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…

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;