A64002:379
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.
Thus have I dispatched mine answer unto them, as touching mine own opinion. But supposing the method of the Contra-Remonstrants sound, in making salvation of man, to be intended by God as an end, and both mans faith in Christ, and Christs Mission to be intended as means. We deny this to be absurd or ignominious unto Christ. Lets hear how they prove it, thus; If the decree of sending Christ be posterior to the electing of singular persons unto salvation, then the intention of mans salvation was posterior to Gods intention of satisfaction to his justice, which say they is absurd and foolish, to wit, to decree the salvation of sinners, unless first he decree satisfaction to his justice. But I answer according to the form of the Contra-Remonstrants doctrine: First, by proving their order to be sound: Secondly, by showing the invalidity of the Remonstrants discourse.
Thus have I dispatched mine answer unto them, as touching mine own opinion. But supposing the method of the Contra-Remonstrants sound, in making salvation of man, to be intended by God as an end, and both mans faith in Christ, and Christs Mission to be intended as means. We deny this to be absurd or ignominious unto Christ. Lets heare how they prove it, thus; If the decree of sending Christ be posterior to the electing of singular persons unto salvation, then the intention of mans salvation was posterior to Gods intention of satisfaction to his justice, which say they is absurd and foolish, to wit, to decree the salvation of sinners, unlesse first he decree satisfaction to his justice. But I answer according to the forme of the Contra-Remonstrants doctrine: First, by proving their order to be sound: Secondly, by shewing the invalidity of the Remonstrants discourse.
First therefore: There was never any other order of intentions acknowledged by the learned, then such as is found between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means tending thereunto. And the Order most received is this; That the intention of the end, is before the intention of the means. Now let every man that is is his right Wits consider, which is more likely to be the end, and which the means of these two, Mans salvation, and Christs Mission to satisfy for the sin of man. Was ever any man known to be so brainsick as to affirm, that the salvation of man is a means tending to this end, namely, the sending of Christ into the World to satisfy for the sin of man? On the other side, how fair and plausible is it to affirm, that Christ was sent into the world, to satisfy for mans sin, to this end, that man might be saved? whence it followeth evidently by the most approved rules of Schools, that the intention of mans salvation is in signo rationis, before the