100 / 504
C
A
P.
11.§:
20,21.
164alí
;.6.
vindicated
ofGods
Unchangeablenelle.
44
is
that
Parenthetical)Expreffion
ofa
change, imagined
in
the
Perfons,concern-
íng whomGods intentions are,
any
Plea
for
his
Changeablenefie upon
this
fuppofall:For he either forefaw
that
change
in
them,
or
he did
not;
Wile
did
not,
where
is
his
Prefcience ?
Yea
where
is
his
Deity
?
If
he did ;
to
what
end
did
he
really
and
verily
intend and purpofe
to
doe
fo,
and
fo,
for
a
man,
when
at the
fame
inftant, he knew the
man would fo behave
himfelfe,
as
he
ihould never
accomplifh
any
fuch
intention towards
him.
We
fhould be wary,
how
we afcribe fuch
Lubricous
thoughts
to
Wormes
of
the Earth,
like our
(elves;
But
if
a
man
f
nne
againff the Lord
,
who
(hall plead
for
him?
If
one
ihould
really and verily
intend or purpofe
,
to
give
a
man bread
to
eat to
morrow,who
he
knows infalliblywill
be
put
to
death
to night,
fuch
a
one
will
not
perhaps
be counted Changeable,but
he
will fcarce fcape
being eftee-
med
a
Changeling. Yet it
feems
it
muff
be granted,
that
God
verily intends,
and
really,
to
doe fo,and
fo
for men,
if
they be
in fuch
and
fuch
a
condition,
which he verily and really knowes
they
will
not be
in : But
fuppofe all this
might
be
granted,
what
is
it at
all
to
the Argument
in
hand,
concerning
the
Lords
ingaging
his
Immutability
to
his Saints,
to
fecure them from perifh-
ing upon the account
thereof? Either
prove
that
God doth
change, which
he faith he
doth
not,
or
that the
Saints
may perifh, though he change
not,
which he
affirmes
they
cannot; or
you fpeake
not to the
bufineffe in
hand.
ao.
The
41.
Section
eontaines
a
difcourfe,
too long to
be
tranfcribed,
unlefl'e
it
were
snore
to
the
purpofe
in
hand, then it
is.
I
(hall
therefore
briefely give
the Reader
a
taft
of
fome
Paralogifmes,
that
runne
from one end
of
it, to the
other,and then
in
particularrowle away
every
flone,that
feemes
to
be
of
any
weight,for the detaining
captive
the
Truth,in
whole vindication
we
are inga-
ged.Firft, from the beginning
to the
ending
of
the
whole Difcourfe,
the
thing
in qùeftion,
is
immodeftly
begged,
and many
inferences
made upon
a
fuppo-
fall,
that
Believers may
become
Impenitent
Apoilates,
which being
the
foie
thing
under debate, ought not
it
felfe
to
be taken
as
granted, and
fo
made
a
proofe
of
it felfe.
It
is
by
us
Afferted,
that
thofe
who
are oncefreely
accepted
of
God
in
Chrift,
(hall
not be
fo
forfaken
, as
to
become
impenitent
Apofiates:
and
that
upon the account ofthe
Immutability
of
God,
which he hash
ingaged
to
give
Affurance
thereof.To
evince
the
falfity
ofthis,it
is
much preffed,
that
if
they become
impenitent
Apofiates
,
God,
without the
leaft fhadow
of
muta-
bility,may
caft them
off,
and condemne them ;
which
is
a
kind
of
reafoning,
that
will fcarceconclude
to
the Underftanding
of
an
intelligent Reader:& yet
this fandy
Foundation
is
thought
fufficient,
to
beare
up
many
Rhetoricall ex-
prefíions
,
concerning
the
Changeableneffe
of
God,
in refpe&
of
feindry
of
his
Attributes,
if
he fhould
not deftroy
fuch
Impenitent
Apoftates,
as
'tis
fplendidly fuppofèd,Believers may
be;
(ô Fama ingens,ingentior
armis ifir.Tro-
jane
J
This
way
of
Difputing
will fcarce fucceed
you,
in
this
great underta-
king.
ÿ
ar.
The
fecond
sceneofthis
dfcourfe,
is
a groffe
confounding
of
Gods
Legal/
or
mgt./xi/Approbation
of
duties,
and Conditional)
of
Perfons,
in
reference
to
them,
(which
is
not
Love
properly
fo
called,
but
a
meere Declaration
of
Gods
approving the thing,
which
he Commands and
Requires)
with the
will
of
Gods
Purpofe and Intention, and
a&uall
Acceptation
of
the Perlons
of
Be-
lievers in Jefus
Chrift, fuited
thereunto
; Hence are
all
the
comparifons ufed
between
God
and
a
firdge,
in
his
Love,
and the
expreffe deniall,
that
Gods
Love
is
fixt
on
any
Materially
,that
is
on the
Perlons
of
any
(for.
that
is
the
-.
intendment
of
it)but
only
Formally,
in
reference
to
their
,Qualifzcations.Hence
alfo
is
that Inflance,
againe
and againe
infifted on in this
and
the
former se-
.
(lion