A64002:332
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 Bishops that were assembled at the Council of Arles are These.
But the Bishops that were assembled at the Councell of Arles are These.
Agricii nomine Cataphronius. Caelestinus. Caesarius. Constantini nomine Leontius. Contumeliosius. Cyprianus. Eucherius. Florentius. Galliani nomine Melerius. Joannis nomine Desiderius. Julianus. Maximus. Philagrius. Praetextatus. Proitianus. Severi nomine Cataphronius.
Thus they are reckoned up on both sides by Vossius, amongst whom there is but one name common. To help this, Vossius deviseth a 4th Council of Arles and that the Bishops mentioned to have subscribed Faustus his Epistle, to be the Bishops assembled in the 4th Council of Arles, and not those whom we read to have been assembled ⟨p. 57⟩at the Third. But that any such Bishops were assembled at a 4th Council of Arles he brings no evidence, that I find; but his own conjecture is the best ground for this. And all this pains is taken to salve Faustus his reputation in this. And the reason that moves Vossius to conceive that this subscription was not a mere fiction of Faustus, is this; Because forsooth if this had been a mere fiction of Faustus, surely Maxentius in opposing him, would not have failed to have cast this in his teeth. Binius is eager in the defence of these Episcopal subscriptions, but withal confesseth, that either Faustus himself, or some in his name, practised to countenance his Books also by the authority of those Bishops. In fine (saith he) hujus Commentarii & Libelli, ipse Faustus, vel alius quis dolosè addider at haec verba, In quo quidem opusculo post Arelatinsis Concilii subscriptionem, novis erroribus deprehensis adjici aliqua Synodus Lugdunensis exegit, ut scilicet (saith Binnius) aliquo fuco venditari posset quasi scriptum de gratiâ & libero arbitrio Commentarium duae Synodi recepissent & approbassent. Now if such were the dishonest art of Faustus in counterfeiting this, why might he not be as dishonest in counterfeiting the former Episcopal subscriptions also? And if Vossius his reason to salve Faustus his credit, were of force in this, why should it not be in force in the other also? For Maxentius we do not find to have excepted against his fidelity, more in the one then in the other? And why might not Maxentius be ignorant of them both? And in Biblioth. Sanct. Patrum. there is an admonition added to Faustus his Epistle to Loentius, ex Indice Expurgat. M. Script. Pelatii, wherein though Faustus his epistle to Lucidus, is acknowledged to have been approved by the Episcopal subscriptions in the Council of Arles, yet as touching Faustus his mendicating authority from those Fathers to his books, De Grat. & Lib. Arbit. The Author thereof spares not in plain terms to give Faustus the lye in these words.