should put God to his purgatories to clear his justice but it is an easie thing to cleare his justice in that his people have both sinnes and sufferings when yet it would be too cleare if they should not have eternall life because Christ did not procure that they should be taken out of an estate of sinne presently or freed from all temporall afflictions to correct reduce warne themselves and others but that they should be in part renewed and at last come to life but he in satisfying Gods justice for them did actually free them from the curse due to sin which is eternall death therefore to punish any such with eternall death would entrench on his justice I say not that temporall sufferings is indured as satisfactions for sinnes I leave that soppery to the Authors neither doe I say they are no punishments but corrections but I say they are castigatory punishments not satisfactions and thus to say is no way contradictory to any of those Texts quoted page 98. all which shew as they were punishments so they were for castigation and correction onely not satisfaction as the eternall torments of them that perish are but so weakely are his Texts quoted all along as if he intended to make the word of God seeme vile The text by which we prove the proposition is Rom. 5.9 If whilst enemies wee were reconciled by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled shall wee be saved by his life To this he thus answereth It saith not that all Christ died for c. shall be saved by his life but speaking of Beleevers c. they should much more be saved by his life Which is a meere shift and no handsome one neither For let us but seriously consider he makes reconciliation and his death is of equall extent if we were reconciled by his death and so doth the Author Secondly he maketh reconciliation and salvation of equall extent nay with a much more meaning that is not so great an absurdity to say we are not reconciled by his death as to say that being reconciled we shall not be saved then let him consider doth it not strongly intimate that all that he died for and so reconciled shall be saved by his life as for that glosse But speaking of Beleevers he saith that much more they shall be saved It is a perversion of a cleare Text for it saith not Much more shall we beleevers be saved which it would have been if his perversion had beene right but it is much more we being reconciled not wee beleevers but we reconciled their confidence of salvation was deduced not from their condition of beleeving but what Christ hath done by dying viz. reconciled them and this drawne from the connexion betwixt his death and reconciliation and our reconciliation and salvation which cleareth the proposition The second thing which he chargeth the reason annexed to the proposition with is Grosse ignorance in the end of Christs death as the price Of which he saith thus It was not that by that act without any more done by him men should be presently possessed of all that justification freedome from death enjoyment of life in him How he discovereth his owne ignorance to make the ignorance of his advantage knowne he discovers ignorance 1. Of the nature of justification for that expression Be possessed of all that justification implieth that justification is successive and reteined by degrees which is false 2. Of his adversaries meaning which is not that presently they should enjoy life without any more done but that in time they shall have life and that spirituall worke which leadeth to it therefore he is either ignorant or perverse thus to say 3. If we be ignorant in the end of Christs death I beleeve he will not informe us he saith thus That he might be the Lord of all men that he might have all released to him and have pardon in his hands and spirit and life to bestow as he thinketh fit that he hight justifie them that beleeve and harden and adjudge the residue to a second death In which discovery he savours more of Arminian scripture then of sacred Scriptures thus they define the impetration by the death of Christ Est restitutio in talem statum quo non obstante justitia deus de novo beneficia communicare potest vult eâ lege modo quo ipsi videtur 2. If Christ came to save them that beleeve and condemne them that beleeve not then a joynt end of his death was to condemne contrary to John 3.17 I came not to condemne 3. Herein is not mentioned that end Tit. 2.14 viz. to purchase holinesse that we may be fitted for glory if he know it not he is ignorant if he willfully leave it out worse 4. This discription excludes all purpose to have any saved but if they either be saved by faith or condemned for unbeleife Christ hath his end though all perish 5. That phrase as he thinketh fit importeth that Christ in his death did not pitch upon a way by which he would save but left it indifferent whether by faith or any other way if he hold that Christ by death procured life by faith in Christ then he is too remisse in that expression as he thinketh fit how many exceptions are his words herein liable to and discover little knowledge in the Author in this businesse I have showne Chapter 3. that the maine end so farre as it relateth to man is to give eternall life and all those are but intermediate ends as to become their Lord c. As for that which he produceth as one end viz. satisfaction of his Fathers justice it is not intended for it selfe but for something further