A64002:1955
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.
6. The sixth contains only an inference upon the former, and the inference is not suitable; for your assumption in the former Theses did but contend, that God must consider it; here you infer, that he must presuppose it; But it followeth not: For to consider it, 'tis sufficient that it is conjunctum; But to presuppose it is to maintain that it is antecedaneum.
6. The sixth containes onely an inference upon the former, and the inference is not suitable; for your assumption in the former Theses did but contend, that God must consider it; here you inferre, that he must presuppose it; But it followeth not: For to consider it, 'tis sufficient that it is conjunctum; But to presuppose it is to maintain that it is antecedaneum.
Besides it is as much peccant against the order, between the end and the means, as the former, whereof I have spoken sufficiently.
7. Of the seventh, your reason (you confess) is the same as before, to wit, in the fifth, which I have already considered. Neither is there any necessity why one should be before the other: they may, nay must be both together intended; For consider, if the pardoning or curing of sin be in intention after the permitting of sin, then it should be before it in execution, which were as much as to say, that God must first pardon and cure sin, before he can permit sin. This is plainly irregular; that irregularity which you conceive on the contrary is only in show, and rising merely from confounding intention with execution. Better to say, God doth first intend to cure sin, and then intends to permit it; (for herehence followeth a due order in execution, to wit, first sin is permitted, and after cured) then to say, God first intends to permit sin, and after to cure it; for herehence proceeds a most preposterous order in execution, namely, that first sin shall be cured, and then the being of sin permitted. And indeed when men say, God doth first intend to permit sin, and then to cure it, it seems their meaning is only this, not that God doth first intend, &c. but that God doth intend first to permit sin, and then to cure it, which is most true.