C AP. 11.§: 20,21. 164alí ;.6. vindicated ofGodsUnchangeablenelle. 44 is that Parenthetical)Expreffionofachange, imagined in thePerfons,concern- íng whomGods intentions are, any Plea for hisChangeablenefie 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 ? Ifhe did ; to what enddidhe reallyand 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 towardshim. We fhould be wary, how we afcribe fuch Lubricous thoughts to Wormes ofthe Earth, like our (elves; Butifa man f nne againff the Lord , who(hall plead for him? If one ihould really and verily intend or purpofe , togive a man bread to eat to morrow,who heknows infalliblywill be put to death to night, fuch a one will not perhapsbe counted Changeable,buthe will fcarce fcape being eftee- med aChangeling. Yet it feems it muff be granted, that Godverily intends, and really, todoe fo,and fofor men,if they bein fuch and fuch a condition, which he verily and really knowes they will not bein : But fuppofe all this might begranted, 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. Sectioneontaines a difcourfe, too long to be tranfcribed, unlefl'e it were snoreto thepurpofe inhand, then it is. I (hall therefore briefely give the Reader a taft of fome Paralogifmes, that runnefrom one endofit, to the other,and thenin particularrowle away everyflone,that feemes tobeofany weight,for the detaining captive the Truth,in whole vindication weare inga- ged.Firft, from the beginningto theendingofthewhole Difcourfe, thething in qùeftion, is immodeftly begged, and many inferences made upon a fuppo- fall, that Believers may become Impenitent Apoilates, which being thefoie thing under debate, ought not it felfe to be taken asgranted, and fo madea proofe ofit felfe. It isby us Afferted, that thofe who are oncefreely acceptedofGod inChrift, (hall not be fo forfaken , as to become impenitent Apofiates: and thatupon the account ofthe Immutability ofGod, which he hash ingaged to giveAffurance thereof.To evince the falfity ofthis,it is much preffed, that if they become impenitent Apofiates , God, without the leaft fhadow of muta- bility,maycaft them off, and condemne them ; which is a kindofreafoning, that will fcarceconclude to the Underftandingofan intelligent Reader:& yet this fandy Foundation is thought fufficient, tobeare up manyRhetoricall ex- prefíions , concerning the Changeableneffeof 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,ingentiorarmis ifir.Tro- jane J This way of Difputing will fcarce fucceed you, in this great underta- king. ÿ ar. The fecondsceneofthis dfcourfe, is a groffe confounding of GodsLegal/ or mgt./xi/Approbationofduties, and Conditional) ofPerfons, in reference to them,(which is not Love properly focalled, but ameere Declaration ofGods approving the thing, which he Commands and Requires) with the will of GodsPurpofe and Intention, anda&uall Acceptation of the Perlons of Be- lievers in Jefus Chrift, fuited thereunto ; Hence are all the comparifons ufed between God and a firdge, inhis Love, and the expreffe deniall, that Gods Love isfixt on anyMaterially ,that ison the Perlons ofany (for.that is the-. intendment of it)but onlyFormally, in reference to their ,Qualifzcations.Hence alfo is that Inflance, againeand againe infifted on in this and the former se- . (lion
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=