now what can he intend lesse in satisfying his Fathers justice then that they for whom he so did should not answer or suffer for any of those sinnes doth then to say that all those for whom he so satiâ—fied shall be free from suffering for those sins argue any ignorance in the ends of Christs death or he that denyeth it it discovers more let any judge But he cometh to answer the objection page 10. it seemes he hath done nothing all this while but how If Christ strive in the meanes and they be found hardning themselves it increaseth their debt and if he punish he is just True because Christs death never procured an immunity from temporall punishments but rather that we should have them to correct and reduce us And if he still strive and they refuse if he give them over to destruction is he not just If he have received satisfaction for that unbeleife as he hath if that be true which the Author saith page 4. that he was charged with all the sinnes the law could charge man with certainely then with all the Gospel could then his justice seemeth blemisht in damning them for it eternall death is not correctory but satisfactory Unbeliefe is the maine sinne c. and this is the
unjustifiable dissimulation and all those reasons in the former part of page 57. being onely to prove the reversed face of his assertion are impertinent and not worth reciting yet we may see his grosse and bold impudence that after he had propounded the place as meant of naturall men sonnes of Adam sinners without this particle All and proves no more yet page 57. he shamelessely triumpheth That it appeareth that the words All men are meant of Adam and all his sonnes it is too frequent with him to carry all in his conclusion and nothing in his premises Having thus fruitlesly traversed the first field of probation viz. the sense of the words All men he steps in to the second viz. the circumstances of the Text that attend these words he produceth many circumstances as followes 1. It is the Apostle that exhorteth Timothy and the Churches to pray for all men and they are beleivers that are to pray for all men and they are others even all men in the third person generally that are to be prayed for he saith not for some of all sorts but for all men and naming but one sort of them he saith all of them Indeed I finde the Remon thus arguing proquibus orare nos vult Deus act Syno 323. pro illis mortâ— est Christus at vult nos orare pro omnibus that is for whom he commands us to pray for them he gave himselfe a ransome but he bids us pray for all ergo but our Authors words are so confused that it is farre more difficult to forme his words into an argument then to answer it But to this I say though it may be questioned I shall grant it that all in the first verse for whom we are to pray is of the same extent with the all in ver 6. for whom Christ was a ransome this proveth not that All men ver 6. taketh in all Adams sonnes because the All in ver 1. doth not so But will some say are we not to pray for Adams sonnes I answer in some cases not but admit we are it is a truth veritate rei not veritate loci Scripture elsewhere happily may but this place dictateth not thus much to us And all that the Author inserteth I grant he bids beleevers to pray for all men but this is to repeate not prove or however to prove Idem per Idem as to say All men is to be understood of all Adams sonnes because it saith all men excellent probation And whereas he saith It saith not of all sorts some but all men it is unworthy the nameing so I may say it saith not all Adams sonnes every individuall but all men it saith neither of all sorts some nor all of every sort but useth a phrase that will admit either meaning now this is the question which is meant let the Text determine it runneth not into Individuals as Nero Caesar c. but into kinds as Kings and such as are in authority under them because all sorts were ordained to be usefull to the Church and he instanceth in Kings because they have the greatest influence into the growth of the Gospel therefore it is probable that though he say All men he meaneth All sorts of men And whereas he saith naming but one sort he expresly saith all of them it is an expresse falsity he saith not for All Kings but all such as are in authority under them that is all degrees or kindes of power under Kings But he attempteth to answer objections page 57. the first whereof is not materiall the second is worth examining Objection May we pray for such as we know have sinned the sinne against the Holy Ghost Answer No c. For then they are separated from the All men c. Reply But doth the sin against the Holy Ghost make him that commits it to cease to be one of Adams sonnes or of men or naturall men or unbeleivers certainely not Indeed it maketh him to cease being one of that all which we are to pray for but then doth it not clearely evince that the phrase All men doth not take in every sonne of Adam for if the Church or a beleever may pray for all men and so obey the Apostles command though one or many be left out that have sinned unto death what is more cleare then that the All in ver 1. doth not take in every individuall son of Adam A Second circumstance is this By the Apostles care to settle beleivers perswasion in this that it is good in the sight of God to pray for all men praying for Brethren they doubted not of but whether for all men unbeleivers persecutors many might doubt this he removeth 4. 