A64002:1495
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 went great bellied with these choice conceits, and therefore he will bring 1them in though it be by the cares, in spite of his own friends: like as Arminius did before him, to vent a certain argument of his, which yet had a very unhappy issue to the betraying of the Authors nakedness most shamefully; and his argument was this, To be happy is better than simply to be; therefore to be miserable, is worse then simply not to be; now the consequence is most inconsequent. For therefore to be happy is better then simply to be; because, to be happy, includes being, & adds happiness thereunto. And one good added to another good must needs make the whole compound better. In like manner, If to be miserable doth include the evil of not being and add another evil thereunto, the whole compound must needs be worse. But to the contrary it is apparent, that, to be miserable doth not include the evil of not being, but the good of being rather; and consequently there is no just proportion between misery and happiness, And therefore though to be happy is better then simply to be (as including being, and some good thing more) yet thence it follows not, that to be miserable, is worse then not to be; for as much as, To ⟨p. 39⟩be miserable, doth not include the evil of not being and add some evil more to it. Now the first that affirmed this harsh position, namely, that to be miserable is not worse then not to be at all, was Austin, and he not only affirms it, but disputes it, and proves it by variety of arguments, not one whereof is answered by this Author or by any friend that I know. And from Austin the School-men have taken it, and added this one argument to confirm it over and above those of Austin's, To turn a man into nothing is to destroy a man's universal being; but to inflict torment upon him doth destroy only particular being, to wit, his being in ease and pleasure. Now to have a man's particular being destroyed is not so bad, as to have a man's universal being destroyed. Now I come to consider how this Author carrieth himself in overthrowing his own fiction.
M. Mason went great bellied with these choise conceits, and therefore he will bring 1them in though it be by the cares, in spite of his own friends: like as Arminius did before him, to vent a certaine argument of his, which yet had a very unhappy issue to the betraying of the Authours nakednesse most shamefully; and his argument was this, To be happy is better thē simply to be; therefore to be miserable, is worse then simply not to be; now the consequence is most inconsequent. For therefore to be happy is better then simply to be; because, to be happy, includes being, & addes hapines thereunto. And one good added to another good must needs make the whole compound better. In like manner, If to be miserable doth include the evill of not being and adde another evill thereunto, the whole compound must needs be worse. But to the contrary it is apparent, that, to be miserable doth not include the evill of not being, but the good of being rather; and consequently there is no just proportion between misery and happinesse, And therefore though to be happy is better then simply to be (as including being, and some good thing more) yet thence it followes not, that to be miserable, is worse then not to be; for as much as, To