A64002:549
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.
1. As touching the first; These words of Arminius are well known, Deus voluit Achabum mensuram scelerum sucrum implere. But I will prove it by their Doctrine of scientia Media: For hereby they maintain, that God foreseeth by what motives sin will be hindered, or not hindered, without any prejudice to the liberty of the creatures will; As also that God in the storehouse of his wisdom, hath such store of moral impediments, as that he knows thereby, how to hinder any sin if it pleased him. His words are these, Praeter illa sufficientia impedimenta, etiam efficacia habet in suo sapientiae & potentiae promptuario, quibus productis certò & infallibiliter peccatum impediretur. And this is the difference with him, between a sufficient impediment of sin, and impediment effectual. Effectual is that upon the use whereof, he knows full well, that sin will be hindered. Sufficient is that upon the use whereof, sin will not be hindered, and this is known to the Lord from everlasting. Now let them tell me, why would not God make choice to use such an impediment, which he knew would prove effectual, but such rather, as he knew would prove ineffectual. Doth it not manifestly appear hereby, that it is Gods will, that sin shall come to pass by his permission? Like as the Scripture is express to this purpose, as where it is said, that Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles, and people of Israel were gathered together against the holy Son of God, to do that which Gods hand, and his counsel, had foredetermined to be done. Now this is well known to have been no less then the ignominious handling and crucifying of the Son of God. Acts 4. 28. And Revel. 17. 17. God put into the hearts of the Kings to do his will, and to give their Kingdoms to the Beast, as much as to say, to use their Regal power, to the supporting of Antichrist, which we know was in part by Massacring the Saints of God.
1. As touching the first; These words of Arminius are well known, Deus voluit Achabum mensuram scelerum sucrum implere. But I will prove it by their Doctrine of scientia Media: For hereby they maintain, that God foreseeth by what motives sinne will be hindered, or not hindered, without any prejudice to the liberty of the creatures will; As also that God in the storehouse of his wisdome, hath such store of morall impediments, as that he knows thereby, how to hinder any sinne if it pleased him. His words are these, Praeter illa sufficientia impedimenta, etiam efficacia habet in suo sapientiae & potentiae promptuario, quibus productis certò & infallibiliter peccatum impediretur. And this is the difference with him, between a sufficient impediment of sinne, and impediment effectuall. Effectuall is that upon the use whereof, he knows full well, that sinne will be hindered. Sufficient is that upon the use whereof, sinne will not be hindered, and this is known to the Lord from everlasting. Now let them tell me, why would not God make choyce to use such an impediment, which he knew would prove effectuall, but such rather, as he knew would prove ineffectuall. Doth it not manifestly appear hereby, that it is Gods will, that sinne shall come to passe by his permission? Like as the Scripture is expresse to this purpose, as where it is said, that Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles, and people of Israel were gathered together against the holy Sonne of God, to doe that which Gods hand, and his counsell, had foredetermined to be done. Now this is well known to have been no lesse then the ignominious handling and crucifying of the Sonne of God.