A64002:1642
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.
The first is a passage taken out of the Church of Lyons, denying that God hath laid a necessity of sinning on any man. Another out of Remigius; both represented (yea & many ⟨p. 89⟩more of this nature) by that most reverend and most learned Arch-Bishop of Armagh Doctor Usher in his history of Goteschalk, 138. and 173. To these I answer. First these Ancients are about 850 years after Christ; yet marvellous orthodox considering those times in the point of predestination. And let no man think that they deny a necessity of sinning laid upon all by original corruption, the consequent of Adam's prevarication. If they were of any other opinion, should it become us to follow them in this? Doctor Potter acknowledgeth it as the doctrine of the Church of England, that libertas à peccato, liberty from sin, is not incident to a natural man; it is true he desires to quash it by saying there is yet in man, Libertas à necessitate, à liberty from necessity; but from what necessity? From the necessity of sinning? If so, why should he then deny a liberty from sin; yet he never taketh any pains to clear this from contradiction, but blindfoldly follows Bernard, without caring much to understand him. And he looks to be pardoned because Vossius did so before him. M. Fulke, in his answer to the Rhemish Testament, usually distinguisheth between libertas à peccato, & libertas à coactione, liberty from sin, and liberty from constraint; and denying all liberty from sin to a natural man, yet grants unto him a liberty from coaction. I have taken some pains to show Doctor Potter's superficiary carriage in this, and to clear Bernard; which it may be I will add to this by the reason of the homogeneous nature of it. In the mean time liberty from sin is utterly denied to a natural man, and that by the doctrine of our Church. And no marvel seeing Arminius himself, and Corvinus, those great patrons of natures power, do acknowledge this, as before I mentioned; only they say God is ready to remove this necessity of sinning from all, and every one.
The first is a passage taken out of the Church of Lyons, denying that God hath layed a necessitie of sinning on any man. Another out of Remigius; both represented (yea & many ⟨p. 89⟩more of this nature) by that most reverend and most learned Arch-Bishop of Armagh Doctor Usher in his history of Goteschalk, 138. and 173. To these I answer. First these Ancients are about 850 yeares after Christ; yet marvailous orthodoxe considering those times in the point of predestination. And let no man think that they deny a necessity of sinning laid upon all by originall corruption, the consequent of Adam's prevarication. If they were of any other opinion, should it become us to follow them in this? Doctor Potter acknowledgeth it as the doctrine of the Church of England, that libertas à peccato, liberty from sinne, is not incident to a naturall man; it is true he desires to quash it by saying there is yet in man, Libertas à necessitate, à liberty from necessitie; but from what necessity? From the necessity of sinning? If so, why should he then deny a liberty from sin; yet he never taketh any paines to cleare this from contradiction, but blindfoldly followes Bernard, without caring much to understand him. And he looks to be pardoned because Vossius did so before him. M. Fulke, in his answer to the Rhemish Testament, usually distinguisheth between libertas à peccato, & libertas à coactione, liberty from sinne, and liberty from constraint; and denying all liberty from sinne to a naturall man, yet grants unto him a liberty from coaction. I have taken some paines to shew Doctor Potter's superficiary carriage in this, and to cleare Bernard; which it may be I will adde to this by the reason of the homogeneous nature of it. In the meane time liberty from sinne is utterly denied to a naturall man, and that by the doctrine of our Church. And noe marvaile seeing Arminius himselfe, and Corvinus, those great patrons of natures power, doe acknowledg this, as before I mentioned; only they say God is ready to remove this necessitie of sinning from all, and every one.