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…

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.