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…

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