A64002:481
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.
To conclude, I would this Author would be so wise, as once more to consult with his Oracle, and enquire, Whether Papists are more ready to join with Lutherans, in their doctrine of Christs Ubiquity, as touching his Manhood, then with us in the point of Reprobation, or of Gods concourse. For suppose we held as Suarez is pleased to state our Tenent, namely, Quod Deus omnipotenti voluntate nobis necessitatem imponat; yet the same Suarez saith, that in this very point, we are not reprehended of them, as if we affirmed ought, Quod vel in re ipsâ contradictionem involvat, aut Dei omnipotentiam superet. I presume no Papist is so well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the point of Ubiquity.
To conclude, I would this Author would be so wise, as once more to consult with his Oracle, and enquire, Whether Papists are more ready to joyne with Lutherans, in their doctrine of Christs Ubiquity, as touching his Manhood, then with us in the poynt of Reprobation, or of Gods concourse. For suppose we held as Suarez is pleased to state our Tenent, namely, Quod Deus omnipotenti voluntate nobis necessitatem imponat; yet the same Suarez saith, that in this very poynt, we are not reprehended of them, as if we affirmed ought, Quod vel in re ipsâ contradictionem involvat, aut Dei omnipotentiam superet. I presume no Papist is so well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the poynt of Ubiquity.
From that which he affirms of Papists, I come to that which he affirms of Lutherans. And what one instance hath he given of any Lutheran, speaking against our making the corrupt Mass the object of predestination or reprobation? Surely not one, either out of Sir Edwin Sands, nor out of Osiander; Nay what cause is there, why either Papist or Lutheran should, in case the object thus stated (or in a more rigid form of the Mass Uncorrupt) doth no way constrain us to maintain, that God doth intend the damnation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the consideration of him, as departing out of this World, under the power of sin; no nor to maintain, that God doth intend the salvation of any man, in any moment of nature, before the consideration of him, in final perseverance in faith and repentance, provided God suffer him, to live until the use of reason, as I have showed, and endeavoured to justify, and make appear, in my Vindic. Grat. Dei, in the digressions concerning Predestination. For indeed not any of our Divines was, I think, ever known to maintain, that God did intend to damn any man but for sin; Neither do I maintain, that God intended to bestow salvation on any man of ripe years, but by way of reward of his faith and repentance. The true and principal, real (not verbal only) difference between us, and the Arminians, is about Gods bestowing of faith and repentance, and his purpose thereof. Now let any learned Lutheran deliver his mind on this, namely, upon the foresight where of it is, that God gives faith and repentance unto some, and denies it unto others. When Tossanus makes relation of Hunnius his exposition of that place