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…

As for the out-rage executed upon Mauricius by Phocas, this was no less then abominable villainy, as committed by him. Yet if God used him as an instrument herein, to execute his judgement, then God by the sinful act of one, can and doth punish the same of another, and consequently God must be the Author of that sinful act, whereby he punisheth another, and that by Arminius his rule, which is this, Omnis paena non permittitur sed infligitur a Deo, & habet Deum authorem. Now I come to consider his accommodation of so impertinent a discourse. He saith absolute reprobation cannot be reconciled with this justice Divine: we say there is no need at all of reconcilement: for what an insipid thing is it, to talk of a course of reconciling them, who were never at odds? But he takes upon him to prove the repugnancy between them by three reasons.

As for the out-rage executed upon Mauricius by Phocas, this was no lesse then abominable villany, as committed by him. Yet if God used him as an instrument herein, to execute his iudgement, then God by the sinfull act of one, can and doth punish the same of another, and consequently God must be the Author of that sinfull act, whereby he punisheth another, and that by Arminius his rule, which is this, Omnis paena non permittitur sed infligitur a Deo, & habet Deum authorem. Now I come to consider his accommodation of so impertinent a discourse. He saith absolute reprobation cannot be reconciled with this justice Divine: we say there is no need at all of reconcilement: for what an insipid thing is it, to talke of a course of reconciling them, who were never at odds? But he takes upon him to prove the repugnancy between them by three reasons.

1. The first whereof is this. It makes God to punish the righteous with the wicked, as it is taught the Supralapsarian way directly. I confess here is a direct somewhat, but whether a direct truth, or a direct lye, let the indifferent judge. He adventureth the proof of it thus: The Supralapsarians present man in his decree of Reprobation considered without sin: that is true I confess, and it is as true that they present him considered without righteousness also; and for good reason, because Gods decree was eternal, and the creature at that time had no being & to consider a thing that hath no being, as having being, is not so much considerare, to consider, as errare or finger, to err or feign, this I have delivered in my Vindiciae gratiae Dei, and that in the first part of the first book. And this Author pretends he hath read the second, yet he takes no course to refute this or ought else. But let him go on. God (he saith) is made by them to determine the infliction of misery on men without consideration of sin, either Original or actual. First, let it be granted, yet herehence it followeth not, that he is made to be a destroyer of the righteous, or to punish the righteous with the wicked, which was that he affirmed. To determine punishment is one thing, to punish is another thing. Certainly in the opinion of those he speaks of, God punisheth none but the wicked; the very conscience of this Author cannot but convict him of falsehood in this crimination: For certainly by their opinion it doth