and Decrees of god, &c. SECT. IX. ...icy Ak*,-,-1 0f,,AtItzlOiriamiale. and Free-will (ofWhich fie more Sr. so. againjl .Mr. Rutherford. ) 158. Hough Pre - determination belong to Gods Executínn, and be after his Volitions in. order , yet becaufe I am now only to fpeak of it, as a pretended medium of his knowledge of fin, and as quid decretum, I (hall touch it here. It is confeffed that there is no fubftance which God is not theMaker of(betides himfelf) ; Nor anyAlienofwhich he is not the firft caufe. . 159. God maywell be called theperfefì: firft Caufe of-humaneAdions, in that he giveth man all his Natural faculties, and a.Pawer to Al or not at at this time, or to choofe this or that, and as the Fountainof Na- ture and Life and Motion, doth afford his Influx neceffsry to this free agency. So that when ever anyAd is done, as an At in genere, God is the firft Caufe of it : For it is done by the Power which he giveth and continueth, and by his Vitalhelix s And there isno Power ufed to pro- duce it which is not givenbyGod. 16o. AnAft as fuch, bath no Morality in it, but is quidnaturale ; And fo it is fromGod as he is fops nature. But the Morality of an At is for mally theRelative Rectitude or obliquity ofit, referred to Gods Govern- ingwill or Law, and to his amiable Goodnefs or Will as it is mans End. And Materially it is ( not the Aft as fuch, but) theAft as exceeded on an unmeet objet rather than on a' meet one, or to an undue End rather than a due End, or élfe the OmiIon of the A&as to the due End andOb- jet, which is the fn, and the frtndamentum of the finfulnefs ; and fo e contra. 161. This Comparative mode of exercife addeth no proper PhyficalEn= tityat all to the General nature of the Aft as fuch. In Omions ( of Loving, Trufling, Fearing,Serving God) there is no Natural All, but a privation of it. In committed fins, to Love thisObjeft rather than that, hath no more Natural Entity than to Love that rather than this; and no more than is in the general nature ofLove as Inch. A modus Entis is not Ens : But this Comparative choice, is but theModus Modi entîs : For an .fttion is but Modus Entis, and this is but a modus allionis. 162. It is therefore an invalid argument whichis theAll of theDomini- cans, that Man fhould be a Gaup prima, and fo be God, if he could deter- mine his own will without Gods pre -determining pre-motion ; and there lhould be forcebeing in the worldwhich God is not the Caufe of : For this morality and modality is no proper being above theAlt as Inch. 163. If anywill litigate de nomine entis, let them call it Being or no- being as they.pleafe ; but it is fuch as God can make a Creature able to do. And he thatdare fay thatGod Almighty whomade all the World, is notAble to makea Creature that can determine his own will tothis objell rather than to that; under Divine Univerfal Influx, without Divine pre-de- terminingpre-motion, on pretence that hiswit doth find a contradi/ion in it, is bolder againft God, than I(hall be. And ifGodcan do it, we have no reafon to doubt whether it be done. 164. Men teem notin denying this, to confider the fignificaflon of the word u [POWER] when they confefs that God giveth man the Power to choofe or refufe, and yet fay that it is Impoffible for him to A& by ir, without the Paid pre -motion. If fo, It was only aPower to ches/e when E a pre_ u It is a contradiction therefore of Dr. Tiei(fe whooft faith, that God denyed toAdamno grace ad pop, but he denyed him grace necefíary ad agere: For he hash not thePower who bath not thatwhich is necefiaryto the aft. Vid. gad. it. t. cost. 2 ,. art. Ipag457.