A64002:1198
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.
1. Here is no such thing as this Author relates, that Hosuanus should say that man by Calvin and Austins opinion, is not dealt withal, secundum bona or mala opera, (and indeed this deciphering out of Austins and Calvins opinion, is notoriously untrue;) neither as touching occultiores causae, of mens eternal conditions, as indeed it is apparent, that in the way of a cause meritorious, there is no other cause of damnation then sin, and in the way of a disposing cause no other cause of salvation then faith, repentance, and good works; And as touching the efficient cause of both, none is or can be the cause thereof but God. But as touching the cause why God gives grace to one, and denies it to another, we willingly confess there is no cause thereof, but the mere good pleasure of God. In like sort, of absolute cast-aways here is no mention, no nor of Vas formatum ad ignominiam, nor any such saying of himself, that he was none of the worst.
1. Here is no such thing as this Author relates, that Hosuanus should say that man by Calvin and Austins opinion, is not dealt withall, secundum bona or mala opera, (and indeed this deciphering out of Austins and Calvins opinion, is notoriously untrue;) neither as touching occultiores causae, of mens eternall conditions, as indeed it is apparent, that in the way of a cause meritorious, there is no other cause of damnation then sinne, and in the way of a disposing cause no other cause of salvation then faith, repentance, and good workes; And as touching the efficient cause of both, none is or can be the cause thereof but God. But as touching the cause why God gives grace to one, and denyes it to another, wee willingly confesse there is no cause thereof, but the meere good pleasure of God. In like sort, of absolute cast-awayes here is no mention, no nor of Vas formatum ad ignominiam, nor any such saying of himselfe, that he was none of the worst.
2. Here is no mention made of the cause moving him hereunto, as this Author ⟨p. 262⟩pretends, but only 'tis said, that it proceeded of desperation. And though Major adds as a Coronis his censure, that, Hic est fructus perversae doctrinae de praedestinatione hominum; yet I hope his censure is no Oracle with us, no nor with Lutherans neither; for I find him branded by Osiander in his Ecclesiastical History. And though he were of Austins and Calvins opinion in this point of predestination, and did despair, yet it follows not, that this doctrine moved him to despair. Suppose the conceit of being a reprobate moved him hereunto; might it not move him hereunto according to the Arminian tenet, as well, and according to any tenet, provided they do not believe that God hath as yet decreed nothing, or if he hath, that his decrees may be recalled? And then again by our Doctrine of Predestination it cannot be concluded of any man that he is a reprobate while he lives. Nay, this seems contrary to his own opinion, which was this, that no man can know whether he be predestinate to life or death, till the hour of his death; and his death was not brought upon him, but wrought by him. And as it was in his power not to have killed himself, so was it in his power not to believe that he was a reprobate by this opinion of his. Then again, what moved him to conceive that he was a reprobate, is concealed all along. Now the conscience of sin committed against the Holy Ghost, may make a man conceive he is a reprobate, of what opinion so ever he be concerning reprobation. And as I take it, That famous Doctor of Germany, whom Goulartius mentioneth remaining then at Hall in Swabe, was no Calvinist; of whom he reports out of the History of Germany, That having oftentimes turned his Conscience, some times toward God, some times toward the World, having inclined in the end to the worser part, said and confessed publicly, that he was undone, and fell so deep into despair, as he could neither receive, nor take any comfort or consolation, so as in this miserable and wretched estate of his soul, he slew himself most miserably. It was not the doctrine of Predestination or Reprobation brought him unto this. And though a man hath not sinned against the holy Ghost, yet a conceit of such a sin may drive a man unto this;