A64002:2223
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.
To confess that there is a God, and to deny his foreknowledge, is to say with the fool in his heart, that there is no God: For he, who doth not foreknow things to come, is not God. Other testimonies you may see quoted in Suarez lib. 1. De scientià futurorum contingentium absoluta. cap. 2. Out of other places of Austin, as also out of Fulgentius, and Anselm. But I may very well spare this labour of citing the Ancients, seeing M. Hoard, or M. Mason (I know not well which) tells us that the Fathers did generally make sin an object of Gods prescience, and therefore they maintained, That there was prescience in God. As for the Schoolmen they in their Commentaries upon Aquinas. Sum. 1. p. Q. 14. Art. 13. And on Lombard lib. 1. dist. 38. 39. do generally resolve, nemine contradicente, (that I know) That Gods foreknowledge of things to come, is a point certaine de fide. And amongst those that are called Protestants, I know none that oppose it, save the Socinians; against whom, in this particular, you may read Stagman Photinianis: disp. 13. And Johannes Junius in refutat: praelect. Fausti Socini, cap. 8. 9. 10. 11. The Arminians, however now some of them walk in the clouds, and will not speak out, yet at first the Ringleaders did not stick to profess, that election was upon foresight of perseverance in faith, and reprobation upon foreknowledge of perseverance in infidelity and impenitency. D. Twice tells us, That Gods foreknowledge of things future, is a point assented unto by, and uncontroverted amongst all Christians; De Scientia Media, p. 245. Extra controversiam est apud Christianos omnes, futura omnia, quantumvis contingentia, Deo not a fuisse, idque ab aeterno; neque mirum, cum nihil positivum aut sit, aut futurum sit in rerum naturà, cujus productionem non operetur ipse Deus, idque in genere causae efficientis, consèquentérque cujus productionem non ab aeterno decreverit, quá de re nulla fere inter Christianos hodie, saltem eruditiores, viget Controversia. And hereupon it is that he censureth the proofs brought by Suarez for the confirmation of it, to be needless. Pergit Suarez in confirmatione ejus, de quo Christianus nullus dubitat abidem. And again in his book against M. Cotton p. 69. he saith, That for men with Cicero to deny, that God foreknows things to come, is to turn Atheist.
To confesse that there is a God, and to deny his foreknowledge, is to say with the foole in his heart, that there is no God: For he, who doth not foreknow things to come, is not God. Other testimonies you may see quoted in Suarez lib. 1. De scientià futurorum contingentium absoluta. cap. 2. Out of other places of Austin, as also out of Fulgentius, and Anselme. But I may very well spare this labour of citing the Ancients, seeing M. Hord, or M. Mason (I know not well which) tells us that the Fathers did generally make sinne an object of Gods prescience, and therefore they maintained, That there was prescience in God. As for the Schoolemen they in their Commentaries upon Aquinas. Sum. 1. p. Q. 14. Art. 13. And on Lombard lib. 1. dist. 38. 39. doe generally resolve, nemine contradicente, (that I know) That Gods foreknowledge of things to come, is a point certaine de fide. And amongst those that are called Protestants, I know none that oppose it, save the Socinians; against whom, in this particular, you may read Stagman Photinianis: disp. 13. And Johannes Junius in refutat: praelect. Fausti Socini, cap. 8. 9. 10. 11. The Arminians, however now some of them walke in the cloudes, and will not speake out, yet at first the Ringleaders did not stick to professe, that election was upon foresight of perseverance in faith, and reprobation upon foreknowledge of perseverance in infidelity and impenitency. D. Twisse tells us, That Gods foreknowledge of things future, is a point assented unto by, and uncontroverted amongst all Christians; De Scientia Media, p. 245. Extra controversiam est apud Christianos omnes, futura omnia, quantumvis contingentia, Deo not a fuisse, idque ab aeterno; neque mirum, cum nihil positivum aut sit, aut futurum sit in rerum naturà, cujus productionem non operetur ipse Deus, idque in genere causae efficientis, consèquentérque cujus productionem non ab aeterno decreverit, quá de re nulla fere inter Christianos hodie, saltem eruditiores, viget Controversia. And hereupon it is that he censureth the proofes brought by Suarez for the confirmation of it, to be needlesse. Pergit Suarez in confirmatione ejus, de quo Christianus nullus dubitat abidem. And againe in his book against M. Cotton p. 69. he saith, That for men with Cicero to deny, that God foreknowes things to come, is to turne Atheist.