A64002:1705
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.
yet may God determine the creature to the doing of that act, without any impeachment of the creatures liberty. If God did not determine the wills of his Servants but only afford a simultaneous concourse to their actions, why is he called the cause principal, since it is confessed, God doth afford the like concourse to every sinful act, as touching the substance thereof.
yet may God determine the creature to the doing of that act, without any impeachment of the creatures liberty. If God did not determine the wills of his Servants but only afford a simultaneous concourse to their actions, why is he called the cause principall, since it is confessed, God doth afford the like concourse to every sinfull act, as touching the substance thereof.
Again he repeats the same, when in case of divine determination, he saith, the sin cannot be so rightly ascribed to man's will the inferior, as to God's necessitating decree, the superior cause. To which I answer again, being drawn thereunto by his Tautologies; by the same reason it may be inferred, that when the fire burns any combustible thing, the burning is rather to be ascribed to God the more principal cause, then to the fire the less principal, the first cause being more principal then the second and if it please God so to order it, the fire shall not burn as it appears in the three noble children cast into the furnace of Babylon, when they came forth there was not so much as the smell of fire upon them. Secondly I answer as before, by the same reason, when the concourse unto the sinful act is equal on man's part, & on God's, each shall equally be accounted the Author of that sin, and not man more then God; Now such a concourse is maintained by this Author. Thirdly in the working of faith and repentance; since by these mens ⟨p. 110⟩opinions God affords only his concourse he shall be no more the Author of man's faith and repentance then man himself is. Lastly be it granted that God is a more principal cause then man in producing the act; yet there is no colour of imputing unto God the causality of the sin, who hath no Agency therein, by doing what he ought not to do, or not in that manner he should do, this is found only in the creature, who being a free Agent, otherwise then as original sin hath impaired liberty, which I hope this Author will not deny, is justly answerable for his own transgression. As for example, God determined that Cyrus should give the Jews liberty to return into their own land; yet this action of Cyrus was as free an action, as any that was performed by him throughout his life. God determined that Josiah should burn the Prophets bones upon the Altar at Bethel, yet Josiah did this as freely as ought else: God determined that Christ's bones should not be broken, yet the soldiers abstained from the breaking of his bones with as much liberty as they had used, in case they had broken them. This divine providence we willingly confess is very mysterious, and as Cajetan saith the distinctions used to accommodate it to our capacity do not quiet the understanding;