that his mission in Mat 15 24. doth not exclude his death and ransome giving it mentioneth nothing but stands as indifferent to receive any thing that he did as part of his ministration here on earth of which his dying was a part and the cheife part and all things else in reference to it Mat. 20.28 To minister and to give his life a ransome for many therefore for him to say not to die but to minister to is weake and frothy and his opposing these two death and ministration here on earth intimateth that either his death is no part of his ministration or else that part of his ministration was not done on earth both most false and absurd And yet the restraint of his mission to the Iews is not wholly exclusive for then the woman could not have been commended for faith and helped thereby Mat. 15.24.28 It makes not whether it were wholy exclusive yea or no it sufficeth us if there was good ground so to thinke as any may see there was when he answered to her suite I was not sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now the Jewes being ready to snatch at the word house of Israel as their proper priviledge which is refelled Rom. 9. by the Apostle they might and did hence conclude that he was sent to none but them Besides Christ went not thither to minister the Gospel by vertue of his mission but onely to hide and secure himselfe in those parts of Tyre and Sydon therefore this accidentall act to the Phaenician woman doth not argue that his mission was not confined to the house of Israel To conclude were his mission to die or onely to promulge the Gospel the one or other or both yet his speech Mat. 15.24 gave good occasion to the Jewes to exclude the Gentiles from Christ which he removeth and reason there was he should so remove it And of the same nature was the sending of his Disciples and of no further as yet Mat. 10.5 This is but new divinity to say that the mission of Christ and of the Apostles was of the same nature when his Father sent him to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel he came to save that which was lost to redeeme to dye for John 3.16 But when Christ sent his Disciples to the lost sheepe of Israel Mat. 10.5 he sent them not to dye for them to be their Saviours Christ was sent to performe the whole work of ministration they but a part to be adjutant in preaching the Gospel and true Christ had done no more yet but he was sent to doe more even to dye This could be no reason to darken or streighten the extent of the death of Christ much lesse of using such generall termes as all men c. True neither did he streighten it but enlarged it not larger then it was indeed but larger then the Jewes did apprehend it and this was reason enough of using such generall terms as made way for the Gentiles But he attempteth to prove that those generall termes could not be produced to cure such an offence taken from such speeches Mat. 15 24. Thus 1. Before the mission of Christs Disciples or his speaking to the woman of Canaan he was said to be send into the world that the world might be saved c. Which proveth it not because although those sayings were before his speech to his Disciples and the woman of Canaan yet they were not before such expressions as were equipollent and might administer like and equall occasion To passe by all the Prophesies types prefigurations of Christ which were exhibited to the Jews onely in which regard they have the preheminence of the Gentiles but Mat. 1.21 he is said by the angels to be the Saviour of his people and expresly Mat. 2.6 Israel this was enough to create that stumbling against the Gentiles but this was before any such generall terms Besides the word world doth not temper those confining expressions because that word might and is used as to include no more then the Jewes they being most potent and catholâ—ke in the world Luke 2.1 2. Their mission was afterwards enlarged to goe into all the world Mat. 20.28 and then no necessity of using words importing more then truth To wave his expresses of using words importing more then truth being the result of his folly we may say that their mission being enlarged to all the world there was good reason to use such expressions as might admit both Jew and Gentile else they would not be received for Peter for all his commission he was questioned for comming to the Gentiles Acts. 11.1.2.3 and they were not satisfied till he shewes them the vision which was but equivalent to these generall terms and then they admitted them but with admiration that to them should be granted repentance 3. Whilest these generall words were frequent in use the same is still affirmed of Christs administration that it was for the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 9 And good reason because those generall expresses were to let in the Gentiles not to exclude the Iewes but therein Rom. 15.8 9. both Jew and Gentile are inserted that they might both mutually embrace each other this argueth not those generall expresses were not used to cure a mistake in the Iewes excluding the Gentiles when there were no such expressions as did let them in if he had produced any Text speaking of the Iewes so exclusively as formerly then he had said something but take his reasons as they are and they are reasonlesse and miserable and by this it appeares that yet our reason hath more in it then he with all his understanding can resist The second part of this last reason as he calleth it is as followeth Had not the Jewes been for a long time the onely people of God and might not other nations think themselves excluded being called strangers and aliens and was not the receiving of the Gentiles a thing new to the Apostles Acts. 10. therefore there was great reason such generall words should be used which might enforme the Iewes and encourage the Gentiles and them that went to preach to them as it did to Peter to go to Cornelius and his family which otherwise he would have beene as backward to as to eate the creatures that he called uncleane and he was moved thereto when he knew that of every Nation those that worke righteousnesse are accepted of God and this is one reason why such expressions are so frequent in Scripture this reason he is pleased to brand with the titles of weake and frothy he foames out little but such expressions of venome and contempt but how doth he make it appeare Thus The ignorance of some in the mysteries of grace is no proofe that the God of Truth will speake beyond the bounds of Truth Which is the empty reply that he gave to the first part of this reason wherein he urgeth me to say againe that Gods using such expressions
THE VNIVERSALIST Examined and Convicted destitute of plaine Sayings of Scripture or Evidence of Reason In Answer to a Treatise entituled The Vniversality of Gods free Grace in Christ to Mankind By Obadiah Howe A. M. Oxon. Pastor of Stickney in Lincolne-shire For their sakes I sanctifie my selfe John 17.19 He dyed for this Nation and not for this Nation only but that he might gather into one all the Children of God John 11.51 Urgent fratres articulum istum totidem Scripturae verbis nunquam reperiri sed respondemus fieri non posse ut articulus Controversus inter eos qui Scripturam pro verbo Dei agnoscunt totidem verbis concipiatur Remon Coll. Hagiens 170. Christus mortuus est pro omnibus est propitiatio pro peccatis totius mundi c qui sic loquitur cum Scriptura loquitur qui phrasin hane repudiant andax est Scripturarum judex non interpres qui ista loca convenienter Analogiae fidei explicat boni interpretis officium facit controversia enim est de sensu non de verbis Armin. Resp ad 31. Artic. Art 13. Printed for John Rothwell at the Sun and Fountaine in Pauls Church-yard 1648. To the Christian Reader with some Animadversions upon the Authors Epistle THe infirmity of crowding to the Presse is growne Epidemicall Infirmity I call it because from thence men doe Publicè insanire and have this unhappinesse that in the Apostles phrase their madnesse is knowne to all men 2 Tim. 3 9. And Epidemicall I call it for who though of the meanest of the people but may fill his hand and the Presse at pleasure Such hath been the License of these latter times that Pamphlets swarme without License and now the pretended Mother striveth to divide the childe with the true errour with truth and pleadeth if it hath not equall liberty of the Presse that truth is supprest We want some wise Solomon to give wise judgement to give truth its owne and let errour know what she is Whether the want of such hath not much dishonoured the Presse blemished the truth impeded Reformation dissetled the people let common experience determine Such daily births of Pamphlets to and fro can be no lesse to the people then the windes are to the waves make them crowde into new stormes As Athens ascribed her troubles to the Orators who tossed the flexible multitude into sedition I wish that this had not too great an influence into our present distractions which if they were such as did recompence us with some hidden truths they were worth the buying at so deare a rate but if we observe them they are such as are addicted only to miscall truth as if they were hired to curse Israel If they can but call Antichristian erroneous impious blasphemous it passeth for current as if they had proved it so as if a foule mouth was the Index of a deep head and scurrilitie the measure of reason Reader that which thou hast here to the test and examined is no new opinion nor any new light added to an old truth but the manner of maintaining it is very singular none before daring to appeare so apsurd in Print This with foure other annexed points of Arminius have formerly troubled quiet states and strong heads but now I cannot say that they doe either Men of but indifferent parts much more of more accurate have left raking in the ashes of these perplexed Disputes being such as have had their heat pretty well allayed long since but of late some indigested and shattered braines have revived them with no more hope of successe than intention to cure our Commotions The Authour of this Discourse with whom I am to engage would be taken for a Messenger of new Light but he appeares under no other face than of a mishapen Arminian One strong in the Point of Redemption but looketh with another face in the Point of Election In the former he is not different but where he is more absurd I must acknowledge the depth of these Controversies these negotiating and criticall times my slender yeares and my Pastorall imployment doe all comply to a disadvantage were they not counterpoised with some incouragement from my Adversary My genius was never martiall'd up in these Bible-battels therefore it cannot be expected that I should adde any new Light to these Points which have exercised yea exhausted the choisest Lamps in Christendome for their discovery I must say of this my Answer as the Poet of his Satyr against some Scriblers in his time Pers in Prol Non ad poesin ingenio natus sed temporum ratione ductus ◠Such are the distempers of the times and the negotiations of men both of weake judgements and corrupt minds that now the exigence both of truth and peace requireth that they that have but little cast in their Mite I may doe it at as cheape a rate as any Empty Margents common resolutions and an answer as worthlesse as his Discourse will not be to my disparagement I have nothing that can promise more for as I have nothing to satisfie if men expect so I have