A64002:1483
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 to affirm that God hath power to afflict an innocent creature, neither hath his Adversaries objected any such thing unto him, as justly inferred from ought delivered by him. So that all such have well hardened their foreheads, who feign that our opinion cannot well subsist without the help of so horrid and so harsh an assertion, to wit, That it is better to be miserable, then not to be at all. It is true, some may conceive that though this were a truth, it were to be suppressed, rather then affirmed by reason of the harshness of it. Let every one consider aright that I undertake the defence of M. Perkins, and it is he that hath uttered this harsh assertion, (namely, That God can inflict hell pains without any demerit in the creature) out of Cameracensis: And it stood me upon to defend M. Perkins so far as I had reason for it. Now finding the main argument whereby Arminius maintains the contrary (to that other, yet more harsh proposition) to be most unsound; and even this assertion which sounds most harsh in the ears of many, not only to be maintained by Austin himself and and divers School-Divines, but answered by many arguments, the solution whereof was never expedited by any; have I deserved so sharply to be censured for representing all this in the way of justifying M. Perkins, whose defence I undertook against Arminius?
as to affirme that God hath power to afflict an innocent creature, neither hath his Adversaries objected any such thing unto him, as justly inferred from ought delivered by him. So that all such have well hardened their foreheads, who faigne that our opinion cannot well subsist without the help of so horrid and so harsh an assertion, to wit, That it is better to be miserable, then not to be at all. It is true, some may conceive that though this were a truth, it were to be suppressed, rather then affirmed by reason of the harshnesse of it. Let every one consider aright that I undertake the defence of M. Perkins, and it is he that hath uttered this harsh assertion, (namely, That God can inflict hell paines without any demerit in the creature) out of Cameracensis: And it stood me upon to defend M. Perkins so farre as I had reason for it. Now finding the maine argument whereby Arminius maintaines the contrary (to that other, yet more harsh proposition) to be most unsound; and even this assertion which sounds most harsh in the eares of many, not only to be maintained by Austine himselfe and and divres Schoole-Divines, but answered by many arguments, the solution whereof was never expedited by any; have I deserved so sharply to be censured for representing all this in the way of justifying M. Perkins, whose defence I undertook against Arminius?