t 86 Supralapfarians charge not God yet it is defended_ by Canus lib. 2. De Loc, Theolog. cap. 4, wherehe hath thefe expreffe e efp. words, C Rec` , ni fallar, diei potefl Deus aty_ ad 7. ¿or eß operis mali, non quit eft malurn culpe, fed quá efl malum pa'mt. But whether Ca- jetane and Canus have reteined formam [- norm verborum in terming God the au- thour of that frnne which he . caufeth and rnaketh to be a puni(hment either to the partie committing it or others, I do not de- cide ; but I rather think they have not. As for our Divines, who think that partie one- ly to be the true authour of finne ex cujus voluntate egreditur fub rationepeccati or qua- tenus peccatum, they ufe not to tern God the authour ofany finfull a& or work; and aDeoccul- therefore Calvine d detefteth it as a prodi- taDei pro. gious blafphemy, Maleficia non tanntàrn Deo vid. i,a volente lid etiarn autore perpetrari. But that Refp.S,& 6,pa$.736. God willeth and caufeth horninuna male/4'67'a to be vindicative affliaing punifhments to the offenders or others, which is casefarefub ratione ptena, is generally admitted by all Divines: And it maketh not God the au- thour of them fecundi m rationem culp e, but the operative caufeof them onely f cundiam ordinem quern illis indit ad finem providentie fax. And as God is more then a permiffive caufe in mens wicked alions as they do Akre rationempane to themfelves or others, fo likewife as theybecome means of good to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=