against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God?_ Here are as many convincing arguments in this one text against the opinion of T. H. almost as there are words. Here we learn that God is _rich in goodness_, and will not punish his creatures for that which is his own act; secondly, that he _suffers_ and _forbears sinners long_, and doth not snatch them away by sudden death as they deserve. Thirdly, that the reason of God’s forbearance is to _bring men to repentance_. Fourthly, that _hardness of heart and impenitency_ is not causally from God, but from ourselves. Fifthly, that it is not the insufficient proposal of the means of their conversion on God’s part, which is the cause of men’s perdition, but their own contempt and despising of these means. Sixthly, that punishment is not an act of absolute dominion, but an act of righteous judgment, whereby God renders to every man according to his own deeds, wrath to them and only to them who _treasure up wrath unto themselves_, and eternal life to those who _continue patiently in well-doing_. If they deserve such punishment who only neglect the goodness and long-suffering of God, what do they who utterly deny it, and make God’s doing and his suffering to be all one? I do beseech T. H. to consider what a degree of wilfulness it is, out of one obscure text wholly misunderstood to contradict the clear current of the whole Scripture. Of the same mind with St. Paul was St. Peter, (1 Peter iii. 20): _The long-suffering of God waited once in the days of Noah_. And 2 Peter iii. 15: _Account that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation_. This is the name God gives himself, (Exod. xxxiv. 6): _The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering_, &c.