5. 6. This circumstance is in nothing different from the former both fetched from his command to beleivers to pray for others namely unbeleivers But besides he is mistaken herein the businesse here insisted on is not praying for enemies as well as friends as Math. 5.44.48 For this they might doe and yet leave the Apostles command unsatisfied of praying for Kings we may pray for many friends and enemies yet pray for no Kings but were it so he most know 1. That this doth not inforce a praying for all Adams sonnes for many men in the world are neither friendes nor enemies to many private Christians 2. Neither doth it urge that all in ver 6. is taken so largely as if nothing but Christs death for every sonne of Adam could prevaile with us to this duty for if he died but for some and that some were enemies it is argument enough to move us to pray for enemies A third circumstance followeth By the motives by which he moveth them to pray for all men viz. Gods good wil to mankind what in Christ he did for them like that Mat. 5.44.45 Whereas the motives to pray for beleivers are something more sweet c. Had these words been wisely martialled they had appeared in the form of an argument used by the Remonstrants Deus vult omnes salvos fieri act Synod 321. ergo Christus pro omnibus fingulis mortuuâ— est That is God will have all to be saved therefore Christ died for all and every singular man to which I answer first if the word singulis had been in the antecedent as it is in the consequent they had spoken beside the Text and I shall grant that All ver 4. and All ver 6. are both of like extent but neither reaches to every sonne of Adam he must first prove the word All in the 4. verse to take in All and every individuall son of Adam before he can produce this word or any thing affirmed concerning it as an argument to prove All in the 6. verse to be so generall and whereas he saith that the arguments used here are like them Math. 5.44 it is false there is a wide difference betwixt the making of the Sunne to shine and raine to fall and willing their salvation The
demand a reason of that his expression 2. Why he so expresseth it as if the first Act viz. of Impetration or merit was in Scripture Phrase as done in his body when the Scripture saith the second Act viz. of Application is done In that body of his flesh Col. 1.20 Which place evidently treateth of the application of his Death and Reconciliation of their hearts to God by being brought in to beleeve who were strangers and enemies in heart to God before yet notwithstanding this is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that body of his flesh I rather wonder why our Author should produce such an expression making it the seat of Controversie without further explanation when it so easily might be explained Let him tell me how that Reconciliation was wrought in Christs Body Reconciliation is a thing subjectated in God Xanchy in locum existing only in mente divina not in Christs Body Expositours to cleare this unanimously say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In for by as is most frequent in Scripture as one saith Quasi dicat reconciliavit per oblationem Corporis sui And therefore said to be In his Body because it was done by those sufferings which were subjectated in his Body in which regard he was said to beare our sins in his Body that is the punishment of our sins but our Reconciliation properly is not said to be in his Body That indeed whereby he merited it was in his Body The meanes of our Reconciliation are twofold in Scripture His Body and His Bloud the one broken the other shed but of this latter it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Bloud as it were to expound the other that though it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet to be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Body Col. 1.20 If this be so then not the first Redemption or procuring of Salvation or Reconciliation only but the second also even the application of it is said and also truly is In that is by his Body Seeing that we are said to be redeemed by his Bloud Rev. 5.9 Which place our Author averreth to be meant of the application of Christs Death therefore the circumscribing that first Redemption with this Phrase In his Body is groundlesse 3. We shall view the expressions wherewith this is clothed that so we may Judge how pertinent his alleadged Scriptures are it being his boast that he hath so many plain Texts First It is said to be an Act of Christ as Mediator distinct from God the offended Party Secondly to be done in his body as opposed to be done by his spirit Thirdly With God for men as opposed to of God upon man Fourthly A reconciling of God to man as opposed to reconciling man to God Fifthly This is said to be for every man Now our next taske is to consider how pertinent his Texts are to make out this Joh. 4.42 We know that this is indeed Christ the Saviour of the World The meaning of Which place if our Author Divine right must be this We know now that this is Christ that worketh out Salvation for the world and this exclusively and confining the word Saviour to woâ—â—ing it with God and that opposed to a working a Reconciliation in the hearts of men an empty exposition very improbable to the meaning of them that so said upon their being brought in to beleeve as they were 39. And