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…

If to damn be to destroy, and no creature hath power to damn but God only, can any be a destroyer in this kind but God, as the efficient cause of Damnation and destruction? But in case our Doctrine holds, doth he damn any but for sin? and shall he in this case be styled [Greek or Hebrew], in the sense it is delivered in the Revelation? What thinks he? If many thousands, even all the Infants of Turks and Saracens dying in original sin, are tormented by him in Hell fire, is he to be accounted the father of cruelties for this? And I profess I cannot devise a greater show and appearance of cruelty, then in this. Now I beseech you consider the spirit that breatheth in this man; dares he censure God, as a Father of cruelties for executing eternal death upon them that are guilty of it? Now hath not he himself professed, that all borne in original sin, are borne guilty of eternal death? his words are these, Fol. 2. p. 2. That all mankind is involved in the first sin, and the fruits thereof, which are corruption of nature, and the guilt of eternal death. And this he confidently believes. Now I should think, that there is no show of cruelty in executing eternal death on them that are guilty of it: For if God were cruel herein, then also he were cruel in damning each one whom he doth damn both Men and Angels. Now I pray, let every sober reader judge, which is the greater cruelty of the two, to execute eternal death on him that is guilty of it, or to make him by mere imputation guilty of eternal death, who otherwise is not guilty of it? Is not this latter far greater cruelty then the former? Or indeed the only cruelty; there being no cruelty in the other at all? (like as Cicero said, for a Mule to bring forth having conceived, is no strange thing, but for a Mule to conceive that indeed is prodigious.) Now this latter is this Authors doctrine, expressly professing in the next page to that where now we are, that the sin of Adam (the fruit whereof he makes to be the guilt of eternal death.) is the sin of our nature by imputation only: whence it followeth, that God makes all men guilty of eternal death by imputation only. Now judge I pray which of us makes God the Father of cruelties, he or we? This is the fruit of opposition to Gods grace;

If to damne be to destroy, and no creature hath power to damne but God only, can any be a destroyer in this kind but God, as the efficient cause of Damnation and destruction? But in case our Doctrine holds, doth he damne any but for sinne? and shall he in this case be stiled 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, in the sense it is delivered in the Revelation? What thinks he? If many thousands, even all the Infants of Turkes and Sarazens dying in originall sinne, are tormented by him in Hell fire, is he to be accounted the father of cruelties for this? And I professe I cannot devise a greater shew and appearance of cruelty, then in this. Now I beseech you consider the spirit that breatheth in this man; dares he censure God, as a Father of cruelties for executing eternall death upon them that are guilty of it? Now hath not he himselfe professed, that all borne in originall sinne, are borne guilty of eternall death? his words are these, Fol. 2. p. 2. That all mankind is involved in the first sinne, and the fruits thereof, which are corruption of nature, and the guilt of eternall death. And this he confidently believes. Now I should think, that there is no shew of cruelty in executing eternall death on them that are guilty of it: For if God were cruell herein, then also he were cruell in damning each one whom he doth damne both Men and Angells. Now I pray, let every sober reader judge, which is the greater cruelty of the two, to execute eternall death on him that is guilty of it, or to make him by meere imputation guilty of eternall death, who otherwise is not guilty of it? Is not this latter farre greater cruelty then the former? Or indeed the only cruelty; there being no cruelty in the other at all? (like as Cicero said, for a Mule to bring forth having conceived, is no strange thing, but for a Mule to conceive that indeed is prodigious.) Now this latter is this Authors doctrine, expressely professing in the next page to that where now we are, that the sinne of Adam (the fruit whereof he makes to be the guilt of eternall death.) is the sinne of our nature by imputation only: whence it followeth, that God makes all men guilty of eternall death by imputation only. Now judge I pray which of us makes God the Father of cruelties, he or wee? This is the fruit of opposition to Gods grace;