An evident display of Popish practises, or patched Pelagianism Wherein is mightily cleared the…An euident display of Popish practises, or patched Pelagianisme Wherein is mightelie cleared the…

FIRST of all (I say) thou dost unwisely in this place, to dispute either of the love or hatred of God towards men. For neither is it demanded here whether he hath hated any, but whether he hath rejected any. Which two being diverse, thou notwithstanding haste deemed one. I will speak more plainly, that thou mayest not complain of obscurity. We say that there is an assured order of causes ordained of the Lord, notwithstanding he at once beholdeth all things as present, yet hath he willed some causes in order to succeed, and some to go before: which order of causes also the Philosophers have acknowledged, and have called [Greek or Hebrew] succession by turn. We affirm therefore that the hatred of God in rejecting of men in the order of causes, hath not proceeded from the eternal decree of God, (as that which of right we place in the highest degree of all causes,) but rather ⟨p. 17⟩to succeed. So it is, that albeit whomsoever the Lord from everlasting doth predestinate to destruction, afterward in his time he hateth: yet to Predestinate to destruction, is not to hate, but to give them over to his hatred. But therewithal when the Lord appointeth unto death whom he listeth, he also ordereth the causes of his just hatred to come, that the whole matter of his hatred remain in the men them selves decreed to destruction, and therefore his Justice to shine in them to be prosecuted with hatred, and lastly to be damned. But thou art deceived in that, which deemest that God doth first hate any man before he assign him unto death. Which is as foolish as if thou shouldest say, that he first beginneth to hate before he have determined whom he will hate. Therefore I could at one word conclude with thee, that we thus far agree, that we both confess, that God hateth and condemneth nothing in men but guiltiness and sin: but that we disagree in this, that thou supposest the hatred of God to be the cause why he decreeth some to destruction: and we say that that hatred is not the cause of the sacred decree, but the effect.

FIRST of all (I say) thou dost vnwisely in this place, to dispute eyther of the loue or hatred of God towardes men. For neither is it demaunded héere whether he hath hated any, but whether he hath reiected any. Which two béeing diuerse, thou notwithstanding haste déemed one. I will speake more playnely, that thou mayste not complayne of obscuritie. We say that there is an assured order of causes ordeyned of the Lorde, notwithstanding he at once beholdeth all things as present, yet hath he willed some causes in order to succéede, and some to goe before: which order of causes also the Philosophers haue acknowledged, and haue called succession by turne. We affirme therefore that the hatred of God in reiecting of men in the order of causes, hath not procéeded from the eternall decrée of God, (as that whiche of right we place in the highest degrée of all causes,) but rather