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…

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