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…

I come to the Contra-Remonstrants unwillingness to confer upon the point of reprobation. What their reasons were I know not. But this I am sure of, the Scripture is free in speaking of election, and express; not so of reprobation, leaving us to take notice of the condition of reprobation by its opposition to election. And in conformity hereunto, both Austin in his time, and Remigius in his time, and Bradwardine in his time, speaks liberally of predestination, but very sparingly of reprobation. And the doctrine of reprobation as it is nothing less mysterious then that of election; so it is far more harsh to carnal affections. And it is well known that at the time of the Hague Conference, Barnavelt that ruled the roast amongst the States, was too great a friend to the Arminian Party.

I come to the Contra-Remonstrants unwillingnesse to conferre upon the poynt of reprobation. What their reasons were I know not. But this I am sure of, the Scripture is free in speaking of election, and expresse; not so of reprobation, leaving us to take notice of the condition of reprobation by its opposition to election. And in conformity hereunto, both Austin in his time, and Remigius in his time, and Bradwardine in his time, speaks liberally of predestination, but very sparingly of reprobation. And the doctrine of reprobation as it is nothing lesse mysterious then that of election; so it is farre more harsh to carnall affections. And it is well known that at the time of the Hague Conference, Barnavelt that ruled the rost amongst the States, was too great a friend to the Arminian Party.

But, what boldness doth this Author take in passing his suspicious censures upon a doctrine, because some defenders of it, at some time have been loath to come to entertain a public Conference thereupon? For what argument call you this, The Contra-Remonstrants would not be brought to give their reasons on this point; therefore the doctrine of Austin delivered 1200 years (or thereabouts) before, concerning the absoluteness both of Predestination on the one side, and of preterition on the other (as Vossius acknowledgeth) is to be suspended of untruth? And if my readiness to come to the trial hereon doth nothing credit the cause as maintained by others; why should others unwillingness to come to the same trial, be any disparagement to the same cause, as it is maintained by me or any other? It is well known that Peter Moulin, concurring with us in the point of absolute predestination, maintains reprobation to proceed upon the divine foresight of final perseverance in impenitency. If this Author differed from us no more the Mr Moulin doth, and acknowledged the mere pleasure of God, in giving grace to whom he will, and denying it to whom he will, I do not think any friend of his would think any whit the worse of him, or charge him with defection from the truth of God in this. Neither can I think, that he ever was of any other opinion, considering how many worthy Divines opposite to the Arminians, do either conceive, or at least seem to conceive ⟨p. 64⟩that the purpose of God to damn, doth presuppose in signo rationis the foresight of final impenitency, yet concurring with us in this, that all are fallen in Adam and so brought forth into the world in damnatâ Massà, as Austin calleth it. God of his mere pleasure cures this natural corruption (the fruits whereof are infidelity and impenitency) in some, by regenerating them and bestowing the grace of faith and repentance upon them, and leaves it uncured in others by refusing to regegenerate them, to bestow faith and repentance upon them; We give the hands of Christian fellowship, and brotherly amity one unto another, without all exception notwithstanding some nice differences, which in the issue I hope, will prove to be merely Logical, and nothing Theological.

