A64002:2096
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.
3. Some things you touch by the way, I may not omit, you say nothing can properly be said to be intended, which he permits only. This is very worthy of consideration, what think you of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit? did God intend that or no? Perhaps you will say, that God may be said to intend that, because he did only permit that as evil, but concurred to the effecting of it, as a natural action. But then consider, how was it possible, that God should intend that this act should come to pass and not the evil of it, whereas the evil, considering Gods interdict, was inseparable from it. I should answer it thus; As touching the substance of the act, God intended it should come to pass, and it came to pass by Gods effection; for so God intended it should come to pass, to wit, by his effection: But as touching the evil of the action God intended it should come to pass, and it came to pass, but only by Gods permission: for so only he intended it should come to pass, to wit, by his permission.
3. Some things you touch by the way, I may not omit, you say nothing can properly be said to be intended, which he permits onely. This is very worthy of consideration, what think you of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit? did God intend that or no? Perhaps you will say, that God may be said to intend that, because he did only permit that as evill, but concurred to the effecting of it, as a naturall action. But then consider, how was it possible, that God should intend that this act should come to passe and not the evill of it, whereas the evill, considering Gods interdict, was inseparable from it. I should answer it thus; As touching the substance of the act, God intended it should come to passe, and it came to passe by Gods effection; for so God intended it should come to passe, to wit, by his effection: But as touching the evill of the action God intended it should come to passe, and it came to passe, but onely by Gods permission: for so onely he intended it should come to passe, to wit, by his permission.
Hereupon you may fly out, and deny that God did intend so much as the act it self of eating the forbidden fruit.