A64002:1529
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.
But the former argument, which he takes so much pains to enervate, he calls a sophistical evasion, and adds that so are all others of the like sort, very magisterially and resolutely. But what those others are he doth not so much as name. Not so much as one of Austin's, whose discourse alone I proposed on this point; together with an argument of Durand's, neither of all which doth he touch, yet I am the mark set up by him to shoot at, not Durand, not any one of the School-men, not Austin whose discourses alone I proposed. And as for the argument here mentioned, melius est esse, quam non esse; It is better to be then to have no being, therefore it is better to be in hell torment then not to be. This is neither argument, nor any of those that I proposed out of Durand and Austin. Durand's argument is, To be annihilated is an universal destruction of man's nature, not only of his well being, but of being: but hell pains is the destruction only of his well being not of his being. Neither is it answerable to the argument formerly mentioned by him p. 19. which was this. He that wants a being enjoyeth no good, but he that is tormented in hell hath a being, and by consequence some thing that is good. Now this argument cometh nearest to Maldonat's discourse upon that of our Saviour, speaking of Judas. It had been good for that man he had not been borne. Some, saith he, dispute subtly more then enough, how it could be better for Judas, not to have 1been; whereas not to be is no good, to be damned is some good. For he that is damned is somewhat; And every thing that is, as it hath a being, is good. And we know that man's being is no common good but a special one, as being made after God's own Image and likeness. And look with what judgment this Author extenuates, being humane, calling it a poor, little entitative good; with the same judgment he might extenuate Angelical being. For even among Angels some have their portion in hell fire. But now he comes to his first proposition, that unavoidable damnation of so many millions can not be absolutely and antecedently intended by God, without the greatest injustice and cruelty. The question is of the suffering of hell pains, whether it be worse then to be annihilated? This Author runs upon the term damnation, which is a civill and judicial act. Is there no difference between these?
But the former argument, which he takes so much paines to enervate, he calls a sophisticall evasion, and addes that so are all others of the like sort, very magisterially and resolutely. But what those others are he doth not so much as name. Not so much as one of Austin's, whose discourse alone I proposed on this point; together with an argument of Durand's, neither of all which doth he touch, yet I am the marke set up by him to shoote at, not Durand, not any one of the School-men, not Austin whose discourses alone I proposed. And as for the argument here mentioned, melius est esse, quam non esse; It is better to be then to have no being, therefore it is better to be in hell torment then not to be. This is neither argument, nor any of those that I proposed out of Durand and Austin. Durand's argument is, To be annihilated is an universall destruction of man's nature, not only of his well being, but of being: but hell paines is the destruction only of his well being not of his being. Neither is it answerable to the argument formerly mentioned by him p. 19. which was this. He that wants a being enjoyeth no good, but he that is tormented in hell hath a being, and by consequence some thing that is good. Now this argument cometh nerest to Maldonats discourse upon that of our Saviour, speaking of Iudas. It had been good for that man he had not been borne. Some, saith he, dispute subtilly more then enough, how it could be better for Iudas, not to have