And the Sub-operations fMan's Will. God be Glorious in all his works, or they be perfect : For we fay, that though mans fin be found upon Gods works, and that fn be none of his works, nor any means ( properly. fo called ) of Pleafng or Glorifying him, nor at all willed or caufed by him, but d hated and punifbed ; yet he lofeth none of his complacency or glory by it , but notwithilanding its malignity, fhineth glorioufly in the perfection of all his works. *.4r:. Yea, more we fay, that men fin under his Difpofing power, and that hewill make ufe of their evil unto Good, and fin fhall become ari occaion of that Glory to God ( as ficknefs to the Phyucion ) ofwhich it is no Caufe or proper Means, nor of it felf conduceth thereunto. Yea, and that no Act as an Adt, how finful foever, is done, but byGods caufa- Lion as he is the fountain of nature, and prime Motor : Yea, more; that all the Effelis and confequents of fin that are not fin it felf, are under the Caufal Government and difpofal of God, who will attain his Ends in all. 42. Therefore we differ but in this , whether God get not all that glory which Mr. St.floridly defcribeth, notwithfianding fin, or on fuppoff- tion ofit as barely permitted (negatively, but with a Decree or Volition ofall the good confequents occafaoned by it,) rather than by fin it felf, 4S a willed, deigned effelf ofhis own neceitatingNegations, and in the pofitive part ofthe alts as circumflantiated, of his determining premoti- on3 Whether mans permitted fin, be any of Godsworks r Andwhether Gods glory be not rather non obflante peccato, and alfo by occafton ofit, fuppofed to be mans work only ; and by all thegood confequentscaufed by God, than by the fin it felt' as ameans conducible, or a Caufe r i? 43 For we denynot, that God couldhave prevented all fin if hehad fo refolved, and yet we believe not that fuch a permiffion is equivalent to a neceffitatingMotion, or Privation, as Mr. Sterry would perfwade us : To make a creature no better than fuch as can do good ifhe will; and can be willing, (With a decree tomake manywilling,) is much dif- ferent frommaking the creature bad; and then condemninghim to Hell for being fo, as an at ofJuftice. Yet we doubt not, but the Divine Light will Ihortly give us all a fuller difcovery of that which fhall vindicate the Wifdom, Goodnefs and Juftice of God, in his Government of man; than yet thewifeft mortals have. 4'44. Either you fuppofe that God doch all that he cando, or not. If yea, then you fuppofe that he cannot (nor ever could) make anyone Creature, Worm, or Grafs, more or lefs, greater or fmaller, fooner or later, or otherwife, than he doch : which few will believe : (,It being not for want ofPower, but through perfection of Wifdom andfreedòin of Will that he doth no more.) But it God can make one creature more, or one Motion more, and yet dothnot, I ask Whether you dare call that non-agency by the name of Idlenefs or deficiency.? If not, why fhould the Non- caufation of finfulVolitions in fpecie morali, or the leav- ing free-will to its own determination, be fo called t Not to make more creatures, or more phyfical motion, or not to give more Grace and Glory , is as much a non-agency as not to determine a finning Will. ?>. 43: As to all Mr. sterry's Reáfons againft tree-will, they are fn Rhetorically rather than Logically delivered, that I think it not meet to trouble the Reader with any further anfwër of them, or to fuppofe them to have any more ftrength than thofe that other men plalnlier have delivered. II
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=