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…

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 ⟨p. 25⟩answer that the Apostle beholdeth all men as they are corrupted in Adam, and therefore abjected? Be it so, for so it is in deed. But how doest thou behold them? as yet being in Adam? no in deed, in that thou sayest not that God was, but is the Father of all, nor to have loved, but to love all. Thou must therefore seek some other outscape, verily even this, as thou mayest say that GOD nevertheless loveth all, because he offereth his grace to all. But if this be so in deed, the foreseen corruption hath not caused that the Lord should reject some, seeing he loveth all notwithstanding they are corrupt, that he offereth them the favour of life: and that so that he giveth them grace, to receive grace offered, (because that otherwayes the Lord should seem to us, as I afterwards shall speak in his place, not to deal faithfully with men.) But furthermore it shall be requisite to conjoin contumacy with corruption, that is, furthermore to refuse grace offered. But if it should be so, we should not be borne the children of wrath and death, but we should become so after we should refuse grace offered.

I come to ye other like sottish writing, I wil vse no harder speach. All men (thou sayest) are the issue of God: bycause God is the father of Adam, of whome all men are borne, therefore God loueth all men. First I answere, that thou dost against the rule of Scripture, which doest confusedly attribute to God, the name of Father, and that summarilye in respect of all men, that is, whiche also communicatest that whiche is onely proper to one Churche in Christe with straungers. That place in déede of Malachie is very vnfitly applied of many to the generall procreation of all men, when it is rather referred to one publique father of Israell, whether Abraham or Iacob, as appéereth by a lyke place of Moses. But least I séeme to contende for wordes, (albeit the controuersie is not in vayne) the Lord created all men in Adam, and let him be in this poynt the vniuersall father of all. If this be reason good inough to proue that God should loue al men, how is it that contrarywise the Apostle sheweth al in Adam to be the Sonnes of wrath and death, and therefore of hatered? wilt thou