A64002:2352
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.
First, here again you perplex the disputation with talking of two acts of Gods will, but supposing that by one of them you mean Gods decree which is in him, and by the other his commandment which is without him, performed usually by the Ministry of the creature, and therefore not his will properly so called, I utterly deny the consequence of your argument, and how just and reasonable this my denial thereof is, will appear, if you please to reduce your Enthymeme into a Categorical Syllogism, for then you will find the proof of its consequence to depend on this, That whatsoever acts are differenced and distinguished by their objects, do digladiate and one fight against the other; and this is a proposition so grossly false, as that I am very confident you cannot back it with so much as one, either testimony or reason. That acts are differenced and distinguished by their objects, is a common and received rule; but that all acts are opposite, whose objects are repugnant, is an assertion that as yet I never so much as read or heard of in any either Philosopher or Divine; and 'tis this alone will serve your turn to conclude a digladiation or repugnancy between the Decree and the Command of God from the opposition that D. Twice admitteth to be between the things Decreed and the things Commanded.
FIrst, here againe you perplexe the disputation with talking of two acts of Gods will, but supposing that by one of them you meane Gods decree which is in him, and by the other his commandement which is without him, performed usually by the Ministry of the creature, and therefore not his will properly so called, I utterly deny the consequence of your argument, and how just and reasonable this my denyall thereof is, will appeare, if you please to reduce your Enthymeme into a Categoricall Syllogisme, for then you will find the proofe of its consequence to depend on this, That whatsoever acts are differenced and distinguished by their objects, doe digladiate and one fight against the other; and this is a proposition so grossely false, as that I am very confident you cannot back it with so much as one, either testimony or reason. That acts are differenced and distinguished by their objects, is a common and received rule; but that all acts are opposite, whose objects are repugnant, is an assertion that as yet I never so much as read or heard of in any either Philosopher or Divine; and 'tis this alone will serve your turne to conclude a digladiation or repugnancy between the Decree and the Command of God from the opposition that D. Twisse admitteth to be between the things Decreed and the things Commanded.