Therefore they profess plainly, that God did not only not purpose to give Judas glory, but he did purpose to deny him glory, that is, ordain that he should be without glory: Secondly, that he did not only not purpose to give him grace, but also did purpose to deny him grace, or ordain, that he should be without grace, at least without such grace as should bring him to salvation. And indeed if God doth purpose that Judas shall exist in the corrupt mass, and withal doth not purpose to give him grace and glory, doth it not manifestly follow, that he shall exist without grace and glory? for how shall he come by glory or grace, if not from God? Or how shall God deny him one or other, but according to the Counsel of his will, seeing he works all things according to the counsel of his will? Therefore God did not only not purpose that he should have grace and glory, but did positively purpose that he should be without both: and it is Bradwardins opinion, that no pure negative act can be attributed unto God, but such as is equivalently resolved into an act positive, thus, If Deus non volebat gloriam Judae, then Deus volebat illi non glorium; that is, that he should not have glory, so of grace, so of existencie; if God did not will the existency of more Angels then are, it follows that God did will that more Angels then are should not exist; and that this positive act doth better become the nature of God, then the former negative, by reason of his most perfect actuality. And as ⟨p. 45⟩for the purpose of forsaking the creature, and excluding it from glory; that is no other then Gods purpose not to give certain creatures any such grace, as whereby they shall be brought to glory: And seeing this is acknowledged by you, I see no cause why you should stick in acknowledging a purpose of God to forsake some creatures, and exclude them from glory. It is pity, that the prejudice of phrases, whereby it is expressed, should strangle any doctrine, when there lies no just exception against it, as untrue in the substance thereof. When you confess, that God did not so love the world, as the elect (which is no more, then to acknowledge a non-election of some) if you expound it in reference unto his purpose of not giving grace and glory unto them, as to the elect; Aquinas himself acknowledgeth, that odisse in Scripture phrase is no other then non velle alicui gratiam & gloriam.
Therefore they professe plainly, that God did not only not purpose to give Judas glory, but he did purpose to deny him glory, that is, ordaine that he should be without glory: Secondly, that he did not only not purpose to give him grace, but also did purpose to deny him grace, or ordaine, that he should be without grace, at least without such grace as should bring him to salvation. And indeed if God doth purpose that Judas shall exist in the corrupt masse, and withall doth not purpose to give him grace and glory, doth it not manifestly follow, that he shall exist without grace and glory? for how shall he come by glory or grace, if not from God? Or how shall God deny him one or other, but according to the Counsell of his will, seeing he workes all things according to the counsell of his will? Therefore God did not only not purpose that he should have grace and glory, but did positively purpose that he should be without both: and it is Bradwardins opinion, that no pure negative act can be attributed unto God, but such as is aequivalently resolved into an act positive, thus, If Deus non volebat gloriam Judae, then Deus volebat illi non glorium; that is, that he should not have glory, so of grace, so of existencie; if God did not will the existency of more Angels then are, it followes that God did will that more Angels then are should not exist; and that this positive act doth better become the nature of God, then the former negative, by reason of his most perfect actuality. And as ⟨p. 45⟩for the purpose of forsaking the creature, and excluding it from glory; that is no other then Gods purpose not to give certaine creatures any such grace, as whereby they shall be brought to glory: And seeing this is acknowledged by you, I see no cause why you should stick in acknowledging a purpose of God to forsake some creatures, and exclude them from glory. It is pity, that the prejudice of phrases, whereby it is expressed, should strangle any doctrine, when there lyes no just exception against it, as untrue in the substance thereof. When you confesse, that God did not so love the world, as the elect (which is no more, then to acknowledge a non-election of some) if you expound it in reference unto his purpose of not giving grace and glory unto them, as to the elect; Aquinas himselfe acknowledgeth, that odisse in Scripture phrase is no other then non velle alicui gratiam & gloriam.