But, what boldnesse doth this Author take in passing his suspicious censures upon a doctrine, because some defenders of it, at some time have been loath to come to entertaine a publique Conference thereupon? For what argument call you this, The Contra-Remonstrants would not be brought to give their reasons on this point; therefore the doctrine of Austin delivered 1200 years (or thereabouts) before, concerning the absolutenesse both of Predestination on the one side, and of preterition on the other (as Vossius acknowledgeth) is to be suspended of untruth? And if my readinesse to come to the triall hereon doth nothing credit the cause as maintained by others; why should others unwillingnesse to come to the same triall, be any disparagement to the same cause, as it is maintained by me or any other? It is well known that Peter Moulin, concurring with us in the poynt of absolute predestination, maintaines reprobation to proceed upon the divine foresight of finall perseverance in impenitency. If this Author differed from us no more the Mr Moulin doth, and acknowledged the meer pleasure of God, in giving grace to whom he will, and denying it to whom he will, I doe not think any friend of his would think any whit the worse of him, or charge him with defection from the truth of God in this. Neither can I think, that he ever was of any other opinion, considering how many worthy Divines opposite to the Arminians, doe either conceive, or at least seem to conceive ⟨p. 64⟩that the purpose of God to damne, doth presuppose in signo rationis the foresight of finall impenitency, yet concurring with us in this, that all are fallen in Adam and so brought forth into the world in damnatâ Massà, as Austin calleth it. God of his meer pleasure cures this naturall corruption (the fruits whereof are infidelity and impenitency) in some, by regenerating them and bestowing the grace of faith and repentance upon them, and leaves it uncured in others by refusing to regegenerate them, to bestow faith and repentance upon them; We give the hands of Christian fellowship, and brotherly amity one unto another, without all exception notwithstanding some nice differences, which in the issue I hope, will prove to be meerly Logicall, and nothing Theologicall.

Lastly, however this point of unwillingness in some, to come to confer in the point of reprobation, might cast some colour of suspicion to the prejudicing of their cause; yet least of all did it become this Author to take advantage hereof, considering that it is his own case, as who declineth not one point only, but all the rest in this his discourse, and cleaves only to that of reprobation, nothing answerably (I presume) to ^*your expectation, who put this task upon him: and whether it be any thing answerable to the promise he made unto you, your self are best acquainted therewith. Yet because the Remonstrants hereupon (to wit, upon the Contra-Remonstrants declining this Controversy) have taken liberty to oppose the doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants in this point, so far forth, as they made construction of their opinion hereupon, by their doctrine concerning election; therefore I will not spare even here, to digress so far, as to take notice what they delivered, and to address an answer hereunto, the rather because I find this discourse of theirs inserted in their Relation of that Conference at Hague.

Lastly, however this poynt of unwillingnesse in some, to come to conferre in the poynt of reprobation, might cast some colour of suspicion to the prejudicing of their cause; yet least of all did it become this Author to take advantage hereof, considering that it is his own case, as who declineth not one poynt only, but all the rest in this his discourse, and cleaves only to that of reprobation, nothing answerably (I presume) to ^*your expectation, who put this task upon him: and whether it be any thing answerable to the promise he made unto you, your self are best acquainted therewith. Yet because the Remonstrants hereupon (to wit, upon the Contra-Remonstrants declining this Controversy) have taken liberty to oppose the doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants in this poynt, so farre forth, as they made construction of their opinion hereupon, by their doctrine concerning election; therefore I will not spare even here, to digresse so farre, as to take notice what they delivered, and to addresse an answer hereunto, the rather because I find this discourse of theirs inserted in their Relation of that Conference at Hague.

1. *The Doctor directs his speech unto S. Nathaniel Rich.

Thus therefore they begin.

Thus therefore they beginne.

If faith follows election unto salvation, then also the decree of sending Christ as a Saviour into the World, must necessarily follow that election; But this consequent is absurd, and pertains notably to the ignominy of Christ.

If faith followes election unto salvation, then also the decree of sending Christ as a Saviour into the World, must necessarily follow that election; But this consequent is absurd, and pertains notably to the ignominy of Christ.

To this I answer. First out of mine own opinion, Thus.

Faith is supposed to follow Election unto salvation, upon no other ground then because the intention of giving faith, is supposed to follow the intention of giving salvation. But this I should deny, and that for this reason, because this subordination is grounded only upon supposition, that salvation is the end which God intends, and faith the means tending unto that end: but this I deny. First, because the end of Gods actions, is not the salvation of man, ⟨p. 65⟩but the manifestation of his own glory. For he made all things for himself, Pov. 16. 4. and reason justifies it. For God being the supreme efficient, must be the supreme end; and being Optimus as well as Maximus, he must needs be both most lovely and most loving, of that which is most lovely, that is, of himself. But because some may conceive that though Gods glory be the supreme end, yet mans salvation may be the intermediate end: therefore to this I answer; First, let such show then what is the glory of God, which salvation of the creature setteth forth, and I doubt not, but if that glory be stated right, it will appear, that not salvation alone, but something else is required to be joined with it; as namely, the mission of Christ, yea and faith in Christ, to complete that means, which tend to the procurement of such an end, that is, to the setting forth of such a glory. Secondly, the end whether supreme or intermediate is always such as being rightly understood, doth break such a means; but salvation is not so in respect of faith; for it doth not bespeak it, as is apparent in the salvation of Angels, of Infants; as also in this, that it was absolutely possible for God to save even sinners without Christ, as may be demonstrated and I have demonstrated in my Vind. Grat. Dei. by variety of evident reasons.

