I have brought to this result it may be with greater force then he intended and it is this John 3.17 Christ is said to save the world yet John 16.8.11 he is said to convince the world of sinne and John 8.23.24 ye shall die in your sinnes by these it appeareth that all that he died for and saveth are not justified and saved from wrath and this may seeme a specious allegation but it hath little in it For by World in the Authors judgement is meant every Sonne of Adam so that Iohn 3.16 saith he saved the world Iohn 16.8.11 saith he shall convince the world that is in both every sonne of Adam and so he would have these places compared to prove that as he came to save every man so he shall save never a man for every man that shall be convinced of sin because they beleeve not this indeed opposeth the proposition but no reasonable man can judge to be the meaning of those Texts therefore to reply 1. He cannot prove that those that were convinced of sin for not beleeving did not afterward beleeve for every man that is saved hath hâ—s tâ—me of unbeleife wherein he may be convinced for not beleeving therefore this Text convinceth not that they did never beleeve for whom Christ died 2. That place Iohn 3.17.13 he saith he came to save the world that is men living in the world and he did it the world is reconciled 2 Cor. 5.18.19 their trespasses not imputed he giveth life to the world John 6.33 and taketh away the sinne of the world Iohn 1.29 and yet he shall convince the world of sinne they shall be judged by beleevers 1 Cor. 6.2 and be condemned 1 Cor. 11.32 in all the World now then cannot be verified of the world the same way taken but he saveth the world Quoad partem credentem according to the beleeving part and he shall condemne the world for sinne that is the unbeleeving part thereof so that to conclude John 3.18 doth not say that they which he came to save were not so in time nor that Text Iohn 16.8.11 doth not say be satisfied his Fathers justice for them that should be convinced of sin and so perish therefore how these Texts can disprove the proposition I see not It overthroweth many affirmations in the Scripture as that all shall beare the image of the first Adam 1. Cor. 15.46 that all are dead in sin by nature Eph. 2.2 that God justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4.5 c. It cannot but be judged too great a prodigality of time and paines to insist upon such jejune and empty expressions that have not the least shew of reason but the nature of my Antagonist requireth it doth the proposition say that all doe not beare the image of the earthy certainely no. It supposeth the contrary that all doe for it saith that all that Christ died for shall in time partake of the Image of the heavenly which intimateth that all at first beare the Image of the earthy Justification doth not immediately reflect upon the being of sinne but obligation to punishment and this may suffice for the two first Texts alledged by him As for Rom. 4.5 it speaketh not of such a justification as is by faith it speaketh of beleeving on him that justifieth he ungodly but not of his justifying the ungodly upon their beleeving therefore he misalledgeth that Text he is said to justifie the ungodly but beleevers are never called so especially if he reflect upon his owne sense of ungodly page 10. besides the Text sheweth not that all the ungodly be justified doe not in time come to partake of life hitherto I see nothing of strength against the proposition As for that counterpart to the proposition which he produceth page 96. viz. many for whom Christ died remaine without that justification that is in him wants proof for those Texts alledged doe not make it appeare that Christ died for such as want that justification and never partake of it The next thing that he stumbleth at is the second part of the proposition viz. All for whom he satisfied shall be saved from wrath through him this he presently cryeth downe as false and contrary to Scripture But what Text 2 Peter 2.1.2 This text I have spoken of formerly and cleared it from overthrowing the proposition it speaketh not not a word of satisfying his Fathers justice for them And this untruth denieth the Lordship of Christ grounded on his death for all But wherein it denieth it he showeth not doe we by saying all that he satisfied for shall be saved deny him to be Lord of all as if he could not be their Lord unlesse he save them from wrath to come weak argument and of this stamp are the rest that follow clearely confuted in severall pages of this discourse Having spoken of the two parts of the proposition he cometh to the reason by which the proposition is backed and he hath something to say to that as followeth the reason if he doe not justifie and save from wrath all those for whose sinnes he hath satisfied he should be unjust to this be answers A presumptuous rashnesse in an intimate charging God with injustice But where lieth the rashnesse whether in saying if such a thing be granted he is unjust or in affirming such the granting whereof maketh him to be unjust let the Author judge Let us see what he himselfe saith page 97. That were injustice not onely to require the whole debt againe but even any part of it either of him or any other that are discharged by him or to detaine from him or his any thing that by vertue of his ransome is to be conferred So that we see it is no such charging God with injustice as he pretendeth to say that if such a thing be granted God is unjust but besides let us consider it is injustice in God to require any part of the debt againe of Christ or any other for whom Christ suffered and was discharged or any that are discharged for Christ for so both are equally alike now let us consider the Authors words page 4. All the sinnes the law could charge mankinde withall were imputed to him he suffered the curse and died as the sinner and rose acquit of all our sinnes and a triumphant victor over sin and death Let him tell us is it not injustice in his own language to require part of this debt or all of Christ or any for whom he stood and died and of whose sinnes he stood acquitted But he saith he did so for every sonne of Adam therefore doth not justifie the reason of the proposition and show the vanity of this his rash charge But he thinketh to presse the reason of the proposition with an absurdity Gods children have complained of trouble by the law in their members Rom. 7.15 and he saith of his own children Psalm 89.32 I will visit their sinnes with stripes Wherein it seemeth strange that the Authors ignorance
