A64002:1743
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.
And doth not this Author know that Jocasta for all her acknowledgement of fate governing all things; yet in conscience of her incestuous courses destroyed her self in the same Tragedian? But consider, indifferent Reader, whether this Author doth not carry himself, as if he were dealing with little children, and his purpose were not to inform them; but to abuse and mock them. For is that all ways the faith or opinion of the Tragedian, whatsoever he puts into the mouths of this or that Actor? Do not they represent the absurd pretences of some, as well as the reasonable discourses of others? Then again who are they that maintain, Fatum, destiny? Where hath he found this maintained by any of our divines? Yet I confess this Author deals ingeniously in one thing, to wit, in walking so fairly in the steps of this forefathers. For thus the Pelagians accused the doctrine of Austin, not only after he was dead, as appears by Prosper's Epistle ad Ruffinum; but even while he was living as appears by Austin himselfe; Nec sub nomine gratiae fatum asserimus, quia nullis hominum meritis dicimus Dei gratiam antecedi: Si autem quibusdam omnipotentis Dei voluntatem placet fatty nomine nuncupari, profanas quidem verborum novitates evitamus, 1sed de verbis contendere non amamus: neither do we maintain destiny under the name of grace, in saying grace is not prevented by any merits of man. But if some are pleased to call the will Almighty God by the name of fa•e (or destiny) we avoid the profane novelties of words but we do not love to strive about words. Where observe how first the same crimination was made against Austin's doctrine by the Pelagians, which this Author makes against ours.
And doth not this Authour know that Iocasta for all her acknowledgment of fate governing all things; yet in conscience of her incestuous courses destroyed her selfe in the same Tragedian? But consider, indifferent Reader, whether this Authour doth not carry himselfe, as if he were dealing with little children, and his purpose were not to informe them; but to abuse and mocke them. For is that all waies the faith or opinion of the Tragedian, whatsoever he puts into the mouthes of this or that Actor? Doe not they represent the absurd pretences of some, as well as the reasonable discourses of others? Then againe who are they that maintaine, Fatum, destiny? Where hath he found this maintained by any of our divines? Yet I confesse this Authour deales ingeniously in one thing, to wit, in walking so fairely in the steps of this forefathers. For thus the Pelagians accused the doctrine of Austin, not only after he was dead, as appeares by Prosper's Epistle ad Ruffinum; but even while he was living as appeares by Austin himselfe; Nec sub nomine gratiae fatum asserimus, quia nullis hominum meritis dicimus Dei gratiam antecedi: Si autem quibusdam omnipotentis Dei voluntatem placet fati nomine nuncupari, profanas quidem verborum novitates evitamus,