A64002:2035
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.
2. But to your Major I answer; No man saith, that God doth intend to punish any man but for sin. Now hereupon many (not only Arminians, but some Orthodox also) are apt to be deceived, and to think, that these words, but for sin, are to be referred to the Antecedent removed, which is Gods intention. But it is not so, those words are only to be referred to the Antecedent next before, which is to punish. And I prove it thus: When any man saith, God intends to punish man for his sin, the meaning can be no other, than if he had said, God doth intend, that punishment shall be inflicted on man for his sin; where it is manifest, that sin is noted only as going before the punishment, not as going before Gods intention. But as soon as this confusion of sense is opened by distinction, then they fly to this kind of argument, sin goeth before the execution of punishment, therefore the consideration of sin goeth before the intention of punishment, which is the argument I formerly proposed, and the inconsequence whereof I presume you do manifestly perceive.
2. But to your Major I answer; No man saith, that God doth intend to punish any man but for sinne. Now hereupon many (not onely Arminians, but some Orthodox also) are apt to be deceived, and to thinke, that these words, but for sinne, are to be referred to the Antecedent removed, which is Gods intention. But it is not so, those words are onely to be referred to the Antecedent next before, which is to punish. And I prove it thus: When any man saith, God intends to punish man for his sinne, the meaning can be no other, than if he had said, God doth intend, that punishment shall be inflicted on man for his sinne; where it is manifest, that sinne is noted onely as going before the punishment, not as going before Gods intention. But as soone as this confusion of sense is opened by distinction, then they flye to this kind of argument, sinne goeth before the execution of punishment, therefore the consideration of sinne goeth before the intention of punishment, which is the argument I formerly proposed, and the inconsequence whereof I presume you doe manifestly perceive.
Now to that which followeth: