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…

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.

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.

Thirdly, to draw nearer to the discovery of their ignorance. I grant it shall first exist; but how? Not in duration; We acknowledge no such priority in God, between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means; though such a priority in this case is found in man. What then? Isle tell you: They commonly call it a priority of nature. But take heed you do not apply it to any of the two kinds of priority of nature mentioned by Aristotle. For try if you please, and you shall find that none of them can possibly serve the turn; What then is this priority of nature so called? I answer, it is only Prioritas rationis: And so I formerly said, that the intention of the end is in signo rationis, before the intention of the means. You may farther demand, Wherein doth this Prioritas rationis consist? I answer out of Durand, it consists in this, that, Ratio unius petitur a ratione alterius, and so indeed, Ratio mediorum petitur a ratione finis. This generally holds of the intention of end, and means, as well in God, as in the creature. For always the nature of the end duly considered, doth bespeak what shall be the condition of the means. So that this makes no priority of existence at all, neither in duration nor in nature properly so called, but only such a subordination between them, that the reason of the one, that is, the nature or condition of the one, depends upon the nature and condition of the other. Now let any ⟨p. 68⟩sober man judge, Whether the salvation of man be required to the procuring of Christs merits, and not rather, Christs merits are required to the procuring of mans salvation; which yet is not true of salvation considered simply, but only as to be bestowed after a certain manner, to wit, in the way of justice, and by way of satisfaction made for sin, that so a man may be saved by grace in despite of sin. In the close of all they signify that this of theirs in the last place seriously considered will make it appear, that this doctrine of their Adversaries, tends notably to the diminution of Christs honour, and to the annihilation of Christs merits, to wit, unless Christs merits be acknowledged the end of mans salvation, and not mans salvation the end of Christs merits, Christ shall be dishonoured, and his merits annihilated.

Thirdly, to draw neerer to the discovery of their ignorance. I grant it shall first exist; but how? Not in duration; We acknowledge no such priority in God, between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means; though such a priority in this case is found in man. What then? Ile tell you: They commonly call it a priority of nature. But take heed you doe not apply it to any of the two kindes of priority of nature mentioned by Aristotle. For try if you please, and you shall find that none of them can possibly serve the turne; What then is this priority of nature so called? I answer, it is only Prioritas rationis: And so I formerly said, that the intention of the end is in signo rationis, before the intention of the means. You may farther demand, Wherein doth this Prioritas rationis consist? I answer out of Durand, it consists in this, that, Ratio unius petitur a ratione alterius, and so indeed, Ratio mediorum petitur a ratione finis. This generally holds of the intention of end, and means, as well in God, as in the creature. For alwaies the nature of the end duely considered, doth bespeak what shall be the condition of the means. So that this makes no priority of existence at all, neither in duration nor in nature properly so called, but only such a subordination between them, that the reason of the one, that is, the nature or condition of the one, depends upon the nature and condition of the other. Now let any

Here they are quite out of breath, and that which is wanting, they leave to be supplied by the serious (they should say ignorant) consideration of their Proselytes. They presume this colour of dishonour redounding hereby to Christ, will be sufficient to blow up their Adversaries, though it prove of no more force then a squib. This carriage of theirs calls to my remembrance, a mad prank plaid by the English at Delft, while they were billeted there, which was told me merrily, by one of the number. One of the Soldiers was billeted in an old Widows house, and another being a Goldsmith, told him and another consort of theirs, he had a devise to put money in all their purses, for he knew how to make a Rex-dollar of three-pence silver, and in that Widows house they would ply their business very securely. To work they went, and casting plates of Tin to the quantity of one of those Dollars, and stamping them full and fair, this Gold-smith, with the quantity of three pence silver, silvered them over very fairly, and, least they should seem too light, hangs them up in the chimney in a bag, that the smoke might bring them to the sadder hew. Thus having met with a mine of Silver in their lodging, one is employed as a Merchant-man to go to the Staple of Cloth, and he lays out their coin in cloth, whereof afterwards they made good silver indeed: at length one of them paying a debt of his to a Dutchman in Delft, in one of these Rex-dollars, he found the Dutch to betray some suspicious gestures and interpretations upon the coin. That was a fair warning to an intelligent man of arms; and hereupon they get them packing ing away with all speed; and home they come, and make themselves merry with the relation. In like sort these Remonstrants show a great deal of Tin and trash in these argumentations, and they have not so much as three pence silver to colour it therewithal to cheat the World, if they will be cheated. But they hope the colour of some dishonour by their adversaries doctrine redounding unto Christ, will be taken for a piece at least of good silver. I confess, I am somewhat the more merrily disposed at this time, For being taken off from the midst of a sentence, by the courteous invitation of a Gentleman, to come unto him to his Inn: He was pleased to entertain me with such good discourse, that it did not a little refresh my spirits.

Here they are quite out of breath, and that which is wanting, they leave to be supplied by the serious (they should say ignorant) consideration of their Proselites. They presume this colour of dishonour redounding hereby to Christ, will be sufficient to blow up their Adversaries, though it prove of no more force then a squibbe. This carriage of theirs calls to my remembrance, a mad prank plaid by the English at Delfe, while they were billeted there, which was told me merrily, by one of the number. One of the Souldiers was billeted in an old Widdowes house, and another being a Goldsmith, told him and another consort of theirs, he had a devise to put mony in all their purses, for he knew how to make a Rex-dolar of three-pence sylver, and in that Widdowes house they would ply their businesse very securely. To work they went, and casting plates of Tinne to the quantity of one of those Dolars, and stamping them full and faire, this Gold-smith, with the quantity of three pence silver, sylvered them over very fairely, and, least they should seem too light, hangs them up in the chimny in a bagge, that the smoak might bring them to the sadder hew. Thus having met with a mine of Sylver in their lodging, one is imployed as a Merchant-man to goe to the Staple of Cloth, and he laies out their coyne in cloth, whereof afterwards they made good silver indeed: at length one of them paying a debt of his to a Dutchman in Delfe, in one of these Rex-dolars, he found the Dutch to betray some suspicious gestures and interpretations upon the coyne. That was a faire warning to an intelligent man of armes; and hereupon they get them packing ing away with all speed; and home they come, and make themselves merry with the relation. In like sort these Remonstrants shew a great deale of Tinne and trash in these argumentations, and they have not so much as three pence silver to colour it therewithall to cheat the World, if they will be cheated. But they hope the colour of some dishonour by their adversaries doctrine redounding unto Christ, will be taken for a peece at least of good silver. I confesse, I am somewhat the more merrily disposed at this time, For being taken off from the midst of a sentence, by the courteous invitation of a Gentleman, to come unto him to his Inne: He was pleased to entertaine me with such good discourse, that it did not a little refresh my spirits.

His reaches were after new discoveries for the advancement of learning; and endoctrinated me more in one half hour, then seventeen years study in the University. For whereas I never learned there, more causes then four, he was pleased to acquaint me with nine; which I took some pains to learn without book, and they were these, Matter, Form, Workman, Will, Power, Time, Finding out, Accident, End. And most courteously offered himself to enlarge on every one of them; but having left off at a broken sentence, I was desirous to return to my studies Theological, and to let those Philosophical progresses alone. But I protested unto him seriously, that he had informed me more in the number of causes in a short space, then Oxford had done in many years; he entreated I would consider of them, and I promised I would, and confer of them too, with all the Scholars I companied with; which he took in very goo part; and so I took my leave. And finding my spirit not a little elevated with this recreation, I resolved, forbearing my usual time of supper, to follow these studies close that night, which truly fell out very happily. For one of those causes being found out, otherwise called, Invention (as for Judgement, I do not remember that it was admitted into the number) I made use of it very happily in finding out, or discovery of the foppery of these Remonstranticall argumentations.

His reaches were after new discoveries for the advancement of learning; and endoctrinated me more in one halfe hower, then seventeen years study in the University. For whereas I never learned there, more causes then foure, he was pleased to acquaint me with nine; which I took some pains to learn without book, and they were these, Matter, Forme, Workman, Will, Power, Time, Finding out, Accident, End. And most courteously offered himselfe to enlarge on every one of them; but having left off at a broken sentence, I was desirous to return to my studies Theologicall, and to let those Philosophicall progresses alone. But I protested unto him seriously, that he had informed me more in the number of causes in a short space, then Oxford had done in many years; he entreated I would consider of them, and I promised I would, and conferre of them too, with all the Schollers I companied with; which he took in very goo part; and so I took my leave. And finding my spirit not a little elevated with this recreation, I resolved, forbearing my usuall time of supper, to follow these studies close that night, which truly fell out very happily. For one of those causes being found out, otherwise called, Invention (as for Judgement, I doe not remember that it was admitted into the number) I made use of it very happily in finding out, or discovery of the foppery of these Remonstranticall argumentations.

Now I proceed to the second Question, as more seasonable to the present occasion. And here first they begin with their former artifice, making infidelity on the part of reprobation, answerable to faith on the part of election, which is most untrue, as formerly I showed: Only the not curing of infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by ⟨p. 69⟩us subordinate to reprobation; as the curing of natural infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by us subordinate to election. But they go on, as in shaping our Tenet at pleasure, so in basting it with their very liberal censures, as absurd and execrable, in such sort, as the bare commemoration of it, they take to be sufficient to represent the horror of it, and to confute it, and this they commit to the judgement of all the faithful of Christ. And indeed their best strength lieth in setting forth their Adversaries doctrine in such colours, as the Devil is painted with. And in this particular, they conceive good hope (no doubt) that propitious Readers will conceive hereby, that the infidelity of man is made by their Adversaries the work of God, as well as Faith; Whereas it is well known, that there is so little need of working men to infidelity, that all being borne in sin, and corrupted and estranged from the life of God, through the fall of Adam, infidelity is as natural and hereditary to a man, as any other corruption. And it is as well known and undeniable, that none can cure it but God, by faith; but this he cures in whom he will, by giving Faith to whom he will, and if he refuse to cure it in any, that, and that alone is enough to make him a vessel of wrath, that so Gods glory may be manifested upon him, in the way of justice vindicative. But come we to their Arguments.

Now I proceed to the second Question, as more seasonable to the present occasion. And here first they begin with their former artifice, making infidelity on the part of reprobation, answerable to faith on the part of election, which is most untrue, as formerly I shewed: Only the not curing of infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by ⟨p. 69⟩us subordinate to reprobation; as the curing of naturall infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by us subordinate to election. But they goe on, as in shaping our Tenent at pleasure, so in basting it with their very liberall censures, as absurd and execrable, in such sort, as the bare commemoration of it, they take to be sufficient to represent the horrour of it, and to confute it, and this they commit to the judgement of all the faithfull of Christ. And indeed their best strength lyeth in setting forth their Adversaries doctrine in such colours, as the Devill is painted with. And in this particular, they conceive good hope (no doubt) that propitious Readers will conceive hereby, that the infidelity of man is made by their Adversaries the work of God, as well as Faith; Whereas it is well known, that there is so little need of working men to infidelity, that all being borne in sinne, and corrupted and estranged from the life of God, through the fall of Adam, infidelity is as naturall and hereditary to a man, as any other corruption. And it is as well known and undeniable, that none can cure it but God, by faith; but this he cures in whom he will, by giving Faith to whom he will, and if he refuse to cure it in any, that, and that alone is enough to make him a vessell of wrath, that so Gods glory may be manifested upon him, in the way of justice vindicative. But come we to their Arguments.

1. The first is this. If Infidelity followeth Reprobation unto destruction, then God cannot in justice destroy Reprobates for their infidelity. For there is no greater injustice, then to destroy a man for that, that followeth necessarily upon reprobation which is the work of God. To this I answer.

1. According to mine ordering the decrees divine. Secondly, according to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenet in ordering them.

1. According to mine ordering the decrees divine. Secondly, according to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenent in ordering them.

1. According to my ordering of the decrees divine; In no moment of nature or reason is the decree of damnation precedent to the decree of permitting infidelity, or leaving the infidelity of some men uncured, to wit, by denying them faith, by denying the grace of regeneration. But the decrees of creating all in Adam, of permitting all to fall in Adam, in bringing all men forth into the World in the state of Original sin, of leaving this original sin uncured in them, and last of all, of damning them for their sins; are decrees not subordinate, but coordinate, as decrees de Mediis, tending jointly to one supreme end, which is the manifestation of Gods glory upon them in the way of justice vindicative; as also to show the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, whom he hath prepared unto glory, to wit, by beholding ¹in others that miserable condition, which through Gods mere grace and goodness they have escaped.

1. According to my ordering of the decrees divine; In no moment of nature or reason is the decree of damnation precedent to the decree of permitting infidelity, or leaving the infidelity of some men uncured, to wit, by denying them faith, by denying the grace of regeneration. But the decrees of creating all in Adam, of permitting all to fall in Adam, in bringing all men forth into the World in the state of Originall sinne, of leaving this originall sinne uncured in them, and last of all, of damning them for their sinnes; are decrees not subordinate, but coördinate, as decrees de Mediis, tending joyntly to one supream end, which is the manifestation of Gods glory upon them in the way of justice vindicative; as also to shew the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, whom he hath prepared unto glory, to wit, by beholding ¹in others that miserable condition, which through Gods meer grace and goodnesse they have escaped.

1. 1Rom. 9. 22.