nothing to lose if men censure Reader if thou observest we may see the whole Fabrick in his Frontispiece the marrow of his whole discourse in his Epistle and therein we have a tast of that Scripture reason or faire dealing we are likely to expect from the whole which if I should throughly examine and give a solicitous answer to I should prevent my selfe and make my Epistle as voluminous as his Treatise I shall therefore take some things that are not else where and leave the rest to fall under the successive refutations in the following discourse First we find the man in a passion of the heart Heartily grieved that a Church professing the great love of God in the authorised Doctrine thereof should be abused by many It seemeth then there is a Church of England and the Doctrine thereof Orthodox both which is much questioned now in these times were he well furnished he should have my voice to be the Churches Champion but that I feare he hath an eye more to his owne tenent then the Authority of the Church of England and so long as She saith as he saith Shee shall not want the Title of a Church that it may bee known he hath the suffrage of a Church of his side not much unlike that Papall Sycophant Constat summum Pontificem à pio Constantino Deum appellari But the Particulars of his sad Complaint are these Many deny and blaspheme this great love of God to mankind in Scripture affirmed John 3.16 17. As if God hated most men from Eternity so as they are not beholding to him for any good at all nor have any doore of repentance or meanes of life opened and afforded to them It is usuall with Impostures to frame to themselves Adversaries and worke them to their owne conceits and this is the Authour guilty of For 1. He cannot produce
kinds of men 3. If he peruse the Doctrine of England in the 39. Articles he shall see contrary to his Doctrine unlesse to the words thereof he adde his corrupt Comments A fourth thing which he grieveth for is this That men should run into so many long-ago-condemned practises evill and Papisticall to maintaine their Contradictions of the truth But his practice of so prepossessing the minds of his Reader without ground is far more Jesuiticall and was he of any authority with any but them that labour with his Ignorance So that we might say his tongue is a slander we might upon better ground be grieved for his Calumny But those tricks where with he challengeth us I shall examine 1. Pretending insufficiencie in the Scripture to be the Determiner of matters of faith This is but his wonted forgery and Calumny he cannot shew wherein we pretend so much or at least it must be in that wherein he is as guilty as any It hath been our plea that no Scripture holdeth forth his Doctrine therefore there is no need why we should fly to the insufficiency of Scripture to determine matters of faith indeed his glosses and Comments we cannot suffer to determine our faith therefore let that shift be returned to them that need it 2. Pretending darkenesse in Fundamentalls But herein I demand whether any there be that saith in expresse words that the Scripture is darke in Fundamentals or whether it be a deduction of his own from our expresses upon some places of Scripture if the first then I expect that he produce them If the second I doubt it will appeare that the Jesuiticall Sophistry hath a greater influence into his practice then ours Just such dealing as we have from them we have from him and in both most unjust forgeries The Papists because they cannot worke us to their mind to say that all Scriptures are hard they to make us odious traduce us as if we held that all Scriptures are easie So the Rhemists object against us in these words Rhem. Test in pres §. 16. They find no difficultie in the Booke sealed with Seven Seales and no Interpreter with the Eunuch Gag for new Gosp Pag. 1. And in another Treatise this is laid down by them as an Error of the Protestants That they maintaine that the Scriptures are easie And now the Author saith as a charge against us that we hold that the Scripture is darke in Fundamentals delivering it so lurgely and so indefinitely as if we held that the Scripture was wholly darke in Fundamentals but if either of these Calumniators had but considered that some Scriptures are easie some hard and difficult Scripture neither wholy darke nor wholly easie there might have been little cause appearing for such a Calumny on either side Now to this Allegation if he meane that the Scripture every where treating of the Foundation is darke this no man saith If he meane that in some things that are concerning the Foundation the Scripture is darke and obscure he cannot upon good ground deny it certainly St Peter was of that mind when he said many things were so hard to be understood that the unlearned did wrest them to their destruction 1 Pet. 3.16 But besides it is no convincing Argument against us because we do as the Papists if either the Authour or Arminius be right our Author in the 118. Pag. is loth to dislike all that they say and Arminius being charged with holding a Papisticall Tenent In Perkins 258. thus replyed Anne quia Pontificia ideo falsa This may be easily wiped off if he could produce any that did so say 4. Vsing carnall reasons to frame absurdities that follow It seemes that reasoning that presseth his Tenent with absurdities is carnall reasoning a safe conclusion for himselfe he would faine embrace the errour but not meddle with the absurdities that follow true it is that Ab uno absurdo mille sequuntur Many absurdities will follow from an absurditie but certainly no absurdity will follow from the truth If his Tenent be Truth he need not feare to be burthened with the absurdities that follow but in that he feares the absurdities it is a strong suspition that it is not truth which yet he would embrace but leave the other as the Cat Amat piscem sed non vult tangere Lympham But besides it is neither a Papisticall shift nor carnall reasoning to refute errour by absurdities that follow it was the Apostles practice 1 Cor. 15.3 He proveth the Resurrection by those absurdities that follow upon the deniall of it as then is not Christ risen then are we of all Creatures most miserable else why are ye baptized for the dead and many other in that Chapter and very frequent is this way of Confutation in Scripture and it is a very pregnant way of arguing but he discovereth plainly what thoughts he hath of his Tenent when he is loath to be troubled with the absurdities that follow and I blame him not for they are many and great 4. Imposing strange senses of plaine sayings of Scripture But what these strange senses are he should have done well to have inserted that the Reader might have had a survey of them but in that he chargeth us without instance I need not answer But this I dare referre to any intelligent Reader that is but versed in the least measure to judge whether they that hold his Tenent or we give the strangest and most exoticke interpretations and they that do let them lye under that blacke Charge Let any review those strange senses that the Remonst put upon John 6.37.44 Acts 13.48 With all others that give any light in these Controversies of which our Author favours in his whole Treatise as in Pag. That Text John 6.37 Those that my Father giveth me shall come unto me By those that are given to Christ he interprets those that are given to him in the heavenly Calling so as to come to him So that this first giving taketh in comming to him and the sense is this those that come unto me shall come unto me those that beleeve shall beleeve this in the eyes of any reasonable man cannot but seeme a strange Interpretation So that Text John 6.44 No man can come except my Father draw him By drawing here the Remonst as also the Author Pag. Meane the drawing by the call of the Gospell outward only by Morall suasion and such a drawing as is distinct from bringing them in to beleeve and give themselves to Christ But any that considers the Context may adjudge this a strange Interpretation Our Saviour being to shew a reason why among those that did equally enjoy the outward call of the Gospel and so as that they were convinced yet some did not beleeve he giveth this as a reason No man can come unto me except my Father draw him Now this word drawing shewing a reason of a disparity in condition cannot be meant of that wherein there
124. That Christ paid a Ransome sufficient for the Salvation of all men I deny not but then here the Author erreth it was rather a dogmaticall assertion to shew how those words may be received as truth then a full state of the Question and it may appeare in that those hot Disputes have not turned upon this hinge 2. Those that say Christ dyed for all sufficiently do not admit of the after-expressions Applicable to all This is the result of the adverse Party Indeed the Remonst scatter such expressions as Deus est omnibus placabilis res impetrata est omnibus applicabilis omnes sunt salvabiles Corv. in Mol. c. 28. Sect. 22 Pag. 446. That is God is placable to all the thing impetrated applicable to all all men saveable and so the Author Pag. 36. But from any contra Remonst I thinke he never receiveth any such and that on good ground I thinke so because it is not sutable to their Principles For they that say Christ dyed for all sufficiently meane it only sufficiently and that in opposition to effectually therefore they do in the same words deny that he did dye for all effectually and that whether considered really or intentionally that is Christ did neither do it nor intend to redeeme all effectually and they that so say cannot say and prove too that the death of Christ and the good obtained thereby is applicable to all and every man 3. Those that say Christ hath dyed for all sufficiently doe not say He hath not ransomed all men for as they say Christ hath dyed for all sufficiently so they say also he hath ransomed all sufficiently Seeing that to dye for and to ransome are in Scripture Equipollent So that we may in this see how the Author hallucinates about other mens words But to let this passe as a state given by some let us see how he dealeth with it and with what plea he waveth it as unsound 1. He saith The Affirmative of this will stand well but then he did not consider that those that say Christ dyed for all sufficiently do meane it only sufficiently in opposition to effectually but thus it cannot stand well with the authority of his Discourse which proveth the Death of Christ effectuall for all men Cap. 21. 