A64002:1460
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.
To appoint to hell, what is it but to appoint to the sufferings of the torments of hell? Now doth any of our Divines maintain that God appoints any man to the suffering of hell torments of his mere pleasure, and not for sin? They do not, and therefore this Authors discourse depends upon a mere fiction devised in his own brain. 2. The distinction which here he makes is the distinction of Arminius, who maintained that God can do that per potentiam, by power, which he cannot do per justitiam, by justice, which I have disproved at large in a peculiar digression on this argument in my Vindiciae; and not one of my reasons there brought doth this Author once offer to answer. And 1this opinion of his doth manifestly imply that God hath a power to do that which is unjust. 3. He supposeth very judiciously to his own advantage, that there is a justice in God towards his creature secluding the ordinance of his will; whereas both Suarez and Vasquez opposite in other particulars concerning God's justice, do yet agree in this, that there is no justice in God towards his creature, but upon supposition of his will and 2ordinance as I have showed. 4. He may as well say that it is not compatible with the justice of God to punish (as it signifies to inflict pain on) him who is holy. For justice is as well opposite to the punishing of an Innocent, as to the punishing of him in such a degree. And consequently God cannot in justice put an holy man to death, much less annihilate him; which if he saith, he shall contradict Arminius. 5. If it be not compatible with God's justice to inflict hell pains on any man, no fault of his preexisting in the eternal mind, then either Christ suffered not the pains of hell, or was not without fault; or lastly God was unjust in inflicting those pains upon him. 6. In the last place observe, for all this he gives us nothing but his bare word. So that if we give him leave he is like enough to dictate unto us Articles of belief at his pleasure.
To appoint to hell, what is it but to appoint to the sufferings of the torments of hell? Now doth any of our Divines maintaine that God appoints any man to the suffering of hell torments of his mere pleasure, and not for sinne? They doe not, and therefore this Authours discourse depends upon a mere fiction devised in his own brain. 2. The distinction which here he makes is the distinction of Arminius, who maintained that God can doe that per potentiam, by power, which he cannot doe per justitiam, by justice, which I have disproved at large in a peculiar digression on this argument in my Vindiciae; and not one of my reasons there brought doth this Authour once offer to answer. And