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
words in a threefold relation viz. to the Author whom he citeth to the former stating which he rejecteth to the Question of which he pretendeth it is a state As they relate to the Author cited by him I answer these two particulars 1. It cannot be either proved or expected that these words should be the state of this Question about Redemption because that was not his Theame he treateth there of Reprobation and therefore no rationall man will expect to find in that Discourse a full state of this Question 2. Our Author hath got the words of that learned man but hath left us doubtfull of his meaning for that Phrase He obtained a way of Salvation for every man may have a double meaning First That Christ hath obtained a way viz. faith in which every man that walketh shall and may through it come to life intimating thus much only that Salvation is not attainable but by Faith and Repentance Secondly That Christ made that a way with a purpose that every man should walk in it and through it have life Our Author taketh the words in this second sense else the words of Dr Davenant serve him not but thus the words are not taken by him whose words they are and that for these two Reasons Dr. Davenant on Heard Pag 198. 1. He expresly saith thus The way that he opened for every one of us to partake the fruit of our Redemption is by Repentance and Faith which saith no more but this that the way whereby every man partaketh of Salvation is Faith and Repentance or that every man that doth beleeve and repent shall come to life and to this tends his after words The Decrees of Election and Reprobation are no obstacles against any that do this 2. Because he saith Election and Reprobation crosseth not that Now let us consider the Decrees of Election and Reprobation he maketh Reprobation to be a denying from Eternity Grace and Glory to the most men And these two viz. That God decreed from Eternity to deny both Grace and Glory to the most men And that Christ opens a way for every man and so for them as that he intendeth to bring them into life by that way or that they might be so are in my thoughts inconsistent Thus as these words relate to the Author of them Secondly I shall consider them as they stand compared with the former statings which he rejecteth And then I demand what difference there is betwixt this which he receiveth and the third which he rejecteth The third state saith thus He dyed for all that all might be saved if they beleeve yet they shall not if they beleeve not And is not this one and the same with his last state I cannot see any momentous difference For between these two Christ by his Death impetrated and procured that all men have life if they beleeve yet so as none but them that beleeve should partake of it And this Christ by his Bloud redeemed mankind and obtained a way of Salvation for every man which way is Faith and yet this puts not any man presently into the possession of Salvation unlesse they beleeve I need a more piercing Judgement then I have to find any difference I shall expect to find one in the Authors next Againe What difference between this which he receiveth and the first which he rejecteth For that saith that the Death of Christ is applicable to all Now when this word applicable is expressed without Sophistry it is meant only applicable and so in an indifferency either to be applyed or not applyed as the condition is performed So applicable is applicandum si crederent non applicandum si non crederent That which is only applicable is not to be applied but on condition and then it is hence Corvinus maketh these two Deus est placabilis and placandus si crederent to be equipollent tearmes and this is the true meaning of the word applicable Now betwixt these two Christ by his Death hath made his life applicable to all that is to be applyed if they beleeve and not applyed if they beleeve not And this Christ by his bloudshed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into possession unlesse they beleeve I cannot see any momentous difference and the rather I am enduced to thinke so because the result of the eighth State which he receiveth is but this that all men are salvable Pag. 36. which is one and the same with applicable which he rejecteth Againe I would know what this last state of the Question which he receiveth differeth from the seventh State which he neglecteth as not the whole truth Doth not the first part of the seaventh viz. That Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved equallize and speake as much as this viz Christ by his Bloud obtained a way to Salvation for every man And what is there in the last that is not in the first To obtain a way to salvation for every man which way is Faith is no more then to say Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved by Faith And doth not the second Branch in the seventh viz. And for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved equallize and speake as much as the second part in the eighth State viz. None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance shall possesse it And what is there in this last that was not couched in that first particular He pretendeth a Plea which is this The distinction betwixt the Redemption wrought by Christ in himself by bloudshed and that which he worketh in men by application of his Bloud is not expressed But this is empty and groundlesse because that distinction is not in expresse termes in the eighth State and by as good consequence in the seventh herein he appeares not so quicke sighted as he pretendeth Diruit edificat mutat quadrata rotundis Thus I have examined the last State given and received by him in comparison with the former which he neglecteth and I can see no cause why the last should be entertained when severall others are rejected Thirdly Let us see this State which he so eagerly fastneth on how it relateth to or looketh on the Question of which it is a State the result of it is thus So that Jesus Christ hath so dyed and given himselfe a Ransome to God for all men c. That in and by himselfe he hath so redeemed and saved all men that they are given to his dispose and he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them and make them alive before him That they shall acknowledge him Lord and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9 12. c. And he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it so knowne and with such tendernesse that they might be saved so all are made savable When this is embowelled we shall see little
