i 66 Supralap farians charge not God oftheir impenitency..And though God may juflly decree to punifh theabufers of their free-will by letting them fall from one finne to another, yet there can be no one finne infifred upon inwhich thepermifsive decreeof God is not antecedent to the pre- vifion of the fame finne. But let us hear what Calvines adverfa- ries themfelves fay concerning this pointof k Molina , Permißìon. k Voluntas permittendi peccata, -aæ 3 permit ióque ipfa, effe potef non propter cul- ' 390, prim aliquam ua a in cenam fedex ala lades! 399. p q 1' p f voluntate Dei.Prius eft Deumdenegatione(rpe- cialium)auxiliorumpermitterepeccatum quàm peccatorem in illudincidere. And this is pro- perly that permiffive decree or that Per- miffion which weunderhand when we dif pute about Non-eletion or negativeRe- probation. Ofthis Suarez fpeakcth in this !,opurc pak manner; 1 Hine intelligitur,voluntatem illarr z7s. permittendi peccata reprobi fa ad totum ejus lapfurncornparesur,non habere caufamexpane min Tm. qu illius. And Vafquez; m Sicut prime vocatio- ' >.Vtfp'9' pis nulladatur caufa, itá nequepermitionis ii eo quipermittitur ,poTiquarn ab originalijufli- ftcatcos ell. Nullurn peccatum eft quod non prse- cedat aliquaperrnirio,h©c eft, Negatio vocatio- nis congrue qua novit `Deus peccaturn impe- diendum fi concederetur. I couldbringmany more fpeaking to this purpofe: but the mif- takeof this Authour is fo evident in making the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=