A64002:2094
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. 1. I spake nothing of Gods intention that Adam should fall, but only of Gods intention to permit him to fall; and showed, that if the permission of Adams 1fall, was first in intention, and then mans damnation, it will manifestly follow, that in execution it shall be last; that is, God shall first damn men for sin, and afterwards permit Adam to fall into sin, and all in Adam. To this you say, that it is one thing to consider Adams fall as a thing that would be, if it were not hindered; another thing to resolve positively to permit it. But this answer is to no purpose. For my argument doth not depend upon the confusion of these things, which you say do differ, and therein say truly my argument depends upon a principle, that is totâ Academia notissimum, and justified also by all experience, that what is first in intention is last in execution.
Resp. 1. I spake nothing of Gods intention that Adam should fall, but onely of Gods intention to permit him to fall; and shewed, that if the permission of Adams 1fall, was first in intention, and then mans damnation, it will manifestly follow, that in execution it shall be last; that is, God shall first damne men for sinne, and afterwards permit Adam to fall into sinne, and all in Adam. To this you say, that it is one thing to consider Adams fall as a thing that would be, if it were not hindered; another thing to resolve positively to permit it. But this answer is to no purpose. For my argument doth not depend upon the confusion of these things, which you say doe differ, and therein say truly my argument depends upon a principle, that is totâ A•ademia notissimum, and justified also by all experience, that what is first in intention is last in execution.
- 1T.
2. But what say you? do you not make the permission of Adams fall precedent to election and reprobation? why then let us shake hands; for the case is clear, that then the foresight of Adams fall, neither could be precedent to election: For the foresight of Adams fall in no moment of time before Gods resolution to permit it: For though God foresaw that Adam would fall, if God permitted him, yet could he not foresee, that he would fall absolutely, until God were resolved to permit him.