A64002:1496
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.
For albeit the position impugned by bim, be no fiction (for it was the opinion of Austin and of divers School-men) yet the bringing it in here, as if it were an answer made by us to any of our Adversaries objections (as this Author doth) as if we stood in need o• any such aide is a mere fiction. And first he states it at pleasure to serve his own turn, of being in hell to be more desirable, whereas the Author whom he opposeth delivers it of, esse mi erum to be miserable and misery is as well in respect of sin, as in respect of bodily torment Nay it is confessed by Arminius himself, That the misery of sin is greater, then the misery of torment. So, that if it be uncouth to say, that to be under the torment of hell is better then not to be at all; it ought to seem more uncouth to say, that it is better for a man to be guilty of sin, then to have no being at all. Now I do not find that this Author in all his Mountebank-like amplifications, did take this into consideration. Again when it is said. That to be miserable is better than not to be, this is to be understood aright, not as if misery it self were desirable, but being only, though with the adjunct of misery thus, to have a being though in misery is more desirable, then to have no being at all And so if it be applied to the misery of torment, and that in hell, it ought to be taken thus, To have a being though in hell is more desirable then to have no being at all. And it is apparent, that in not being at all, there is nothing at all desirable, but in being; though under the greatest pain there is something desirable, to wit, being. Now I consider his reasons.
For albeit the position impugned by bim, be no fiction (for it was the opinion of Austin and of divers School-men) yet the bringing it in here, as if it were an answer made by us to any of our Adversaries objections (as this Authour doth) as if we stood in need o• any such aide is a mere fiction. And first he states it at pleasure to serve his own turne, of being in hell to be more desirable, whereas the Authour whom he opposeth delivers it of, esse mi erum to be miserable and misery is as well in respect of sinne, as in respect of bodily torment Nay it is confessed by Arminius himselfe, That the misery of sinne is greater, then the misery of torment. So, that if it be uncouth to say, that to be under the torment of hell is better then not to be at all; it ought to seem more uncouth to say, that it is better for a man to be guilty of sin, then to have no being at all. Now I doe not find that this Authour in all his Mountebank-like amplifications, did take this into consideration. Againe when it is said. That to be miserable is better thē not to be, this is to be understood aright, not as if misery it selfe were desirable, but being only, though with the adjunct of misery thus, to have a being though in misery is more desirable, then to have no being at all And so if it beapplyed to the misery of torment, and that in hell, it ought to be taken thus, To have a being though in hell is more desirable then to have no being at all. And it is apparent, that in not being at all, there is nothing at all desirable, but in being; though under the greatest pain there is something desirable, to wit, being. Now I consider his reasons.