Faith is supposed to follow Election unto salvation, upon no other ground then because the intention of giving faith, is supposed to follow the intention of giving salvation. But this I should deny, and that for this reason, because this subordination is grounded only upon supposition, that salvation is the end which God intends, and faith the means tending unto that end: but this I deny. First, because the end of Gods actions, is not the salvation of man, ⟨p. 65⟩but the manifestation of his own glory. For he made all things for himselfe, Pov. 16. 4. and reason justifies it. For God being the supream efficient, must be the supream end; and being Optimus as well as Maximus, he must needs be both most lovely and most loving, of that which is most lovely, that is, of himselfe. But because some may conceive that though Gods glory be the supream end, yet mans salvation may be the intermediate end: therefore to this I answer; First, let such shew then what is the glory of God, which salvation of the creature setteth forth, and I doubt not, but if that glory be stated right, it will appeare, that not salvation alone, but something else is required to be joyned with it; as namely, the mission of Christ, yea and faith in Christ, to compleat that means, which tend to the procurement of such an end, that is, to the setting forth of such a glory. Secondly, the end whether supream or intermediate is alwaies such as being rightly understood, doth break such a means; but salvation is not so in respect of faith; for it doth not bespeak it, as is apparent in the salvation of Angels, of Infants; as also in this, that it was absolutely possible for God to save even sinners without Christ, as may be demonstrated and I have demonstrated in my Vind. Grat. Dei. by variety of evident reasons.

In a word, if Gods supreme end, were the manifestation of his glory on some considered, as merely possible in doing them good in the highest degree, and that in the way of mercy mixed with justice, and that ex Condigno & ex Congruo; it is apparent, that the means required hereunto, and bespoken hereby, is a body consisting of divers particulars, all together completing the integral means required hereunto. For herehence it followeth, that they must be both created, without which no glory of God at all can be manifested upon them and permitted to sin, otherwise God could not do them good in the way of mercy, which supposeth misery, but also that a Saviour must be sent, and he no less then the Son of God, to deserve the pardon of their sin and salvation, otherwise it could not be in the way of mercy mixed with justice de Condigno: and faith and repentance must be bestowed on them, otherwise the good done them, could not be by way of reward: and lastly, salvation, otherwise good could not be done them in the highest degree. And thus in no moment of nature is the Predestination of Christ either before or after the Predestination of man; as our British Divines maintained at the Synod of Dort; but at once God predestinated both him to be our Head and us his Members; like as Aquinas maintained Christs predestination, and our predestination to be one act in God, and consequently neither could be the cause of another.

In a word, if Gods supream end, were the manifestation of his glory on some considered, as meerely possible in doing them good in the highest degree, and that in the way of mercy mixt with justice, and that ex Condigno & ex Congruo; it is apparent, that the means required hereunto, and bespoken hereby, is a body consisting of divers particulars, all together compleating the integrall means required hereunto. For herehence it followeth, that they must be both created, without which no glory of God at all can be manifested upon them and permitted to sinne, otherwise God could not doe them good in the way of mercy, which supposeth misery, but also that a Saviour must be sent, and he no lesse then the Sonne of God, to deserve the pardon of their sinne and salvation, otherwise it could not be in the way of mercy mixt with justice de Condigno: and faith and repentance must be bestowed on them, otherwise the good done them, could not be by way of reward: and lastly, salvation, otherwise good could not be done them in the highest degree. And thus in no moment of nature is the Predestination of Christ either before or after the Predestination of man; as our Brittish Divines maintained at the Synod of Dort; but at once God predestinated both him to be our Head and us his Members; like as Aquinas maintained Christs predestination, and our predestination to be one act in God, and consequently neither could be the cause of another.

