A64002:2257
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.
As for the testimonies you bring in the Margin, they and diverse others are alleged generally by the Dominicans, to prove the existence of things in Eternity, and it is very strange unto me that you take no notice of the common answers that are usually given unto them. The place out of Gregory is misquoted, but that might be an escape of the Printer; in my book it is, Moral. lib. 20. cap. 25. And a little after he gives the reason why prescience is not properly in God. Praescire dicitur qui unamquamque rem, antequam veniat, videt: Et id quod futurum est, priusquam praesens fiat, praevide•: Deus ergo quomodo est praescius dum nulla nisi quae futura sunt, praesciantur? Et scim•• quia Deo futurum nihil est, ante cujus oculos praeterita nulla sunt: praesentia non transeunt, futura non veni, uni: Quippe quia omne quod nobis fuit & erit, in ejus prospectu praesto est: Et omne quod praesensest, scire potest potius quam praescire. The ground upon which both Austin and Gregory deny foreknowledge to be in God is, because nothing is future but all things are present unto God.
As for the testimonies you bring in the Margent, they and diverse others are alleadged generally by the Dominicans, to prove the existence of things in Eternity, and it is very strange unto me that you take no notice of the common answers that are usually given unto them. The place out of Gregory is misquoted, but that might be an escape of the Printer; in my booke it is, Moral. lib. 20. cap. 25. And a little after he gives the reason why prescience is not properly in God. Praescire dicitur qui unamquamque rem, antequam veniat, videt: Et id quod futurum est, priusquam praesens fiat, praevide•: Deus ergo quomodo est praescius dum nulla nisi quae futura sunt, praesciantur? Et scim•• quia Deo futurum nihil est, ante cujus oculos praeterita nulla sunt: praesentia non transeunt, futura non veni, uni: Quippe quia omne quod nobis fuit & erit, in ejus prospectu praesto est: Et omne quod praesensest, scire potest potius quam praescire. The ground upon which both Austin and Gregory deny foreknowledge to be in God is, because nothing is future but all things are present unto God.