A64002:2239
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 learned Assertors of the Protestant cause, you say, are at perfect agreement with their adversaries the Papists in this, That prescience, or foreknowledge, are not formally or properly in God. You will not deny D. Twice to be a learned Protestant, and how he dissents from this assertion which you father upon all Protestants, you may read in his book against Doctor Jackson p. 316. The question only was (saith he) whether foreknowledge might be properly attributed unto God, in respect of things to come: now I see no reason (saith he) but it may, as well as it is attributed unto man. Amongst the Papists Suarez comes behind few modern Schoolmen, and whether he thinks foreknowledge not to be properly in God, let his own words inform you. Lib. 1. De Scientia futurorum absolutè cap. 7. In omni etiam proprietate certissimum est scientiam Dei, sicut & Deum ipsum, duratione antecedere omnium rerum creatarum existentiam. But Suarez is not herein singular. For the Schoolmen generally in their Commentaries upon Aquinas, and Lombard in the places but now quoted, having propounded this Question, An in Deo sit scientia futurorum &c. Resolve it affirmatively: And as at other times, so especially in determinations, and resolutions of questions, that Rule hath place: Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato; if a word have two significations, one proper, another improper or Metaphorical, and it be put by it self without any thing to determine, or limit it unto the improper acception thereof, it must be taken properly. This to be the meaning of that rule Scheibler instructed me, when I was a Puny in Philosophy. Met. lib. 2. cap. 6. num. 17. Respondeo, illam propositionem, Analogum per se positum, hoc est, sine aliquo addito, stat pro famosiori, valere solum de analogo proportionis, hoc est, quod de uno praedicatur propriè, de alio impropriè, per similitudinem, vel metaphoram, id positum sine addito significat suum principal analogatum, veluti cum de risu loquor, intelligo eum de risu hominis, non de risu prati. Austin in lib. 5. de Civit. Dei. cap. 9. Censures the denial of Gods foreknowledge as a madness, as a blasphemous, and Atheistical speech &c. And this he would never have done, if he had thought as you, that foreknowledge is not properly in God:
The learned Assertors of the Protestant cause, you say, are at perfect agreement with their adversaries the Papists in this, That prescience, or foreknowledge, are not formally or properly in God. You will not deny D. Twisse to be a learned Protestant, and how he dissents from this assertion which you father upon all Protestants, you may read in his book against Doctor Jackson p. 316. The question only was (saith he) whether foreknowledge might be properly attributed unto God, in respect of things to come: now I see no reason (saith he) but it may, as well as it is attributed unto man. Amongst the Papists Suarez comes behind few moderne Schoolemen, and whether he thinks foreknowledge not to be properly in God, let his own words informe you. Lib. 1. De Scientia futurorum absolutè cap. 7. In omni etiam proprietate certissimum est scientiam Dei, sicut & Deum ipsum, duratione antecedere omnium rerum creatarum existentiam. But Suarez is not herein singular. For the Schoolemen generally in their Commentaries upon Aquinas, and Lombard in the places but now quoted, having propounded this Question, An in Deo sit scientia futurorum &c. Resolve it affirmatively: And as at other times, so especially in determinations, and resolutions of questions, that Rule hath place: Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato; if a word have two significations, one proper, another improper or Metaphoricall, and it be put by it selfe without any thing to determine, or limit it unto the improper acception thereof, it must be taken properly. This to be the meaning of that rule Scheibler instructed me, when I was a Puny in Philosophy. Met. lib. 2. cap. 6. num. 17. Respondeo, illam propositionem, Analogum per se positum, hoc est, sine aliquo addito, stat pro famosiori, valere solum de analogo proportionis, hoc est, quod de uno praedicatur propriè, de alio impropriè, per similitudinem, vel metaphoram, id positum sine addito significat suum principale analogatum, veluti cum de risu loquor, intelligo eum de risu hominis, non de risu prati. Austin in lib. 5. de Civit. Dei. cap. 9. Censures the denyall of Gods foreknowledge as a madnesse, as a blasphemous, and Atheistical speech &c. And this he would never have done, if he had thought as you, that foreknowledge is not properly in God: