A64002:1663
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.
their former disobedience was it not a consequent of God's permission? For if God had not permitted their disobedience, surely it had not been by the Authors discourse in the beginning of this Section. As touching that Revelations 22. 11. I hope by the same rule of this positive Theologue, not only their continuing to be unjust, was by God's permission, but their first being and beginning to be unjust was by God's permission also. And surely if this man's word be of any credit, all sinners were first permitted to sin, otherwise ⟨p. 96⟩they had never sinned, and not the obstinate and wilful only. Were not the Angels innocent before their first sin? was not Adam innocent before his first sin? and did not God permit both Angels and men to sin their first sin? If not; what truth is in this author's word, when he said, God hath decreed to suffer sin? for otherwise there would be none. And if he be not worthy to be believed, in this his credit is cracked, and deserves not to be believed in ought.
their former disobedience was it not a consequent of God's permission? For if God had not permitted their disobedience, surely it had not been by the Authours discourse in the beginning of this Section. As touching that Revelations 22. 11. I hope by the same rule of this positive Theologue, not only their continuing to be unjust, was by God's permission, but their first being and beginning to be unjust was by God's permission also. And surely if this man's word be of any credit, all sinners were first permitted to sinne, otherwise ⟨p. 96⟩they had never sinned, and not the obstinate and willfull only. Were not the Angells innocent before their first sin? was not Adam innocent before his first sin? and did not God permit both Angells and men to sin their first sin? If not; what truth is in this authour's word, when he said, God hath decreed to suffer sin? for otherwise there would be none. And if he be not worthy to be believed, in this his credit is crackt, and deserves not to be believed in ought.