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. Now I will answer your proposition, according to my own Tenet in ordering Gods decrees, which is likely to give you better satisfaction in the way of your own apprehension. Now I grant your proposition; acknowledging that in this case so it falls out, that he must needs consider the subject as reipsa & certo futurum. But how, non tanquam praecedaneum (whereto your discourse tends) but tanquam conjunctum; the reason is, because I make the decrees of creation, permission of sin, and raising out of sin, not subordinata, but coordinata & conjuncta. So I say in like manner, God doth jointly decree to give both grace and glory; I do not say God doth decree jointly to give them, but he jointly decreeth to give both grace and glory. And so Austin defines predestination to be praeparationem gratiae & gloriae. So that in the same moment that he decreeth glory, he considers grace not as praecedaneum in intentione, but conjunctum. So on the other side God doth jointly decree final dereliction of some in sin and damnation for sin, as Aquinas professeth of reprobation, that it includes voluntatem permittendi culpam, & damnationem inferendi pro culpa: so that in the same moment that he decreeth damnation, he considereth their finall impenitency non tanquam quiddam antecedaneum, but tanquam conjunctum. And judge you what force this hath to qualify the harshness of Tenets hereabouts, and what disadvantage to our opposites the Arminians, who upon the subordination of these decrees cry out upon our Tenets and expose them to obloquy, saying that we maintain that God doth first decree to damn men, and then to this purpose he exposeth them to sin those sins for which they are damned. And herewith they charge the Authors of Massa corrupta for the object of election and reprobation, aswell as the Authors of Massa nondum condita, or condita, but nondum corrupta. And the twenty reasons which Arminius hath given against the Authors of Massa nondum condita; he professeth that with little difference they may be accommodated against the Fautors of Massa corrupta. All which notwithstanding, I have considered, and I hope refuted also, both the one way against Arminius, and the other way against Corvinus, in a Digression by it self, which contains a whole quire of paper, one of them; but that is in my answer to Corvinus, which is not yet perfected.

2. Now I will answer your proposition, according to my own Tenet in ordering Gods decrees, which is likely to give you better satisfaction in the way of your own apprehension. Now I grant your proposition; acknowledging that in this case so it falls out, that he must needs consider the subject as reipsa & certo futurum. But how, non tanquam praecedaneum (whereto your discourse tends) but tanquam conjunctum; the reason is, because I make the decrees of creation, permission of sin, and raysing out of sin, not subordinata, but coordinata & conjuncta. So I say in like manner, God doth joyntly decree to give both grace and glory; I do not say God doth decree joyntly to give them, but he joyntly decreeth to give both grace and glory. And so Austin defines predestination to be praeparationem gratiae & gloriae. So that in the same moment that he decreeth glory, he considers grace not as praecedaneum in intentione, but conjunctum. So on the other side God doth joyntly decree finall dereliction of some in sin and damnation for sin, as Aquinas professeth of reprobation, that it includes voluntatem permittendi culpam, & damnationem inferendi pro culpa: so that in the same moment that he decreeth damnation, he considereth their finall impenitency non tanquam quiddam antecedaneum, but tanquam conjunctum. And judge you what force this hath to qualifie the harshnesse of Tenets hereabouts, and what disadvantage to our opposites the Arminians, who upon the subordination of these decrees cry out upon our Tenets and expose them to obloquie, saying that we maintaine that God doth first decree to damne men, and then to this purpose he exposeth them to sinne those sinnes for which they are damned. And herewith they charge the Authors of Massa corrupta for the object of election and reprobation, aswell as the Authors of Massa nondum condita, or condita, but nondum corrupta. And the twenty reasons which Arminius hath given against the Authors of Massa nondum condita; he professeth that with little difference they may be accommodated against the Fautors of Massa corrupta. All which notwithstanding, I have considered, and I hope refuted also, both the one way against Arminius, and the other way against Corvinus, in a Digression by it selfe, which containes a whole quire of paper, one of them; but that is in my answer to Corvinus, which is not yet perfected.