A64002:2338
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.
That Gods decrees are properly the will of God, may be demonstrated out of most Schoolmen; that they are properly acts of Gods will I deny, and that for two reasons.
That Gods decrees are properly the will of God, may be demonstrated out of most Schoolemen; that they are properly acts of Gods will I deny, and that for two reasons.
1. If Gods decrees were properly acts of his will, then his will were properly a power, But his will is not properly a power, for will is ascribed unto God, not as a power distinct from the act, but as an act not elicit but subsisting: And here I shall give you the words and reasons of Suarez, then whom there are few Modern Schoolmen more rational. He having proved that the will is not in God per modum potentiae secundum rem, sed per modum actus ultimi & puri, he propounds the doubt secundum rationem, & modum concipiendi nostrum, wherein hear his resolution. In hoc eodem modo loquendum est, quo de intellectu & scientià locuti sumus, quod scilicet ex parte rei conceptae, non potest concipi potentia volendi in Deo, quia non potest concipi potentia agendi vel recipiendi ad intra. Nec fingi potest quod sit potentia ad agendum & recipiendum, non secundum rem, sed secundum rationem; quia loquendo ex parte rei conceptae involvitur repugnantia in his terminis; nam agere secundum rationem, non est agere, sed fingere actionem. Ex parte autem modi concipiendi nostri, concipimus in Deo aliquid ad eum modum, quo in creaturis concipimus potentiam volendi, scilicet virtutem amandi se, ut sic, quam praescindimus ab actuali amore, sicut de actu primo & secundo in scientia diximus.
1. If Gods decrees were properly acts of his will, then his will were properly a power, But his will is not properly a power, for will is ascribed unto God, not as a power distinct from the act, but as an act not elicite but subsisting: And here I shall give you the words and reasons of Suarez, then whom there are few Moderne Schoolemen more rationall. He having proved that the will is not in God per modum potentiae secundum rem, sed per modum actus ultimi & puri, he propounds the doubt secundum rationem, & modum concipiendi nostrum, wherein heare his resolution. In hoc eodem modo loquendum est, quo de intellectu & scientià locuti sumus, quod scilicet ex parte rei conceptae, non potest concipi potentia volendi in Deo, quia non potest concipi potentia agendi vel recipiendi ad intra. Nec fingi potest quod sit potentia ad agendum & recipiendum, non secundum rem, sed secundum rationem; quia loquendo ex parte rei conceptae involvitur repugnantia in his terminis; nam agere secundum rationem, non est agere, sed fingere actionem. Ex parte autem modi concipiendi nostri, concipimus in Deo aliquid ad eum modum, quo in creaturis concipimus potentiam volendi, scilicet virtutem amandi se, ut sic, quam praescindimus ab actuali amore, sicut de actu primo & secundo in scientia diximus.