Thus have I dispatched mine answer unto them, as touching mine own opinion. But supposing the method of the Contra-Remonstrants sound, in making salvation of man, to be intended by God as an end, and both mans faith in Christ, and Christs Mission to be intended as means. We deny this to be absurd or ignominious unto Christ. Lets hear how they prove it, thus; If the decree of sending Christ be posterior to the electing of singular persons unto salvation, then the intention of mans salvation was posterior to Gods intention of satisfaction to his justice, which say they is absurd and foolish, to wit, to decree the salvation of sinners, unless first he decree satisfaction to his justice. But I answer according to the form of the Contra-Remonstrants doctrine: First, by proving their order to be sound: Secondly, by showing the invalidity of the Remonstrants discourse.

Thus have I dispatched mine answer unto them, as touching mine own opinion. But supposing the method of the Contra-Remonstrants sound, in making salvation of man, to be intended by God as an end, and both mans faith in Christ, and Christs Mission to be intended as means. We deny this to be absurd or ignominious unto Christ. Lets heare how they prove it, thus; If the decree of sending Christ be posterior to the electing of singular persons unto salvation, then the intention of mans salvation was posterior to Gods intention of satisfaction to his justice, which say they is absurd and foolish, to wit, to decree the salvation of sinners, unlesse first he decree satisfaction to his justice. But I answer according to the forme of the Contra-Remonstrants doctrine: First, by proving their order to be sound: Secondly, by shewing the invalidity of the Remonstrants discourse.

First therefore: There was never any other order of intentions acknowledged by the learned, then such as is found between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means tending thereunto. And the Order most received is this; That the intention of the end, is before the intention of the means. Now let every man that is is his right Wits consider, which is more likely to be the end, and which the means of these two, Mans salvation, and Christs Mission to satisfy for the sin of man. Was ever any man known to be so brainsick as to affirm, that the salvation of man is a means tending to this end, namely, the sending of Christ into the World to satisfy for the sin of man? On the other side, how fair and plausible is it to affirm, that Christ was sent into the world, to satisfy for mans sin, to this end, that man might be saved? whence it followeth evidently by the most approved rules of Schools, that the intention of mans salvation is in signo rationis, before the ⟨p. 66⟩intention of sending Christ into the world, to make satisfaction for sin. Again, if Christs sending into the world to make satisfaction for sin, be first in intention, then it should be last in execution, by rules undeniable, and such as are manifest by the very light of nature; Whence it followeth, that man should be first saved and after that Christ sent into the World, that, by his sufferings, Gods justice might be satisfied.

First therefore: There was never any other order of intentions acknowledged by the learned, then such as is found between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means tending thereunto. And the Order most received is this; That the intention of the end, is before the intention of the means. Now let every man that is is his right Witts consider, which is more likely to be the end, and which the means of these two, Mans salvation, and Christs Mission to satisfy for the sinne of man. Was ever any man known to be so brainsick as to affirme, that the salvation of man is a means tending to this end, namely, the sending of Christ into the World to satisfy for the sinne of man? On the other side, how fair and plausible is it to affirme, that Christ was sent into the world, to satisfy for mans sinne, to this end, that man might be saved? whence it followeth evidently by the most approved rules of Schooles, that the intention of mans salvation is in signo rationis, before the ⟨p. 66⟩intention of sending Christ into the world, to make satisfaction for sinne. Againe, if Christs sending into the world to make satisfaction for sinne, be first in intention, then it should be last in execution, by rules undeniable, and such as are manifest by the very light of nature; Whence it followeth, that man should be first saved and after that Christ sent into the World, that, by his sufferings, Gods justice might be satisfied.

