A64002:2048
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.
But I err, your meaning seemeth to be this, it is vain in respect that it cannot obtain the end it aims at, unless it presuppose sin. But how do you prove that Gods decree of liberation from sin, cannot take effect, except it presuppose sin? you have no means to prove it but this:
But I erre, your meaning seemeth to be this, it is vaine in respect that it cannot obtaine the end it aimes at, unlesse it presuppose sinne. But how doe you prove that Gods decree of liberation from sinne, cannot take effect, except it presuppose sinne? you have no meanes to prove it but this:
Liberation from sin cannot take effect without it presuppose sin, Ergo, the decree of liberation from sin cannot take effect without it presuppose sin. And while you decline this way of proof, you light upon no proof at all.
Liberation from sinne cannot take effect without it presuppose sinne, Ergo, the decree of liberation from sinne cannot take effect without it presuppose sinne. And while you decline this way of proofe, you light upon no proofe at all.
4. Touching your last Syllogism, I deny your Major, that is, I deny that the decree of damnation presupposeth persons justly damnable. Then you say it is unjust; but I deny this consequence, and though you bring no farther reason for your affirmation, yet will I prove my negation thus:
4. Touching your last Syllogisme, I deny your Major, that is, I deny that the decree of damnation presupposeth persons justly damnable. Then you say it is unjust; but I deny this consequence, and though you bring no farther reason for your affirmation, yet will I prove my negation thus: