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 who these best are but the Arminians in this Authors fancy; & the worst, but Anabaptists or heathens; or both I know not; Sure we are none of them in his understanding purged from false principles and prejudice, from corrupt affections and customs; because we do not stand indifferent to the entertainment of his tenets, which he calls Truths. 3. Where can he show that I have made use of any such principles to answer any argument of his against us. I do not find that any where he can drive me to this though this be the Apostles course, as we may see Ro: 9. Is there any injustice with God? God forbid, how doth he prove it, but thus, because the Scripture attributes such a course to God; I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion, on whom I will have compassion. 4. But where hath he learnt to be so audacious as to say that, Things are not therefore just because God wills them, but that his justice is rather a rule of his will and works? Before he told us, that justice in man, and God were of the same nature; Now that justice which is the rule of our will is, Justitia obligans, justice binding us to do this or that; and is Gods justice obligatory likewise to bind him? In making the world, I do not doubt, but God did that which was just; but was there any justice in God obliging him to the making of the world? who seeth not, what an Atheistical conclusion followeth herehence, namely that the world was from everlasting, if not necessarily by necessity of nature; yet necessarily by obligation of justice? otherwise for an infinite space of time wherein the world was not made (which must needs have been if the world were not, from everlasting) God had been and continued to be unjust. The Schools have taught me that there is a justice of condecency consequent to all the actions of God, no justice of obligation precedent to it. And whereas St. Paul tells us that God works all things according to the counsel of his will, both Alvarez and Suarez though School, Divines of opposite families, yet concur in this that this Counsel is, à libera voluntate acceptum, accepted of Gods free will. And it is observable, that the Apostle calls it not the Counsel of his understanding, but the counsel of his will And Vasquez and Suarez both Jesuits, but very opposite about the nature of justice in God;

Now who these best are but the Arminians in this Authours fancy; & the worst, but Anabaptists or heathens; or both I know not; Sure we are none of them in his understanding purged from false principles and prejudice, from corrupt affections and customes; because we doe not stand indifferent to the entertainment of his tenets, which he calls Truths. 3. Where can he shew that I have made use of any such principles to answer any argument of his against us. I doe not find that any where he can drive me to this though this be the Apostles course, as we may see Ro: 9. Is there any injustice with God? God forbid, how doth he prove it, but thus, because the Scripture attributes such a course to God; I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy, and I will have compassion, on whome I will have compassion. 4. But where hath he learnt to be so audacious as to say that, Things are not therefore just because God wills them, but that his justice is rather a rule of his will and works? Before he told us, that justice in man, and God were of the same nature; Now that justice which is the rule of our will is, Justitia obligans, justice binding us to doe this or that; and is Gods justice obligatory likewise to bind him? In making the world, I doe not doubt, but God did that which was just; but was there any justice in God obliging him to the making of the world? who seeth not, what an Atheisticall conclusion followeth herehence, namely that the world was from everlasting, if not necessarily by necessity of nature; yet necessarily by obligation of justice? otherwise for an infinite space of time wherein the world was not made (which must needs have been if the world were not, from everlasting) God had been and continued to be unjust. The Schooles have taught me that there is a justice of condecency consequent to all the actions of God, noe justice of obligation precedent to it. And whereas St. Paul tells us that God works all things according to the counsell of his will, both Alvarez and Suarez though School, Divines of opposite families, yet concurre in this that this Counsell is, à libera voluntate acceptum, accepted of Gods free will. And it is observable, that the Apostle calls it not the Counsell of his understanding, but the counsell of his will And Vasquz and Suarez both Jesuites, but very opposite about the nature of justice in God;