Now I come to the consideration of the Remonstrants argument. The Consequence of the Major we grant, but the Minor we deny. And it is a vain thing for them to cry out, that it is absurd and foolish to say, that the intention of salvation, precedes the intention of satisfying Gods justice; for words must not carry it: and it is well known that the most empty vessels give the greatest sound. I have showed how absurd it is to conceive, that man was saved to this end, that Gods justice may be satisfied, and that 'tis far more probable to say, That by Christs sufferings, Gods justice was satisfied to this end, that man might be saved. For the salvation of man we say, was not intended by God simply, but after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of mercy mixed with justice; which end doth not presuppose the permission of sin, as these Remonstrants shape the matter to varnish over their consequence, with some colour of probability: but rather it bespeaks, both the permission of sin, and satisfaction to be made for sin, to the end that so man might be saved, not simply, but after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of mercy mixed with justice. But suppose they were considered as sinners, Why should the Remonstrants look strangely upon this doctrine, namely, that God should intend the salvation of sinners in signo rationis, before he intended that his justice should be satisfied? For do not they maintain, that God by power absolute, can pardon sin without all satisfaction? But supposing that God will not pardon sin without satisfaction, in this case they may contend, that God must first intend to take a course, that such satisfaction may be made, and then intend to save. And let them contend but in the name of reason, and not of clamours, and content themselves, with the infatuation of themselves, with such senseless conceits, and not spread this scab unto others also. My reason to the contrary is still the same, namely, that if God be pleased to save sinners in despite of sin, in the way of mercy mixed with justice, the case is clear, that satisfaction for sin, is rather a means of mans salvation, then mans salvation is a means tending to the procurement of satisfaction for sin, and consequently the intention of salvation of sinners, is in reason to precede the intention of procuring satisfaction, rather then to follow after it;

Now I come to the consideration of the Remonstrants argument. The Consequence of the Major we grant, but the Minor we deny. And it is a vaine thing for them to cry out, that it is absurd and foolish to say, that the intention of salvation, precedes the intention of satisfying Gods justice; for words must not carry it: and it is well known that the most empty vessells give the greatest sound. I have shewed how absurd it is to conceive, that man was saved to this end, that Gods justice may be satisfied, and that 'tis farre more probable to say, That by Christs sufferings, Gods justice was satisfied to this end, that man might be saved. For the salvation of man we say, was not intended by God simply, but after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of mercy mixed with justice; which end doth not presuppose the permission of sinne, as these Remonstrants shape the matter to varnish over their consequence, with some colour of probability: but rather it bespeaks, both the permission of sinne, and satisfaction to be made for sinne, to the end that so man might be saved, not simply, but after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of mercy mixed with justice. But suppose they were considered as sinners, Why should the Remonstrants look strangely upon this doctrine, namely, that God should intend the salvation of sinners in signo rationis, before he intended that his justice should be satisfied? For doe not they maintaine, that God by power absolute, can pardon sinne without all satisfaction? But supposing that God will not pardon sinne without satisfaction, in this case they may contend, that God must first intend to take a course, that such satisfaction may be made, and then intend to save. And let them contend but in the name of reason, and not of clamours, and content themselves, with the infatuation of themselves, with such senselesse conceits, and not spread this scab unto others also. My reason to the contrary is still the same, namely, that if God be pleased to save sinners in despight of sinne, in the way of mercy mixt with justice, the case is cleare, that satisfaction for sinne, is rather a means of mans salvation, then mans salvation is a means tending to the procurement of satisfaction for sinne, and consequently the intention of salvation of sinners, is in reason to precede the intention of procuring satisfaction, rather then to follow after it;

as the intention of the end, is rather to be accounted before, then after the intention of the means. Yet say these Remonstrants, if a man will be so obstinate, as (notwithstanding the felicity of these Remonstranticall wits in fruitful inventions and subtle argumentations) still to deny that there is any absurdity herein, thus over and above we prove it. For as yet they have run themselves out of breath. If, say they, the decree of Christ a Saviour, be after the election of particular persons unto salvation, it followeth that God did decree some particular mens salvation, before he ordained Christs merits to procure their salvation; but this is foolish and absurd.

