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…

and as for our saying, that God intends they shall be without excuse, that Christ is set up for their falling, that the Gospel is unto God a sweet savour in Christ, not only in them that are saved, but in them that perish. This Author is so far from overthrowing the truth of it, that (besides other absurdities delivered by him in the way) the Author himself hath no heart to deny it, only saying, that God intends it not primarily, which is rather to grant that he intends it (though not primarily as whereabouts there is no question) than to deny it, and that occasionally they are so; whereas no man but himself hath said (in saying that they do effect this end) that Christ or the Gospel are the cause hereof, but only that they are the occasion. But this hinders not Gods intention of them: For undoubtedly God intends as well things occasioned as things caused, though not in his first thoughts and resolutions, which belongs rather to the end than to the means, to wit, to be first intended. So that in plain terms, he hath not hitherto dared to deny, that God intends them, though he manifests a good mind to maintain, that they come to pass accidentally and casually in respect of God; For he spares not to profess, that the scorching of men, and the hurting of weak eyes falls out accidentally, and that to God; for he proposeth this by way of distinction, from that which God intends, which he saith is the cheering of men by the light of the Sun: like as here he denies that mens stumbling at Christ, is a thing intended by God; like as in saying a sinful event is not properly under Gods will and decree, but under his prescience only, or at most under a permissive decree. And this I confess, is a very plausible doctrine in the judgement of flesh and blood; save that this Authors faint carriage in the delivering of it, is enough to make a man suspect it, as plausible as it is, yet it is hardly true and sound. For he dares not say, that a sinful event is not at all under Gods decree, only that he saith, it is not properly under Gods decree. But Saint Peter speaking of them that stumbled at the word of God through disobedience, professeth in plain terms, that hereunto they were ordained, 1 Pet. 2. 6. And all the Apostles there assembled. Acts 4. 28.

and as for our saying, that God intends they shall be without excuse, that Christ is set up for their falling, that the Gospell is unto God a sweet savour in Christ, not only in them that are saved, but in them that perish. This Author is so farre from overthrowing the truth of it, that (besides other absurdities delivered by him in the way) the Author himselfe hath no heart to deny it, only saying, that God intends it not primarily, which is rather to grant that he intends it (though not primarily as whereabouts there is no question) than to deny it, and that occasionally they are so; whereas no man but himselfe hath said (in saying that they doe effect this end) that Christ or the Gospell are the cause hereof, but only that they are the occasion. But this hinders not Gods intention of them: For undoubtedly God intends as well things occasioned as things caused, though not in his first thoughts and resolutions, which belongs rather to the end than to the meanes, to wit, to be first intended. So that in plaine tearmes, he hath not hitherto dared to deny, that God intends them, though he manifests a good mind to maintaine, that they come to passe accidentally and casually in respect of God; For he spares not to professe, that the scorching of men, and the hurting of weake eyes falls out accidentally, and that to God; for he proposeth this by way of distinction, from that which God intends, which he saith is the chearing of men by the light of the Sunne: like as here he denies that mens stumbling at Christ, is a thing intended by God; like as in saying a sinnefull event is not properly under Gods will and decree, but under his prescience only, or at most under a permissive decree. And this I confesse, is a very plausible doctrine in the judgement of flesh and bloud; save that this Authors faint carriage in the delivering of it, is enough to make a man suspect it, as plausible as it is, yet it is hardly true and sound. For he dares not say, that a sinfull event is not at all under Gods decree, only that he saith, it is not properly under Gods decree. But Saint Peter speaking of them that stumbled at the word of God through disobedience, professeth in plaine termes, that hereunto they were ordained,