A64002:854
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. My fifth argument is this. If sin be the cause of Reprobation, that is, of the decree of damnation, then either by necessity of nature, or by the constitution of God; not by necessity of nature, as all, that hitherto I have known confess. But I say neither can it be by the free constitution of God; for mark what a notorious absurdity followeth hence, and that unavoidably, namely, that God did ordain, that upon foresight of sin, he would ordain them to damnation; mark it well, God did ordain that he would ordain, or God did decree that he would decree. In which words Gods eternal decree is made the object of Gods decree. Whereas it is well known that the objects of Gods decrees are merely things temporal, and cannot be things eternal: we truly say God did decree to create the World, to preserve the World, to redeem us, call us, justify us, sanctify and save us, but it cannot be truly said, that God did decree to decree, or ordain to ordain: for to decree is the act of Gods will, and therefore it cannot be the object of the act of Gods will. Yet these arguments I am not so enamoured with, as to force the interpretations of Scripture to such a sense, as is suitable hereunto, presuming of the purity of my understanding, as purged from prejudice and false principles. I could willingly content my self with observation of the Apostles discourse, in arguing to this effect; Before the Children were borne, or had done good or evil, it was said the elder shall serve the younger: therefore the purpose of God according to election 1stands not of works. In like manner may I discourse: Before the Children were borne or had done good or evil, it was said the elder shall serve the younger: therefore the purpose of God concerning Reprobation stands not of works. And like as hence it is inferred, that therefore election stands not of good works; so therehence may I infer, that therefore reprobation stands not of evil works.
5. My fifth argument is this. If sinne be the cause of Reprobation, that is, of the decree of damnation, then either by necessity of nature, or by the constitution of God; not by necessity of nature, as all, that hitherto I have known confesse. But I say neither can it be by the free constitution of God; for mark what a notorious absurdity followeth hence, and that unavoidably, namely, that God did ordaine, that upon foresight of sinne, he would ordaine them to damnation; marke it well, God did ordaine that he would ordaine, or God did decree that he would decree. In which words Gods eternall decree is made the object of Gods decree. Whereas it is well known that the objects of Gods decrees are meerely things temporall, and cannot be things eternall: we truly say God did decree to create the World, to preserve the World, to redeeme us, call us, justify us, sanctify and save us, but it cannot be truly said, that God did decree to decree, or ordaine to ordaine: for to decree is the act of Gods will, and therefore it cannot be the object of the act of Gods will. Yet these arguments I am not so enamoured with, as to force the interpretations of Scripture to such a sense, as is sutable hereunto, presuming of the purity of my understanding, as purged from prejudice and false principles. I could willingly content my selfe with observation of the Apostles discourse, in arguing to this effect; Before the Children were borne, or had done good or evill, it was said the elder shall serve the younger: therefore the purpose of God according to election