A64002:320
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.
I answer, what is this any other, but that which the Fathers many of them have professed in saying, that predestination is secundum praescientiam; And doth not Fulgentius affirm the same? Yet is he acknowledged by Vossius, a maintainer of the absoluteness of predestination as well as Austin. Did Hierome deny faith to be the gift of God? or granting it to be the gift of God, did he maintain, that God gave it according unto works? If not, but according to the mere pleasure of his will, having mercy on some, while he hardened others; the case is clear, that he maintained absolute election unto faith. As for Gods decree of salvation and damnation, we willingly profess, that God decreed to save no man but upon his final perseverance in faith and piety; to damn none, but such as finally persevere in infidelity and impenitency. Now compare we these decrees together, the decree of giving faith, and the decree of saving; which of these are most likely to be the foremost; it is apparent that salvation is more likely to be the end in respect of faith, and faith the means in respect of salvation, then the contrary. And the general and most received rule of Schools is, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. I think the glory of God in the way of mercy, mixed with justice is the end of both; and that the decrees of giving faith and salvation are simultaneous, as decrees of means tending to the same end, and so neither before the other. But Hierome saith, that, ex Praescientia futurorum nascitur dilectio vel odium. I confess he doth in a disjunctive manner thus, vel ex praescientia vel ex operibus. And we know that passions such as Love and Hatred, are ⟨p. 55⟩commonly said to be attributed to God, not quoad affectum but quoad effectum, and so they may fairly stand for salvation and damnation, which proceed ex operibus in Hieroms phrase. But admit he means hereby, decretum salvandi which rising expraescientia fidei, must presuppose the decree of giving faith to precede. I answer then, there is to be acknowledged an impropriety of speech, and here is place for Gersons rule, Sancti non semper adverterunt ad proprietatem locutionis. And the rather because Hierome we never find exercised in this Controversy. And it is against common reason, that faith should be intended before salvation.
I answer, what is this any other, but that which the Fathers many of them have professed in saying, that predestination is secundum praescientiam; And doth not Fulgentius affirm the same? Yet is he acknowledged by Vossius, a maintainer of the absolutenesse of predestination as well as Austin. Did Hierome deny faith to be the gift of God? or granting it to be the gift of God, did he maintaine, that God gave it according unto works? If not, but according to the meer pleasure of his will, having mercy on some, while he hardned others; the case is cleare, that he maintained absolute election unto faith. As for Gods decree of salvation and damnation, we willingly professe, that God decreed to save no man but upon his finall perseverance in faith and piety; to damne none, but such as finally persevere in infidelity and impenitency. Now compare we these decrees together, the decree of giving faith, and the decree of saving; which of these are most likely to be the foremost; it is apparent that salvation is more likely to be the end in respect of faith, and faith the means in respect of salvation, then the contrary. And the generall and most received rule of Schooles is, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. I think the glory of God in the way of mercy, mixed with justice is the end of both; and that the decrees of giving faith and salvation are simultaneous, as decrees of means tending to the same end, and so neither before the other. But Hierome saith, that, ex Praescientia futurorum nascitur dilectio vel odium. I confesse he doth in a disjunctive manner thus, vel ex praescientia vel ex operibus. And we know that passions such as Love and Hatred, are