A64002:1696
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.
But the appearance of good moving in the former is only, summiboni, of our chiefest good, the enjoying whereof will make us happy. But to return, this Author with whom I deal in present, stands for the will of man's absolute dominion over her acts; as before he did express; whereas Alvarez professeth utterly against this, Neither do I blame him for contradicting Alvarez in this; but for carrying himself like a positive Theologue, nor so only, but like a peremptory Theologue contenting himself to dictate rules to others without all proof, save this that otherwise we make God the Author of sin. Yet this is not any express Argument of his neither; but he obtrudes premise, upon us, which I think was never affirmed by any Divines of these days, unless it be by some Libertines, against whom none that I know have disputed more effectually then some of those very Divines which here are traduced ⟨p. 106⟩by him. But observe the vile and abominable issue of this Authors doctrine in this particular, making man as he is a free creature to be the Lord of his own free act; yea and to have the absolute dominion thereof, as formerly he did express Sect: 3. For seeing the act of faith, of repentance, and the like are free acts; if liberty cannot be maintained unless a man hath the absolute dominion of his own act, hence it manifestly followeth, that God doth not determine the will to believe, to repent, or to any good work, yet the Scripture professeth that God is he, who makes us perfect unto every good work, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ. That it is God who worketh in us both the 1will and the deed according to his good pleasure. So that if a man should live Methuselah his age, and spend that whole time in a gracious conversation; yet that God doth work in him either the will or the deed of one gracious act more, it is merely of his good pleasure; so little cause have we to presume of perseverance in that which is good by out own strength. And again all this God works in us for Christ his sake. Christ hath deserved even this at the hands of God his father. What then is the meaning of this, that God should cooperate with us to the will and the deed, provided that we will?
But the appearence of good moving in the former is only, summiboni, of our cheifest good, the enjoying whereof will make us happy. But to returne, this Authour with whom I deale in present, stands for the will of man's absolute dominion over her acts; as before he did expresse; whereas Alvarez professeth utterly against this, Neither doe I blame him for contradicting Alvarez in this; but for carrying himselfe like a positive Theologue, nor so only, but like a peremptory Theologue contenting himselfe to dictate rules to others without all proofe, save this that otherwise we make God the Authour of sinne. Yet this is not any expresse Argument of his neither; but he obtrudes premise, upon us, which I thinke was never affirmed by any Divines of these dayes, unlesse it be by some Libertines, against whom none that I know have disputed more effectually then some of those very Divines which here are traduced