bestowed upon every Son of Adam which he often affirmeth but never yet proved Having thus immethodically propounded and displayed the particulars of his Common Salvation he proceeds thus to affirme In some sense and in truth all may be said to be Reconciled Redeemed Saved yea Justified in him though most be destitute of every of these Which is as much as to say Those may truly be said to be reconciled c. that neither are nor shall be reconciled c. Indeed I find sometimes that God calleth things that are not as if they were Rom 4 17. And Faith hath this privilege to see at a distance things that are not as if they were but then let us consider what they are not meerely possible but future such as God by his power can and his unbended purpose hath determined and his faithfull Promises hath assured us shall come to passe for such things to appeare to God or a faithfull eye as if they were is no strange thing But for such things as are never to come to reality no nor ever was so intended as the Reconciliation Justification and Salvation of many were not intended by Christ in his Death as the Remonst say and for such as neither are nor shall be effected for such to be called as done and to say that such men are Reconciled c. which neither are so nor shall be so in time seemes to me an incredible absurdity But he will happily say They may be said to be so because they may be so They are under such conditions which if they performe God is ready to do all those Well be it so Why then should they rather be said Saved then damned till the condition be performed I hope the way is indifferent to Damnation as Salvation as the Parties beleeve or not beleeve for the Gospell saith beleeve and be saved and also beleeve not and be damned and men may accidentally contract a sorer Condemnation if they beleeve not Therfore why they should rather be said to be reconciled and saved because they may be saved by Faith then that they are damned because they may be damned by unbeleefe Nay why may not men conclude sooner that they are not reconciled and redeemed especially casting an impartiall eye upon themselves seeing they find themselves more prone to reject him then to receive him to stand out then to beleeve in him I see not Againe It is not sutable to denominate them Justified and Reconciled that neither are nor shall be endued with Faith And why may not men be as well said to be Glorified in Christ as Justified and Reconciled Yet it is no sober expression to say that every man yea the damned Spirits are glorified in Christ Certainely the Scripture calleth none Reconciled Justified Redeemed Saved but such as are so or shall in Gods time be so But againe how he can thus conclude for every man from the Premises I see not He produceth not one particular which he can prove to be common to every Son of Adam but the first viz. an upholding in their being both man and the world of Creatures But are all said to be Reconciled Redeemed Saved Justified because they have their being continued and the world of Creatures also for their use Certainely there is no necessary dependance or because some are made partakers of Supernaturall light the Gospell and an encrease of light are all and every Son of Adam said thereby to be Justified c But he attempts to backe it both by Scripture and Reason I shall examine both His Scriptures are two Rom. 3.22 23 24. Herein I need not call out the disquisition of more piercing eyes to search out his fallacy but any common capacity to explode his palpable absurdity doth the Text speake of a Potentiall Justification wherewith all may be said Justified and yet all misse of it and yet be justified The Text speakes of a justification by Faith which is an Actuall Justification and there is none so justified but they partake of it If the Text had favoured him it should have run thus The righteousnesse of God for all with God But it saith The righteousnesse of God unto all and upon all Againe the Text saith It is unto and upon all But doth the Text meane All and every Son of Adam whether beleeving or not beleeving Let him view the Text That Justification by which every man is said justified is such as is without Faith But the Text owneth none such it saith upon all them that beleeve that is the Circumcision and uncircumcision Jew and Gentile as ver 30. there is no difference but the beleeving Gentile as well as the beleeving Jew is justified freely This the Remonst acknowledge with the Scripture Nullus nisi fidelis quâ fidelis est justificatur sive à condemnatione absolvitur Ant. 87. Strange it is to me that the Authour should dreame that this Text should call every Son of Adam justified Rom. 5.14.18 As for the 14. ver I cannot apprehend any shew of Reason the dint is in the 18. ver where the Text saith By the justifying of one the benefit abounded towards all to justification of life But 1. First Here we see not any shew of reason to say that all are justified The Text from any thing that Christ did doth not say every Son of Adam may be called justified where is there any such word 2. This place speakes not of any potentiall justification by which those may be said justified that Actually are not so but is an Actuall Justification and that opposed to an Actuall Condemnation and expounded in the 19. ver by being made righteous and that as in Adam were made sinners that Justification which he is to prove hence is such as is appropriated to them that are not nor ever shall be justified But let him shew and prove where any word in that Chapter seconds such an one as that 3. The Text saith indeed Free gift came upon all men to justification of life But what is that All To be taken with or without a limitation Let us compare the Apostle with himselfe The businesse of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus is a thing that the Apostle takes often occasion to treate of in this Epistle yea it is his maine drift in this former part of his Epistle and this he had said before was upon all Cap. 3.22 but it was upon all that beleeve and that the Promise thereof might be made sure to an All Cap. 4.16 But it was sure to all the seed and when he speaketh of the same thing in the same Epistle that it is upon all men why should we take him in any other sense then he explaineth himselfe about the same businesse Even they seeme to be spoken with the same breath and so no other sense to be given to this place but this upon all men that is on all them that beleeve and that as the Condemnation came on all them that come
