A64002:361
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.
4. The fourth, Not only comparatively, but absolutely there is no cause of reprobation. Therefore neither sin actual, nor original, nor both of them foreseen by God, was indeed the meritorious and motive cause of the reprobation of any, as touching all the effects thereof, and the proof hereof he prosecutes at large.
4. The fourth, Not only comparatively, but absolutely there is no cause of reprobation. Therefore neither sinne actuall, nor originall, nor both of them foreseen by God, was indeed the meritorious and motive cause of the reprobation of any, as touching all the effects thereof, and the proofe hereof he prosecutes at large.
5. Reprobation as touching the last effect thereof, presupposeth in signo rationis the foresight of sin original, or actual, for which a reprobate is damned. Mark it well, He does not say as the cause for which God decrees his damnation, but as the cause for which a reprobate is damned. And Aquinas (whose followers the Dominicans are) expresseth this doctrine in this manner, and that more Scholastically and accurately then Alvarez. Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte paenae quae praeparatur reprobatis, in quantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata, &c. in Ad Rom. 9. Sect. 2. in fine, that is, Prescience of sins may be some reason of reprobation on the part of punishment, to wit, in as much as God purposeth to punish wicked men for their sins. Where sin is evidently made the cause of damnation, and that by virtue of Gods purpose, but by no means the cause of the decree it self. And the same Aquinas elsewhere professeth that, No man was so mad as to affirm that merits are the cause of Predestination, as touching the act of God Predestinating: and that it cannot be the cause thereof, he proves, because nothing can be the cause of Gods will, as touching the act of God willing, but as touching the things willed by God, as formerly he had proved. The same doctrine in effect is taught by Durand in 1. dist. 41. q. 2. Bonaventure applies the same distinction to reprobation it self. Odium aeternum, saith he, implies two things, Principal significatum & connotatum &c. & primum non est ex meritis, sed secundum. This he explicates in the words following, Quod patet si resolvatur, quia Odium est propositum puniendi: Propositum autem nullus meretur sed paenam, that is, Hatred (or reprobation) is Gods purpose to punish: Of this divine purpose there is no meritorious cause, but only of the punishment. The same was the Opinion of Gandavensis, Scotus, Halensis, as I have showed in my Vindiciae.