and Decrees of ÿod, &c. tain that he doth ) fufpend or limit the As of his will. God doth not make more Worlds, nor more Men, Birds, Beath, Fithes, Plants, Stones, Sands, Atoms, Names, &e. than are and will be He Both not pn-at le more than are and will be fandtified ; nor give more grace to the fan ti- * Again lac the Reader fled than ever they will have when he Could if he would. And when note that my carte lyeth not on this,- but becaufe the Principles of the Divine Nature areCo-equal, why fhould we fay, that I have laid famuch of he who undenyably fufpendeth thepollible ads of one, freely, notice o the that t mt me o not the ads of the Free Principle ( the will) it felfr or is it like thatone is faidagaintt me: Vaf- fhouid be here aîtive, and not the other? gneKin i.Tfio: qn. iy. a.3. 484. 6. Pofitive Nolitions of Evil do feem in man to come from the Iris- ÿóc ÿconftosrohr ánd perfection of his creatednature; As being Paffive, and Capable of, or affhrmeti, that Godswill is notto obnoxious to evil , or in danger of it , and fo needeth defence againit as Negatibe. goceived of it, and his Nolitions are the defenfive and depulfive principle. And though aboutany Negatives; but we muff fpeakof God accordingto our mode, we muft fay nothing need that he Harr a pot tive Icily which importeth weaknefs orpafvenefs or danger in him. nft of and' Of every non-entity and man-fntn+ 485. * They that are againft this, are moved with a fear, left we make rum, and fo Cut alibi ) God an idle Spel-tator, and not the Governour of the World. But they infi infinite na nókfionsó confider not, t.That the fufpenfion of his Powerful Operation inferreth no himfeif confuteth their fach thing: God is not Idle, becaufe he Caufeth not, or maketh not infi- that fay, God is nite Nothings (or poffibles to exift :) Nor is he the leus Governour of ffioháïnted n c anflveerhi theWorld : And yet Idlenefs and Government are words that more di, Bur he layeth all his redtl li nifie non-operation and operation than any nicer Volitions or caufeontlhsasademon- y g p P y cfraticon ( and make- Nolitións. Men may thruft out words , but no rational anfwer againft it a very ufeful dotrme this argument, for the explicatioh of 486. a. And note well, that Gods not- knowin or not - pilling nothing reprobation) L that nod.. gs torque man cite creatures is from his Perfe¿tion; and not any privative Ignorance or Negligence : cniufcunque reterri potep for he knoweth all that is an e ob l 5 l of Knowledge; and willeth all that a ut d 'objdiveEium i"am app votunt tábá[e arem his WiCdom judgeth meet to will ( or nul refpedtively ) : So that to tell quod ipfa :mile pop : God. that he is Ignorant if heknow not an - unintelligible objeft , or Idle rmiamus Deum 'a' "4 aláquatt. non effe: deinde if hewill or Nill not at our direftion, is as muchblafphemy, as to tell him in dicatur negative fe ba- here , opus eft variatio- Hem aliquam intrinfecam effe eut in no, ant in rebus non futuris : At non, Rec. Volantas autem_Dei non neceffarto ,negative fe debo habere, quia illud non etre eft appetibile r Thefnmm is, God can Pofitive will non-entity, ergo he loth. And this is his All, to which elfewhere he oft referreth us. But let the lober Reader confider, r.Ile confetfeth, that Gods Will is his immutable and Pimple EBence, and in it felf is not at all diverfified to or by objets, hilt only extrjnfecally denomi- nated diverfly : fo that allthis is but de relatio,e & nomine. 2. And is it nor prefumption to frame a Logick offecond notions, and fay, This and not that is applicableto God, as if it were toman, when their Logical notions as to manhim- felf are fo arbitrary ? 3. Ile anfwereth none of the arguments to the contrary which I ufe. Nil fruftra mutt be feign- ed of creatures : much lets.of God. 4. We being agreed that whoever be in the right, it inferreth no difference in .God, but in our denominationsof his Will, the fever cafes here granted him, may fully fatisfie thenyhatwill fo deno- minateGods Will. q. But in a Phyfical and proper fenfe i deny his fuppofition. It is no Non-ettitrf tat is properly bomsrn &appetibile, though it may be Malmo. Boom as well as unum dr Verum are affe?iones feu modi entia. Et obi non eft Ens non eft modes. That which is not, is not Good; or appetibile. Morally we fay improperly, It is good not to be fick, not to have an enemy, not to dye, be. But we mean but o.It is Good to live, to be well, to have all that good which an enemy would deprive us of, and 2. That it is Evil to dye, tobe Sick, to have an enemy. We fay, Its Good not to be erroneous, wicked, deprived of Heaven, Prc. that is, it is Good to know truly, to be godly, to be glorified, and it is Evil to err, to be wicked, &r. 6. Gods Will is confidered either as a. Efficient, 2. Or as finally fulfilled and pleated. As Efficient it cannot will nothing: for nothing is not made or canted. And impedido ne res fat, may be by effeftmg the hindering Caute. And as final, or as fulfilled and pleated, Non- entity can properly be fait tobe but the not di5 plea¡¡eng of it. Nothing is no objet of the Will : though á Propofition or in men an opppof-,tive thought be fomewhat. le teemed' to me a prefumptuous playing with die Majellyof God to affirm, that we mull afcribe to him infinite Pofitive Volitions that. infinite Atoms, Names, bc. Stall notbe : when even to men we only afcribe relatively and morally, the nolition of things evil. 7. It is certain that God fufpendeth his Velle & fame about non-entities ? And whynot as well his Nolte f or Velle non ere ? as aforefaid. But hereafter others a late philofophical Phyficion faith, that Nothings may he Bona Moralist, though not Natnralia. I anfwer , It is not true fave by a reduüive improper fpeech. Morality is Mo- dality. Thenegative Commandments forbid evil, and command the noli ton and refiftaace of it To murder, dre. is evil : and to Hill it and pofitively refit and fubdue all in is that tendeth to it, is good: But the bare non eccidere is not moral Good. All moral Good is radically in the Will , and no farther in any forbearance ofan aft, than a poSitive at of theWill makes it Obedience : And yet her I go not fo far as Ockam, as I have laid elfewhere. I grant that when the pofitive nolition and reflraint of an at towhich we are inclined or tempted, is the goodof obedience, thenor-doing of theAt is loco matorie circa gram, and fo mull go to an adequate conception of the duty although it be noproper' part, nor good in itfell: But Oc¢am-goethfurther, and maintainer' that the external aft of duty, with the internal Voli- tion loath no more moral goodnefs than the Volition alone : But I think that die atien is a.fubjet (Or locofubjeíti) of a derived fecondary goodnefs, as Scotus afierteth. that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=