143 / 808
V
E
R.II,
Ephefiaru,Chap.
t.
t;t
alike
inthe
finne
which
his creature in
innocency may
fall
into,
as it
is
in
regard
of
that
fin
which he
may
fall
into whennow
he
is
forftate
finful.
7. God
may furnifh
forth
his
creature
,
fo
that
he may
per
fe,
and
yet
may
per
accidens, make
defection,
and he
may will
that
his crea-
ture
!hall
fin,
being
fuffered to it
felfe,by accident
of
it
own liberty
and
vertibility.
8.
Or
having made his
creature,
fo
that when
he may
obey,
he
will
in
fuch
and
fuch circumftances take occafion and willingly and
wittingly
fin;God
may decree
to
fet him in fuch
conditions
in
which
he will fin,
and leave him
without putting
any
impediment,which
in
effe& is
to
will
that
fin fhall
be
by
his
permiflion.
g.
God may doe
that which
may direétly bring
a
(inner
to commit
finne,as he may finite him
with
blindneffe
in
underftanding:for
as
death
bodily
is
a
good
ferne
inthe
nature
finfull
of
things,
though not
good
to
a
living
perfon, fo
is
this blindneffe, pronity
to
finne, hardneflè
of
heart,
good
in
themfelves,though not good
to man,
who
fhould be
conformable to the Law,
and free
from them
;
good
as
iniliéted,
not
as
contracted
and
received.Secondly; God
may fufpend all
a
&ions
which
in
any
degree tend to
hinder.Thirdly
;
God
may
provoke by occafions
of
finning
not onely
Pet
things, which
he
may take occafion
to
pervert.
The
reafon
of
all is, it
were juft with
God to
confummate
fpirituall
death upon
his
creature
now
finfull, and
Erge,much
more lawful! to ex-
ecute fuch
a
degree
as
is
inferiour.
Thefe Conclufions premifed, the Arguments ufed for defence
of
the
negative
part,
may be
more
eafily
anfwered,
then
many
of
thofe for the
affirmative.
Argument
r.
To
the
firft,
it
is
denied
that
it
is
either cruelty
or
injuftice
in
God
to
ordaine that the creature
!hall fall
through
it
owne
.
wilfull defection,
and fo glorifie
his
juftice
in
deferved punifhment
:
to
conftraine the
creature
and make
it
finne
unwillingly,and yet
to
determine to
punifh it,
were
to
punifh
it
without
cattle,
as
delighted withcruelty. Secondly
;
I
anfwer
,
as
much may be
obje
&ed
againft
their permiffron:Thatwhich
is
cruelty
and
injuftice, not befalling favage men,
that
is
far from
God
;
But
to
Pet
his
childe, never having
offended
him,
in
fuch
a
taking,
in
which
hedoth
fee
he
will certainely
make
away
himfelf
;and not
to
hin-
der him
when
he
might every way
as
well doe
it,and that
with (peaking
a
word,
is
cruelty
and injuftice,
farre from favage men.
Now
all
this,
different
Divines
confeffe
of
God.Firft, that
he did
Pet
him,being
every
way
yet innocent,
in
fuch
circumftances. Secondly
;
that he could have
hindered him by fuggefting fome thoughteffe&uall to
that
end.
Third-
ly
;
that
if God
had thus hindered
him,
mans will
f
could have beene
no
idle free,
and
Gods primary
purpofe fhould have beene
more
promoted.
Fourthly;
that God
determined, notwithftanding
all
this,
he would permit him
fall: Revenging
juftice
cannot be glorious but
in
juft
puniflnnent
;
juft punifliment
cannot be, where there
is
no juft
merit
on
the creatures
parts;
juft merit there can be
none,if
the creature
doe