as the intention of the end, is rather to be accounted before, then after the intention of the means. Yet say these Remonstrants, if a man will be so obstinate, as (notwithstanding the felicity of these Remonstranticall witts in fruitfull inventions and subtile argumentations) still to deny that there is any absurdity herein, thus over and above we prove it. For as yet they have runne themselves out of breath. If, say they, the decree of Christ a Saviour, be after the election of particular persons unto salvation, it followeth that God did decree some particular mens salvation, before he ordained Christs merits to procure their salvation; but this is foolish and absurd.

I answer, No more foolish and absurd then the former: and indeed every one of these consequences for the expressing whereof, they affect to seem very inventious, do savour of no invention at all; the Consequents do so evidently, even every one of them appear as clearly in the Antecedent, as a mans face in a glass, and are to be accounted rather Tautologies, then deductions, much less do they relish of any subtlety of wit. So that all this while, they seem to be in travel with nothing but wind, or sick of the disease called Tenasmus, striving mightily to do somewhat, when indeed they do nothing at all. And our former argument still hath place, and here also applied, doth manifest, that seeing the merits of the Son of God are the means of mans salvation, then mans salvation is the end of Christs merits; therefore in all probability, the intention of mans salvation, as the intention of the end, should precede the intention of sending Christ to merit as the means, rather then to be subordinate unto it. And indeed if the sending of Christ into the World to merit, should be first in intention, then should it be last in execution; that is, All the elect should first be saved, and then Christ should be sent into the world to merit their salvation. Therefore to mend the matter (for who is so silly as not to perceive, that if the consideration of Christs obedience, as satisfactory, will not serve their turn, surely neither will the consideration of his obedience as meritorious, stand them in any ⟨p. 67⟩stead) they put into this Consequence another clause, without all art, and without all honesty, pretending, that hereby we make salvation destinated to man, before it is decreed to man: as if we put any difference in this case between destination and decree, or as if we make salvation destinated to a man hereby, before it is destinated unto him; whereas we only make the end (that is salvation) intended before the merits of Christ (which are the means of salvation) are intended. And would any man that is in his right wits, say this is to make salvation destinated to a man before it is destinated to him?

I answer, No more foolish and absurd then the former: and indeed every one of these consequences for the expressing whereof, they affect to seem very inventious, doe savour of no invention at all; the Consequents doe so evidently, even every one of them appeare as clearely in the Antecedent, as a mans face in a glasse, and are to be accounted rather Tautologies, then deductions, much lesse doe they rellish of any subtilty of wit. So that all this while, they seem to be in travell with nothing but wind, or sick of the disease called Tenasmus, striving mightily to doe somewhat, when indeed they doe nothing at all. And our former argument still hath place, and here also applied, doth manifest, that seeing the merits of the sonne of God are the means of mans salvation, then mans salvation is the end of Christs merits; therefore in all probability, the intention of mans salvation, as the intention of the end, should precede the intention of sending Christ to merit as the means, rather then to be subordinate unto it. And indeed if the sending of Christ into the World to merit, should be first in intention, then should it be last in execution; that is, All the elect should first be saved, and then Christ should be sent into the world to merit their salvation. Therefore to mend the matter (for who is so silly as not to perceive, that if the consideration of Christs obedience, as satisfactory, will not serve their turne, surely neither will the consideration of his obedience as meritorious, stand them in any

