'tt 134 Ofthe' '(etture,knowledge, Will it (hall not be done. But who can comprehend the wayes fo Dn ne concurfe 7I I. And it is to be noted, that whenAureoles argueth, that .['ifGod immediately concurr, either he determineth mans act, or man determineth Gods ad,' or neither ; which are all abfurd : ] here Biel citeth Scotus as holding the third, and anfwering Neither , as no abfurdity. But Greg', 4rim. that feemeth to go higher, yet faith, [* yuxta modum loquendi arguentis dico quod Deus fequitur determinationem Yoluntatis : non quad determinatio Yoluntatisfit cliqua Entitas diffintla á voluntate er afu ejus, quiaprimofiat á voluntate nec intelligendo quadpriasnatura moo- Juntas àgat aïtum quarn Deus, proprie loquende de priori natura: Qóni- am tunc fequeretur quod poffet ilium agere, Deo non coagente. Sed ad hunt :tenpin dicoDeum fequi DeterminationemYoluntatis s .koni- am idea Deus agit ilium alum , quiat cum Voluntas agit. Et non ideaquiá Deus agit, ideo Volantas agit : & idea magic proprio dicitarDeus coagere Voluntati in talem at am caufandi, quarVoluntas dicatur coagere Deo.2 You fee that thefe Naminals do tata crelo differ fromAlvarez , Tttffe and Rutherford: ( And yet Alvarez would fain bemoderate in hat- one Difputationwhich Dr. mif fe in a peculiar Digreffion oppugnéth. ) 712. And note, that the thing whichmoved Gregory to go fo faras he loth is, Left God íhould be denyed to -be the Caufe of all Natural En- tity : But if you fet before the will, the Creator (or ChiefGood) and the Creature (or fenfual pleafure ) the Alt ln genere as a Volition is anEntity, or modus entis: But who can prove that comparatively as it is terminatedon the Creature, rather than on the Creator, it hath any Natural Entity, more than the alt ingenere ; or any modality which God is not able to give a Creature power to caufe, or not caufe, without predetermination from God or any other 713. Yea, Ariminenfis feemeth tomean this himfelf, when ibid. d. 34; 35. 0.1. ad5. lie faith [Deus potefl foins0/um ilium caufare, tr a/urn odiendi, id eft, qui eft odium Dei, er mendacium etiam potefl caufare Non tarnen potefl caufare altum odiendi Deum , fea odium Dei: neque potefl caufare Mendacium vel mentici , 'segue potefl caufare a/um ma- lam; are quemcunque ilium caufaret foins , licet fille nunc ft Odium Dei vol mendacium, eel aliquis a¿lus malus, fi tarnen Deus foins ilium caufaret, fient potefl ilium caufare folus, non effet alias, neque odium Dei vel mendacium.] But whatever he thought, I have before anfwered thit difficulty of the. Entity of the alts of fin. . I mention Ariminenfis judgement the rather ; becaufe the Learned Calvinifts commend him : Md I remember when I once askt Arch= BiíhopUfher which ofthe Schoolmen he molt valued as the roundel}, he faid Greg. Ariminenfis. 714. Is not all this doctrine from there men cited conformable to the doctrine of the Synod ofDart? Who in the conclufion name many potati- ons which they and all the Reformed Churches with them do, toto peilore . deteflari, abhorrwith all their hearts: Among which one is, Deumnab paroque Yoluntatis arbitrio, abfque omni peccati allias refpella velintuitu, maximammunch partem ad uternàm damnationem pradeflinaffe 6. cre- atf fe. And another is, Eodemmodo qua eleilio foeseft &camp fidei ache: norum operum , reprobationem . effe taufam infrdelitatis b impietatu : Another is, Multas fidelium infantes ab aberibua martian innoxios abripi tyrannice inGehennarn pracipitari, adeo ut its nec Baptifmus, nec Sc; cleftæ in eorumbaptifmo preces, prodeffe queant, f ubi färd äa B. t I think fe monta be [ Eon. 3 4ná
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=