A09918:53
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…
An evident display of Popish practises, or patched Pelagianism Wherein is mightily cleared the sovereign truth of Gods eternal predestination, the staid groundwork of our most assured safety by Christ. Written in Latin by that reverend father, master Theodore Beza, and now lately Englished by VV.H. preacher of the Gospel.An euident display of Popish practises, or patched Pelagianisme Wherein is mightelie cleared the soueraigne truth of Gods eternall predestination, the stayd groundworke of oure most assured safetie by Christ. Written in Latin by that reuerend father, mayster Theodore Beza, and now lately Englished by VV.H. preacher of the Gospell.
London: printed by Ralph Newberie, 1578
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
I grant that in deed, but yet so that thou conclude it with those thy principles by the contemplation of visible things: when it ought to be contrary, that is, to allow those principles which the order of nature yieldeth, so far as they consent with the authority of Scripture, whereof we shall hear hereafter.
I graunt that in déede, but yet so that thou cō clude it with those thy principles by the contemplation of visible things: when it ought to be contrary, that is, to alowe those principles whiche the order of nature yéeldeth, so farre as they consent with the authority of Scripture, whereof we shall heare hereafter.
Let this therefore be the very sum of the answer, that God doth love his issue, but in his own order which he hath manifested unto us in his holy word, so far as was needful for us.
Let this therefore be the very summe of the answere, that God doth loue his issue, but in his owne order which he hath manifested vnto vs in his holy woorde, so farre as was néedefull for vs.
I come to the other like sottish writing, I will use no harder speech. All men (thou sayest) are the issue of God: because God is the father of Adam, of whom all men are borne, therefore God loveth all men. First I answer, that thou dost against the rule of Scripture, which doest confusedly attribute to God, the name of Father, and that summarily in respect of all men, that is, which also communicatest that which is only proper to one Church in Christ with strangers. That place in deed of Malachi is very unfitly applied of many to the general procreation of all men, when it is rather referred to one public father of Israel, whether Abraham or Jacob, as appeareth by a like place of Moses. But least I seem to contend for words, (albeit the controversy is not in vain) the Lord created all men in Adam, and let him be in this point the universal father of all. If this be reason good enough to prove that God should love all men, how is it that contrariwise the Apostle showeth all in Adam to be the Sons of wrath and death, and therefore of hatred? wilt thou