A64002:1674
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.
1. We say not only of many sins, but of every sin, which hath any act therein, that the Acts themselves are sinful, because every such sin, being actual, it is Actus cum defectu, an act with a defect, that is an act defective. As Aquinas speaks in the place immediately before alleged, and this defect is in respect of the law of God. As Austin defineth sin to be, dictum, factum, concupitum contra legem Dei, A thought, word, or deed against the law of God. And this is enough I think to denominate it sinful But the argument used by this Author is the very same which was formerly used by Arminius, and whereunto I have answered; lib. 2. de permiss. Sect: 21, and that after this manner. Be it so that the act it self is forbidden, and consequently the act it self is inordinate; but what will it therefore follow that these two are not to be distinguished, to wit, the act, and the inordination of it? a strange liberty of disputing. A man's hand is sometimes inordinate, as being monstrous, either having too much, or too little; as either wanting five fingers, or having more then five: what therefore shall it not be lawful for us to distinguish between the hand and the monstrosity of the hand? 2. The wall it self is white; what therefore shall we not distinguish between the wall, and the white colour of it? A man himself is virtuous and vicious; shall this hinder us from due distinguishing between the man and his moral condition, whether virtuous or vicious; Many other arguments are represented by Arminius which this Author toucheth not; yet in the place forementioned I have shaken them all to pieces, such is the rotten condition of them. And over & above I have proved, not that in every sin the act is to be distinguished from the inordination of it; but that in every sin of commission there is place for this distinction, and that after this manner. Every sin of commission, is an act inordinate; but in every inordinate act we are to distinguish between the act it self, and the inordination of it. And that the act and the inordination of it are two, I prove thus. That if they are one and the same then we may well say that the act is an inordination; but this is most false.
1. We say not only of many sins, but of every sinne, which hath any act therein, that the Acts themselves are sinfull, because every such sinne, being actuall, it is Actus cum defectu, an act with a defect, that is an act defective. As Aquinas speakes in the place immediatly before alleadged, and this defect is in respect of the law of God. As Austin defineth sinne to be, dictum, factum, concupitum contra legem Dei, A thought, word, or deed against the law of God. And this is enough I thinke to denominate it sinfull But the argument used by this Authour is the very same which was formerly used by Arminius, and whereunto I have answered; lib. 2. de permiss. Sect: 21, and that after this manner. Be it so that the act it selfe is forbidden, and consequently the act it selfe is inordinate; but what will it therefore follow that these two are not to be distinguished, to wit, the act, and the inordination of it? a strange liberty of disputing. A man's hand is sometimes inordinate, as being monstrous, either having too much, or too little; as either wanting five fingers, or having more then five: what therefore shall it not be lawfull for us to distinguish between the hand and the monstrosity of the hand? 2. The wall it selfe is white; what therefore shall we not distinguish between the wall, and the white colour of it? A man himselfe is vertuous and vicious; shall this hinder us from due distinguishing between the man and his morall condition, whether vertuous or vicious; Many other arguments are represented by Arminius which this Authour toucheth not; yet in the place forementioned I have shaken them all to peeces, such is the rotten condition of them. And over & above I have proved, not that in every sin the act is to be distinguished from the inordination of it; but that in every sin of commission there is place for this distinction, and that after this manner. Every sinne of commission, is an act inordinate; but in every inordinate act we are to distinguish between the act it selfe, and the inordination of it. And that the act and the inordination of it are two, I prove thus. That if they are one and the same then we may well say that the act is an inordination; but this is most false.