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…

It is true that [all] is so used in Scripture, not only some times, but very frequently; let him come to instance in his sense, we are ready to instance with him for ours. But the Text (saith he) shows we are to understand the individuals and not the kinds. Where first (I doubt) his ignorance, in understanding the distinction aright, is his best ground of opposition. When Austin urgeth for his interpretation, that of the Pharisees tithing omne olus, every herb, who doubts but they tithe Individual herbs. In like sort when Peter saw in a vessel let down unto him [Greek or Hebrew] every four footed beast; no question but Individual beasts were let down unto him, not every one of every kind, but of every kind or of most kinds, or of many kinds some, so that the meaning of the distinction is not to exclude all individuals (as this Author seems to carry the matter,) but only, to exclude a necessity of understanding all individuals of all sorts. It is enough if God will save some of all sorts, that is, of all conditions some individuals. Then, seeing he undertakes out of the very Text, to give us better satisfaction, then either Austin or our Divines have hitherto received, it must needs be a shame for him to leave the present Text, and fetch grounds elsewhere, for the clearing of Pauls meaning here. Now let us observe, how congruously or incongruously to his own undertakings, he carrieth himself in this business: of the duty enjoined, and of the motive annexed, there is no question: but whereas he shapes the coherence thus, and makes Paul in effect to speak after this manner; our charity must reach to all to whom God extends his love to; God will have all to be saved, and therefore we must pray for all. Though all this were granted him, it makes nothing for him: but over and above here are causeless errors more then enough:

It is true that [all] is so used in Scripture, not only some times, but very frequently; let him come to instance in his sense, we are ready to instance with him for ours. But the Text (saith he) shewes we are to understand the individualls and not the kindes. Where first (I doubt) his ignorance, in understanding the distinction aright, is his best ground of opposition. When Austin urgeth for his interpretation, that of the Pharises tything omne olus, every hearb, who doubts but they tythe Individuall hearbs. In like sort when Peter saw in a vessell let down unto him 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 every foure footed beast; no question but Individuall beasts were let down unto him, not every one of every kind, but of every kind or of most kinds, or of many kinds some, so that the meaning of the distinction is not to exclude all individualls (as this Author seems to carry the matter,) but only, to exclude a necessity of understanding all individualls of all sorts. It is enough if God will save some of all sorts, that is, of all conditions some individualls. Then, seeing he undertakes out of the very Text, to give us better satisfaction, then either Austin or our Divines have hitherto received, it must needs be a shame for him to leave the present Text, and fetch grounds elsewhere, for the clearing of Pauls meaning here. Now let us observe, how congruously or incongruously to his own undertakings, he carryeth himselfe in this businesse: of the duty enjoyned, and of the motive annexed, there is no question: but whereas he shapes the coherence thus, and makes Paul in effect to speak after this manner; our charity must reach to all to whom God extends his love to; God will have all to be saved, and therefore we must pray for all. Though all this were granted him, it makes nothing for him: but over and above here are causelesse errours more then enough: