A64002:2264
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.
JEANS.
IEANES.
Your Argument with open mouth gainsayeth that which no body will affirm, but is mute in the proof of that which only will be called for, to wit, That whatsoever is properly and formally ascribed unto God, is really distinguished from Gods Essence, and his other attributes. If you think I do you any wrong by this censure, reduce your Argument unto Categorical Syllogisms, and make the best of it you can.
YOur Argument with open mouth gainsayeth that which no body will affirme, but is mute in the proofe of that which only will be called for, to wit, That whatsoever is properly and formally ascribed unto God, is really distinguished from Gods Essence, and his other attributes. If you think I doe you any wrong by this censure, reduce your Argument unto Categoricall Syllogismes, and make the best of it you can.
Mr GOODWIN.
Secondly, if foreknowledge were properly or formally in God, there should be somewhat in him corruptible, or changeable. For that which is supposed to be such a foreknowledge in him to day, by the morrow, suppose the thing or event foreknown, should in the interim actually come to pass, must needs cease, and be changed, in as much as there can be no foreknowledge of things that are present, the adequate and appropriate object of this knowledge (in the propriety of it) being res futura, somewhat that is to come.