A64002:339
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 remember when Epicurus was demanded why, seeing he followed Leucippus so much, he did not follow him throughout, made this answer saying, I do as a man that is a thirst when he takes the cup to drink, for he drinks what will serve his turn, and sets the rest by: so you must give this Author leave to represent his devotion to grey hairs, so far as they serve his turn, and no farther. Yet I have showed how Austin maintains, as touching the Ancients that went before him, that they concurred with him in fundomento praedestinationis, which he accounted the the doctrine of Free grace, and cites to this purpose Cyprian, Ambrose, and Nazianzen, and by the common prayers of the Church, that God would convert the unbelievers unto the faith of Christ; that the same doctrine, which was in his judgement the foundation of predestination, as he maintained it according to the Word of God, was generally received in the Church of God.
I remember when Epicurus was demanded why, seeing he followed Leucippus so much, he did not follow him throughout, made this answer saying, I doe as a man that is a thirst when he takes the cup to drink, for he drinks what will serve his turne, and sets the rest by: so you must give this Author leave to represent his devotion to gray haires, so farre as they serve his turne, and no farther. Yet I have shewed how Austin maintaines, as touching the Ancients that went before him, that they concurred with him in fundomento praedestinationis, which he accounted the the doctrine of Free grace, and cites to this purpose Cyprian, Ambrose, and Nazianzen, and by the common prayers of the Church, that God would convert the unbelievers unto the faith of Christ; that the same doctrine, which was in his judgement the foundation of predestination, as he maintained it according to the Word of God, was generally received in the Church of God.
Before I part from this, I think fit to add something concerning the stile here given to Lucidus, before the revocation of his pretended error; for here I find him styled the Predestinarian. Now I presume this Author, that pretends so great reverence to grey hairs, and so much prefers Antiquity before Novelty, hath good ground for this his denomination of him, and that out of Antiquity. Now I desire he would be pleased to communicate unto us, his learned reading in Antiquity for this; and the rather, because in the whole story of the business between Faustus and Lucidus, I find no mention of any such attribute given to his person, or to the doctrine (reputed by Faustus erroneous) maintained by him. The term Praedestinatus qualifying a person, I find first in Arnobius junior, and from that time I find not the Praedestinati, or Praedestinatians mentioned till the days of Hinemarus, about the year of our Lord God 850. And as for the story of the Predestinarian Heresy, which this Author licks his lips at, the original whereof is referred to the year 415 by Sigibertus; it is very strange, that in Austins days it was not known unto him, or being known, not taken notice of by him, nor by Prosper neither after him. And Alphonsus à Castro in his Book contra Haereses, professeth that the Author of this Heresy he found not, neither in Sigibert, nor in any other; because indeed not one of those who wrote of Heresies makes mention of this Heresy, besides Bernard of Lutzenburg in his Catalogue of Heretics; and he saith no more of it, then what Sigibert mentioneth in his Chronicle. And withal he adds, that after this error was buried, by the space of almost a thousand years, it was revived by John Huss the Bohemian. Whereby it appears, that Alphonsus was not of this Authors opinion in censuring this Lucidus for a Predestinarian. And the first that I find to intimate so much is Hincmarus about the year 850. In like sort Prateölus acknowledgeth that, Quis corum Dux & institutor fuerit, nescitur. But Gerardus Vossius hath herein helped us with this conjecture, referring the original of this Heresy to the Monks of Adrumetum; and Bishop Usher in his Historiá Godescalci saith, Vossius was the first that charged those Adrumetine Monks to be the author thereof. Yet if I be not deceived, he might be beholding to Coccius for helping him to this conceit.