so had the worke of God on their hearts by his Ministry certainly in such a time if they say his is the Saviour of the World they meane such a Salvation as is by faith in Christ Now what that is let the Authour judge And he said to be the Saviour of the world because they knew he it was that came to merit Salvation so as it should be applyed in time by Faith Shall we take the liberty thus to expound Scripture and say Math. 1.21 He shall save his people from their sins That is he shall worke out with God a Salvation which yet may not be applyed And Luk. 1.47 My Spirit rejoyceth in God my Saviour thus meant in him that worketh out Salvation with God for me notwithstanding which I may perish How shall we herein perplexe the Word of God Let the Author shew me where Christ or God is called Saviours and respect not had to the Application of Salvation either present or to come Acts 5.37 He is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgivenesse of sins Saviour there looketh at the actuall bestowing of Salvation he then is said to be a Saviour from sins when he giveth Repentance and Remission And the nature of a Saviour is clearely set downe Neh. 9.27 Gavest them Saviours that saved them Now that Christ in procuring life may be called a Saviour I grant but then it is with reference to the actuall application of it in time to them for whom he procured it Indeed Corvinus attempts to prove the word Saviour in 1 Tim. 4.10 In Molin c. 29. 468. He is the Saviour of all men to be thus meant Quia quantum in se paratus est omnes salvare but he giveth to me but little satisfaction for he proveth not that this is meant of any other Salvation than what is actually applyed And that expression He is ready to save as much as in him lyeth is no congruous exposition of this word Saviour for in his Judgement He may be ready to save and yet none be saved but if none be saved how Christ should be called a Saviour I cannot comprehend But to close I say to this Text Joh. 4.42 If he meane that this Text includeth and taketh in the Act of Christ in procuring salvation for the world this I deny not but this I affirme also it taketh in and hath an eye to the application of it to the world that is Men living in the world and then it favours him not for his first Redemption is such as hath no eye to the certaine and infallible application of it 1 Joh. 2.2 He is the Propitiation c. The sense of which place he maketh to stand thus He hath wrought out remission and reconsiliation for our sins with God and so for the sins of the whole world and that in distinction from the application but this very short of the meaning of that place that the word propitiation hath more in it then a solitary procuring of remission as distinct from application is plaine from the word it self and other Scriptures The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cometh from a word which signifieth to be actually appeased placated reconciled actually to remit the fault when the Publican prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did he desire only that God might be in a capacity or possibility to pardon or that pardon and remission might be wrought out for him with God notwithstanding which he might want it certainly he was not content with such
every man else therefore I may love my Wife yet so as to love every woman what would this open a doore unto and follow our Author and this cannot be avoyded therefore his giving himselfe for his Church being an argument to move to a speciall love cannot be thought to be in common to all If the love be to be exercised to unbeleeving ones or Adversaries then it is thus he hath suffered for us 1 Pet. 2.18 24. for the unjust 1 Pet. 3.14 18. The Author mistaketh those Texts they shew not our duty to love Adversaries but to be obedient to froward Masters and to be patient under sufferings for well-doing and as an argument he useth Christs Death for Sinners and for them being Sinners But to take his argument as it is laid downe by him the love is a generall love to all even enemies Now certainly if the thing had been true he would have used this as an argument for he dyed or suffered for all but this he no where doth no nor by a division which taketh in all as he dyed for just and unjust but only unjust not meaning all unjust but them Beleevers who were unjust when Christ dyed for them Therefore considering that in such a case it is a most pregnant argument and he not using it it may appeare that it is not a truth that Christ gave himselfe for all and every man Under this ranke of Scriptures there are few others that require any answer they being not places used by us therefore might be passed by but one place or two I shall mention 1 Cor 8.11 13. Which place he saith containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren But let us consider the expression If the Authors Doctrine had been truth certaine it would have run thus Shall a man perish for whom Christ dyed Because he saith that Christ dyed for all men as men But he saith shall a Brother perish for whom Christ dyed As if he dyed for none but such as come under the notion of Brother 2. Cor. 5.14 Which he saith is an argument to make love operative to all men but therein he is deceived there is no such duty commanded in that Text. But the Author discovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not shew how many he dyed for when