2. He saith The Negative unsaith the Affirmative But how he proveth it shall be examined he urgeth thus What sufficiency is there applicable from Christ or by his Servants for or to any man of any thing that Christ hath no perfectly wrought and received in himselfe that he might bestow it according to the Gospell This Phrase applicable to all is foysted in sophistically there is no question made of the applicability of any sufficiency that Christ did not worke out and will to apply but yet a sufficiency there is in the Bloud of Christ worth and valour to purchase that which it doth not and for more then he doth effectually redeeme Were there more worlds or many more in this world then ever were or are or shall be would any doubt but the Bloud of Christ had worth and sufficiency to ransome them Nay if God so pleased to make his Bloud a price for Devils who would doubt of the sufficiency of it to redeeme them I hope the Author will not deny the Bloud of Christ to have so much sufficiency in it as to merit that every man should undoubtedly be saved but this it doth not effectually as he confesseth Pag. 34. His working out Salvation for men was not proportioned out to the valour of his Bloud but to the grace and good will of God to men he did not dye for or ransome so many as he was able but so many as he pleased As for that Phrase Psal 68.18 19 20. being produced to prove that there is not an overplus of worth and sufficiency in the Bloud of Christ beyond what effecteth by it sheweth what a dexterity the Author hath in being absurd in his Quotations that place sheweth indeed that he received gifts for rebellions and what gifts he giveth he received but that he either giveth or received gifts even to the top of the worth of his Bloud that the Text sheweth not 6. Some say Christ dyed for all in regard of the kind or generall lumpe of mankind considered because he tooke the nature of mankind on him so dyed for all but did not dye for all in regard of individuals I have not so much credulity as to beleeve that the Author hath any president for such a state of the Question the expressions are too indigested to come from any knowing man to dye for the kind and not the individuals is to dye for the nature not the Persons of men I feare when his account is cast up this will appeare a crude conclusion from more cleare expressions contracting the grosse Metamorphosis from his owne braine 7. Some say Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved and for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved Is it not possible that any mans Judgement shall passe his Pen without corruption I beleeve some there are that say Christ dyed for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved and for the rest that they might be saved viz. possibly So some have sought to cut to themselves a way betweene the Calvinists and Remonst and of this judgement was one of eminent note in Gods Church Mr. Cotton But such a state so contradictory as our Author popounds it none ever yet afforded to us For let us consider one branch is that all men might be saved Now by this is meant only possibly and opposed to undoubtedly or infalibly Now tell me if all be brought into a possibility only what place is here left for any to be in an undoubted infallibility It must argue either that the Elect are not in the number of all men or else that they that are only in a possibility are also in an undoubted infallibility of Salvation both which the Author will say are absurd Which state of the Question the Author approveth not as speaking the whole truth Therefore I shall wave it and those particulars that he saith follow upon it yet to meet with them in other places In all which statings I wonder he doth so much presse upon the credulity of his Readers in that he produceth not the persons and places by whom and where the Question is so stated that we might see how ingenuously he dealeth with them 8. Some say that Christ by shedding of his Bloud redeemed the world of mankind satisfied Gods Justice and obtained a way of Salvation for every man Dr. Davenant on Heard Pag 233. and then adde But God never intended that the outward Act should ever put man into the possession of pardon or of a state of Justification and Salvation And for this he citeth an Author Therefore I shall examine this last state and our Authors expresses thereon and I shall consider these
The Authors expresses herein are something darke and obscure for his words may have a double sense First That God by him sends forth to men whilst they yeeld to or in yeelding to that light which he formerly gave them to which yeelding to that former light he himselfe enabled them an encrease of Grace and Spirit this I grant as a truth and this he doth to men but then this is not full for his purpose for thus he doth not to every Son of Adam for then every Son of Adam must have some light of Grace and Spirit which he cannot prove and so be enabled to improve it to any increase and so at last be saved but this he will not owne Secondly He may be thus taken That God by Christ sends an encrease and so hath tyed himselfe to give an encrease of light and Spirit if men use it well which they have which being thus generall comes not up to the Authors mind for this proveth not that he calleth every Son of Adam to Repentance nor that every Son of Adam hath this Light and Spirit given to them to improve but I thinke rather he meaneth as he must if he speake to his purpose That God hath given to every man some light of Nature and Gospell which if they improve well they shall have further light till they come to be saved according to that Saving Habenti dabitur to him that hath shall be given As his Master Arminius hath done before him In Perkin 218. Vide mihi an non in isto dicto Habenti dabitur promissio ista contineatur qua Deus spondet se gratia supernaturali illuminaturum qui lumine naturali rectè utetur If this be his meaning then I demand whether men have a power and ability to use naturall light well His decision herein will be usefull to us 2. I say that though God sometimes use this Method of giving to them that improve and taking from them that abuse yet this is not alwaies his Course it is no unbended rule as if Grace should be dispensed according to workes Sometimes he is found of them that sought him not Isa 65.1 2. Capernanm that abused both the light of Nature and Gospell had meanes when Tyre and Sydon that would have repented wanted them Math. 11.21 Debauched Sinners against Nature and Grace have enjoyed converting Grace when more morall men have been passed by This the Remonst confesse Deum pro liberrimo arbitratu saepenumero populos quosdam licet profanissimos peccatis plurimis implicitos rectae rationis dictamini non obtemperantes è reliqua turba deligere ad vocationem Evangelii vocare Antidot Remonst 73. Many Morall men as Plutarch Plato Socrates Phocion whose rules are admirable and lives blamelesse and improving the light of nature as well as any yet we never find that Supernaturall Grace was given to them When many so abused Nature and Grace as to become Idolaters Adulterers Fornicators Buggerers Theeves Drunkards yet for such to be Sanctified Justified Washed is no strange thing 1 Cor. 6.11 Where was the stop in the former that they had not an encrease of Light and Grace And where was the improvement in the other that deserved a new supply of Grace in Conversion And as for these Texts cited they prove but this that God sometimes rewardeth an improvement of Evangelicall Grace with more Grace But they prove not that is Gods unbended Method in giving or denying Grace neither is this any thing to this purpose to prove Christ procuring Life and Salvation for every Son of Adam because every man hath not that upon the improvement of which he promiseth more Grace 6. Yea with some where the Gospell comes he goeth further so enlightening them to understand the report of the Gospell that they do beleeve That he doth so is a truth but why inserted I see not 1. Hath he to soone forgotten that the thing which he pursues is such as is done for all and to cleare it he giveth us a taste of that which he saith expresly he giveth but to some this cannot be pertinent 2. He here supposeth that the Gospell is but dispensed to some which is no propitious Assertion to his former viz. That God by the Gospell calleth every Sonne of Adam one time or other in some degree or other 3. Whereas he speaketh of a further illumination either he meaneth of such as have used their first meanes well or with such as doe not if the former then this is nothing different from the former viz. If they abide in his call they shall know the truth and therefore deserved not to be ranged as a new particular If he meane the second then that Method of God for prounded in dispensing Grace is here infringed Therefore this must either be at least a Tautology or a contradiction to his first particular 4. Hath he so soone forgotten that the thing which he is to prove is the procuring and working out with God for men And he here produceth an Actuall bestowing and applying of the Bloud of Christ if to the enlightned and brought in to beleeve be to have the Bloud of Christ applyed All that might be said may not I may not follow him so farre in his extravagancies as I might sufficient is it to take notice that this is not opposite to his purpose it being done only for some and not for all and every Son of Adam We may reasume the whole number of his particulars and stand to wonder what light they bring to this Point or what he helpeth mean understandings in these darke Controversies by the perspicuity of his Method and order That we may review them alitle joyntly that which he is to illustrate to them is the common Salvation which is Christs working out with God for men Remission and Eternall Salvation and such as is done for all and as it is a working out for men distinct from working in and upon men His first and his last particulars are not opposite because they are such as are effected on and in men as it is to be for all men So all the rest intermediate particulars are not opposite seeing they are not nor by him proved to be procured or to be dispensed to all and every man take them alltogether and what do they cleare What do they prove Nothing certainly and serve for nothing but deceive and confound his Readers and thus I conclude Let him numerate never so many particulars procured for or bestowed on men if they be not such as are meanes in Gods series of Dispensing Eternall Life I shall not contend but passe them by as not pertinent to the Question and leave them to him as not only procured for but actually conferred upon men but if he produce any such things as are the meanes to bring us to life as Grace Supernaturall light the call of the Gospell c. Then I deny that such things are either procured for or
only them to whom he wrote were out of the verge of any adverse thing it clearely affirmeth that only Beleevers are in such a condition as nothing shall prevaile against them So in this He delivered him up for us all This denoteth not the precise number nor argueth that he was given up only for them to whom he wrote being Romans but thus far it is firme that he was given up for Beleevers only and this sufficeth us So that when the Author saith No right reasoning can inferre hence therefore no other It is true if he meane no other Individuals for he was so given up for them as that he was also for all other Beleevers but right reasoning may inferre that he was given up for none other but Beleevers and where is the obliquity of this reasoning Sometimes in the second Person with personall Application as my Bloud which is shed for you Luk. 22.20 1 Pet. 1.18 19 c. Reason must yield such sayings shew not how many he redeemed This is of the same nature with the former therefore the same answer is to be given Thâ—se Texts shew not the precise number but the condition of them that are so redeemed as that Text 1 Pet. 1.18 19. Ye were redeemed from vaine conversation none ever said that this Text doth shew the number of them that were redeemed from vaine conversations for many Gentiles were to whom he wrote not neither hath any denyed but that this limiteth the condition that only Beleevers are Redeemed from vaine Conversations as in the next verse And he was manifested in the last times for you It doth not shew for how many but yet it doth for whom he was revealed viz. Beleevers as appeares in the next words Who by him beleeve in God hereby any may see through those mists which he casteth before cleare truths Sometime in the third Person with speciall Application and that sometimes to the better part as Joh. 10.15 I lay down my life for my Sheep Sometimes to the worse part as 1 Cor. 8.11 the weake brother for whom Christ dyed no sober mind will say that any of these alone resolve the Question for how many Christ dyed 1. For his expresses I demand why he putteth a weake Brother in the number of the worse part methinkes the name of Brother though weake should have got him a place in the better ranke 2. As for his assertion No sober mind will say that any of these alone shew for how many he dyed It is weake and impertinent we never yet attempted to define the precise number but the condition of them for whom he dyed we say only for Beleevers we meddle not for how many Beleevers or Sheepe he dyed Now if he deny that the Text Joh. 10.15 shews for whom only he dyed he hath drunke so deepe in Arminius his Cup that he is not sober yet and to cleare it let us view expressions of the like nature that in this we may follow the genious of Scripture Rom. 4.11 Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleeve Now doth not this denote that he is the father of none else as that Phrase of being Father is there meant we must so grant it if we compare it with Gal. 3.7.29 And in that it saith he is the Father of them that beleeve it is exclusive of such as beleeve not John 3.16 He sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life Let the Author tell me doth not this Text so confine eternall life to Beleevers as that none but Beleevers shall have it Ezek. 34.11 I will search my Sheep and bind them up and bring them againe doth not this so confine these to his Sheep as that he will do them to none else Matth. 25.33 He setteth his Sheepe on his right hand Is not this cleare that he setteth none but his Sheep on the right hand Nay in this Chapter take any verse or part of a verse where the word Sheepe is where they are said to do any thing for him or Christ to do any thing for them and tell me if such be not exclusive of all other as firmly as if the word only had been exprest as my Sheepe here my voice He calleth his shape by name his sheepe follow him I know my sheepe doth not all this speak thus much that none but Sheepe heare his voice he calleth none by name and leadeth them out but Sheep none but Sheep follow him he knoweth none but Sheep for of others he saith I know you not nay in that Phrase The good Shepheard layeth downe his life for his Sheep doth it not exclude all that are not his Sheepe doth any Shepheard venture his life in the behalfe of the Woolfe or any Sheep that is not under his charge Now seeing this Phrase runnes so in so many places in that Chapter I say that no sober mind will say that just in this verse it should admit such a latitude as that he may be there said to lay downe for any but his Sheep such expressions in Scripture have Materiam necessariam and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the termes are convertible But that I may cleare it fully in the same section there is something that will seeme repugnant to this and the objection may be thus framed It cannot be meant so as if Christ dyed for none but his Sheep because the Scripture saith he dyed for some that may perish 1 Cor. 8.11 c. And thus the Arminians in the Conference at Hague object Non pro ovibus solis quia Paulus dicit pro me se tradidit sed non pro illo solo ac Scriptura testatur Christum mortuum pro eo cui contingit perdi qui velox judicium sibi accersunt 1 Cor. 8.11 2 Pet. 2.2 Which though it be unworthy of such objectours because the argument is weake according to their owne principles for Christ may dye for his Sheepe only and yet dye for them that may perish because with them this is truth that they that are sheepe may perish if Corvinus be right In Molin c. 21. Sect. 6. when he saith Justificati possunt reprobari But it is worthy an Answer from us because we hold no such thing but this Obiter To answer to 1 Cor. 8.11 whence our Author would prove that our weake may perish for whom Christ dyed 1. Was it so this would not disprove that Christ dyed for his Sheepe only only it would averre that some for whom Christ dyed may perish for certainly in that he calleth him here a Brother he granteth him a Sheep he should have produced a place that he dyed for some that are not sheepe 2. But no such things follow from this Text it questions Shall he perish And commandeth Let him not perish but it affirmeth nothing that he may or may not Now we must be wary what Enunciatives we deduce from Intergatories or Mandatories Suppose the Text had gone further even
them but in all there is not the least beame of light added to the Truth multitude of words serve only to bleare the eyes of his Reader and this advantage he hath by them the Truth hath none and cleare it is that those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 are to be explained by places that are propounded to the same end which do not at all necessitate them to be taken in that generall seace CHAP. VI. Of the differences of the extent of the same word when spoken of and by men and when of and by God also when the opposition is betwixt men and men and when betwixt God and men THe end of the Author in this Chap. as I conceive is this Seeing the Seat of much Controversy is placed in these words All Every World urged in all places cited by them to be taken in an absolute generall sense taking in all the Individualls in the world But by us they are urged to have a limited sense as we instance in many Scriptures wherein they cannot be taken so largely His intent therefore is to shew the weakenesse of our Allegations and that our places are not to be rules for the expounding of theirs because ours are spoken of and by men theirs of and by God but how he quits himselfe herein I shall in few words examine Now wherein we both agree is as followeth That the same words in divers Sentences may differ much in signification and extent and yet by the Sentence the signification will clearly appeare thus he saith Pag. 28. This I acknowledge and shall improve for then 1. Why doth the Author say that All when spoken of Creation and when of Redemption must be taken in the same sence and latitude will he not be so farre fixed to his principles as to suffer the divers matter treated of to alter the signification of the same word 2. It deserveth examination whether the matter treated of in those places doth suffer the words to be taken in that large sense which light is to be fetched from Scriptures which teacheth us that the word All when spoken of Redemption is to to be taken so largely or else what he saith will want proofe Againe we agree in this It is ungodly and unequall to compare God and man and to make them to be alike and equall Isa 40.13 14. and mere ungodlines to compare the words workes and thoughts of God with mans and to make them equall and alike Isa 55.8 9. Thus he urgeth Pag. 29. This I grant But then I must advertise the Author of two things 1. It is one thing to compare the beings of man and God together of which his quoted Text speaketh which cannot be alike and another to compare Gods Actions and words which may be alike sometimes as we are commanded to be like our heavenly father this last is no such ungodlinesse as he pretendeth 2. There is a difference betwixt mans words as comming from man and opposed to Gods and mans words as comming from God and the dictate of his Spirit of this second sort it is no ungodlinesse to compare them to Gods for they are his own which will be usefull to us Thirdly we further agree in this It is easie for men to understand a difference in the extent of the same word spoken of and by God and spoken of and by men and when the opposition is betwixt God and men and when between men and men This I grant for 1. Joh. 2.20 he saith ye know all things and Cap. 3.20 he saith He viz. God knoweth all things no reason will hence conclude that God knoweth no more then man knoweth or that man is omniscient 2. It is easie also to know the difference of the same word when spoken of and by God if so be it be concerning divers Actions as 1 Joh. 2. The Spirit shall teach you all things and Cap. 3. he saith He knoweth all things So Joh. 2.24 He knoweth all men and Joh. 12.32 I will draw all men to me No reason will infer that he will draw all or so many as in that place he is said to know so when he is said to create all things and to reconcile all things Col. 1 16.20 both cannot be taken in the same latitude and extent because he made the fallen Angels but he never reconciled them 3. It is also cleare that many places speakes of God and is spoken by God and holy men inspired by God which is all one as if it was Gods immediate word yet those words All c. cannot beare that large extent as Matth. 2.3 Mark 13.13 Luk. 16.16 Ioh. 12.32 Acts 2.44 1 Cor. 14.5 2 Cor. 3.2 Phil. 2.21 Col. 1.28 But what need I fill Paper and trouble the Reader when my Adversary confesseth that the word all is sometimes taken for all upright sometimes for all ungodly certainly then those words when spoken of and by God are not alwaies to extend themselves to that large sense he pretendeth which being true sheweth the weakenesse of that distinction and freeth those following examples from that ignorance rashnesse which he out of greater ignorance and rashnesse chargeth them with And still I admit That if a man spake of a Family and say this man governes all it is to be meant of all in the Family so of a Corporation and a Kingdome But he must observe this that so we could not understand unlesse that the word All in propriety might have a limited sence And we grant also That if we say God governeth all we meane all in the World But if our Author had gone on to make his matter out he should have said So if we should say Christ redeemed all we must meane all in the world Herein he would have erred seeing there is no proportion betwixt his Gubernation and his Redemption the difference of matter treated of admits of a difference in the signification of the same word according to his owne principles And herein the Author is at a losse in all this for all that he hath said in this businesse is to make way for this That where God or Christ is said to Redeeme or Ransome all it must be all and every man in the world but this will not be admitted though when we say God governeth all we meane all things in the world Now to proceed to the Texts alleaged by us Luk. 2.1 15.1 Ioh. 3.26 Act. 2.8 Where we urge that world whole world all men every man are not to be taken in that large and generall senses therefore without further reason we cannot grant those places alleadged by him to be so generall he thus answers It will be found either ignorance or rashnesse to compare and make of like large extent the word world in Luk. 2.1 and the word world in 1 Joh. 2.2 But it will be found an ignorant Calumny so to charge us we make them not of like large extent as if he were the Propitiation for the sins of no
