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…

Of the second, these, Sin, and Foresight of sin, Damnation and the Decree of damnation; and consequently that Syllogism whereunto either of these quaternary of terms is clapped, cannot be good; For no Categorical Syllogism is good that consisteth of four terms. As for the reducing of them into a Syllogism Hypothetical, such Reductions were never heard of in the Schools of the learned and that for just reason; because that is no course to justify the soundness of the Enthymemes, but a mere begging of that which is in question. As in case a man should reduce it thus; If faith be precedanious to salvation, then the foresight of faith is precedanious to the decree of salvation; But faith is precedanious to salvation, Therefore it is precedanious to the decree of salvation. In this Hypothetical Syllogism, the consequence of the Major is the very Enthymeme which is in question, for the substance of it and consequently no proving of it, but a mere begging of it. Yet notwithstanding we do not deny, but that God did decree that no man should be saved, but such as being of ripe years, should be found to persevere in faith unto death none should be damned, but such as should be found finally to persevere in sin. The other execution of these decrees consists (as I said) in the bestowing of the grace of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others. Now the question is, Whether God be indeed the author of faith and repentance, yea, or no; and because the Arminians dare not professedly deny this. (though lately they are come so far as professedly to deny that Christ merited it) therefore let the question proceed about the manner how God bestows it, as namely, whether he bestows it of his mere pleasure on some, denying it to others, or, Whether the reason why God bestows it on some and not on others, be, because God finds some good work in one, which he finds not in another. This question being decided, it will clearly appear, whether predestination proceeds upon the foresight of ought in man, yea or no. For if God of his mere pleasure doth bestow faith on one, and not on another, it follows undeniably, that God predestinated him hereunto absolutely, and of his mere pleasure, without consideration of any future work of man.

Of the second, these, Sinne, and Foresight of sinne, Damnation and the Decree of damnation; and consequently that Syllogisme whereunto either of these quaternary of termes is clap'd, cannot be good; For no Categoricall Syllogisme is good that consisteth of foure termes. As for the reducing of them into a Syllogisme Hypotheticall, such Reductions were never heard of in the Schooles of the learned and that for just reason; because that is no course to justify the soundnesse of the Enthymemes, but a meer begging of that which is in question. As in case a man should reduce it thus; If faith be precedanious to salvation, then the foresight of faith is precedanious to the decree of salvation; But faith is precedanious to salvation, Therefore it is precedanious to the decree of salvation. In this Hypotheticall Syllogisme, the consequence of the Major is the very Enthymeme which is in question, for the substance of it and consequently no proving of it, but a meere begging of it. Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny, but that God did decree that no man should be saved, but such as being of ripe years, should be found to persevere in faith unto death none should be damned, but such as should be found finally to persevere in sinne. The other execution of these decrees consists (as I said) in the bestowing of the grace of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others. Now the question is, Whether God be indeed the author of faith and repentance, yea, or no; and because the Arminians dare not professedly deny this. (though lately they are come so farre as professedly to deny that Christ merited it) therefore let the question proceede about the manner how God bestowes it, as namely, whether he bestowes it of his meer pleasure on some, denying it to others, or, Whether the reason why God bestowes it on some and not on others, be, because God findes some good work in one, which he findes not in another. This question being decided, it will clearly appeare, whether predestination proceeds upon the foresight of ought in man, yea or no. For if God of his meer pleasure doth bestow faith on one, and not on another, it followes undeniably, that God predestinated him hereunto absolutely, and of his meer pleasure, without consideration of any future work of man.