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…

yet it being a matter of greater moment, to gain the justification of his absurdities charged upon the first way, from the mouths or practice of our Divines, at least in appearance: and some colour hereof he finds by declining the first way and falling upon the third; but no colour at all by declining the first way and falling upon the second. Therefore he thought it a part of his wisdom altogether to dissemble the second, and to represent the opinion of those Divines who decline the first (yea and second too) and fall upon the third. But suppose Junius had preferred the third way and not the second, Had he done it out of a desire to decline the absurdities here mentioned? It is apparent by that his conference with Arminius (which yet he set not forth, but the Arminian party after his death) that he maintains all these considerations to have their place in Predestination, and therefore makes Hominem communiter consideratum the object of predestination, which as it is a notion abstract from all the three special notions of nondum conditum, or conditum, but nondum corruptum, or denique corruptum, so it is indifferently appliable unto them all. And indeed Piscator resolves the question about the object of Predestination, namely, that as Predestination includes the decree of creating men unto different ends, so the object must necessarily be mankind not yet created; as it includes the decree of permitting all to fall in Adam, so the object (as he thinks) must be mankind created, but not yet corrupted; and lastly as it includes the decree of choosing some out of that corrupt mass, and refusing others or leaving them in it. so the object of his judgement must be mankind both created and corrupted. And Arminius himself professeth, that the twenty reasons wherewith he disputeth against the first way, may also be accommodated against the other ways. And albeit the followers of the second and third way do think that they can better maintain their Tenet, and free it from the ⟨p. 34⟩absurdities wherewith the other ways are charged; yet it followeth not herehence, that therefore they did justify them, the contrary whereunto appears in the particular of Junius, as before I mentioned. Moulin indeed disputes against the first, but doth he, to decline that, subsist in the third, as touching the making of the corrupt Mass the object of reprobation?

yet it being a matter of greater moment, to gain the justification of his absurdities charged upon the first way, from the mouthes or practice of our Divines, at least in appearance: and some colour hereof he findes by declining the first way and falling upon the third; but no colour at all by declining the first way and falling upon the second. Therefore he thought it a part of his wisdome altogether to dissemble the second, and to represent the opinion of those Divines who decline the first (yea and second too) and fall upon the third. But suppose Iunius had preferred the third way and not the second, Had he done it out of a desire to decline the absurdities here mentioned? It is apparent by that his conference with Arminius (which yet he set not forth, but the Arminian party after his death) that he maintaines all these considerations to have their place in Predestination, and therefore makes Hominem communiter consideratum the object of predestination, which as it is a notion abstract from all the three speciall notions of nondum conditum, or conditum, but nondum corruptum, or denique corruptum, so it is indifferently applyable unto them all. And indeed Piscator resolves the question about the object of Predestination, namely, that as Predestination includes the decree of creating men unto different ends, so the object must necessarily be mankind not yet created; as it includes the decree of permitting all to fall in Adam, so the object (as he thinkes) must be mankind created, but not yet corrupted; and lastly as it includes the decree of chusing some out of that corrupt masse, and refusing others or leaving them in it. so the object of his judgement must be mankind both created and corrupted. And Arminius himselfe professeth, that the twenty reasons wherewith he disputeth against the first way, may also be accommodated against the other waies. And albeit the followers of the second and third way doe think that they can better maintain their Tenent, and free it from the