proud swelling word spake much of Christ and his ransome now it is frequent in Scripture to upbraid the sonnes of men with such things as they boast of as if they were so indeed as Ezek 28.12 and so making their boasting an aggravation of their sinne as Rom. 3.17.23 thou that gloriest in God and in the Law dost thou by breaking of the Law dishonour God So it was not an ordinary sinne that these false Prophets are branding not barely denying him that bought them for so every unbeleever doth in his judgement but this is more then every unbeleever is charged withall seeing he that names Christ is tyed thereby to depart from iniquity 2 Tim. 2.19 And they boasting of Christ they were more obliged then others not to deny him but they did deny the Lord that bought them that is not that the Text lookes at the reality of the thing but their boasting that it was so which made it be an aggravated sin in those false Prophets and how this agreeth with the persons spoke of and other Scriptures let the Author perpend and if so taken how much it serveth his turne let him also judge Are they not said to have troden under foote the Sonne of God Thus the Remonstrant urges Apostatae dicâ—ur filium dei conculcare act Synod c. ergo filius dei illis aliquo modo est datus fanguâ— testamenti ad aliquod gratiae faedus cum illis constituendum effusus c. That is they tread under foote the Sonne of God therefore he is in some way given to them and his blood shed to make some covenant of Grace with them the strength of which inferences I am not able to see for they being gathered to the Church and so hearing Christ preached so outwardly professing him they afterward falling off and not applying themselves to beleeve on him for salvation tread under foote the Sonne of God and this they may doe though Christ did never purchase life and salvation for them as a man may kicke the image of his Soveraigne in his coine though it was never intended for him Are they not said to be trees twice dead Jude 12. Yes we read so but whether the argument framed therefrom be valid I question for thus he reasoneth they are twice dead once in Adam now a second time by their sinnes now this second death supposeth a life intervening which they have from Christ but this is extorted and not the sense of this nor any other Scriptures For 1. For this supposeth all Adams sonnes to be made alive and to be alive with a life that is beside what of nature for this spirituall death in sin is opposed to a spirituall life but this is not the language of Scripture not one place that I know that saith all Adams sons are alive 2. It is frequent with Scripture to speake of things that doe appeare onely as if they were as Saint Paul Rom. 7.9 Without the Law I was alive that is I thought so but when the Law came I died here is a second death but that is opposed to an apparent life so why may not this Text meane a death opposed to an apparent life of grace which by their seeming holinesse they seemed to live but when they discovered themselves they are said to die the second time and this seemes backed by the context Clouds without water Trees without fruite twice dead 3. Scripture phrase speaketh that condemnation in Hell is the second death Rev. 20.14 cum 6. and this spoken of men as if it was actually so when yet it meaneth but thus that it infallibly shall be so as he that beleeveth not is condemned that is shall be in condemnation he that beleeveth hath everlasting life that is shall have it infallibly So this twice dead that is they are such as shall certainely die the second death 4. It is usuall with Scripture speaking of that which is throughly done or done indeed to expresse it by twice done or done doubly Jer. 17.18 Destroy them with a double destruction is destroy them throughly or to the purpose or destroy them indeed So twice dead is dead indeed throughly dead dead every way to this Mr. Perkins in his exposition propendes 5. The Authors Argument makes death in sinne to be second death but this Scripture speaketh not Rev. 2. Rev. 20.6.14 Therefore the sense of his cannot stand nor his argument from it CHAP. XIII Of answering the most usuall and strongest objections against this truth ANy that looketh upon this title and his first lines of this Chapter could promise himselfe no lesse then these three particulars First that the Author taketh these arguments that are most usuall and those that are of the greatest force Secondly that he propoundeth such in their proper force and vigour as they are propounded by his adversaries Thirdly that he giveth to these pertinent and satisfactory answers but that he in all these commeth short shall appeare by the following discourse The first Argument that he seemeth to answer he propoundeth thus The Scripture in such places as 1 Tim. 1.6 c. are not to be understood in the sense they import Wherein he perswadeth his readers that this is produced by us as an argument to prove the contrary to his assertion but this is false and bewrayeth his ignorance it is produced as an answer to the arguments formed on their parts thereby putting them to prove that those Texts are taken as he pretendeth seeing Scripture is not alway taken as it seemeth to import This responsory assertion of ours so much intrencheth upon his over confident concluding upon many Scriptures that he rejecteth it as many wayes obnoxious and affirmeth the contrary thus The Scripture speaketh sometimes plainely sometimes metaphorically parabolically yet alwayes truly and so as the words import for God is a God of truth Psalm 31.5 The weaknesse of which expressions may appeare to any for it may be understood that when we say some Scriptures are not to be understood as they seeme to import we meane not that they are not to be understood as the Spirit it selfe meaneth or as they are used by him to expresse his meaning but not so as they seeme to us to import not alwayes according to the nature and ordinary signification of the word which the Spirit useth Now let us see how he oppugneth this 1. He saith the Scripture sometimes speaketh plainely sometimes metaphorically parabolically Now in that he saith it speaketh sometimes plainely it granteth that sometimes it speaketh not plainly now when the Scripture speaketh plainely we know viz. when the sense of the words is so applied to the words in their native and common signification that he that knowes the one may know the other But when doe they speake not plainely certainely it is when he that knoweth the nature and usuall acceptation of the words used and followeth that and so mistaketh the true sense when the sense is beyond the native and
usuall sense of the word then the Scripture speaketh not plainely as to instance with the Author in metaphoricall c. speeches such are tropicall and changed from their native signification unto a foraigne signification as his paedagogicall rudiments may informe him but when they are so changed they mean not as they seeme to import but thus many Scriptures speake as the Author confesseth now thus to say is no way to confute us but to confirme us 2. That expression He speaketh alwayes truly is no argument against us because though he meaneth not as the words seeme to import yet he speaketh truly the truth of his words are so deduced from the conformity of the sense to his owne mind not to the native use of the words He afterwards thus argueth When the Scripture saith that by the grace of God he tasted death for every man and gave himselfe a ransome for all men c. That any of us should say his words have not the sense they seeme to import Wherein he seemeth to wonder that any should presume so to say but it is groundlesse for the sense that Thomas Moore putteth upon those Scriptures is that Christ by his death procured eternall life for every sonne of Adam and this sense the words seeme to import else he forgeth it without any ground but that is not indeed the sense my whole discourse showeth therefore we may well say they have not the sense they seeme to import Againe be thus urgeth The mysteriousnesse of the Scripture stands not in any equivocall hiddennesse or doubtfulnesse of speech as the Oracles of the Heathen Gods that might be made true which way so ever taken though contrary to what they imported but Scriptures though mysterious are so full of unchangeable truth that when by the Spirit the knowledge thereof is given it will appeare to be right and plaine according to the words in which it is expressed But all this is not against us for 1. True they are not equivocall that is relating to the minde of the speaker now God never meant to deceive as the Heathen Oracles yet may the Scripture have a sense beyond what the words import or seem to export because they are mysterious 2. He is mistaken in the Heathen Oracles they were not made true contrary to what they imported because they were so framed as that they might import either way as Aio te Aeacida Romanos vincere posse 3. The truth of the Scripture is unchangeable wee grant but it will not thence follow that some places have not a sense beyond what the words naturally import and when we know the sense we shall say that it is true according to the words in a tropicall or figurative transmutation yet not true as the words naturally import but it matters not how plaine the sense is when we know it but how is the sense obvious to us before it be revealed Whether may we not follow the native sense and import of the words so far as to take up a sense contrary to the meaning of Christ if so all that that he saith is but empty but that we may is cleare from Nicodemus John 3.4 the disciples Mark 8.15.16 the Jewes Iohn 2.19.20 in which places they judged of his speeches by the naturall import of the words but in so doing cried But this assertion of ours viz. That the Scripture hath not alway the sense that the words import or seeme to import is backed with foure severall reasons as he produceth it which he attempts to disprove but how he performeth I shall examine Reason 1. Because these expressions the Vine this is my body I am the doore are not meant as the words seeme to import These instances he produceth therefore I shall engage with these though more might be produced and others more cleare thus we urge if these places be not meant as the words seem to import then all Scriptures are not to this he answers thus This reason is unjust injurious absurd false so of no strength and thus he runneth up his black mouth'd catalogue Page 75. which in close will be his owne share he would prove it injurious thus It is confessed by all Interpreters as an argument against Papists that what ever is necessary to salvation is therein plainely delivered as the humble and diligent reader may easily understand but he may know 1. That no Interpreter saith that every scripture is plain and easily to be understood neither are we engaged so to say in any controversie between us and the Papists they say indeed that many are and such as are necessary to salvation but this is no way injured by saying that some Scriptures meane not as the words seem to import 2. They may say that what is necessary to salvation is plaine but many places that are urged by the Author as they relate to the point in controversie are not absolutely necessary to salvation Necessary it is for us to know Christ to die for sinne and to be the Messiah and to procure life for them that beleeve but whether for some or for all it is not necessary to salvation to know for I am not so uncharitable as to thinke other but that many holding his doctrine are saved and I hope he is not so uncharitable as to hold that they that hold against him cannot be saved I beleeve Heaven hath a great harvest of them that never could assent to his doctrine therefore to say that those Scriptures that are not absolutely necessary to salvation to be knowne are not to be meant as the words import is not injurious to the saying of Interpreters that proceeds upon such as are necessary to salvation 3. They may say that such necessary truths are plaine to an humble and diligent rearer true but we say to an unwary and arrogant Reader that to foment his owne conceits will snatch at the naturall import of the woâ—d to uphold it to such the sense may not be plaine nor as the words import the humble and diligent Reader may easily perceive that many places are not meant as the words import So that in this here is a clamour of injury no proofe He would prove it unjust thus It is unjust seeing it is granted by Interpreters that hard and difficult places as Sacramentall allegoricall parabolicall are to be opened by plaine places not plaine places obscured by them This though true makes nothing to the proving what we say unjust For 1. That which we affirme is that all places are not meant as the words import now in that he mentioneth hard difficult places as Sacramentall parabolicall allegoricall he confirmeth us for in such expresses the sense is not as the words seeme to import 2. It proveth not the assertion unjust because we doe not obtrude any sense upon 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 from such hard places onely show that as in those places the sense is not as the words import so it may be in these leaving the
