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…

how much more evident is it to be just with God to cast away all mankind for original sin, as touching the denial of grace unto them? Now let us proceed to that which is here inserted out of Calvin and Maccovius. Now Calvin saith not that God may with as much justice determine men to hell the first way, as the latter; He speaks not at all of Gods decree of damnation, he speaks only of Gods decree that Adam suâ defection periret, by his fall should be obnoxious to destruction And he proves it by their acknowledgement, that it was by the counsel of God, that all à salute exciderent unius parentis culpâ, should incur the loss of salvation by the fault of one parent. Hereupon he demands saying, What lets them to grant that of one man, which they must grant of all men. And a little after, It is too absurd that those kind patrons of Gods justice should thus stick at a straw and leap• over a block And whereas Calvin saith, as he relates him, that All men are made guilty of Adams sin by Gods absolute decree alone. First, This is untrue; No where doth he say, that this came to pass by Gods absolute decree alone. If he had, I had thought this Author would have justified him, as well as M. Hoard, who in this very place professeth that Original sin is a sin made ours only by Gods appointment. Indeed as M. Hoard is now ⟨p. 150⟩set forth in print, this passage is not found: but in M. Hoard's own copy thus it ran; M. Mason belike hath gelded him; Yet that of M. Hoard's was accounted the quintessence of M. Mason's strength in this argument; and he took upon him the propagating of the manuscripts thereof as my self know in some particulars. Likewise the involving of men in the guilt of Adam's sin and of eternal death, is M. Hoard's phrase in one place, as before I have showed out of the fourth Section of his preface; and that by the only decree of God, did he express in this place. The same argument is used by Maccovius applied to purpose (so was not that of Calvin's. As for that saying of Maccovius, that God may ordain men to destruction without respect to any sin of his that is so ordained, is not this manifest. 1. In the case of annihilation? For doth not Arminius confess that God can annihilate the holiest creature that is? 2ly, As touching the suffering of hell pains. For did not Christ suffer them by the ordinance of his Father?

how much more evident is it to be just with God to cast away all mankind for originall sinne, as touching the denyall of grace unto them? Now let us proceed to that which is here inserted out of Calvin and Maccovius. Now Calvin sayth not that God may with as much justice determine men to hell the first way, as the latter; He speakes not at all of Gods decree of damnation, he speaks only of Gods decree that Adam suâ defectione periret, by his fall should be obnoxious to destruction And he proves it by their acknowledgment, that it was by the counsell of God, that all à salute exciderent unius parentis culpâ, should incurre the losse of salvation by the fault of one parent. Hereupon he demands saying, What lets them to grant that of one man, which they must grant of all men. And a little after, It is too absurd that those kind patrons of Gods justice should thus stick at a straw and leap over a blocke And whereas Calvin sayth, as he relates him, that All men are made guilty of Adams sinne by Gods absolute decree alone. First, This is untrue; No where doth he say, that this came to passe by Gods absolute decree alone. If he had, I had thought this Authour would have justifyed him, as well as M. Hord, who in this very place professeth that Originall sinne is a sinne made ours only by Gods appointment. Indeed as M. Hord is now