A64002:389
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.
Now I proceed to the second Question, as more seasonable to the present occasion. And here first they begin with their former artifice, making infidelity on the part of reprobation, answerable to faith on the part of election, which is most untrue, as formerly I showed: Only the not curing of infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by ⟨p. 69⟩us subordinate to reprobation; as the curing of natural infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by us subordinate to election. But they go on, as in shaping our Tenet at pleasure, so in basting it with their very liberal censures, as absurd and execrable, in such sort, as the bare commemoration of it, they take to be sufficient to represent the horror of it, and to confute it, and this they commit to the judgement of all the faithful of Christ. And indeed their best strength lieth in setting forth their Adversaries doctrine in such colours, as the Devil is painted with. And in this particular, they conceive good hope (no doubt) that propitious Readers will conceive hereby, that the infidelity of man is made by their Adversaries the work of God, as well as Faith; Whereas it is well known, that there is so little need of working men to infidelity, that all being borne in sin, and corrupted and estranged from the life of God, through the fall of Adam, infidelity is as natural and hereditary to a man, as any other corruption. And it is as well known and undeniable, that none can cure it but God, by faith; but this he cures in whom he will, by giving Faith to whom he will, and if he refuse to cure it in any, that, and that alone is enough to make him a vessel of wrath, that so Gods glory may be manifested upon him, in the way of justice vindicative. But come we to their Arguments.
Now I proceed to the second Question, as more seasonable to the present occasion. And here first they begin with their former artifice, making infidelity on the part of reprobation, answerable to faith on the part of election, which is most untrue, as formerly I shewed: Only the not curing of infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by ⟨p. 69⟩us subordinate to reprobation; as the curing of naturall infidelity by the grace of faith, is made by us subordinate to election. But they goe on, as in shaping our Tenent at pleasure, so in basting it with their very liberall censures, as absurd and execrable, in such sort, as the bare commemoration of it, they take to be sufficient to represent the horrour of it, and to confute it, and this they commit to the judgement of all the faithfull of Christ. And indeed their best strength lyeth in setting forth their Adversaries doctrine in such colours, as the Devill is painted with. And in this particular, they conceive good hope (no doubt) that propitious Readers will conceive hereby, that the infidelity of man is made by their Adversaries the work of God, as well as Faith; Whereas it is well known, that there is so little need of working men to infidelity, that all being borne in sinne, and corrupted and estranged from the life of God, through the fall of Adam, infidelity is as naturall and hereditary to a man, as any other corruption. And it is as well known and undeniable, that none can cure it but God, by faith; but this he cures in whom he will, by giving Faith to whom he will, and if he refuse to cure it in any, that, and that alone is enough to make him a vessell of wrath, that so Gods glory may be manifested upon him, in the way of justice vindicative. But come we to their Arguments.
1. The first is this. If Infidelity followeth Reprobation unto destruction, then God cannot in justice destroy Reprobates for their infidelity. For there is no greater injustice, then to destroy a man for that, that followeth necessarily upon reprobation which is the work of God. To this I answer.
1. According to mine ordering the decrees divine. Secondly, according to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenet in ordering them.
1. According to mine ordering the decrees divine. Secondly, according to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenent in ordering them.
1. According to my ordering of the decrees divine; In no moment of nature or reason is the decree of damnation precedent to the decree of permitting infidelity, or leaving the infidelity of some men uncured, to wit, by denying them faith, by denying the grace of regeneration. But the decrees of creating all in Adam, of permitting all to fall in Adam, in bringing all men forth into the World in the state of Original sin, of leaving this original sin uncured in them, and last of all, of damning them for their sins; are decrees not subordinate, but coordinate, as decrees de Mediis, tending jointly to one supreme end, which is the manifestation of Gods glory upon them in the way of justice vindicative; as also to show the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, whom he hath prepared unto glory, to wit, by beholding 1in others that miserable condition, which through Gods mere grace and goodness they have escaped.
1. According to my ordering of the decrees divine; In no moment of nature or reason is the decree of damnation precedent to the decree of permitting infidelity, or leaving the infidelity of some men uncured, to wit, by denying them faith, by denying the grace of regeneration. But the decrees of creating all in Adam, of permitting all to fall in Adam, in bringing all men forth into the World in the state of Originall sinne, of leaving this originall sinne uncured in them, and last of all, of damning them for their sinnes; are decrees not subordinate, but coördinate, as decrees de Mediis, tending joyntly to one supream end, which is the manifestation of Gods glory upon them in the way of justice vindicative; as also to shew the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, whom he hath prepared unto glory, to wit, by beholding 1in others that miserable condition, which through Gods meer grace and goodnesse they have escaped.