great reason why when he meant but some he should yet use such expresses as may in their naturall import seeme to take in all and taketh much paines therein as followeth That any other doctrine or contrary words should be necessary to deliver the Gospel within these our times is monstrous to affirme The reason of which cometh to this issue it is monstrous to deliver the Gospel now in our times in contrary words Therefore it was monstrous for Christ to deliver the Gospel or his Apostles to deliver the Gospel in such expressions as might seeme to import every man when yet they meant but some where lyeth the strength of this Argument Christ in himselfe and his Spirit inspiring the Apostles were Legislatores might use what expressions they pleased we are tied to those which they used besides we say not they were contrary expressions for though he used such expressions as might import a further meaning yet they were not contrary to truth nor his owne meaning for as he saith page 73. to any that understandeth the truth of of his word wil appeare to be right and plaine according to the words which he useth But he further urgeth Those whose faith we are to follow are such whose words c. hold forth Christ yesterday today and the same for ever Which is so far from overthrowing us that it confirmes us he was for ever the Redeemer and Saviour both of Jewes and Gentiles which Gentiles should know it and be gathered to him in his time therefore in his time he used such generall expressions that might bespeake so much both to the Jew and Gentile these generall terms now used mak no change in Christ but the contrary Do not the words of Christ and his Apostles expresse their meaning This fond Query hath had its answer already yes they doe so but their meaning is not alwayes according to the naturall import of the words Did their words serve but for their times Yes for ours and after times and so much the reason intimateth for in that it was to make way for the Gentiles to come in it is to serve till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in but this I say that the occasion of those expressions had its rise in those times Have any of us found fitter words to expresse the Gospel in these times No that were high presumption we are tied to the expressions which are used by the Spirit of God we are not to dictate to him what if fit for him to use but was Christ and his Spirit so bound his reason herein is this because we cannot finde better words then he hath used therefore it was not fit for him to use such generall expressions when yet he meant but some what piercing eye can discerne the strength of his reason It is irksome to follow him in such froth and impertinency that can neither please nor satisfie the learned But he comes at last to an extasy O ye Heavens be astonished O the admiration of ignorance at which the Heavens may stand astonished in that he triumphs in such weake reasonings and at his impudence in putting such into print to scourge the eares of the world Wee conclude Christ was free to use what words he pleased we not so his expresses were true though not conformable to our understandings and though he used such as All men Every man whole world yet they were no way contrary to his meaning though he meant but some or but many or his sheepe they may bene convenire inters◠well agree in one which ariseth of all the needelesse allegations produced by him page 78. 79. He then invadeth the reason it selfe why Christ should use such generall expressions viz. to temper those particular ones which he had used before with which those generall might agree yet cure some mistakes that might and did arise from the particular the reason he sets downe and then answers this reason is grounded on the ensuing particulars which he reciteth The ground of it in full vigour is thus the legall pedagogy that was the finger to point at Christ to type him out was exhibited onely to the Jewes as priviledges relating to Christ as Rom. 9.4 5. When he was foretold by the Angel he was said to be the Saviour of his people Mat. 1.21 The Jew coming under that notion onely Christ himselfe said he was sent but to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel Mat. 15.24 He forbad his Disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles Mat. 10.5 Hence we conclude that seeing he came to redunate both Jew and Gentile that he should use some other expressions that might temper those particular and confining words to the Jewes onely To this he thus replyeth This part of the reason is weake and frothy for it is evident to a meane understanding that our Saviour Matthew 15.24 speaketh not of his mission to die c. but his mission for his ministration here on earth which was for the Jewes Rom. 8.9 which mission with greater enlargednesse he left with his Disciples Matt. 28.20 I shall first cleare further the force of the reason then rejoyne to his reply the first I shall doe in showing these 3 particulars 1. That there were many things at which the Jewes might take occasion to stumble at the Gentiles as Christ being borne of the Jewes the seed of Abraham brought up amongst them exercising his ministry living dying amongst them chargeing his Apostles not to go to the Gentiles as strangers and dogge which are cleare Rom. 9 3 4 5. Mat. 10.5 2. That from those there was an actuall stumbling at them as a people estranged and uncleane hence in their Law it was forbidden to accompany with a Gentile Acts. 10.28 Acts. 11.3 and when they saw that the Gentiles beleeved they admired Acts 10.45 even beleeving Jewes Acts. 11.18 they said then hath God granted repentance to the Gentiles a thing which they knew not before it was contrary to the received opinion of the Gentiles on the same ground before mentioned yea Peter himselfe was not free from this in that a vision was sent to him to prepare him to goe to Cornelius a Gentile and from his owne words Acts 10.34 of a truth I perceive that God is no respecte of persons but that in every Nation it was not his thoughts before they thought that no salvation was promised to the Gentiles upon faith and obedience 3. That God did cure this by a vision to Peter Acts. 10.11 12 13. a sheet in which were all manner of beasts so he was to feed without discrimination and this was equipollent to those generall expresses all men every man the one being in the Hieroglyphicke what the other is in vivâ voce and both these to prevent and remove the same stumbling blocke against the Gentiles Now to consider his reply He faith this reason is weake and frothy But had not his understanding been of the meanest sort he might have seen
the maine end of laying the foundation and perfecting the outside of my house because there is something more requisite to my dwelling in it as cleansing adorning furnishing this would he weake reasoning The Scripture saith he died c. that he might be Lord of quick and dead Admit it yet Scripture nowhere saith that that is the maine end of his death nay his Lordship and power is but subservient to a further end viz. to bring them to glory John 17.2 He gave him power over all flesh that be might give eternall life c. So that hitherto whether the objection deserve abhorring or his answers hissing let any judge But he proceeds to examine those Texts that are by himselfe produced as proving the proposition as Rom. 8.28.29.30 Ephs 1.3 to 11. which places I have not observed to be applied to this article of Redemption but in Election there we shall finde this golden chaine used therefore I am not engaged to justifie them as holding forth the strength of the proposition yet if any have to that end quoted them I shall guesse at their drift herein and free them from his responsory cavils Rom. 8.28.29.30 Their thoughts on this place I conceive to be these Gods foreknowledge praedestination vocation justification glorification yea redemption are connected in the same persons as in a chaine and of equall latitude and extent the top of that chain is his foreknowledge and praedestination and all the rest runnes in equipage with them Christ is so one in will with his Father that he would not redeem any but whom his Father foreknew and praedestinated to it his Father so constant to himself that he calleth justifieth glorifieth those and only those whom he fore knew and praedestinated he worketh according to his purpose That we may understand this more fully we must consider that the businesse which the Apostle is to make cleare is this That all things even afflictions shall worke together for good to them that are called of his purpose this he layeth downe ver 28. now the words that follow are to make this good as appeares by the word For ver 29 now that which worketh this good is this Such shall be glorified such as are called shall come to glory that all afflictions that are to them in Serie mediorum a series of meanes to that end shall further not impede their glorification therefore shall worke together for good But this then is to be proved that those that are called shall be glorified and he proveth it by this such were foreknown and predestinated to glory so that they that are called may looke backward to Gods predestination and foreward to their glorification such as were predestinated such shall be glorified but then further this must be proved that those that were predestinated shall be glorified this he proveth by the contiguity and connexion of all those linkes in that golden chain whom he foreknew he predestinated whom predestinated them he called whom he called them he justiâ—fied whom he justified them he glorified so they that love God and are called may conclude they were predestinated they shall be glorified and hence conclude all things shall worke together for good and therefore they conclude for many priviledges to themselves v. 31.32.33.34.35 some whereof are he gave him for us to death ver 33. It is Christ that is dead ver 34. all