A64002:1823
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.
For each instance given is in such a thing withdrawn whereupon the event absolutely followeth; and which not being withdrawn the contrary event not only might be, but would be; as if a string holding a stone being not broken, the stone not only might be held, but would be held. So if the not been withdrawn, not only the house might have been held up, but would have pillar had been held up. But upon granting grace he doth not say the creature would have been kept from sin, but might have been kept from falling into sin. Now what Legerdemain is this? And could he presume his Reader would prove so simple and Sottish, as not to observe this incongruity? 2. He deviates from our tenet. For we do not say, that upon granting grace supernatural the creature may abstain from sin, if he will, but that hereby is wrought in him a will to abstain from sin, a desire to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God, though not in such perfection, as to work out all natural corruption that is found within us; but that still there is sin dwelling in us; still there is a flesh fighting against the spirit; Yea, a law in our members rebelling against the law of our mind, and leading us captive to the law of sin. Hence proceed the manifold and daily sins even of the children of God; but Gods spirit is prevalent with them to renew their repentance, even for sins of weakness, and sins of improvidence and inconsiderateness; and to keep from presumptuous sins, that they may not prevail over them; That it may not be said of them, as it was of too many among the Israelites, in the wilderness, 1Their spots are not the spots of thy children. Nay, which is more, consider; Arminius confesseth that God doth hinder sin in such a manner, as by granting such a grace, 2whereupon they not only may, but will and do abstain from sin; but he doth not thus hinder it in all. What therefore? shall he be accounted the Author of such sins. Yet I willingly confess, Arminius and this Author shake hands in this, that the Reprobates have such a grace, as whereby they may abstain from sin, if they will. Yet holy Paul confesseth of himself, even then, when he was in a better condition (I trow) then that of Reprobates, to wit, when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans, saying, What I would that do I not, but what I hate that do I.
For each instance given is in such a thing withdrawen whereupon the event absolutely followeth; and which not being withdrawen the contrary event not only might be, but would be; as if a string holding a stone being not broken, the stone not only might be held, but would be held. So if the not beene withdrawen, not only the house might have beene held up, but would have pillar had been held up. But upon granting grace he doth not say the creature would have beene kept from sinne, but might have beene kept from falling into sinne. Now what Legerdeimaine is this? And could he presume his Reader would prove so simple and Sottish, as not to observe this incongruity? 2. He deviates from our tenet. For we do not say, that upon granting grace supernaturall the creature may abstaine from sinne, if he will, but that hereby is wrought in him a will to abstaine from sinne, a desire to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God, though not in such perfection, as to worke out all naturall corruption that is found within us; but that still there is sinne dwelling in us; still there is a flesh fighting against the spirit; Yea, a law in our members rebelling against the law of our mind, and leading us captive to the law of sinne. Hence proceed the manifold and dayly sinnes even of the children of God; but Gods spirit is prevalent with them to renew their repentance, even for sinnes of weaknesse, and sinnes of improvidence and inconsideratnesse; and to keep from presumptuous sinnes, that they may not prevaile over them; That it may not be said of them, as it was of too many among the Israelites, in the wildernesse,