AGAINST THE ADVOCATES OF UNCONDITIONAL PREDESTINATION

We have, thus far, examined your doctrine of Predestination. If now it may seem proper to you to correct it according to our observations, it will, without doubt, be free from the liability to be called |Manichean,| |Stoic,| |Epicurean,| or even |Pelagian|; though, as set forth by you, it is free from the imputation of the last error. It can not be with equal ease acquitted of the former, to him, who shall accurately compare not only your opinion, but the logical consectaries of your opinion, with the dogmas of the Manichees, and the Stoics. Some would deduce Epicureism also from the same opinion, but only by means of a series of conclusions. I wish that you had with sufficient perspicuity vindicated your doctrine from those objections. You, indeed, attempt to do this in answering the various allegations, usually made against the doctrine, set forth by you. We will consider these, with your answers in order.