which they had by vertue of Gods predestination or election ver 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen I should willing imbrace a better coherence and sense of the place and if this be the right it doth strengthen the proposition That seeing all things that are in Serie mediorum as meanes conducing to salvation beare an equipage to his election the redemption of Christ is not to exceede it And so for Eph. 1.3 to 11. there is an ennumeration of priviledges from election ver 3. to glorification ver 11. but election leadeth the way and bounds all the rest Now to examine what he answers to these This is a far fetched inference evading the businesse in hand for the businesse opposed in the inference is the redemption made by Christ in his own body for men and those places mentioned speak of the benefits thereof c. yea such as many beleevers want First here is a falsity because it is cleare Rom. 8.32 speaketh of the ransome of Christ and of what he did for men in his body He was delivered up for us and died for us ver 34. and whether doth the expression denote his death or the benefits thereof Secondly suppose it doe yet cleare it is that all there mentioned and so all that tend to salvation are but equall with his election which confirmeth the proposition and this is rather a cavill then satisfaction Againe he saith thus Neither it is said doth and will justifie and glorifie but did and hath predestinated called glorified which I hope none will affirme of all the elect much lesse of all Christ died for Wherein he discovereth but a grosse understanding of the Text I hope he will not so limit the sense of it as that it shall come short of truth for all whom he hath predestinated he hath not yet called all whom he hath called he hath not yet glorified them Let the Author speake hath he called and glorified all whom he hath foreknowne or predestinated or much more had he glorified all that he had predestinated when the Apostle spake these words he himselfe granteth that it cannot be affirmed of all the elect but how then shall the truth of the Text appeare if he confine the Text to that sense certainely he hath missed the marke herein for though it be in such a sense as may be wâ—ll translated hath yet is used in such a Text as will not suffer it to be confined to that sense but to be understood Hath doth will and if this cavill had carried any weight in it the Remonstrants certainely would gladly have imbraced it but they conclude the contrary Nota vocavit i. e. vocat vocavit aut vocabit Cornel. A lapid in locum Act. Syn. in locum Iustificavit i. e. Iustificavit justificat aut Iustificabit praeterita enim more Haebreo ponuntur pro quolibet tempore and the Remonstrants joyntly agree herein Justificavit i. e. approbavit vel approbaturus remittit vel remissurus est glorificavit id est gloriae praemia donabit all arising to this whom he hath called that is hath doth or will so in the rest Now the reason why all the words are in the perfect tense hath is because the two first praenotion and praedestination are acts that are past and the rest shall as infallibly follow as if they were past already to some they are all past to al the predestinated they shall all be so that the sense is this whom he hath predestinated he hath or will call whom he hath called he hath or
will glorifie and all certaine from predestination And this is but parallell to what he must say upon that Text John 17.2 To give eternall life to as many as thou hast given him Now by giving to Christ he saith page 149. is meant bringing on men to beleeve in the heavenly call and so the sense must be this He hath given him power over all flesh to give eternall life to as many as he hath given to him that is brought in to beleeve in the heavenly call Now hence I question had Christ received power to give eternall life to no more then were at that time brought in to beleeve let him answer herein he must salve it this way or none He hath that is to whom he either hath or shall bring in to beleeve so why not this Text and then thus we shall not be affraid to affirme of all the elect they either are or shall be called justified glorified therefore what he saith herein is a wilfull perversion no satisfaction to the text Againe he urgeth This reason given to fortifie the proposition mistaketh the end of the Apostles connexion of priviledges which is not to set forth for how many Christ hath died or shall receive the fruits of his death but it is to set forth the priviledges of those that have begun to receive the choice fruits of both his propitiation and advocation True the end and scope of the Apostle is neither of these but to show and make good his owne words viz. that all things and so crosses and afflictions shall worke together for the good of them that are called of his purpose yet he doth it so as hit he doth in it virtually show who are and how many are elected justified glorified those and so many are elected as some to be called and glorified those and so many are called as are elected those and so many are justified as are elected and called those and so many are glorified and shall be as are elected called and justified or shall be and thus they are the boundaries of one an other and so Christ's being given for us being one of those connected priviledges it followeth that those and only such have life procured and purchased for them who were elected to it and come in glorification to partake of it 2. It is cleare that the Text doth not show the priviledges of them onely who have begun actually to receive the benefits of Christs oblation and advocation because it showeth the priviledges of all them that are predestinated and foreknowne and this the Author granteth page 115. 116. the concatenation of these high favours is the priviledge of the elect sons of God but all that are foreknowne and are predestinated do not yet actually partake of the choice benefits of Christs oblation and advocation therefore this hitherto is perversion not satisfaction Againe he giveth a third Answer This inference from these places destroyeth the distinction between the Gospel and the communication of the choice benefits thereof between the atonement made by Christ and the receit of it by his chosen ones But this without any shew of truth we plead indeed for a non division or separation of the one from the other and that for whom he made an atonement they shall receive it in time and this be might have seen if envy and calumny had not blinded him and his sufficiently confuteth him and this we affirme from this irrefragable chaine Rom. 8. all from election to glorification are inseparable Againe he saith thus The connexion it selfe is wrested for this inference c. as if all Christ dyed for and ransomed must of necessity partake of all these priviledges nor as if all that partake of some fruits of his ransome should partake of them all nor as if all that were called must partake of them all But this hath as little force as any of the former words for 1. The connexion is not wrested if we finde the death of Christ one of those connected priviledges for then it will appeare that he that partakes of any one shall of all the rest else how are they priviledges connected none ever yet doubted of this now that this is one of those connected priviledges it will appeare if we seriously consider the Chapter we must know that under those generals many particulars are to be included as under vocation he effectuall power and spirit of God by which we are called and sanctification the effects of it under justification is contained the death of Christ the meritorious cause and this is one to be included that not only by consequence but clearely expressed as may appeare from the Apostles repetition of those priviledges ver 31.32.33.34 where he reassumeth the election ver 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect Also justification ver 33. It is God that justifieth He assumeth also vocation in ver 35. who shall separate us from the love of Christ they were so far from being separated from the love of Christ by them that they are more then conquerers over them and such is a spirit befitting them that are called of his purpose ver 28. he reassumeth also the death of Christ ver 32.34 He hath delivered him up for us and Christ hath died for us and that to make up the same confidence with election justification and vocation and what is more cleare then that the death of Christ is one of the connected priviledges and then the connexion is not wrested 2. Whereas he saith As if all that partake of some fruits of his ransome must partake of all It is too generall to be pertinent I know not what he may introduce under the notion of fruit of his ransome this is our inference that whoever partaketh of any of those connected priviledges shall partake of all of them in time else they are not connected 3. Whereas he saith Nor as if all that were called should partake of them all evidenceth that he doth steele his forehead to outface a cleare Text doth he not say whom he hath called he hath justified and glorified that is hath or will or else it discovereth that he hath blinded his eyes so far as to understand the word called of outward call onely but then where is the truth of the Text whom he hath called he hath justified all that are outwardly called he neither hath nor will justifie nor glorifie nay all should then be justified and glorified because in his judgement all the sonnes of men are called this will prove no propitious interpretation of the Text. But fearing that what we have said should prove inpregnable he hath an other assault and seekes to enervate it by proving though it be one of the connected priviledges yet it followeth not that because every one that partaketh of those priviledges had Christ delivered up for them therefore every one that have Christ delivered up for them partake of all the priviledges and this he doth thus
