A26935:18
Gods goodness vindicated for the help of such (especially in melancholy) as are tempted…
Gods goodness vindicated for the help of such (especially in melancholy) as are tempted to deny it, and think him cruel, because of the present and future misery of mankind, with respect to the doctrine of reprobation and damnation / by Richard Baxter ... ; published and prefaced by a friend at whose desire it was written, and to whom it was committed.
London: printed for N. Simmons, 1671
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Quest. 5. Must not God necessarily excel his works? must he needs make every worm a God? or must he make any God, or equal to himself? Is not that a contradiction? And is there not necessarily an Imperfection in all that is not God? Nothing can be so great, so wise, so good, so holy, so immutable, so self-sufficient, so blessed, as God.
Quest. 5. Must not God necessarily excell his works? must he needs make every worm a God? or must he make any God, or equal to himself? Is not that a contradiction? And is there not necessarily an Imperfection in all that is not God? Nothing can be so great, so wise, so good, so holy, so immutable, so self-sufficient, so blessed, as God.
Quest. 6. Is not Gods Creation a harmonious Universe, of which Individuals are but the parts: Are not the ⟨p. 16⟩Parts for the whole, and their worth to be valued for the whole, or for the common ends; must every pin in a Watch or every stitch in your Garment or every part of your house, or every member of your Body and every humour or excrement in it, have that excellency which may simply dignify it self in a compared or separated sense? or rather must it not have that excellency with belongeth to it as a part of the whole, for the common end of all together? Is not that best, that is best to the order, beauty, and usefulness of the universal frame?
Quest. 6. Is not Gods Creation a harmonious Ʋniverse, of which Individuals are but the parts: Are not the ⟨p. 16⟩Parts for the whole, and their worth to be valued for the whole, or for the common ends; must every pin in a Watch or every stitch in your Garment or every part of your house, or every member of your Body and every humour or excrement in it, have that excellency which may simply dignifie it self in a compared or separated sense? or rather must it not have that excellency with belongeth to it as a part of the whole, for the common end of all together? Is not that best, that is best to the order, beauty, and usefulness of the universal frame?