Of Predeiination. But whoneceffitated the Devil to fin ? This will be all one, when it is .difcuffed. And if feif-determining freedomof Will in Man be impnffì- ble, it will be impoffible in the Angels 5 for they are not Gods. Therefore I now deal with none but thole who confefs, that God made Man's Will at fiat with a natural feif-determining power and free- dom, faked to thisearthly fiate of government 5 and that Adam's Will by that fame meafure of Grace which he had, could have forborn his fin, at the inftantwhen he finned. *Yet t am not Unit*. II. The other extreamwhich I reconcile not, but confute, * is the Ling the old way of Pelagian', who deny original Sin, and acknowledge not thepravity of hard ematising all the vitiated nature 5 and confequentlymuff deny the needof Grace in the ofothers, that being it fame proportion, and fo far the need ofaSaviour and a San&ifier. And that t I whtethis the fi how far thisalfo fubverteth Chrittianity, you mayperceive. of Epiffles whicof 3aane he cb. A. But both thefe Parties havea great deal of very plaufible reafon r. 6, en. and of cjrii. for their Opinions, as youmay fee in the Dominicans on one fide, and ñs fo tufingTheo er lnft Hobbesagainft Bramhall, and in Dr. Jeremy Taylor, his Treat. of Repen- Mopf. in rrodz Ah=sect. tance, on the other 5 and therefore arenot to be fo flighted. are worth the reading, B. I do not flight them, but confute them. I confefs that the cafes betides the fore named. are not without difficulty,yea not a little. But I amCurer that Religion is not to be renounced, than they canbeof the truth of their Opinions. And do you think that if one of them had written for the Caufe of jn- lion, Porphyrie or celfus againft Chrift,that they would not have fpoken as plaufibly, and made the cafe teem asdifficult, at leaft to be argumen- tatively anfwered as they here do. A. Now let us here your way or termsbefore-mentioned, what they are? B. II. I fuppofe every fober man will allow me, r. Todiftingui(h va¡qu. in ,. ri e. Names andWords fromThings, and * nominal Controverfies from real 3* a.3. a. 45. i. r... 3 and tothat end to open the ambiguity of words as I goalong : And to Par: hajur caurover ¡ :,e (hew when it is anarbitraryLogical notion, or an ens rationis only that On reproarse neonhew ái 1 men contend about, infteadof a reality. 2. I may be allowed, when vaeroit.P P l confufion lapeth upmanydoubtful quettions inone,todittinguifh them, that each mayhave its properaafwer. 3. I may be allowed tocatt by, as unfit for contention, all thole unrevealed and unfearchablePoints, which none of the Contenders know at all, nor ever will do in this World. 4. And I willtake leave to lay by the rafh wordsof particular Writers, asnot tobe imputed toany others, norto the mainCaufe 5 or as' that which amnot obliged to defend, reconcile, nor at all tomeddle with. And whenall this is done, you (hall fee what Attoms the re- maining differences will prove. A. Begin then with the firft Article ofPredeflination. B. Remember my undertaking, that it is not to juftifie everymans words that bath writtenon the Point 5 and therefore I will not lofe time in citingor defending Authors : But produce you all your Accufations, as againft the Caufeof the fober moderatecalvinis, and fuppofe me to be the petfon with whomyou have to do. T'hë
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=