A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is

First, In deciding of the doctrinal truths of Religion, we are not to attend to our own humane affections, but merely to the voice of God in the Scriptures. Gods dispensations are not to be regulated according to our pitiful affections; most of the Arminian Tenets are suited to humane compassions, rather then commensurated to Scripture-regulations: But if men will give way to that, why shall not Origen's position of the salvation of all the damned; yea Devils and all at last be received as most commending of Gods mercy, and most suitable to our pitiful affections? And why should not all embrace the pleasing and pitiful Doctrine of one Georgius Siculus, mentioned by Crakanthorpt? (Defens. Eccles. Anglic. contra Spalat. cap. 37.) by whose Books he saith many were bewitched. His opinion was, that neither this or that particular man was predestinated to salvation, but that God had appointed a time when he would save the whole world, and quicquid de pradestinatione tradimus, philosophicâ tantum argutiâ niti; and what was delivered (by learned orthodox men as we must suppose) was grounded only upon philosophical niceties. Is not this absolute salvation of all men very agreeable to humane desires and affections; yea and why doth not God vouchsafe not only the immediate offers of grace to all men, and effectually bless the same to all, so that all men shall be converted and saved, for he can as easily save all men as one if he please? Nay ⟨p. 532⟩if we do consult with our own pitiful estates, how offensive would several passages of Gods providence in many outward temporal judgements be unto us: As in the drowning of the world, where many children had not corrupted their ways, as men of the world had; yet they were all miserably destroyed: thus also in the terrible destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, all the little children therein who could not be guilty of such heinous transgressions, as the Sodomites were, yet did partake of that dreadful judgment, whereas at another time God in his conviction of Jonah, why he would not destroy that great City of Nineveh, useth this Argument. Jonah 4. 11. to spare that place, because there were more then sixscore thousand persons, that could not discern between their right hand and lest:

First, In deciding of the doctrinal truths of Religion, we are not to attend to our own humane affections, but meerly to the voice of God in the Scriptures. Gods dispensations are not to be regulated according to our pitifull affections; most of the Arminian Tenents are suited to humane compassions, rather then commensurated to Scripture-regulations: But if men will give way to that, why shall not Origen's position of the salvation of all the damned; yea Devils and all at last be received as most commending of Gods mercy, and most suitable to our pittifull affections? And why should not all embrace the pleasing and pitiful Doctrine of one Georgius Siculus, mentioned by Crakanthorpt? (Defens. Eccles. Anglic. contra Spalat. cap. 37.) by whose Books he saith many were bewitched. His opinion was, that neither this or that particular man was predestinated to salvation, but that God had appointed a time when he would save the whole world, and quicquid de pradestinatione tradimus, philosophicâ tantum argutiâ niti; and what was delivered (by learned orthodox men as we must suppose) was grounded onely upon philosophical niceties. Is not this absolute salvation of all men very agreeable to humane desires and affections; yea and why doth not God vouchsafe not only the immediate offers of grace to all men, and effectually bless the same to all, so that all men shall be converted and saved, for he can as easily save all men as one if he please? Nay