A64002:1697
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.
Consider the absurdity of this (upon the supposal of the possibility of such a cooperation, which yet by evident reason may be demonstrated to be utterly impossible.) Did Christ merit any thing for the Angels? yet doth he not cooperate with them to every act of theirs as well as to any of ours? Nay is it possible that any act should exist without God's operation? And is it reasonable to subject such a course of Divine providence to the merits of Christ? Thus we see whereunto this Author tends in this discourse of his, namely so to maintain God to be no Author of sin, as withal to maintain that he is no Author of that which is good, no not of faith, repentance, or any gracious act that is freely performed by any creature man or Angel: we on the other side desire & endeavour so to carry our selves that while we vindicate God from being the Author of evil, we may not therewithal deny him to be the Author of any thing, that is good and gracious; which is this Authors course, as appears manifestly in the issue. And observe his crafty carriage fox like; Had he dealt upon predestination, and the efficacy of grace, and therein professed plainly that faith and repentance being free acts, every man's will hath an absolute dominion over them; and therefore God doth not determine the will thereunto: For that were to make God the Author of faith and repentance; how many thousands would have been ready to have flown in his face, and abhor such abominable doctrine. Therefore he baulks that, and deals only upon reprobation; and here he layeth to our charge that we make God the Author of sin, by necessitating and determining the will to sin (though his premises herein I have shown to be most false) therefore he maintains that God doth not determine the will so much as to the act whereunto the sinfulness accrues; both because man's will is free; and because so he should be the Author of sin. And if once he can make his Reader to swallow this, he doubts not but to take him in the point of predestination and grace also; and make him wary to take heed of maintaining that God determines or necessitates the will of man to any good act whether it be of faith or of repentance, and that for fear of denying man to have the absolute dominion over his will, to work himself to faith and repentance at his pleasure:
Consider the absurdity of this (upon the supposall of the possibility of such a cooperation, which yet by evident reason may be demonstrated to be utterly impossible.) Did Christ merit any thing for the Angells? yet doth he not cooperate with them to every act of theirs as well as to any of ours? Nay is it possible that any act should exist without God's operation? And is it reasonable to subject such a course of Divine providence to the merits of Christ? Thus we see whereunto this Authour tends in this discourse of his, namely so to maintaine God to be no Authour of sinne, as withall to maintaine that he is no Authour of that which is good, no not of faith, repentance, or any gracious act that is freely performed by any creature man or Angell: we on the other side desire & endeavour so to carry our selves that while we vindicate God from being the Authour of evill, we may not therewithall deny him to be the Authour of any thing, that is good and gracious; which is this Authours course, as appeares manifestly in the issue. And observe his crafty cariage foxe like; Had he dealt upon predestination, and the efficacy of grace, and therein professed plainly that faith and repentance being free acts, every man's will hath an absolute dominion over them; and therefore God doth not determine the will thereunto: For that were to make God the Authour of faith and repentance; how many thousands would have been ready to have flowen in his face, and abhorre such abominable doctrine. Therefore he baulks that, and deales only upon reprobation; and here he layeth to our charge that we make God the Authour of sinne, by necessitating and determining the will to sinne (though his premises herein I have shewen to be most false) therefore he maintains that God doth not determine the will so much as to the act whereunto the sinfulnesse accrewes; both because man's will is free; and because so he should be the Authour of sinne. And if once he can make his Reader to swallow this, he doubts not but to take him in the point of predestination and grace also; and make him wary to take heed of maintaining that God determines or necessitates the will of man to any good act whether it be of faith or of repentance, and that for feare of denying man to have the absolute dominion over his will, to worke himselfe to faith and repentance at his pleasure: