A64002:147
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.
The first is his dealing with Drusus and Nero, the two sons of Germanicus, these varia fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia & concitati perderentur, he used cunning contrivances to draw them to reproach him, that so he might cover his cruelty in their death, under a pretext of justice. What these cunning contrivances are, it is specified by Suetonius; but I hope this Author will acknowledge, that it stands him upon, to represent what those cunning contrivances are, which our doctrine imputes unto God, to draw them to sin against God. Our Divines commonly teach, that God as he is able to keep any man from sin (as he did the Angels that stood, when their fellows became Apostates, the cause whereof Austin resolves into amplius Adjutorium given by God, either in their creation or after: De Civit. Dei. lib. 12. cap. 9. Isti aut minorem acceperunt amoris divini gratiam quam illi qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utriquè boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala voluntate cadentibus, illi amplius adjuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem, unde see nunquàm casuros certissimi fierent, pervenerunt,) so likewise that Gods permission is enough to prostitute any man unto sin. And not our Divines only, but Arminius also and others. Arminius Exam. pag. 152. Quoties voluntas permittitur a Deo ut faciat aliquid, necesse est ut nullo argumentorum genere persuadeatur ad nolendum, secùs permissio non fieret. And Pag. 157. thus he defines the permission of sin, Permissio peccati est suspensio omnium impedimentorum quibus positis peccatum non fieret. Now let any sober man judge, whether herehence it it followeth not necessarily necessitate consequenti• & suppositionis, that sin shall be, to wit, upon the removing of all those impediments upon the position whereof sin could not be; considering that an impediment of sin in this case and in Arminius his phrase is every thing quo posito peccatum non fuerit. Vorstius in like manner, in Amicitia duplication Pag. 213. Fateor quidem permission jam positâ in actu necessariò etiam poni rem aliquam permittendam, idque ob necessariam talium relatorum ad se invicem habitudinem, atque in arguendo mutuam quandam [Greek or Hebrew] quae ferre non potest ut unum sine altero reipsâ sit, nedum ut alterum extra see quidquam verè agat, altero ne quidem adhuc existent, nedum verè patient, aut contra. Navarettus in 1. Quest.
The first is his dealing with Drusus and Nero, the two sonnes of Germanicus, these varia fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia & concitati perderentur, he used cunning contrivances to draw them to reproach him, that so he might cover his cruelty in their death, under a pretext of justice. What these cunning contrivances are, it is specified by Suetonius; but I hope this Author will acknowledge, that it stands him upon, to represent what those cunning contrivances are, which our doctrine imputes unto God, to draw them to sinne against God. Our Divines commonly teach, that God as he is able to keep any man from sinne (as he did the Angells that stood, when their fellowes became Apostates, the cause whereof Austin resolves into amplius Adjutorium given by God, either in their creation or after: De Civit. Dei. lib. 12. cap. 9. Isti aut minorem acceperunt amoris divini gratiam quam illi qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utriquè boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala voluntate cadentibus, illi amplius adjuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem, unde se nunquàm casuros certissimi fierent, pervenerunt,) so likewise that Gods permission is enough to prostitute any man unto sinne. And not our Divines only, but Arminius also and others. Arminius Exam. pag. 152. Quoties voluntas permittitur a Deo ut faciat aliquid, necesse est ut nullo argumentorum genere persuadeatur ad nolendum, secùs permissio non fieret. And Pag. 157. thus he defines the permission of sinne, Permissio peccati est suspensio omnium impedimentorum quibus positis peccatum non fieret. Now let any sober man judge, whether herehence it it followeth not necessarily necessitate consequenti & suppositionis, that sinne shall be, to wit, upon the removing of all those impediments upon the position whereof sinne could not be; considering that an impediment of sinne in this case and in Arminius his phrase is every thing quo posito peccatum non fuerit. Vorstius in like manner, in Amicitia duplicatione Pag. 213. Fateor quidem permissione jam positâ in actu necessariò etiam poni rem aliquam permittendam, idque ob necessariam talium relatorum ad se invicem habitudinem, atque in arguendo mutuam quandam quae ferre non potest ut unum sine altero reipsâ sit, nedum ut alterum extra se quidquam verè agat, altero ne quidem adhuc existente, nedum verè patiente, aut contra. Navarettus in 1. Quest.