A64002:2277
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 Minor of this Argument put in the first place, There is nothing in the Creature univocally and formally the same with any thing which is in God. This the Scotists deny, as you may see in Scotus himself lib. 1. Distinct. 3. Q. 1. Distinct. 8. Q. 3. Rada part. 1. Controver. 21. Faber Faventinus Philosoph. Natural. Theorem. 95. And they bring such subtle reasons as you will confess, when you read them, to be worthy of an answer. As for your reason, they are not within Gun-shot of it. For these attributes which they affirm to be in the Creature univocally the same with those in God, are to be understood quoad communes non proprias rationes, quoad conceptum convenientiae non discrepantiae, In such a notion and consideration as is abstracted from finite and infinite, and so more general then either God or the creature. Conceptus communis (saith Scotus) est ex se formaliter neuter respectu eorum quibus est communis: But the objective conceit of these attributes, which denominate God and the creature, is common unto God and the creature, and therefore formally neither finite nor infinite, but abstracting from both. But perhaps my dullness cannot pierce into the depth of this argument. You may do well for my conviction to improve it unto the utmost, and yet, if I be not mistaken, the uttermost that you can prove thereby is, that which will not be denied unto you by the Scotists, to wit, that nothing, no not Fns, of all predicates one of the most abstract and transcendental, can be affirmed ⟨p. 233⟩of God and the creature univocally, in regard of a physical univocation. Rada part. 1. Controv. 21. Art. 1. pag. 328. 333. and that these attributes which denominate God and the creature are predicated equivocally; if we speak of a *Physical equivocation, it is manifest.
As for the Minor of this Argument put in the first place, There is nothing in the Creature univocally and formally the same with any thing which is in God. This the Scotists deny, as you may see in Scotus himselfe lib. 1. Distinct. 3. Q. 1. Distinct. 8. Q. 3. Rada part. 1. Controver. 21. Faber Faventinus Philosoph. Natural. Theorem. 95. And they bring such subtill reasons as you will confesse, when you reade them, to be worthy of an answer. As for your reason, they are not within Gun-shot of it. For these attributes which they affirme to be in the Creature univocally the same with those in God, are to be understood quoad communes non proprias rationes, quoad conceptum convenientiae non discrepantiae, In such a notion and consideration as is abstracted from finite and infinite, and so more generall then either God or the creature. Conceptus communis (saith Scotus) est ex se formaliter neuter respectu eorum quibus est communis: But the objective conceipt of these attributes, which denominate God and the creature, is common unto God and the creature, and therefore formally neither finite nor infinite, but abstracting from both. But perhaps my dulnesse cannot pierce into the depth of this argument. You may doe well for my conviction to improve it unto the utmost, and yet, if I be not mistaken, the uttermost that you can prove thereby is, that which will not be denyed unto you by the Scotists, to wit, that nothing, no not Fns, of all predicates one of the most abstract and transcendentall, can be affirmed