A64002:136
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.
As for Zanchy; Peter Baro, that caused such perturbation in Cambridge about this very ⟨p. 13⟩argument, he denies this to have been the opinion of Zanchy, In summa trium de Praedestinatione sententiarum; his words are these, Altera sententia est Augustini, posterior etiam Sohnii Heydelbergensis Theologiae Professoris, & aliorum quorundam Protestantium, ut Zanchii, atquè etiam Bellarmini, qui omnes priorem illam improbant, in hoc inter se consentientes, ut sit praedestinatio ab Adami tantum lapsu accipienda.
As for Zanchy; Peter Baro, that caused such perturbation in Cambridge about this very ⟨p. 13⟩argument, he denyes this to have been the opinion of Zanchy, In summa trium de Praedestinatione sententiarum; his words are these, Altera sententia est Augustini, posterior etiam Sohnii Heydelbergensis Theologiae Professoris, & aliorum quorundam Protestantium, ut Zanchii, atquè etiam Bellarmini, qui omnes priorem illam improbant, in hoc inter se consentientes, ut sit praedestinatio ab Adami tantum lapsu accipienda.
And as touching Piscator, he handles the question about the object of Predestination in a small Treatise, annexed to an answer of his to Hemingius, De Universali Gratiâ; and inquires whether the object thereof be Humanum genus nondum conditum, or conditum, but nondum corruptum, or both conditum and corruptum; and his resolution is, that in the decree of Predestination, there is place for all these considerations, according to three several acts comprised therein, which I have formerly mentioned, and so draws into one all three opinions.
And as touching Piscator, he handles the question about the object of Predestination in a small Treatise, annexed to an answer of his to Hemingius, De Universali Gratiâ; and inquires whether the obiect thereof be Humanum genus nondum conditum, or conditum, but nondum corruptum, or both conditum and corruptum; and his resolution is, that in the decree of Predestination, there is place for all these considerations, according to three severall acts comprised therein, which I have formerly mentioned, and so drawes into one all three opinious.