A64002:1934
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
An Answer to a Letter of D. H. concerning Gods Decrees definite or… › Part 2: II.
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.
Now for Austins opinion hereabouts, it is plain enough from other places. De civ. dei, lib. 12. cap 9. aut minorem acceperunt amoris divini gratiam, quam illi qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utrique boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala voluntate cadentibus, illi amplius adjuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem pervenerunt. So that he doth manifestly acknowledge, that the good Angels had such an adjutorium which the wicked had not: whereupon Leonardus Coquaeus, neither Jesuit nor Dominican, but an Augustinian, commenting, writes in this manner: ea ratione intelligitur majus beneficium collatum Angelis honis quam malis, etsi enim gratiam aequalem habitualem ab initio sint consecuti, it a tamen efficax fuit motio divina et auxilium dei speciale in Angelis sanctis, ut in Deunt toti converterentur, persisterent in bono, et beatitudinem eandem assequerentur; non ex vi libertatis arbitrii certe factum est, ut it a differenter afficerentur, et quod gratia fuerit efficax in his et non in istis, Deo maxime tribuendum; et ex duobus bominibus aequaliter affectis, si unus salvetur, alius vero damnetur, intelligo semper majus auxilium gratiae collatum ei qui fit salvets, idque cum Augustino hoc loco, & passim, ubi de hac materia disputat, neque totum id refero in libertatem arbitrii, quod unus velit consentire et respondere gratiae, alius non; facit enim etiam ut velimus, et consentiamus: neque infallibilem illam nostram consensionem puto tantum ex infallibili praescientia Dei; imo si per impossibile secludamus omnem praescientiam dei, ipsa gratia ex se infallibiliter movet hominem vel etiam Angelum, ut, licet non necessitate coactionis, necessitate tamen immutabilitatis efficax ex se sit, et gratia dei magis in uno quam in altero; et quod unus convertatur, alius non, quod uni detur auxilium efficax, in alio sit quidem sufficiens, minime tamen consequatur suum effectum, mysterium esse ubique docet Augustinus, at si posita aequali gratia qua unus converteretur, alius non, id ex solo consensu vel d•ssensu liberi arbitrii penderet, nullum certe mysterium in•sse mihi videretur. Neque hic reddit Augustinus causam eur ex Angelis alij salvati fuerint, alij minime, quod hos deus praescierit salvandos vel cooperaturos suae gratiae, alios minime cooperaturos;
Now for Austins opinion hereabouts, it is plaine enough from other places. De civ. dei, lib. 12. cap 9. aut minorem acceperunt amoris divini gratiam, quam illi qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utrique boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala voluntate cadentibus, illi amplius adjuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem pervenerunt. So that he doth manifestly acknowledge, that the good Angells had such an adjutorium which the wicked had not: whereupon Leonardus Coquaeus, neither Jesuit nor Dominican, but an Augustinian, commenting, writes in this manner: ea ratione intelligitur majus beneficium collatum Angelis honis quam malis, etsi enim gratiam aequalem habitualem ab initio sint consecuti, it a tamen efficax fuit motio divina et auxilium dei speciale in Angelis sanctis, ut in Deunt toti converterentur, persisterent in bono, et beatitudinem eandem assequerentur; non ex vi libertatis arbitrii certe factum est, ut it a differenter afficerentur, et quod gratia fuerit efficax in his et non in istis, Deo maxime tribuendum; et ex duobus bominibus aequaliter affectis, si unus salvetur, alius vero damnetur, intelligo semper majus auxilium gratiae collatum ei qui fit salvets, idque cum Augustino hoc loco, & passim, ubi de hac materia disputat, neque totum id refero in libertatem arbitrii, quod unus velit consentire et respondere gratiae, alius non; facit enim etiam ut velimus, et consentiamus: neque infallibilem illam nostram consensionem puto tantum ex infallibili praescientia Dei; imo si per impossibile secludamus omnem praescientiam dei, ipsa gratia ex se infallibiliter movet hominem vel etiam Angelum, ut, licet non necessitate coactionis, necessitate tamen immutabilitatis efficax ex se sit, et gratia dei magis in uno quam in altero; et quod unus convertatur, alius non, quod uni detur auxilium efficax, in alio sit quidem sufficiens, minime tamen consequatur suum effectum, mysterium esse ubique docet Augustinus, at si posita aequali gratia qua unus converteretur, alius non, id ex solo consensu vel dssensu liberi arbitrii penderet, nullum certe mysterium insse mihi videretur. Neque hic reddit Augustinus causam eur ex Angelis alij salvati fuerint, alij minime, quod hos deus praescierit salvandos vel cooperaturos suae gratiae, alios minime cooperaturos;