A64002:1886
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.
he should not seem to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles. And for ought I see this Author goes not one 1step beyond Pelagius. He acknowledgeth that God doth persuade and exhort to believe; so did Pelagius. ibid. cap. 10. He saith also that God doth concur to the act; but so he doth in his opinion to every sinful act; so that this is but a general concourse: and what Pelagian was ever known to deny, but that God might have as great an hand in any good act, as in any natural act? Now since we acknowledge all this as well as he; what colour hath he to impute unto us, that we by our doctrine so fashion God's providence, as to make him deride and mock miserable people. Though the Jebusites did mock David, as this Author gives his word for it, (though I do not find that Rabbi David Kimhi, or Piscator count it any derision, but a plain representation of their confidence, that David was never able to take it, such was the strength of the tower•, that the weakest, even the blind and the lame were sufficient to defend it.) Though withal Kimhi acquaints us with a strange story out of the Jews Darashe, of a Covenant made between Abraham and King Abimelech, and that concerning not him alone, but his Son and his Nephew, to suffer them quietly to enjoy their own; And that the Nephew of that Abimelech was alive at that time when David came to besiege that fort: And that therein the Jebusites had erected two Images, the one blind to represent I saack who in his old age was blind; and the other lame representing Jacob, who by wrestling with God became lame, and in the mouths of these Images was kept the Covenant which was made between Abraham and Abimelech. The instance he gives of a proclamation which takes up the greatest part of this supplement (as a great part of this Author's discourse, is spent in such insicete representations) is most incongruous, not only to the matter whereunto it is applied, but to the parts of it self. 1. To the matter whereunto it is applied. For it is proposed in such a case, as men could not obtain a certain incorporation, though they much desired it. Now such a thing is not incident to Reprobates, namely that they cannot believe though they would For had they a will to believe, undoubtedly that would be accepted of God. Then. 2 it is incongruous to the parts of the Simile it self.
he should not seeme to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles. And for ought I see this Authour goes not one