the premises and let them be right I will warrant his conclusion now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakely versed in that way 2. His arguments are many six in number to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments when he deceiveth them utterly for his mediums are all coincident in one let us veiw them His 1. Saith That which the Scripture plainely affirmeth in plaine words is true 2. Saith Tâ—â—â— for whom Christ and his Apostles in plaine termes affirme Christ to come to save them he did come to save 3. Saith That which Scripture layeth downe as one end of his death c. is to be beleeved 4. Saith That which the Scripture sets forth in generall for the world it a truth 5 Saith That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plaine sentences c. is a truth Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these doe they nor deserve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments should I have distinct answers I should runne into the Authors folly 3. Let us view the conclusions in all and so see what he proveth in all his plaine Scriptures His 1. Thus That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man 2. He came to save sinners world unjust ungodly 3. That by his death he is Lord of all 4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world that whoever beleeveth should not perish 5. That he hath in dying lordship over all 6. That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man Now not to insist on that peccancy in having such various conclusions about one and the same question wherein he cannot satisfie that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question this I say none of these conclusions are against us which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called ignoratio elenchi none of his arguments are in right forme they have more in the conclusion then his premises contribute to them all have some or other obliquity but seeing all of them are but one medium and so in effect but one argument I shall give this one answer conceditur totum and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith now in the issue either his weaknes appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant or ours in granting that which maketh against us let him put it to the triall CHAP. XXI Of removing some doubts hindring some from beleeving that which they confesse WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confesse that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man but they cannot beleeve that Christ died for all men I shall not insist on the Authors dexterity in framing such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer and render the objectors ridiculous his forgery lieth in two particulars 1. He knoweth none that cannot beleeve that which they confesse Scripture speaketh some may not confesse that which they beleeve but that any should not beleeve that which they confesse I beleeve not 2. He knoweth none that beleeve that Christ gave himself a ransome for all and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no this would be to exceed the Author in folly but here lieth the doubt though the Text say He gave himselfe a ransome for all men yet they cannot beleeve that it meaneth every individuall man without exception upon a threefold ground arising from severall Scriptures as first Eph. 2.8 By grace are ye saved through faith and this not of our selves it is the gift of God from this Text I doe not affirme that faith is said to be the gift of God though it be so and other Scriptures hold it forth yet I say not that this text saith so for having said ye are saved by grace through faith it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not of our selves it doth not well agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being of the newâ—er gender but rather with the whole sentence going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God as Rom 6.33 the gift of God is eternall life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth hence the doubt is this Seeing faith is the gift of God and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay downe his life for them upon the condition of faith whom he seeth cannot beleeve without God and to them God will not give it to the salving of which he speakes many things but little to satisfaction he seemeth to distinguish of salvation 1. A salvation without man in Christ for men 2. A salvation in men inabling men to beleeve 3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body compleat in heaven Now he saith that this phrase Yee are saved by grace through faith in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation but first that is not cleare for then the sense must be this yee are brought in to beleeve through faith so that faith is by him the meanes conducing to faith this is absurd I thinke it plainely appeares to be meant of compleat salvation in heaven and it saith ye are saved because they were certainely to be saved through faith But be it so as he saith yet the doubt is where it was yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God and he not giving that grace to all he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of beleeving if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose I shall say more His second Text produced Iohn 6.37 All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me and him that cometh I will not cast out Now from this Text here lieth the doubt it is not consonant to reason or Scripture that Christ would lay downe his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him seeing his Fathers giving is the measure of coming to him and so being within the compasse of the benefit of his impetration his will being one with his Fathers his impetration would be equall with his Fathers giving to him this he undertaketh to remove by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ 1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance 2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransome them 3. Giving men to Christ they to be his and he to be their Lord. 4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call so they are given up to him But what neede so many words to darken a cleare Text and what need so many acceptations when it is cleare that all of them cannot be the
