Of Predeftination. of neceflity which Hereboord, and many others give us, that we need not, it is here fufficient to diftinguith between meer Logical necefftar confequentiar in orderof argumentation 5 and Phyfical or caufal neceffity inorder ofBeing. God's fore-knowledge (which you deny not) in- ferreth theformer : For it is a good argument (what ever God fore- knoweth. will come to pali: But God fore-knoweth the fins of all that fin 5 Ergo they will come to pats ). The major is aneceffary propofition, and fo is the minor 5 therefore fo is the conclufion. Butyet God's know- ledgecaufethnot fin 5 nor is it neceflitated in any. Dr. Tmiffe, who go- eth as high as predetermination, doth yet grant Arminius, that it is only neceffitas confequentien, andnot confequentis, which Gods Decree orWill doth infer as tomens fin and mifery 5 and profeffeth, that all the School- men fay the fame 5 and blameth Arminius for pretending that we infer a necetatem confequentis : And the other Arminius owneth. And are they not then agreed whether they will or not ? I doubt not but predetermination inferrethnecefjitatem confequentis caufally , though this be denied by them that hold it. But fo doth nothing which we affert. x pafquecholdeth in r. Tho.q.z3. a.2.d,y.q4c.z. that Chn4 merited our election out of the cor- rupted mafs 5 not as Election is in God , but isthe Effed : And that Pane, EpQh, r. f Elegir nos in Cbriito, &c.1 aim' nomine electionis,gon eIt feparatio illa a maf'a per- ditianis in qua multi font. idem d. p;. T. Ferrarienf. plane indicar Drum ne- mrnem damnare, ant reji- cere a regna foevolaiPe, quodipfe appellar deferere, pravefa lulpa. * How,Augu/ii»e-di(ün- gui(hed hlectitinto lu- flification and to Glory. See him, lib. a. ad fhb- quit. q... Et gn.e de as baker, Vafquez in ,. Thom.dlfp. 89. cap. 6. The fourth Crinaination. A.Youwill make either the puremafs,,or man asman or the corrupted mafs, to be the Object of Predeflination, ( Elationand Reprobation ). And fo make Goddefers molt men inAdam's fin, as he did the Devils in their fin, without remedy, or hope. * B. Thefe are words ofconfufion, which, when opened, will appear nothing, and that we are all of amind. Either you will diftinguifh Gods Decrees by the Objects, or not. If not, you muft not diftinguith between Elt&ion and Reje&ton, willing and nilling, lovingPeter, and hatingjadas, &c. Ifyea, then youmuff not take up with the unexplained words , Reprobation and Eleilion., s. By Reprobation is meant either Gods Will topunith men. 2. Or his Will togive themno fpecial PavingGrace. 3. Orhis not-milling to giveit them. For thefittt, I told you before that the Obje&of Gods Will topunilhmen in Hell, is a Sinner fore -feen finally rejecting Mercy. 2. TheObje&of hisWill to punifh menwith pofitive temporal punith- ments , is the Sinner fore-feen in his immediate capacity for them. 3. Whether punifhment bynot giving that Spirit forFaith,Repentance, and Holinefs, be decreed ( being nothing but a not-giving) is before difcuft. But if it could be proved,yet the ObjeetofGods denying further mercy and help, is evermore one that bathabufed former mercy, or re- fuferh'that as offered tohim. 4. ButGods non-Volition to give Grace is noa&, and hath no Obje&. But we judge that all mankind are now fromunder themeer Covenant of Innocency, and that noneperish but for the abufe of mercy, which had a tendency to their recovery (The cafe of Infants muft be fpoke to in its place once for all.) But all this belongeth totheCafeofGrace and Free-will. * And 2. As for Ele&ion , we fay that T. The Obje& of Gods Will to glorifie men, is man fanerifying and perfevering in an im- mediate capacity for Glory in effe cognito. 2. The Obje& of Gods Will to give the Grace of perfeverance, is a fore-ken fanetifed perron in the next capacity. 3. The Obje& of Gods Will to juftifie, fanaifie, and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=