A64002:365
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.
Was it this point alone the sifting whereof, as this Author phraseth it, Beza declined? It is apparent they were no less then three Points. This appears by the second part of Beza's answer Ad act. Colloq. Mompelg. as also by the answer of Jacobus Andreae, as if he were the mouth of the Prince, namely, that if they list not De Tribus illis ⟨p. 62⟩confer, yet he thought it fit that Theses written by them on those three Articles should be rehearsed in the hearing of all, which afterwards Beza and his fellows might take home with them to address an answer to them afterwards, as they thought good. And these three Articles were concerning, Predestination, Baptism, and the putting down of Images in Churches. Concerning all which Jacobus Andreae gives his reasons, why he thought it fit they should entertain farther Conference; Whereunto Beza makes answer in his Preface to that second part of his Answer Ad Act. Colloq. Mompelg. It is true, this reason Beza gave why he thought it not fit in that place publicly to dispute thereof, to wit, of predestination, Quod haec gravissima quaestio publicè in illo caetu allatis utrinque contrariis sententiis disceptari absque nonnullorum offendiculo non posse videretur. For both the mysterious nature of it is such, as few are capable of it; the Massilienses professed as much, as appears in Prospers Epistle unto Austin, De his taceri exigunt (saith Prosper) quorum altitudinem nullus attigerit. And to the same purpose, even they who durst not dislike Austins doctrine thereof professed as much, as appears by the Letter of Hilarius unto Austin. Consentientibus etiam his qui hanc definitionem improbare non audent, ut dicant, Quid opus fuit hujusmodi disputationis incerto tot minus intelligentium corda turbari? Then again it was in a Lutheran Assembly, and amongst many brought up in the hatred of the doctrine which Beza maintained, who in all likelihood would be the more exasperated. Causas verum tacendi 1tongum est omnes quaerere (saith Austin) quarum tamen est & haec una ne priors faciamus eos qui non intelligunt. No wise man, saith our Saviour, putteth new wine into old bottles. Quanto minus sapit, saith Beza in that Preface of his, qui de praest antissimo vino prius in utres faecibus adhuc, & vappa obsitos immittendo quàm de repurgandis illis & apparandis cogitet.
Was it this point alone the sifting whereof, as this Author phraseth it, Beza declined? It is apparent they were no lesse then three Points. This appears by the second part of Beza's answer Ad act. Colloq. Mompelg. as also by the answer of Jacobus Andreae, as if he were the mouth of the Prince, namely, that if they list not De Tribus illis