A64002:1832
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.
This is so clear a case that Calvin with some others have not stuck to say, that God may with as much 1justice determine men to hell the first way, as the latter. See Instit: l. 3. cap. 23. s. 7. Where against those who deny that Adam fell by Gods decree, he reasoneth thus; All men are made guilty of Adams sin by Gods absolute decree alone, Adam therefore sinned by this only decree. What lets them it grant, that of one man, which they must grant of all men? And a little after he saith It is too absurd that these kind patrons of Gods justice. should thus stumble at a straw, and leap over a block. God may with as much justice decree Adams sin and mens damnation, out of his only will and pleasure, as out of that will and pleasure the involving of men in the guilt of the first sin, at and their damnation for it; That is the substance of his reasoning. To the same purpose speaketh Maccovius; From hence we may see, saith he, what to judge of that opinion of our adversaries viz. That God cannot justly ordain men to destruction without he consideration of sin. Let them tell me which is greater to impute to one man the sin of another, and punish him for it with eternal death, or to ordain simply, without looking at sin, to destruction? Surely no man will deny the first of these to be greater. But this God may do without any wrong to justice, much more therefore may he do the other.
This is so cleare a case that Calvin with some others have not stickt to say, that God may with as much 1justice determine men to hell the first way, as the latter. See Instit: l. 3. cap. 23. s. 7. Where against those who deny that Adam fell by Gods decree, he reasoneth thus; All men are made guilty of Adams sinne by Gods absolute decree alone, Adam therefore sinned by this only decree. What lets them it grāt, that of one man, which they must grant of all men? And a little after he saith It is too absurd that these kind patrons of Gods justice. should thus stumble at a straw, and leap over a blocke. God may with as much justice decree Adams sinne and mens damnation, out of his only will and pleasure, as out of that will and pleasure the involving of men in the guilt of the first sinne, at and their damnation for it; That is the substance of his reasoning. To the same purpose speaketh Maccovius; Fromhence we may see, sayth he, what to judge of that opinion of our adversaryes viz. That God cannot justly ordaine men to destruction without he consideration of sinne. Let them tell me which is greater to impute to one man the sinne of another, and punish him for it with eternall death, or to ordaine simply, without looking at sinne, to destruction? Surely no man will deny the first of these to be greater. But this God may do without any wrong to iustice, much more therefore may he do the other.