sense of this place or give any light to it The second giving cannot be meant because all for whom he undertook and ransomed in the Authors judgement doe not come to him that is beleeve on him so contrary to the text all that my Father giveth me shall come to me Neither can the third be the sense here meant upon the same ground many who are Christs at his dispose so as to be their Lord they yet come not to him that is beleeve on him and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged or come to sue for mercy many of them are cast out as is seeme in the wedding and the five foolish virgins therefore little need be said of these because they doe not expound the Text by any one of these all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries and me and my Antagonist is betwixt the first and the fourth he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place but against not onely reason but common sense for by comming to Christ is certainely meant beleeving in him comming by faith as is cleare by many Scriptures Mat. 11.28 come unto me yee that are heavy laden that is beleeve in me Iohn 6.64.65 compare them together yee beleeve not no man can come unto me except my Father draw him and ver 35. both are put together He that beleeveth shall not hunger he that cometh shall not thirst so according to him the sense must be this they that have come shall come or they that have beleeved shall beleeve but this is very improbable the glosse of the Remonstrants solveth it not Act. Syn. in locum veniet for venite debet that is shall come by it is meant ought to come for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come ought to come as to say they shall come The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no it seemeth to be the right because the giving is antecedaneous to comming or beleeving therefore most probable to be the giving by election now of this sense he saith So they may be though not in Scripture truly said to be given him But whence doth he deduce this liberty to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture it seemes the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth But these are not the onely number that are given to him for as they are given to him to be heires with him so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people Which is very impertinent to the case in hand for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ but such as are given by election but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no let all be given to Christ to be his servants yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heires with him and this giving is before coming therefore by election Againe Where election is set forth under this tearme of giving to Christ is hard to finde in Scripture But herein he did not compare his noâ—es well and consider what he saith in the next page 149. there he saith In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him all men being given to Christ in all these three senses as Scripture testifieth Now we must consider that the first of these three is giving to Christ to be heires and that by election as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ but in page 148. he saith it is hard to finde where it is so taken this is an egregious contradiction besides the extream falsity because we never finde it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heires with him And then he groundlesly concludes In this place it neither is nor can be so taken But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove but his bare word only to affirme it but it is not of weight to carry it 2. If it be not a giving by election and yet antecedaneous to beleeving I hope he will in his next make it appeare what it is and thus notwithstanding his groundlesse evasion the doubt is still unsatisfied from that Text John 6.37 The third Text produced is Acts 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved the doubt hence is this that seeing the reason why men beleeved was because they were ordained to eternall life and so the number of beleevers and the ordained to life are equall and run in an equipage it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life This he would remove thus The words ordained to eternall life it is to be feared are mistaken as if they signified only the prime election to sonship whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words ordained to life The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspicions but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appeare 1. That it was God that did ordaine them for so of his act it speakes ver 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation he did also ordaine them to life that were to beleeve indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say Act. Synod in locum non dicuntur ordinati a deo that is they are not said to be ordained of God but what then is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant why are we not to thinke it to be Gods act in ordaining to life as well as in appointment to life and salvation as 1 Thes 5.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He hath appointed us viz. God to obtaine salvation but if it be not Gods act let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life 2. We may see it is an appointment to eternall life and that in plain terms so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance 3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith as is cleare as many as were ordained to life then beleeved therefore it could not be that temporary election of which the Author speakes therefore it must meant of the prime election now seeing that it meaneth the prime election to inheritance and he cannot produce any place of Scripâ—ure where this phrase signifieth any thing else we may conclude that this phrase here signifieth onely such prime ordaining to inheritance and therefore the place is not abused But I hope if he remove that sense he will furnish us with some better and not leave words without a sense let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement He urgeth thus The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense even of ordaining the elected constitution preparation