Farther, it is to be observed, that we may omit nothing, but take notice of the uttermost of their strength, and the rather, because it will notably discover either their ignorance, or which is most likely, (for as much as they do not directly insist, as they might upon a new argument far more plausible with the ignorant) their unconscionableness. For they signify that hence it will come to pass, that the intention of salvation, being before the intention of finding of Christ to merit, salvation shall exist, being decreed as present to God, before Christ is considered as he that by his Cross hath deserved it. Now had they said before Christ hath deserved it, I should readily have granted it. For I hope none of them would deny, that the salvation of many a Prophet and Patriarch, existed not only before God, but actually and really before Christ was crucified. To prevent this elusion of their argument, they express it thus, Before Christ was considered as he that hath deserved it. Yet here they fall foul upon an indecent expression. For I will be bold to deny, that Christ was considered by God, as one that had deserved mans salvation, before he had deserved it. For before he had deserved it by his Cross, to say, that God considered him as one that had deserved it, is either to err or to feign, neither of which is incident unto God. God considered him from everlasting, as one that in the fullness of time should deserve it, by suffering upon the Cross, not as one that had deserved it. For to conceive him after the former manner, is to conceive aright, but to conceive him after the latter manner, is to conceive amiss. But I will take the pains to mend this argument for them thus. If their salvation were decreed before Christs merits, then their salvation did exist as present with God before Christs merits did exist, as present with God. But this is not to be admitted: Now I come to discover their ignorance, which they betray in this. First, neither Gods prescience, nor Gods decree doth make things to exist, otherwise then in Esse cognito & in esse velito; but this is not to exist. Therefore they qualify it by the addition of the manner, ut praesens Deo; which indeed is Terminus diminuens in this case. For it is present to God by virtue of his decree intentionally only, and not really, which alo•e is to exist. But let this Peccadillio pass.

Farther, it is to be observed, that we may omit nothing, but take notice of the uttermost of their strength, and the rather, because it will notably discover either their ignorance, or which is most likely, (for as much as they doe not directly insist, as they might upon a new argument farre more plausible with the ignorant) their unconscionablenesse. For they signify that hence it will come to passe, that the intention of salvation, being before the intention of finding of Christ to merit, salvation shall exist, being decreed as present to God, before Christ is considered as he that by his Crosse hath deserved it. Now had they said before Christ hath deserved it, I should readily have granted it. For I hope none of thē would deny, that the salvation of many a Prophet and Patriarch, existed not only before God, but actually and really before Christ was crucified. To prevent this elusion of their argument, they expresse it thus, Before Christ was considered as he that hath deserved it. Yet here they fall foule upon an indecent expression. For I will be bold to deny, that Christ was considered by God, as one that had deserved mans salvation, before he had deserved it. For before he had deserved it by his Crosse, to say, that God considered him as one that had deserved it, is either to erre or to feigne, neither of which is incident unto God. God considered him from everlasting, as one that in the fulnesse of time should deserve it, by suffering upon the Crosse, not as one that had deserved it. For to conceive him after the former manner, is to conceive aright, but to conceive him after the latter manner, is to conceive amisse. But I will take the pains to mend this argument for them thus. If their salvation were decreed before Christs merits, then their salvation did exist as present with God before Christs merits did exist, as present with God. But this is not to be admitted: Now I come to discover their ignorance, which they betray in this. First, neither Gods prescience, nor Gods decree doth make things to exist, otherwise then in Esse cognito & in esse velito; but this is not to exist. Therefore they qualify it by the addition of the manner, ut praesens Deo; which indeed is Terminus diminuens in this case. For it is present to God by vertue of his decree intentionally only, and not really, which aloe is to exist. But let this Peccadillio passe.

Secondly, Who seeth not that this argument tends to the utter destruction of all distinct intentions of end, and means in God? For if there be any such distinct intentions in God, the one must be acknowledged to be before the other. As for example, What was the end of creation? Lets go no farther then the manifestation of Gods power and wisdom as the end thereof. Now hence it will follow by the quaintness of this argumentation, that the manifestation of Gods wisdom and power in creating the world did exist, as present with God, before the creation. Is not here a proper argumentation. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici.

Secondly, Who seeth not that this argument tends to the utter destruction of all distinct intentions of end, and means in God? For if there be any such distinct intentions in God, the one must be acknowledged to be before the other. As for example, What was the end of creation? Lets goe no farther then the manifestation of Gods power and wisdome as the end thereof. Now hence it will follow by the quaintnesse of this argumentation, that the manifestation of Gods wisdome and power in creating the world did exist, as present with God, before the creation. Is not here a proper argumentation. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici.