A64002:1525
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
The Answer to the Additions. › Part 1 › Section 6: The 6. Sect:
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.
This Sophistical evasion therefore and all others of the like sort notwithstanding. I doubt not but I may safely say, that the unavoidable damna•••n of so many mi••ions, cannot be absolutely and antecedently intended by God, without the greatest injustice & cruelty which may in no wise be imputed unto God. Plutarch speaking of the Pagans, who to pacify the anger of their gods, did sacrifice to them men and women; it had been much better with Di•gor is and his fellows to deny the being of a God, then confessing a God to think he delights in the blood of men. How much rather may we say it were better to be an Atheist and deny God, then to believe or report him to be a devourer of the Souls of men? The like argument is pressed by Eusebius against those cruel and merc••es gods of the Pagans, doubtless, saith he, if there were any foot-step or spark of goodness in them for which they might deserve to be called good, they would be disposed to do good, and desirous to save all men, they would love justice and take a care of men. And being such how could they delight in their slaughter &c. Yea he concludeth that they were devils or evil spirits; and not Gods or good spirits, because if they were good they would do good; whereas those that are evil use to do hurt. I will therefore shut up my first reason with the speech of Prosper, God indeed is the Creator of all men, but yet of no man for this end, that he might be damned; the reason why we are created is one, and why we are damned an th•r.
This Sophisticall evasion therefore and all others of the like sert notwithstanding. I doubt not but I may safely say, that the unavoidable damna•••n of so many mi••ions, cannot be absolutely and antecedently intended by God, without the greatest injustice & cruelty which may in no wise be imputed unto God. Plutar•h speaking of the Pagans, who to pacifie the anger of their gods, did sacrifice to them men and wo•men; it had been much better with Di•gor is and his fellowes to deny the being of a God, then confessing a God to thinke he delights in the bloud of men. How much rather may we say it were better to be an Atheist and deny God, then to believe or report him to be a devourer of the Soules of men? The like argument is pressed by Eusebius against those cruell and merces gods of the Pagans, doubtles, saith he, if there were any foot-step or sparke of goodnes in them for which they might deserve to be called good, they would be disposed to doe good, and desirous to save all men, they would love justice and take a care of men. And being such how could they delight in their slughter &c. Yea he concludeth that they were devills or evill spirits; and not Gods or good spirits, because if they were good they would doe good; whereas those that are evill use to doe hurt. I will therefore shut up my first reason with the speech of Prosper, God indeed is the Creator of all men, but yet of no man for this end, that he might be damned; the reason why we are created is one, and why we are damned an thr.