A64002:2012
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.
Resp. The question is, whether Gods intention (that is, his decree) to spare or punish, 1presupposeth sin. You think it doth, and that it cannot possibly be otherwise: I think it doth not, nor can possibly be so, that any thing in man can be prerequired to the decrees of God, yet I proposed the only special arguments that ever I observed in sixteen years study in these points and answered them. You perceiving the inconsequence of that argument, as it seems, persuade your self there is another argument of more force than that: But mark I pray with what issue; In foregoing the proof I proposed and answered, you instead thereof bring no proof at all, but rely upon this proposition (God could not possibly intend to spare any, nor justly intend to punish any, if he had not considered them as in a state of sin) without all proof, as evident of it self. And if you mark it well, you shall find, that this proposition, is the same proposition in effect, the best proof whereof that I found, I laboured to overthrow, by showing the inconsequence thereof divers ways. And seeing you rely finally hereupon without proof, you beg the question, and instead of giving a new reason, you give none at all. And the truth is, I find many apt to be carried away with the plausible show of this proposition, and either look not at all farther for any proof thereof, or if they do, they proceed no farther than thus. The manifestation of mercy in sparing, and justice in punishing, presupposeth sin; therefore the decree (or intention) of manifesting Gods mercy in sparing, and justice in punishing, presupposeth sin, which was in effect the same consequence or enthymeme, which I proposed to answer, as you may easily perceive if you mark it well: for commiseration and manifestation of mercy are all one. Now because this proposition is such a witch to bewitch mens fancies to entertain it, I will endeavour to discover the vanity of it, and that in the very decrees of men, all which are temporal, whereas Gods decrees were eternal.
Resp. The question is, whether Gods intention (that is, his decree) to spare or punish, 1presupposeth sinne. You thinke it doth, and that it cannot possibly be otherwise: I thinke it doth not, nor can possibly be so, that any thing in man can be prerequired to the decrees of God, yet I proposed the onely speciall arguments that ever I observed in sixteen yeares study in these points and answered them. You perceiving the inconsequence of that argument, as it seemes, perswade your selfe there is another argument of more force than that: But marke I pray with what issue; In foregoing the proofe I proposed and answered, you instead thereof bring no proofe at all, but rely upon this proposition (God could not possibly intend to spare any, nor justly intend to punish any, if he had not considered them as in a state of sinne) without all proofe, as evident of it selfe. And if you marke it well, you shall find, that this proposition, is the same proposition in effect, the best proofe whereof that I found, I laboured to overthrow, by shewing the inconsequence thereof divers wayes. And seeing you rely finally hereupon without proofe, you begge the question, and instead of giving a new reason, you give none at all. And the truth is, I find many apt to be carried away with the plausible shew of this proposition, and either looke not at all farther for any proofe thereof, or if they doe, they proceed no farther than thus. The manifestation of mercy in sparing, and justice in punishing, presupposeth sinne; therefore the decree (or intention) of manifesting Gods mercy in sparing, and justice in punishing, presupposeth sinne, which was in effect the same consequence or enthymeme, which I proposed to answer, as you may easily perceive if you marke it well: for commiseration and manifestation of mercy are all one. Now because this proposition is such a witch to bewitch mens fancies to entertaine it, I will endeavour to discover the vanity of it, and that in the very decrees of men, all which are temporall, whereas Gods decrees were eternall.