A64002:385
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.
Secondly, Who seeth not that this argument tends to the utter destruction of all distinct intentions of end, and means in God? For if there be any such distinct intentions in God, the one must be acknowledged to be before the other. As for example, What was the end of creation? Lets go no farther then the manifestation of Gods power and wisdom as the end thereof. Now hence it will follow by the quaintness of this argumentation, that the manifestation of Gods wisdom and power in creating the world did exist, as present with God, before the creation. Is not here a proper argumentation. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici.
Secondly, Who seeth not that this argument tends to the utter destruction of all distinct intentions of end, and means in God? For if there be any such distinct intentions in God, the one must be acknowledged to be before the other. As for example, What was the end of creation? Lets goe no farther then the manifestation of Gods power and wisdome as the end thereof. Now hence it will follow by the quaintnesse of this argumentation, that the manifestation of Gods wisdome and power in creating the world did exist, as present with God, before the creation. Is not here a proper argumentation. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici.
Thirdly, to draw nearer to the discovery of their ignorance. I grant it shall first exist; but how? Not in duration; We acknowledge no such priority in God, between the intention of the end, and the intention of the means; though such a priority in this case is found in man. What then? Isle tell you: They commonly call it a priority of nature. But take heed you do not apply it to any of the two kinds of priority of nature mentioned by Aristotle. For try if you please, and you shall find that none of them can possibly serve the turn; What then is this priority of nature so called? I answer, it is only Prioritas rationis: And so I formerly said, that the intention of the end is in signo rationis, before the intention of the means. You may farther demand, Wherein doth this Prioritas rationis consist? I answer out of Durand, it consists in this, that, Ratio unius petitur a ratione alterius, and so indeed, Ratio mediorum petitur a ratione finis. This generally holds of the intention of end, and means, as well in God, as in the creature. For always the nature of the end duly considered, doth bespeak what shall be the condition of the means. So that this makes no priority of existence at all, neither in duration nor in nature properly so called, but only such a subordination between them, that the reason of the one, that is, the nature or condition of the one, depends upon the nature and condition of the other. Now let any