a piece of his egregious dissimulation is seen in that this which is reprobation is here shufled in to passe untaken notice of in the businesse of election that so when he cometh to speake of reprobation he may say as he doth that the Scripture scarce owneth a reprobation but an actuall done in time when he had inserted these words in their proper place he might have seen that there is a reprobation from eternity 3. In the pursuance of that act concerning the residue that are not elect he willingly stifleth a cleare truth it is granted on all hands that election and reprobation are opposite and reprobation denyeth that which election granteth therefore when he saith that he did decree to overpower his elect by his grace it must follow that he did deny to overpower the rest and so decreed to deny them that grace which he giveth to the rest and this goeth before their hardning for contempt of meanes yea in nature before Gods decree so to doe and their contempt of meanes is a consequent of that God denieth grace and man contemneth it which is an act in God first in order of nature in this act of reprobation but this he concealeth which doth not discover ingenuity not to produce the strength of the businesse though against himselfe for if he had done it he would not have beene such a stranger to reprobation in God and that from eternity Many more instances I could produce to show his rude and impolished thoughts about election wherein he hath discovered much of himselfe without any necessity But to returne to the argument againe at last he ariseth to this assertion Through this whole discourse it appeareth that the death of Christ for all men impeacheth not the doctrine of election Therefore I shall reassume some of his expressions againe which he hath granted and then let the world judge how well universall ransome intended by God or Christ consisteth with it he granteth That God did elect but some and to harden the residue for the contempt of meanes and that from eternity page 120. Now considering such a decree to harden most men I gather these two things First that there can be no such decree in God or will to send Christ to procure life for them Secondly that there can be no execution of such a decree Not the first for then that decree must be either in time or from eternity but Arminius will not say that Gods decrees are in time for he granteth that his decree of election is from eternity so that I doe not conclude for reprobation from their simultaneity the one being done when the other is but his reason given for election Arm. disp de praedest will reach to reprobation and this it is Deus nihil in tempore facit quod ab â—eterno facere non decreverit secus deo mutatio impingitur that is God doth nothing but what he decreed from eternity to doe And the Author granteâ—h page 120. All his decrees are done at once before the world or time was so that there is no such decree in time Secondly if it be so as the Author saith then God must decree it from eternity but this he doth not for then there must be a decree to harden and yet to procure life and salvation for them which cannot be in God because they cannot both have their execution the same man no not by divine power cannot be saved eternally and damned eternally let us a while consider God willeth to harden for contempt of meanes he must so will till they come to destruction else he changeth He willeth to save them by Christ and this he must will till they be saved else he changeth which Arminius dare not admit so that those two decrees must be in God at the same time so that either God shall decree and not execute or else the same man shall be both saved by Christ and hardned and so destroyed for contempt of meanes but neither of these are to be granted this controversie any that will may finde scand by Corvinus in Mol. cap. 5. of the antecedent and consequent will Molineus weighing the nature and event of such warring decrees presseth that doctrine with a various absurdity wherein I shall expatiate my selfe a little it being of no small concernement to the clearing of this point for although the controversie betwixt Corvinus and his adversary and that betwixt me and my Antagonist seeme to be diverse yet they come to one and the same issue for this is the question ventilated in boâ—â— Au Deus simul velâ—â— omnes salvari aliquos daâ—â—ari that is whether God may or doth will to save all and yet to damne some and so by consequence at the same time will to save and damne the same persons Cap. 5. de vol. Antec consequ sect 11. the affirmative of which is adjudged absurd by Molineus but Corvinus by his reason attempts to prove it not so What are his reasons I shall in part show wherein they satisfie me not and leave the determination to the Learned Absurd 1. Molin presseth that doctrine with this first absurdity viz. Deus flatuitur velle quod ab aeterno certus est non agere as Corvinus himselfe relateth it that is c. 5. sect 8. by that doctrine God is set out to will that which he at the same time knoweth shall never come to passe For in willing their salvation he willed that to many to whom he knew it should never come to passe he having at that time appointed them to destruction for contempt of meanes as our Author saith now such a will is not to be found in homine insipienti in foolish man much lesse in the all wise God I shall presse Corvinus onely with this if God will that which he foreseeth shall never come to passe then either his decree doth not introduce a necessity or his prescience not an infallibility into the event either of which puts Arminius his Master to a losse whom he defends as for the thing it selfe I transmit it to any Judge how discrepant it is to the wisdome of God to will and not onely so but to use meanes and not onely so but such meanes as the death of his sonne his onely beloved son to effect that I say which he knew shall never come to passe To his Corvinus replieth thus Ibid. Non pugnant aliquid velle agere scire te id non facturum fed velle aliquid agere non velle agere illud That is to will a thing and to know it not to come to passe are not repugnant but to will to doe a thing and to will not to doe it which solution doth rather divert then satisfie it being resolved into that Logicall nicity of a verball contradiction for though they doe not verbally contradict each other yet they may easily be found joyntly to be repugnant to the wisdome of God as in aliquo tertio
his words Rom. 11.33 True if we be sure such a thing is the worke of God if we cannot fathome it to admire the wisdome of God is good as Rom. 11.33 but we may admire our owne folly and bewaile it to put such a sense on Scripture as that we cannot make it and the wisdome of God to meete we deny not the truth of Gods words but the Authors glosse and if he can prove it to be truly the worke of God or that it is a truth I shall admire though I cannot fathom it Hitherto I conceive he hath been oppugning the major afterwards he cometh to the minor and thus saith The Scripture testifieth that God hath and doth use some meanes towards all men not onely in his workes of creation and providence which giveth some testimony of his goodnesse c. but with some further light yea it may be some rumour of the Gospel as much as drew Rahab to beleeve c. Hereby attempting to prove that some discovery of the purchase is made knowne to every man But very confidently he saith God affordeth some meanes to all men but showes not to what end whether to manifest his power and Godhead and meer goodnesse or further to show his mercy in our repairing but this latter is most suiteable to his purpose and the argument but what meanes doth he use he saith not onely by his workes of creation and providence to intimate that those are meanes to discover something of Christ but without ground for the creation can no more alone discover a Saviour then they could in the creature goodnesse we may see in the creature but not mercy indeed if we have a word with them it can tell us we have sinned and so forfeited all then we may see mercy not else and all that the creation discovers is power and Godhead but this there was before any mercy and may be without it but he saith With further light but speaketh not what that is therefore I cannot answer but he addeth It may be some rumour of the Gospel but no Scripture saith it if it doe why doth he darken truth with May be if it doe not why doth he oppugne truth with may be he must not thinke to overthrow arguments with May beâ—s as for the rumour that was made to Adam Noah Shem Abraham Jacob Rahab c. unlesse he learne better skill in probation Apolog. c. 7. s 8. in resp ad Art 31. A 11. it will not be very easie to prove that that those had knowledge of Christ or of a Saviour the Remonstrants will tell him that faith in Jesus was not required of the fathers under the Old Testament but onely in God and Arminius will not onely question but strongly argue that the faithfull in the Old Testament did not know that the Law typed out Christ and his benefits but I doe not so satisfie the Author but what if Adam Noah Shem Abraham c. did hear and know something what is this to every individuall man that ever was or shall be the strongest asserters of this general discovery of the gospel have yet been forced to confesse the contrary in Perk. 258. Corv. in M. c. 28. s 8. Act. Synod 327. 316. 285. Col. Hag. 179. Col. Hag. in Arg. 5. Arminius himselfe saith thus Causa cur deus omnibus Christum non revelet est quod parentes repudiaverunt that is the cause why God doth not reveale Christ to all is because their parents have rejected if he give a reason then certainely that must be a truth of which he giveth a reason that Christ is not revealed to all and the Remonstrants confesse Ecce populos quosdam etiam hujus temporis qui adhucdum nihil de hoc reconciliationis verbo sciunt that is there is a people in this time that never heard a word of that worke of reconciliation and in this thing they miserably falter sometimes they say As much as in him lieth he dispenseth it sometimes for his part he is ready to take care that it be preached sometimes he commandeth it to be preached sometimes it ought to be preached sometimes it may be preached and if it were possible would say many more to salve it And therefore though we will not say that God doth not use any meanes to know him and his Godhead yet we may say he useth no meanes to every man to discover Christ and the redemption by him He further saith Gods denyall of his servants to preach in some places for a time as in Acts 16.6 7. proveth not an utter deniall of all meanes to them and among many reasons he giveth this one but he may deny it for one time yet grant it for an other All this may be received yet we not hurt for we say not that he denyeth them all meanes to know him but meanes to know Christ he did and what though he granted the Gospel afterwards to those places yet in the intervall of time did not many thinketh he die without knowledge of Christ as for example many Gentiles perished in ignorance of Christ during the time of the Gospels confinement to the Jews though afterward it was granted to the Gentiles and if so our Minor is yet firme nothing of moment doth he else produce but what confirmeth that assumption that he would overthrow Thus have I martialed up our arguments in their native force and his answers in their greatest strength and herein have been as faithfull as I am able and whether he hath abated the force of any one argument or given any thing but cavills to darken the truth I leave to any indifferent reader to judge and what faithfulnesse he hath observed in laying downe our arguments I leave also to judge in the next Chapter wee shall see if he have any more dexterity in producing his owne arguments then he hath manifested in reciting ours CHAP. XX. Of the Arguments confirming the Proposition WHerein I shall first touch his faire flourish in the entrance viz. To satisfie such as would have reason satisfied reasons are added So that now we may set up a generall siquis if any would have his reason satisfied let him come hither and he doth well to satisfie reason for he hath not yet confirmed our faith but what persons are they that must be satisfied certainely none but such as are satisfied with any thing yet thus farre my reason is satisfied that the Author hath not light upon forcible arguments to prove this position As for his arguments produced no answer need be given muchlesse much paines to be spent in a solicitous answer and this any intelligent Reader will grant if he consider these particulars concerning them 1. Observe that in all he produceth Scriptures to backe his conclusions providing himself against such as having as little skill as himself in ratiotination may deny the conclusion which is against the rule of argumentation in which if good the conclusion hath strength enough from
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