Of Redemption. 59 B. You have nothing about Redemption, I perceive, [till to contro- vert, butabout GodsDecrees, If we muff go back to them,. review your words, and fee howyou cheat your felvesinto diftaft ofyou know not what, bymeet confufion, for want of accurate ScholaftickBeads, ( I except not Epifeopius himfelf, tiotwithftanding men ofhis ownmea- fure think otherwife. ) J. Whereas you talkof [ leaving out] either youmeannon-EleEtion, or pohtive exclüron. If the laft, it's falfe : not only the Scotifis, . but forneProtefiants (asFerrier in scholaft. orthodox. and others, ) affert but a negation here; And Davenant and the Synod affert but a negative Decree quosd objegum 5 which is but as much as Arminiuspropugneth, whowhile he maintaìneth that God decreeth not fin, but onlyhis own permifonof fin, ( which isthe Synods fenfe) yet hereby confeffeththat hewillethordecreeth that permifsioh.. You fay then that he decreeth to permit mens unbelief, and this is all that the Synod faith of non-Election, or leaving menout of thenumber of the Eleû. 2. If you yourfelvésbelieve all this, with what face can you oppofe the fame in others ? If you do not, either you believe thatnone are In- fidels and damned, or you believethat God doth not permit it tobe fo; but it is done by conqueringhis Omnipotency,or elfe you knownot what youbelieve: choofe whichyou will. 5. Do you reallydiffer ( as Epifcopiui pretendeth) about the caufe ofReprobation ? As to the caufe of Damnation, all are agreed that fin is the true meritorious caufe. Thequeftion is onlyof Gods Will orDe- cree of it. And iris not of hisfententia prolata, or Decree pronounced by Chrift in Judgment : for ofthatalfo it isagreed that fin is themerito- 'riouscaufe. Your oft recurring to your Objeftions, when they have beenfully anfwered, putsme on the tedioufnefs ofrepeating the. fame Anfwers. Gods * Will is confideredeitherexparte volentis effentially, The saufe of Gods or as extrintcally denominated from the connotation of the Object. Inwit inreprobating. thefirft fenfe, you have not yet declaredyour felves to deny thecom- mori Doftrine of theChriftianWorld, that Gods Will is his undivided molt fimple Effence and that Godbath no caufe, and fo his Will in it felf bath nocaufe; 't ;hat in God there is nothing but God. Dare you fay thata Creaturemade God -? yea, that fo bafe a' thing as Sin made him ? flowthenBoth it caufe his Will which is himfelf? Is Gods Will fuch a mutuable thing as mans ? And is it not the firft caufe . of all things ? And (hall men pretendingto Learningreproach others, for not affigning a caufe of the firft caufe, and that Sin, which is baler than aCreature, caufeththe Creator ? But if you (peakof Gods Will as denominated by connotation of the Obje&; markwhatwe grant you, via. that as thus only Gods Will or Volitions are denominateddiverfe, fo are they denominated to beofthis or that fort, and numerically alto dittinguifhed_; And fo they may be (aid tohave a caufe, but not an efficientcaufe,but only an * òbjenive caufe; corviaasfrequncÿc And what Caufe is anObjell ? To let pars the Error of many Logicians, firm,thätFaithis not the it is only (asanObje&) a material conflitutive caufe (at leaft here : ) caufe of Gods Elation And fo fin is the ob`eaive material cans of that extrinfical denomination toGlory,but onlya con- and relationof Gods Will, calledReprobation to damnation. It is that difofitio objelli which is effential to the Object. And fo as Gods Will may anyway be Paid to havea caufe, we will fay freely, afterthe manner of men, that fin is the objellive caufe of theDecree of damnation. And fpeak nowwith fhame, can you fay more or lets? Doyou or any of us that are fober andunderftandour felves, differ at all in this? i 2 4. And
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=