A64002:2160
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 shall trouble neither the Reader, nor you, with transcribing any more out of this digression. And indeed this is enough to satisfy him, ⟨p. 210⟩and convince you, that you have wronged D. Twice, in pinning upon him such an opinion, which he opposeth with far greater strength of argument, then you your self. This is sufficient to answer this whole section; But I shall examine whatsoever is considerable in it.
But I shall trouble neither the Reader, nor you, with transcribing any more out of this digression. And indeed this is enough to satisfy him, ⟨p. 210⟩and convince you, that you have wronged D. Twisse, in pinning upon him such an opinion, which he opposeth with farre greater strength of argument, then you your selfe. This is sufficient to answer this whole section; But I shall examine whatsoever is considerable in it.
The proposition you charge upon D. Twice is this, That the purpose or intent of God, to permit, or suffer such or such a thing to be done, or such or such an accident to come to pass, supposeth a necessity (at least a syllogistical or consequential necessity) of the coming of it to pass.
The proposition you charge upon D. Twisse is this, That the purpose or intent of God, to permit, or suffer such or such a thing to be done, or such or such an accident to come to passe, supposeth a necessity (at least a syllogisticall or consequentiall necessity) of the coming of it to passe.
He that is acquainted with the works of D. Twice, knoweth, that this proposition is to be understood. 1. Concerning only the permission of evil. 2. Concerning not only Gods act, the permission of evil, but also the being of evil by Gods permission. 3. Concerning not a single, sole, and bare permission, but an efficacious permission, that hath several acts of Gods providence accompanying it.