A64002:290
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.
But the upper way (saith this Author) was never taught or approved by any of the Fathers for 600 years. Here breaks forth another reason of this Authors (or his that directed him) cunning carriage in distinguishing the two ways of our Divines in maintaining the absoluteness of election and reprobation, to wit, that in the course of his discourse he might serve his turn with both, and where Antiquity served not his turn against the one, yet might it serve his turn, as he thought against the other. But the truth is, there was no such question at all ventilated in those days, as touching the object of predestination, no nor in Austins neither, nor many hundred years after, that I know. And no marvel; For it concerns the ordering of Gods decree aright, which is merely Logical, as I have showed in my Vind. Grat. Dei. Its true that St Austin doth usually accommodate that of St Paul, Rom. 9. 21. concerning the Mass, unto ⟨p. 47⟩mankind considered in Massa damnata as he commonly calls it, that is, in the corrupt Mass; but not always, but sometimes he speaks of it, and accommodates it clearly unto the Mass of mankind uncorrupt, yea, as yet not created, as there I have showed. And as for the right ordering of Gods decrees, and the right stating of the object of predestination and reprobation, We desire no better, nor other ground then that of the Apostle, God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, that is, he cures infidelity and hardness of heart in whom he will, by bestowing faith and repentance upon them, and leaves it uncured in whom he will by denying faith and repentance unto them. And as for the rigour of this Tenet (as it is commonly accounted) of making the Mass of mankind not created the object of predestination, I have already showed the vanity of that conceit and denomination; for as much as hereby neither is the decree of damnation made to precede the consideration of sin, no nor of final impenitency in any moment of nature, nor in any moment of nature is the decree of salvation made by me, to precede the consideration of final perseverance in faith and repentance. But whereas some, who are most rigid indeed in their discourse, make the decree of saving some and damning others to precede the decree of creating and permitting of sin both original and actual;
But the upper way (saith this Author) was never taught or approved by any of the Fathers for 600 years. Here breaks forth another reason of this Authors (or his that directed him) cunning carriage in distinguishing the two waies of our Divines in maintaining the absolutenesse of election and reprobation, to wit, that in the course of his discourse he might serve his turne with both, and where Antiquity served not his turne against the one, yet might it serve his turne, as he thought against the other. But the truth is, there was no such question at all ventilated in those daies, as touching the obiect of predestination, no nor in Austins neither, nor many hundred years after, that I know. And no marvell; For it concernes the ordering of Gods decree aright, which is meerly Logicall, as I have shewed in my Vind. Grat. Dei. Its true that St Austin doth usually accommodate that of St Paul,