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…

But wherefore was this? That he might show forth, in saving certain miserable men, his mercy, and condemning some, his wrath, and therefore make manifest that his nature in man. But go to, let us go on, to behold your Idol. Thou sayest, that this God willeth, that all men be saved. And again, thou seest into what downfalls thou art carried, because thou submittest the word of God to reason, when on the contrary ⟨p. 259⟩thou oughtest to set reason in obedience to the word of God? And let us see how finely this thy reason is knit in argument. God should not be like himself, except even as in the beginning he would, so also be should sane all, after Adams sin. But thou avouchest that which we show to be false of necessity, even by the judgement of reason. Thou therefore labourest to avoid that inconvenience which is no where. God should be cruel, except he would that all should be saved. But I say, that he cannot seem cruel, no not to very reason, albeit he should have saved not so much as one of Adams posterity, seeing they have all deserved, that they should perish. Therefore God is neither inconstant, nor cruel, albeit he sane not all. Yea, if he should sane all, he should dissent from himself, as he which necessarily (that is his nature so requiring) hath decreed from the beginning for his own glories sake, to manifest in man not only his mercy, but also wrath, and therefore not to save all, but certain.

But wherfore was this? That hée might shewe forth, in sauing certaine miserable men, his mercie, and condemning some, his wrath, and therefore make manifest that his nature in man. But go to, let vs go on, to beholde your Idoll. Thou saiste, that this God willeth, that all men be saued. And againe, thou séeste into what downfalles thou arte carried, bycause thou submittest the word of God to reason, whē on the cōtrary ⟨p. 259⟩thou oughtest to sette reason in obedience to the worde of God? And lette vs sée howe finelye this thy reason is knitte in argument. God should not be like himselfe, except euen as in the beginning he would, so also be should sane all, after Adams sinne. But thou auouchest that whiche we shewe to be false of necessitie, euen by the iudgement of reason. Thou therefore labourest to auoide that inconuenience whiche is no where. God shoulde be cruel, except he woulde that all shoulde be saued. But I say, that he cannot séeme cruell, no not to verye reason, albeit hée should haue saned not so muche as one of Adams posteritie, séeing they haue all deserued, that they should perishe. Therefore God is neither inconstant, nor cruell, albeit he sane not all. Yea, if he shoulde sane all, he shoulde dissent from himselfe, as he which necessarily (that is his nature so requiring) hathe decréed from the beginning for his own glories sake, to manifest in man not onely his mercie, but also wrath, and therefore not to saue all, but certaine.