A64002:1450
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.
We come to his reason which he calls sound, saying that it cannot but argue such a decree of extreme cruelty. But what decree? of that whereby he hath decreed to damn all that continue in sin without repentance? For to none other hath God decreed damnation in the opinion of any of our divines. But that which he commends as sound let us examine. We cannot in reason think, saith he, that any man in the world can so far put off humanity and nature as to resolve with himself to marry & beget Children, that after they are borne and have lived a while with him, he may hang them up by the tongues, tear their flesh with scourges, pull it from their bones with burning pincers, or put them to any cruel tortures, that by thus torturing them, he may show what his authority and power is over them. Much less can we believe that God should ordain infinite multitudes of his Children to everlasting fire. Is it credible that this Author himself doth not believe that very doctrine which here he impugneth Doth he not believe that God hath ordained infinite multitudes of those whom he calls Gods Children to everlasting fire? doth he not I say believe this as well as we? Doth he not believe that whosoever dyeth in sin without repentance shall be damned? doth he not believe that God of his mere pleasure hath made such a decree? It is incredible he should not be of the same faith in this. Are not all Gods ordinances made of his mere pleasure? could he not both ordain and execute the annihilation of sinners if it pleased him? and that either immediately upon the committing of sin, or after some certain years enduring the punishment of hell fire. And as for hell fire it self, could not he qualify or increase the tormenting nature thereof as he should think good? All this I nothing doubt but he believes, unless with Origen and the Jews, he be of opinion that the fire ⟨p. 29⟩provided for the devil and his angels is not everlasting: what madness then, what frenzy possesseth him so to dispute against us, as to dispute against himself? Undoubtedly this Author would have his Reader so propitious unto him, as to understand and interpret him beyond that which his own words do import; as namely thus, That God hath not only of his absolute pleasure made such an ordinance, that all who dye in sin without repentance shall be damned; but rather thus;
We come to his reason which he calls soūd, saying that it cannot but argue such a decree of extreame cruelty. But what decree? of that wherby he hath decreed to damne all that continue in sinne without repentance? For to none other hath God decreed dānation in the opinion of any of our divines. But that which he cōmends as sound let us examine. We cannot in reason think, sayth he, that any man in the world can so far put off humanity and nature as to resolve with himselfe to marry & beget Children, that after they are borne and have lived a while with him, he may hang them up by the tongues, teare their flesh with scourges, pull it from their bones with burning pincers, or put them to any cruell tortures, that by thus torturing them, he may shew what his autority and power is over thē. Much lesse can we beleive that God should ordaine infinite multitudes of his Children to everlasting fire. Is it credible that this Authour himselfe doth not believe that very doctrine which here he impugneth Doth he not believe that God hath ordained infinite multitudes of those whō he calls Gods Childrē to everlasting fire? doth he not I say believe this as well as we? Doth he not believe that whosoever dyeth in sinne without repentance shall be damned? doth he not believe that God of his mere pleasure hath made such a decree? It is increedible he should not be of the same faith in this. Are not all Gods ordinances made of his mere pleasure? could he not both ordaine and execute the annihilation of sinners if it pleased him? and that either immediatly upon the committing of sinne, or after some certaine yeares enduring the punishment of hell fire. And as for hell fire it selfe, could not he qualifie or increase the tormenting nature thereof as he should thinke good? All this I nothing doubt but he believes, unlesse with Origen and the Jewes, he be of opinion that the fire