2. According to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenet, I answer,
2. According to the Contra-Remonstrants Tenent, I answer,
1. Many of them do not maintain that infidelity is consequent to the decree of damnation, but in the foresight of God, precedent rather: as appears by the British Divines their Theses De Reprobatione; and Alvarez professeth the same. The denial of grace, and so the permitting of natural infidelity to remain uncured, they make consequent (as it seems) to a negative decree of denying glory. And to the decree of permitting infidelity, they make the foresight of infidelity subsequent; and this foresight of infidelity they make precedent to reprobation, as it signifies the decree of damnation. And thus far I agree with them, That in no moment of nature, or sign of reason did God ordain any man to damnation, but for sin; and consequently in no moment of nature, or sign of reason, did the decree of damnation go before the foresight of sin or infidelity.
1. Many of them doe not maintaine that infidelity is consequent to the decree of damnation, but in the foresight of God, precedent rather: as appears by the Brittish Divines their Theses De Reprobatione; and Alvarez professeth the same. The denyall of grace, and so the permitting of naturall infidelity to remain uncured, they make consequent (as it seems) to a negative decree of denying glory. And to the decree of permitting infidelity, they make the foresight of infidelity subsequent; and this foresight of infidelity they make precedent to reprobation, as it signifies the decree of damnation. And thus farre I agree with them, That in no moment of nature, or signe of reason did God ordain any man to damnation, but for sinne; and consequently in no moment of nature, or signe of reason, did the decree of damnation goe before the foresight of sinne or infidelity.
2. But suppose, as these Remonstrants collect and pick out their meaning, They make the decree of reprobation, in all points proportionable to the decree of salvation, that like as the decree of giving faith, they conceive to be subordinate to the decree of salvation; so the decree of permitting infidelity, or denying faith (for herein consists the just proportion, and not as they feign it, between faith on the one side, and infidelity on the other) is with them made subordinate to the decree of damnation. Then I answer,
2. But suppose, as these Remonstrants collect and pick out their meaning, They make the decree of reprobation, in all poynts proportionable to the decree of salvation, that like as the decree of giving faith, they conceive to be subordinate to the decree of salvation; so the decree of permitting infidelity, or denying faith (for herein consists the just proportion, and not as they feigne it, between faith on the one side, and infidelity on the other) is with them made subordinate to the decree of damnation. Then I answer,
1. Their Consequence should be this, If the permission of Infidelity followeth the decree of damnation, then God cannot in justice damn them for Infidelity. Now here is no colour of good Consequence.
1. Their Consequence should be this, If the permission of Infidelity followeth the decree of damnation, then God cannot in justice damne them for Infidelity. Now here is no colour of good Consequence.
2. If they reply, That in case infidelity followeth necessarily upon Gods permitting of it, the Consequence is as good as in case infidelity followed upon reprobation. For even hereby it appears, that infidelity followeth upon reprobation though not ⟨p. 70⟩immediately, but by the mediation of the divine permission thereof; but whether it followeth mediately or immediately all is one, as touching the force of the Consequence.
2. If they reply, That in case infidelity followeth necessarily upon Gods permiting of it, the Consequence is as good as in case infidelity followed upon reprobation. For even hereby it appears, that infidelity followeth upon reprobation though not ⟨p. 70⟩immediately, but by the mediation of the divine permission thereof; but whether it followeth mediately or immediately all is one, as touching the force of the Consequence.
Resp. Now to this I Reply, Granting that all is one, as touching the force of the Consequence: but then consider.
1. All the force of the argument depends not upon the consequution of infidelity, simply unto the decree of damnation, but only upon the necessary consequution thereof. And yet no mention at all was made hereof, in the Consequence of the Major, but it is brought afterwards over and above most illogically.
2. In this case all the force of the Consequence depends upon the necessary consequution of sin in general, or infidelity in special, upon Gods permitting of it.
2. In this case all the force of the Consequence depends upon the necessary consequution of sinne in generall, or infidelity in speciall, upon Gods permitting of it.
So that whether Gods decree to permit the sin of infidelity, be antecedent or consequent to the decree of damnation all is one. Yet these Remonstrants make the force of their argument, to consist only in the subordinating of the decree divine, as touching the permission of infidelity to the decree of damnation, which yet appears by this to be of no force.
So that whether Gods decree to permit the sinne of infidelity, be antecedent or consequent to the decree of damnation all is one. Yet these Remonstrants make the force of their argument, to consist only in the subordinating of the decree divine, as touching the permission of infidelity to the decree of damnation, which yet appears by this to be of no force.
3. But if they hereupon take a new course of argumentation, and dispute thus; If Infidelity followeth necessarily upon Gods permitting of it, then God cannot in justice damn a man for Infidelity; pretending no injustice to be greater, then to damn a man for that which followeth necessarily upon permission, which is Gods work.
3. But if they hereupon take a new course of argumentation, and dispute thus; If Infidelity followeth necessarily upon Gods permitting of it, then God cannot in justice damne a man for Infidelity; pretending no injustice to be greater, then to damne a man for that which followeth necessarily upon permission, which is Gods work.
Resp. I answer.
1. That thus their former argumentation is cashiered as unprofitable.
1. That thus their former argumentation is cashierd as unprofitable.
