A64002:542
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.
5. When I observed this relation made out of an Epistle of Melancthon's unto Calvin, I could not rest satisfied until I had seen the Epistle it self: at length I found it amongst Calvins, Epist. 49. Therein coming to the poynt, Ad Quaestionem (saith he) de praedestinatione habebam amicum Tubingae doctum hominem Franciscum Stadianum, qui dicere solebat, see utrumque probare, Evenire omnia ut divina providentia decrevit, & tamen esse contingentia; sed se haec conciliare non posse. Here we have gotten one friend more then we looked for, and that a friend of Melancthon's also: And to what end doth he make mention hereof, but to give Calvin to understand, that with him at Tubing, there wanted not such as concurred with him in opinion, and that as touching the eveniency of all things, by the decree of Gods providence, which yet might well consist with Contingency, though we are not able to reconcile these, such is the mysterious nature of Gods providence. And herein Stadianus agrees with Cajetan, and Alvarez. For Cajetan having professed that the distinctions devised by the Learned, for the reconciling of Gods predestination with the liberty of mans will, did not, quietare intellectum, thereupon he saith, Ego captivo meum in obsequium fidei; In quo (saith Alvarez) doctissimè & pi•ssimè loquitur. Melanchthon goes on to represent his carriage in Teaching, Ego, saith he, cùm Hypothesin hanc teneam, Deum non esse causam peccati nec velle peccatum, posteà contingentiam in hâc nostrâ infirmitate judicii admitto, ut sciant rudes, Davidem suâ voluntate ultrò ruere & eundem sentio, cum haberet spiritum sanctum, potuisse cum retinere; & in eâ lucta aliquam esse voluntatis actionem. All these things he grants afterwards, to agree with the Doctrine of Calvin. But may not a man proceed farther? and to dispute hereof something more accurately then this, He denies it not: Haec etiamsi subtilius disputari possunt, tamen ad regendas mentes hoc modo proposita, accommodata videntur. In the same manner he goes on, Accusemus ipsi nostram voluntatem cùm labimur, non quaeramus in Dei consilio causam & contra eum nos erigamus;
5. When I observed this relation made out of an Epistle of Melancthons unto Calvin, I could not rest satisfied untill I had seen the Epistle it selfe: at length I found it amongst Calvins, Epist. 49. Therein coming to the poynt, Ad Quaestionem (saith he) de praedestinatione habebam amicum Tubingae doctum hominem Franciscum Stadianum, qui dicere solebat, se utrumque probare, Evenire omnia ut divina providentia decrevit, & tamen esse contingentia; sed se haec conciliare non posse. Here we have gotten one friend more then we looked for, and that a friend of Melancthons also: And to what end doth he make mention hereof, but to give Calvin to understand, that with him at Tubing, there wanted not such as concurred with him in opinion, and that as touching the eveniency of all things, by the decree of Gods providence, which yet might well consist with Contingency, though we are not able to reconcile these, such is the mysterious nature of Gods providence. And herein Stadianus agrees with Cajetan, and Alvarez. For Cajetan having professed that the distinctions devised by the Learned, for the reconciling of Gods predestination with the liberty of mans will, did not, quietare intellectum, thereupon he saith, Ego captivo meum in obsequium fidei; In quo (saith Alvarez) doctissimè & pissimè loquitur. Melancthon goes on to represent his carriage in Teaching, Ego, saith he, cùm Hypothesin hanc teneam, Deum non esse causam peccati nec velle peccatum, posteà contingentiam in hâc nostrâ infirmitate judicii admitto, ut sciant rudes, Davidem suâ voluntate ultrò ruere & eundem sentio, cum haberet spiritum sanctum, potuisse cum retinere; & in eâ lucta aliquam esse voluntatis actionem. All these things he grants afterwards, to agree with the Doctrine of Calvin. But may not a man proceed farther? and to dispute hereof something more accurately then this, He denyes it not: Haec etiamsi subtilius disputari possunt, tamen ad regendas mentes hoc modo proposita, accommodata videntur. In the same manner he goes on, Accusemus ipsi nostram voluntatem cùm labimur, non quaeramus in Dei consilio causam & contra eum nos erigamus;