they say he dyed for all and in other places is produced as a proofe for his first Redemption for all and every man one more there is of some consequence Sometimes it is propounded to such as are overseers of Congregations as to admonish them to keep this Doctrine firmely and teach it 1 Tim. 1.11.15 To provoke them to watchfulnesse over them Act. 20.28 To constancy in sufferings 2 Tim. 3.8 But these shew not how many he dyed for 1. As for that Text I wonder that he should say that that place 1 Tim. 1.15 sheweth not how many he dyed for what was the reason that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the first Redemption for all and every one And that place that proves that certainly sheweth for how many he dyed for he dyed not for more then All however the Author hath lost his memory in the croud of Notions 2. For that Text Act. 20.28 We must first consider that this is a speciall and peculiar care that the Apostle exhorteth to and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold First Their Charge they were made overseers Secondly Christs Purchase he purchased them with his owne Bloud Now cleare it is that that care the Apostle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care and that first argument from their Charge was a peculiar and speciall Charge and so must the second be also of Christs Purchase for still I ground my reason upon this Aequalis acquisitio non potest esse fundamentum inaequalis curae What reason can be shewen why the Death of Christ and the Purchase with his Bloud can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the slocke above others if he equally purchased others with them It is not congruous with Scripture to give such Heterogenious arguments when God commanded not to shed the bloud of men he saith not because he is a Creature for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of mans life then to care for any Creatures life But thus for he is the Image of God and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures Let the Author search the Scripture and see whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a speciall duty and faithfulnesse over such and such Till I heare further I shall conclude that Christ purchased none but the Flocke So that these places produced by him although they do not define how many he dyed for yet they clearely say that he did not dye for all and by cleare and strong intimation averre that he did not give himselfe for every man in the world A second sort of waies of propounding follows wherein he saith that we have it shewne for how many Christ dyed as followes Sometimes it is laid downe as the foundation laid to offer life and bring in such as knew it not to beleeve Joh. 1.29 3.16 17. Sometime to such as beleeve to shew what Gospell was preached among them 1 Joh. 4.14 c. To be a ground of praise for such as beleeve not 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. And here shall we find the question resolved how many he dyed for Whereas he saith It is propounded as a ground to offer life and bring in men to beleeve He seems to averre these three things all which want truth however probation 1. That wheresoever the Death of Christ is propounded as a ground of offering life it is propounded in generall termes as All men Every man The world But this is false for it is laid downe as a ground of Faith and offering life Joh. 3.16 17. 1 Tim. 1.15 Math. 1.21 Joh. 11.51 In all these it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce yet not in generall termes 2. That where it is propounded in generall termes it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life but this is false for in 1 Tim 2.6 there it is in generall termes but it not to offer life or beget Faith but to move Beleevers to love and to exercise it in praise for all men as Ver. 1 2. 3. That there is no ground to offer life unlesse it be propounded in generall termes but this is false for that in Joh. 3.16 is a firme ground of offering life and the marrow of the Gospell yet no generall termes Though this be true that Christ purchased life and Salvation but for some of all sorts yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all sorts and to admonish every man to repent So for the rest much may be said to
according to the merit of our mediatour as it would in â—ench upon the justice of God so it is granted by the Author page 100. Now if Christ did undertake for every man payed his debt satisfied his father justice and tooke away sinne and all that stood crosse to our salvation and abolished death all which he affirmes for every sonne of Adam and so effectually and actually that it is as good with God as if every man had suffered and died the death due to his sinne in his owne person for so the Author is pleased to say page 17. certainely then every man should stand acquitted from that charge Gods justice should exact no more for as justice requireth satisfaction so it requireth but satisfaction the same debt is not in justice required both of the surety and the principall and as it had not been agreeing with Justice to require a second payment if man had been able to undergoe the wrath of God due to sinne and to rise out of it so is it equally disagreeing to justice to require a second payment of any seeing Christ hath payed it in his owne person For herein he did not die for but die with them that so die Hence I conclude