z IS Peter's denial of his MaJlen, S E R M. only guilty caufe, was the objeft of divine V. prefcience, fo are all others of the faine kind ` ~v""'' indeed all the voluntary aftions of moral agents : For no reafon can poffibly be afiìgn- ed, why force should, and not others, This is, I acknowledge, a fubjeft of a very high nature, and difficult queftions have been moved concerning it. As how it can confifl: with the freedom of rational agents ? and, again, how it cdhfifls with the reftitude, and goodnefs of God, to forfee moral evil in his creatures, and not interpofe for pre- venting it ? I Mall not enter, at this time, on the difcußïon of thefe points, but only ob- ferve, that the liberty of our aftions, fo far as is neceffary to confl.itute their morality, is what we are confcious of; which is the fùrefr kind of knowledge, and excludes all doubting : That prefcience does not change, nor at all influence the nature of things, par- ticularly of human aftions, any more than the bare knowledge of what is pail or pre, fent . And, that, tho' the nature and man- ner of the divine foreknowledge is to us in- comprehenfible, as the manner of God's exerting his other perfections alfo is, for ex- ample, his power in creating, yet that's no Ar,ument againft the truth of the thing it- Pelf,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=