82 Inch fin,' .becaufe they too muchabhorr it. No aft is unjuft liimply, but all juft, and all the con- fequenis of it juft, in refpeft of God the Au- thor. Therefore lim- ply in the Univerfe , there is no fm or deor- dination ; God cvilleth . En as a Phyficion doth poyfon in his medicine, for the exercife of the good, the pirnifhment of the evil, the contem- plation of the beauty of the world. He is not the authorof evil as he is of good ; for of that he, is the .foie giver of faith, charity, be. cre- ating it. And God con- ftraineth not men to fin again(' their wills: nor doth he caufe it unjullly -and culpably, be.] Isnot this sneer Hobbs? a. Doth God will any -thing butgood ? Is not fngood then if he will it? 2. Is Gods not Re- warding it, a not willing it? What if he reward- ed not men for loving him? You feignGod to will and caufe all fin, and then damn men for it, and then prove that he is not culpable or did not properly will it, be- caufe he damned men for it. 3. Do you not makeGodas much the caufe of.evil habits and alts as of good , when you make him the total caufe of all that is in them,? 4. Do you not ay that the firmer doth evil for goodends , and not for evil, as well as God? 5. Ts not man an ,agent in LovingGod as well as in hating him? 6. Is it any better to make a man finful and miferablebymaking him willing , than to snake bim fir by force againit . his will ?,Nay, could a man be made a tanner byforce without making him willing ? Is it not a contradificn ? 7.Why call you it poyfon which God snaketh a medicine of ?.Youmean not that there is any evil in it 'which God caufed not si as you fay ) more immediately than man and fo that God firft 'Bade is poyfos and then put it into his niedi- emt. 8 And why are you afraid of ['peaking Of god's gracious Operations on Man's Soul : uGod to hate him the next moment. But we will not call this irrefjftible 4' efficiency [ coai-tion,] becaufe it is ad Lólendum's and fo in ipfo afiu `c there is no reluftancy or rehftance. " X I. WhenGod hath given man a Power with liberty to will or nill, "ornot will, to will this or that and alfo giveth him all neceffary objects "and concaufes , and alto as the firft canle of natural and free aétion "giveth him all that Influx which is neceffary to an Aft as fuch, yet the "moral fpecificarion of that Aft, to this propofed object rather than that a' (as tohate God, rather than to hate fin,) or to this Arzt rather than to 'c that(as to hate God, rather thanto Love him,or to fpeak a lye,rather than "the truth ) hath fo muchEntity in it, that it is a blafphemous deifying "man to fay, that man can do it, without Gods fore-defcribed unrefifti- "ble predetermining phyfical premotion. , e' X I I. God made the Law which forbiddeth fin, and God made mans ('nature Intellectual and free to be ruled by Law; and God made and " ordereth all the objects, temptations and concaufes ; and God by thefaid " efficient, phyfical premotion caufeth irrefiflibly every ad of fin in all its "circumftances : ( As when David was deliberating, Shall I do thisAdul- tery andMurder or not ? God firft by omnipotent motion determined .t `his will to it, or elfe hecould not poffibly have done it ) And fin in 'f its formale is nothing but the Relation of Dfconformity to Gods Law, `which can have no caufebut that which caufeth the fabjectum, funda- "mentum& terminum ; nor can it poffibly be, but it muff exift per nu- " dam refultantiam, hifce pops. And yet though God make the man, " the Law, the act, theobjeéi, and all that is intheworld from whence fan "refulteth as a meer relation, we are refolved to fay that God is not the " Author or Caufe of fin. "X I I Í. Yea, though the Habits of fin are certain Entities, and there "fore God mull needs be' their firft caufe in their full nature, according " to our principles, who account it proper toGod to be the firft and grin- " cipal caufe of any fuch entity; yet we are refolved to fay, that God is "not the Caufe or Author at leaf' of fin. "X I V. .Yet we will fay, that he is an enemy to Gods Providence, "that holdeth that man can poffibly do any wickednefs, unlefs God thus "predetermine both Will, Tongue, Hand, and every active part, to eve- " ry act which he bath forbidden with all its circumftances. '° XV. Sin is caufed by' Godas to the circumftantiatedAct which, isthe "materials , but not as to theformale : And yet we muff confefs, " that the Relation is caufed by caufing the fubjei , foundation and "term, ( all which God principally doth,) and can be caufed no other- "wife. "XV I. But theformale of fin is but a defeft or privation, which is "nothing': Thereforeman andnot God is the caufe of it ; ForGod can- " not beadeficient caufe, nor have any privation. And yet we cannot " deny but that 1. There is as muchpofitivity of Relation in difobedience "as in obedience, incurvity as in rectitude, in difconformity as in confor - " miry. 2. Nor that. God can be a caufe ofPrivations ( fuch as death ". is ) though not a fubjeft of them ; even fuch a caufe as they can have. " 3. Nor that fome of odes ( even Alvarez) fay that fins of commfon " (and habits) are pofitive in theirformale.. 4. And fin is fuch aNotbir , "as is mans mifery, and he is damned for and by. And if it be lush "a Nothing as can have no .caufe, man can no more be the caufe of it " than God. 5. And that the Reafon of nonexiftences, negations, or " privations, is as notorioufly refolved into the will or non-agency of the "1if
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=