A64002:1480
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.
M. Mason's Additions p. 18. 19. D. Twis: his Vindiciae l. 2. p. 1. Digres. 1.
M. Mason's Aditions p. 18. 19. D. Twis: his Vindiciae l. 2. p. 1. Digres. 1.
But it is replied by some (who will rather speak unreasonably and against common sense then lay down the conclusions which they have undertaken to maintain) that it is more eligible to be tortured in hell then to want or loose a being. For he that wants a being enjoyeth no good, but he that is tormented in hell, hath a being, and by consequent something that is good. If therefore God may take away a man's being that is innocent, and turn him into nothing for his pleasure, much more may he torment him in hell.
But it is replyed by some (who will rather speak unreasonably and against common sense then lay down the conclusions which they have undertaken to maintain) that it is more elegible to be tortured in hell then to want or loose a being. For he that wants a being enjoyeth no good, but he that is tormented in hell, hath a being, and by consequent something that is good. If therefore God may take away a man's being that is innocent, and turne him into nothing for his pleasure, much more may he torment him in hell.
I am glad to see my name so often remembered by this Author in his margin; for a long time I desired to know his way by certain evidence; for I would not suffer my self 1to be carried away with rumours; and withal I found some contradiction in the relations I received from different persons, but at length I was so happy as to see it under his own hand, and there to observe not his judgment only, but the strength of his affections also. Now let the Reader observe the cunning carriage of this Author, and how far off it is from all ingenuity. For what I discourse, being drawn thereunto by Arminius his excursions, that this Author obtrudes upon me, as if the defence of the cause I took in hand had drawn me thereunto, notwithstanding that I have professed the contrary. For thus I write l. 1. pag. 1. De electione Sect: 4. pag. 127. In the canvasing of this section Arminius runs out at large, saving that most of these things which here he heaps up are aliena, and nothing pertinent to the present purpose; as pertaining rather to the decree of reprobation, then to the decree of election. And a little after I write thus; Hence it is that Arminius expatiates and transfers his disputation from the point of election, to the point of Reprobation too unseasonably: Yet wisely affecting the incolumity of his wavering cause. By that right (saith he) which God hath over his creature, he cannot ordain any man to the suffering of pain without the foresight of sin. To wit that his cause might stand upright, and that this examiner might omit nothing that tends to the making of his opinion plausible with his propitious reader, it was needful that he should make use of some such transition, though never so unreasonable but seeing such are the wiles and artifices of our Adversaries to confound all Scholastical method, it shall not be unseasonable for me to weigh what he delivers as briefly as I can. Therefore after I had refused Arminius on that point, where he denies, that God can do that injustice, which he can do by power; after this manner I enter upon a new digression concerning this point. Hitherto have I followed Arminius in his extravagants. For M. Perkins hath not proceeded so far;