A64002:1484
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.
1. My words are these translated, God can annihilate the holiest creature, which Arminius confesseth, how much more is it in his power to afflict an innocent creature, and that for ever, considering that not only according to School-divines, but also according to Austin, yea according to the truth it self, it is more to be desired to have being under ⟨p. 37⟩any pain, then to have no being at all. And afterwards I propose not one argument of mine own for the justifying of this, but only represent the discourse of Austin hereupon, as it is analysed by Durandus that School Divine. Now why are not the School-men censured, as men speaking unreasonably and against common sense? Nay why is not Austin censured as one that had rather speak unreasonably and against common sense; then lay down the conclusion which he hath once undertaken to maintain, as well as my self? Yea and much more considering that the discourse proving this, is Saint Austin's; and had I not added on the by these four words etiam secundum ipsam veritatem, there had been no place at all for any censure to be past upon me. If a man finding himself convicted by Austin's discourse shall confess that what he writes is true, is it equity to censure him as one who had rather speak unreasonably and against common sense, then lay down the conclusions which formerly he hath undertaken to maintain. When in the mean time no censure is at all passed upon Austin, who alone is the player of the game, he that stands by professing only in his judgment, he plays his game well.
1. My words are these translated, God can annihilate the holiest creature, which Arminius confesseth, how much more is it in his power to afflict an innocent creature, and that for ever, considering that not only according to Schoole-divines, but also according to Austine, yea according to the truth it selfe, it is more to be desired to have being under ⟨p. 37⟩any pain, then to have no being at all. And afterwards I propose not one argument of mine own for the justifying of this, but only represent the discourse of Austine hereupon, as it is analized by Durandus that Schoole Divine. Now why are not the School-men censured, as men speaking unreasonably and against common sense? Nay why is not Austine censured as one that had rather speak unreasonably and against common sense; then lay downe the conclusion which he hath once undertaken to maintain, as well as my selfe? Yea and much more considering that the discourse proving this, is Saint Austin's; and had I not added on the by these four words etiam secundum ipsam veritatem, there had been no place at all for any censure to be past upon me. If a man finding himselfe convicted by Austin's discourse shall confesse that what he writes is true, is it equity to censure him as one who had rather speak unreasonably and against common sense, then lay down the conclusions which formerly he hath undertaken to maintain. When in the mean time no censure is at all passed upon Austine, who alone is the player of the game, he that stands by professing only in his judgment, he playes his game well.