A64002:1964
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.
2. And therefore it cannot be as you conclude in the second place, that Gods decree to create mankind is before his decree to manifest his mercy or justice in mankind. For though that be a decree to produce a subject, yet considering that this is the decree touching the end whereto he makes him: in all reason the decree of the end whereto a subject is made is before the decree of making the subject to that end. And we have an express testimony of the Holy Ghost for this, namely, that as God created all things for himself, so he created the wicked against the day of evil for himself.
2. And therefore it cannot be as you conclude in the second place, that Gods decree to create mankind is before his decree to manifest his mercy or justice in mankind. For though that be a decree to produce a subject, yet considering that this is the decree touching the end whereto he makes him: in all reason the decree of the end whereto a subject is made is before the decree of making the subject to that end. And we have an expresse testimony of the Holy Ghost for this, namely, that as God created all things for himselfe, so he created the wicked against the day of evill for himselfe.
But by the way, I observe how you mistake the opinion of your opposites; as when you say, that this decree of manifesting Gods mercy or justice, is a decree of working an effect in that subject, for this is utterly untrue; This were to make the decree of salvation of the one, and of damnation of the other to be before the decree of creation. And although some such thing may be conceived out of a superficial apprehension of it, as proposed by Beza and Piscator; yet both in true account of that opinion in general, and mistaking of it in special, no such thing is avouched. Nay, whereas your self maintain, that the decree of damnation is before the decree of permission of final impenitency (a point no way congruous to your Tenet about massa corrupta) you have often read in my writings, that I account the decree of damnation in no moment of time to precede the decree of permission of final impenitency.
But by the way, I observe how you mistake the opinion of your opposites; as when you say, that this decree of manifesting Gods mercy or justice, is a decree of working an effect in that subject, for this is utterly untrue; This were to make the decree of salvation of the one, and of damnation of the other to be before the decree of creation. And although some such thing may be conceived out of a superficiall apprehension of it, as proposed by Beza and Piscator; yet both in true account of that opinion in generall, and mistaking of it in speciall, no such thing is avouched. Nay, whereas your selfe maintaine, that the decree of damnation is before the decree of permission of finall impenitency (a point no way congruous to your Tenet about massa corrupta) you have often read in my writings, that I account the decree of damnation in no moment of time to precede the decree of permission of finall impenitency.