A64002:2287
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.
Secondly, because otherwise nothing can be known, or demonstrated of God by, or from the creatures, but still there would be the fallacy of equivocation, Ex cognitione unius aequivocati nihil potest cognosci alterius: And this is as well against the Philosopher, who proveth many things demonstratively of God; as against the Apostle Rom. 1. 20. saying, The invisible things of him from the creation of the World are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power, and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. This is a reason given by Aquinas. p. 1. q. 13. art. 5. Nomina quae dicuntur de Deo & creaturis, non dicuntur purè aequivocè ut aliqui dixerunt. Quia secundum hoc ex creaturis nil possit cognosci de Deo, nec demonstrari, sed semper incideret fallacia aequivocationis, & hoc est tam contra Philosophum 8. Phys. 12. Metaph. qui multa demonstrative de Deo probat, quam etiam contra Apostolum dicentem. Roman. 1. Invisibilia Dei, per ea quae facta sunt, intellect a conspiciuntur.
Secondly, because otherwise nothing can be known, or demonstrated of God by, or from the creatures, but still there would be the fallacy of equivocation, Ex cognitione unius aequivocati nihil potest cognosci alterius: And this is as well against the Philosopher, who proveth many things demonstratively of God; as against the Apostle Rom. 1. 20. saying, The invisible things of him from the creation of the World are clearely seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternall power, and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. This is a reason given by Aquinas. p. 1. q. 13. art. 5. Nomina quae dicuntur de Deo & creaturis, non dicuntur purè aequivocè ut aliqui dixerunt. Quia secundum hoc ex creaturis nil possit cognosci de Deo, nec demonstrari, sed semper incideret fallacia aequivocationis, & hoc est tam contra Philosophum 8. Phys. 12. Metaph. qui multa demonstrative de Deo probat, quam etiam contra Apostolum dicentem. Roman. 1. Invisibilia Dei, per ea quae facta sunt, intellect a conspiciuntur.
This is all that the Scotists can prove by their arguments, which they bring to prove the Univocation of Ens, as predicated of God and the creature; and this they fully and strongly prove. And indeed if the matter be well looked into, the contention here between the Thomists and the Scotists, is a mere strife of words, de modo loquendi.