A64002:1152
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…
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessels of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entitled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two books, the first being a refutation of the said book, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hord's discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceals his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twice ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twice from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeans ...The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...
Oxford: printed by L.L. and H.H. for Tho. Robinson, 1653
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.
now I pray consider whose doctrine savoureth of greater holiness in acknowledging the sovereignty of God over his creatures, theirs or ours? But it will not be labour lost altogether to consider those causes whereunto he is pleased to impute that Godliness, which is found in us. The first is Gods providence; and indeed I find them liberal enough in acknowledging Gods providence in general terms, and as forward to blast it when they come to particulars. Now as for that providence which is the cause of Godliness, we like plain fellows commonly call it grace, and the ground of this Authors subtlety in calling it providence and not grace, I comprehend not. But what is that operation of providence divine or grace which is the cause of Godliness? Is it any other in his opinion then that universal grace whereby they have power to be Godly and which grace God affords unto Reprobates, and that exciting grace whereby God persuades them to be Godly, and his readiness to concur to any act of Godliness in case we will: and is not all this afforded (in his opinion) to Reprobates as well as to the elect, to them that have no Godliness at all in them, as to them that have? And why may not this doctrine of ours whereby we maintain, that God works in us both the will and the deed according to his good pleasure, be a means to make us set our selves to the working out of our Salvation with fear and trembling, considering that the Apostle professeth this doctrine of Gods energetical operation of every good thing in us as a strong inducement to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling; and wherein consists ⟨p. 249⟩any mans Godliness if not in this, to wit, in working out his Salvation with fear and trembling? And is it not apparent that we maintain this doctrine. namely, that God is he who works in us both the will and the deed, and every good thing, and that according to his good pleasure in far more undoubted manner then they do. And how can it appear that they do acknowledge this? To give us power to will that which i good (which is the effect of that universal grace they talk of) is this to work in us either the will or the deed? To excite us by persuasion and exhortation to will & do that which is good, to believe and to repent, is to work either in us the will or deed of that which is good, of faith of repentance?
now I pray consider whose doctrine savoreth of greater holinesse in acknowledging the soveraignty of God over his creatures, theirs or ours? But it will not be labour lost altogether to consider those causes whereunto he is pleased to impute that Godlinesse, which is found in us. The first is Gods providence; and indeed I find them liberall enough in acknowledging Gods providence in generall termes, and as forward to blast it when they come to particulars. Now as for that providence which is the cause of Godlinesse, we like plaine fellowes comonly call it grace, and the ground of this Authors subtility in calling it providence and not grace, I comprehend not. But what is that operation of providence divine or grace which is the cause of Godlinesse? Is it any other in his opinion then that universall grace whereby they have power to be Godly and which grace God affords unto Reprobates, and that exciting grace whereby God perswades them to be Godly, and his readinesse to concurre to any act of Godlinesse in case we will: and is not all this afforded (in his opinion) to Reprobates as well as to the elect, to them that have no Godlinesse at all in them, as to them that have? And why may not this doctrine of ours whereby we maintaine, that God workes in us both the will and the deed according to his goodpleasure, be a meanes to make us set our selves to the working out of our Salvation with feare and trembling, considering that the Apostle professeth this doctrine of Gods energeticall operation of every good thing in us as a strong inducement to worke out our Salvation with feare and trembling; and wherein consists