that if Christ satisfied his Fathers justice for every man they should be freed from the curse due to sinne which is to be justified and this by his merits which is to be justified by his blood this is the genuine face of the argument But before I reply to his answers I shall premise a few things concerning justification to which I may referre the severall and confused pieces of of his rude answers concerning justification these three things are enquitable 1. What Justification is 2. When a Sinner is justified 3. What justification freeth us from The two first will be cleared in considering that in justification these three things are comprehended 1. As it is done in God and his minde and will 2. As it is discovered in the Gospel and pronounced there 3. As it is apprehended in the heart of the person justified By the first God is said to justifie 2. To declare him justified 3. The Beleever to apprehend or conclude himselfe justified Justification as it is in God existing in mente divinâ I finde such a definition given by Episcopius treating of justification and saying that justification and remission of sins be Synonyma's Disp 45. Thes 6. he saith thus Remissio peccatorum est voluntas non infligendi paenam quam peccata promerâ—ierunt That is remission of sins or justification is nothing else but a will in God not to inflict the punishment due to sin and so on the other side it must be a will in God to impute the righteousnesse of Christ and to deale with us as righteous persons now the Arminians have and our Author doth grant such decrees to be in God eternall as we must for he doth not in time will any thing that he did not will from eternity our justification doth not introduce any change in God all therefore in this sense it appeareth to me that man is justified from eternity Armin. disp pub Thes 19. sect 4. 2. Justification as it is pronounced in the Gospel is thus defined Quâ homo a deo ut a judice justus praemio dignuâ— censetur pronunciatur that is it is an act whereby man is of God as judge esteemed and pronounced righteous and of this runnes the definition of our modern Divines as Daven de Justif 310. Ames Medul 188. And of this justification the Scripture alwayes speaketh or most frequently to wit of the promulgation of it See Evangelii tenorem and so onely the faithfull and penitent are said to be justified and so in present existing because to such onely hath he pronounced justification and thus he is said to justifie the beleever or him that beleeveth in God or in Jesus when by the first as it is a will of God so to do he is and may be said to justifie the ungodly Rom. 4.5 for so he willeth nor to impute their sinnes whilest they remaine ungodly but he never pronounceth any one justified whilest they remaine ungodly Scripture no where so saith Now in our discourses of justification we must not confound these and if the question be asked when a man is justified by distinguishing these two we may clearely answer that as the act is done in God so we are justified from eternity for thus justification is an imminent action though conversant about the creature yet introduceth no physicall mutation into the creature disp 45. thes 3 this all grant but the Papist Episcopius thus saith Non justae aut sanctae infusio qualitatis in animam that is no infusion of any holy quality into the minde and this act doth no more make a man Justificatum then election maketh him electum yet none will deny election to be an imminent action and why God may not as well justifie us from eternity that is will not impute our sinnes as to elect us that is will to bring us to salvation I am not able to see And if any object the usuall streame of Scripture language viz. that we are justified by faith and he justifieth him that beleeveth in Jesus by considering this distinction we may breake through that and say that that is onely meant of the pronunciation of it according to the tenour of the Gospel and the reason why though there be such an act in God from eternity before our faith be wrought in us yet the Scripture speakes of justification through faith c. is because as in judiciary affaires it matters not what the Judge resolveth in his breast though whom he resolveth to acquit they may be said to be acquitted yet men looke at his legall sentence pronounced that by the law the person himselfe and the spectators is looked at at his absolution or acquittance So in this case we looke at our absolution from the â—nour of the Gospel thereby men come to know us and we ourselves to be justified this pronunciation is called justification and this is to Beleevers onely That which in this may seeme harsh is That a man remaining a sinner may be said to be justified but if it be well considered it will not appeare more harsh then this That a man whilst a sinner is elected to life both are prest with the same pretended absurdities Againe God is said to justifie the ungodly Rom. 4.5 but this he doth not quoad evangelicam promulgationem for that is onely to beleevers but beleevers when so are not branded with the title of ungodly and may not this We are justified whilest enemies be received as well as this We are reconciled whilest enemies Rom. 5.10 This I commend to the Authors consideration Againe it is to be enquired into from what justification freeth us we finde it thus exprest A peccato morte from sin and death Ames med and of this