A64002:545
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.
The second Annotation of this Author is, the circumstance or the ground of the three opinions mentioned. The Stoics deriving their necessity from the Stars or first matter; The Manichees from the two supreme causes; And the Authors of the ⟨p. 100⟩third, from the peremptory decree of Almighty God. And that in this difference, the Stoics and the Manichees have the better, it being better (as he saith) to derive the necessity of evil actions, or unhappy events, from an evil God, or from the course of nature, then from the decree of that God who is infinitely good. The substance of the opinion is all one, the ground wherein they differ, is but accidental to the error.
The second Annotation of this Author is, the circumstance or the ground of the three opinions mentioned. The Stoicks deriving their necessity from the Starres or first matter; The Manichees from the two supream causes; And the Authors of the ⟨p. 100⟩third, from the peremptory decree of Almighty God. And that in this difference, the Stoicks and the Manichees have the better, it being better (as he saith) to derive the necessity of evill actions, or unhappy events, from an evill God, or from the course of nature, then from the decree of that God who is infinitely good. The substance of the opinion is all one, the ground wherein they differ, is but accidentall to the errour.
To this I answer.
1. Is it so indeed, Better to derive the necessity of unhappy events, from an evil God, or from course of nature, then from the decree of God? Is not God then to be accounted the author of evil in the way of punishment? Is there any evil in the City, and the Lord hath not done it? Or doth it less become him to be the author