The other thing that he repeateth, is, that the best way to reconcile _contingence_ and _liberty_ with _prescience_ and the _decrees_ of _God_, is to subject future _contingencies_ to the _aspect of God_. The same is also my opinion, but contrary to what his Lordship all this while laboured to prove. For hitherto he held _liberty_ and _necessity_, that is to say, _liberty_ and the _decrees_ of _God_, irreconcileable, unless the _aspect of God_, which word appeareth now the first time in this discourse, signify somewhat else besides _God’s will_ and _decree_, which I cannot understand. But he adds that we must subject them, according to that _presentiality_ which they have in eternity, which he says cannot be done by them that conceive _eternity_ to be an _everlasting succession_, but only by them that conceive it as an _indivisible point_. To which I answer, that as soon as I can conceive _eternity_ to be an _indivisible point_, or anything but an _everlasting succession_, I will renounce all that I have written on this subject. I know St. Thomas Aquinas calls _eternity_, _nunc stans_, an _ever-abiding now_; which is easy enough to say, but though I fain would, yet I could never conceive it: they that can, are more happy than I. But in the mean time his Lordship alloweth all men to be of my opinion, save only those that can conceive in their minds a _nunc stans_, which I think are none. I understand as little how it can be true his Lordship says, that God is not _just_, but _justice_ itself; not _wise_, but _wisdom_ itself; not _eternal_, but _eternity_ itself; nor how he concludes thence, that _eternity_ is a _point indivisible_, and not a _succession_, nor in what sense it can be said, that an _infinite point_, and wherein is no _succession_, can comprehend all _time_, though time be _successive_. These phrases I find not in the Scripture; I wonder therefore what was the design of the Schoolmen to bring them up, unless they thought a man could not be a true Christian unless his understanding be first strangled with such hard sayings. And thus much for answer to his Lordship’s discourse, wherein I think not only his _squadrons of arguments_, but also his _reserve of distinctions_, are defeated. And now your Lordship shall have my doctrine concerning the same question, with my _reasons_ for it, positively, and as briefly as I can, without any terms of _art_, in plain English. MY OPINION ABOUT LIBERTY AND NECESSITY.