A64002:407
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.
Is this to give us the right understanding of that Assertion (Deus statuit decreto reprobationis reprobis fidem & paenitentiam non dare) most prejudicial to his own Tenet at first fight, and much more by the distinction following of Gratia sufficiens & efficax; which he so well perceived, that he is content to clap it upon Austins back to bear the burden of it; and puts it but upon adventure, that it may prove to be the Scripture meaning. And in like sort, when, pag. 98. having proposed two things to be necessarily unfolded by him. Primò, de Gratiâ sufficiente & efficaci. Secundo, de utriusque dispensatione, dispensationisque Causis: He leaves off there, giving it over in plain ground. What doth this argue? but that he manifestly perceived, he was not able in any tolerable manner, to shape this distinction in congruity to his own Tenet. Let this Author well consider this, that talks so much of our Divines unwillingness to come to trial in the point of reprobation; When Arminius durst not adventure upon the explicating of his own opinion, touching the distinction of grace sufficient and effectual, and in giving us the definition of each. The like to have been the course of other Arminians, I have known, declining the point of effectual grace, as a precipice and breakneck unto them: And when others have been put upon it, they have placed it in the grace subsequent, and have not been ashamed to make it consist in this, that God by effectual grace, doth work in man, [Greek or Hebrew] Veil credere, modo velit, and why not as well, that he works in man, [Greek or Hebrew] Credere, modo Credat, [Greek or Hebrew] Resipiscere modo Resipiscat. This that I speak, I can show under the hand of one of them, a great stickler for the Arminian Cause; great I say in respect of affection, not of judgement. And I have cause to conceive, that both this Authors Discourse, and that others I have had to deal withal, is but as a smoke, that for a great part, if not for the most of it, comes out of the same Chimney.
Is this to give us the right understanding of that Assertion (Deus statuit decreto reprobationis reprobis fidem & paenitentiam non dare) most prejudiciall to his own Tenent at first fight, and much more by the distinction following of Gratia sufficiens & efficax; which he so well perceived, that he is content to clap it upon Austins back to beare the burthen of it; and puts it but upon adventure, that it may prove to be the Scripture meaning. And in like sort, when, pag. 98. having proposed two things to be necessarily unfolded by him. Primò, de Gratiâ sufficiente & efficaci. Secundo, de utriusque dispensatione, dispensationisque Causis: He leaves off there, giving it over in plain ground. What doth this argue? but that he manifestly perceived, he was not able in any tollerable manner, to shape this distinction in congruity to his own Tenent. Let this Author well consider this, that talkes so much of our Divines unwillingnesse to come to tryall in the poynt of reprobation; When Arminius durst not adventure upon the explicating of his own opinion, touching the distinction of grace sufficient and effectuall, and in giving us the definition of each. The like to have been the course of other Arminians, I have known, declining the point of effectuall grace, as a precipice and breakneck unto them: And when others have been put upon it, they have placed it in the grace subsequent, and have not been ashamed to make it consist in this, that God by effectuall grace, doth work in man, Velle credere, modo velit, and why not as well, that he workes in man, Credere, modo Credat, Resipiscere modo Resipiscat. This that I speake, I can shew under the hand of one of them, a great stickler for the Arminian Cause; great I say in respect of affection, not of judgement. And I have cause to conceive, that both this Authors Discourse, and that others I have had to deale withall, is but as a smoake, that for a great part, if not for the most of it, comes out of the same Chimney.