. In deviating from his conformity to his own instances.

2. Observe how sluttishly he carryeth himselfe in the next reason taken from removens prohibens. His rule proceeds both of withdrawing and withholding a thing which being present would hinder an event. But he gives instance only in withdrawing, as in cutting a string whereon a stone hangs; which who so doth, is the cause of the falling of the stone: And in withdrawing a pillar upholding an house, which who so doth, is the cause of the fall of that house: which is most true in naturall things, yet not the immediate cause, that is to be referred to the nature of the stone, and house; which being heavy things do naturally move downwards. But this Authour contents not himselfe with conforming the condition of Agents voluntary to the conditions of Agents naturall and necessary; but changeth his termes also, and puts the phrass of withdrawing,