A64002:2161
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.
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.
He that is acquainted with the workes of D. Twisse, knoweth, that this proposition is to be understood. 1. Concerning only the permission of evill. 2. Concerning not only Gods act, the permission of evill, but also the being of evill by Gods permission. 3. Concerning not a single, sole, and bare permission, but an efficacious permission, that hath severall acts of Gods providence accompanying it.
First, it is to be understood only concerning the permission of evil, and that as touching the Formal, the pravity or obliquity of it, which being a privation is uncapable of being an object of an effective decree. This I might clear from most of those places, wherein this distinction between an effective and permissive decree is propounded; but I shall spare to name them at this present, and content my self, with the alleging of one place, where he expressly puts this limitation upon the proposition we speak of, De Scientiâ Mediâ. pag. 133. col. 2. Non pauci sunt, non modo ex nostris, sed & ex Theologis nobis oppositis, tam Pontificiis, quam Arminianis, qui putant, infallibitèr futurum esse, quicquid &c. Deus permittere decreverit, hoc est autem, duntaxat in genere mali. Nam quae fiunt bona, ea fieri decrevit Deus non tam ipso permittente, quam faciente, in quocunque genere bona fuerint, sive in genere boni moralis, sive naturalis sive supernaturalis; summa, sive in genere entis bonum fuit, sive in genere morris. And by this it is apparent, that your instance in Gods decree to permit fire to burn combustible matter, is altogether impertinent, for that is quid bonum in genere entis.