A64002:848
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.
If it be farther said, that not so much the foresight of sin, as (to speak more properly) sin foreseen is the cause of reprobation: I reply against it in this manner; sin foreseen doth suppose Gods decree to permit sin, and consequently if sin foreseen be before reprobation, then also the decree of permitting sin is before the decree of reprobation, that is, the decree of damning for sin. But this cannot be, as I endeavour to prove by two reasons. The first is this; There is no order in intentions, but between the intention of the end and the intention of the means, and the order is this, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. Therefore if the decree of permitting sin be before the decree of damning for sin, the decree of permitting sin must be the intention of the end, and the decree of damning for sin must be the intention of the means. But this is notoriously untrue: For it is apparent that damnation tends not to the permission of sin, as the end thereof; for if it did then men were damned to this end, that they might be permitted to sin. But far more likely it is, that sin should be permitted to this end, that a man might be damned, which yet by no means do I a vouch; other reasons I have, to show the vanity of this argumentation. I rather profess, that permission of sin and damnation are not subordinate as end & means, but coordinate, both being means tending jointly to a farther end, which, under correction from understandings purged from prejudice and false principles, I take to be the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of justice vindicative.
If it be farther said, that not so much the foresight of sin, as (to speak more properly) sinne foreseen is the cause of reprobation: I reply against it in this manner; sinne foreseen doth suppose Gods decree to permit sinne, and consequently if sinne foreseene be before reprobation, then also the decree of permitting sinne is before the decree of reprobation, that is, the decree of damning for sinne. But this cannot be, as I endeavour to prove by two reasons. The first is this; There is no order in intentions, but between the intention of the end and the intention of the means, and the order is this, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. Therefore if the decree of permitting sinne be before the decree of damning for sinne, the decree of permitting sinne must be the intention of the end, and the decree of damning for sinne must be the intention of the meanes. But this is notoriously untrue: For it is apparent that damnation tends not to the permission of sinne, as the end thereof; for if it did then men were damned to this end, that they might be permitted to sinne. But far more likely it is, that sinne should be permitted to this end, that a man might be damned, which yet by no means doe I a vouch; other reasons I have, to shew the vanity of this argumentation. I rather professe, that permssion of sinne and damnation are not subordinate as end & means, but coordinate, both being means tending joyntly to a farther end, which, under correction from understandings purged from prejudice and false principles, I take to be the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of justice vindicative.