sense to enquiry and where is the injustice in this 3. He saith in the beginning that it is unjust to say that these words I am a doore a vine doe not mean as the words import yet now he saith these being paâ—bolicall are to be explained by plainer Texts but what needs that if they be meant as the words import this is not to evince us but to contradict himselfe He prooveth it absurd and grosse thus It is grosse intimating as if the sense of the words seeme to import that Christ was a doore of wood or as if the bread was transubstantiate into the naturall body of Christ whereas there is no words importing such a sense But it is not halfe so grosse as the Authors understanding that knoweth not how to distinguish betwixt the words and sense of the words we say the words mean not as they seem to import And he saith it is grosse intimating that the sense of the words import Christ a materiall doore grosse indeed but this is not the sense of our assertion But this we may say that the words may seeme to import some such thing though it be but a grosse conceit true it is that any that is acquainted with Scripture language may be able to explode such a sense but those that are not so well acquainted with it may as well by the import of the words thinke Christ to be a materiall doore as Nicodemus of a naturall birth his Disciples of a materiall leaven of bread when he spake of the leaven of heresie and hypocrisie and the Jewes of the materiall Temple when he spake of the Temple of his Body yet in in all these how grosse soever they followed the naturall import of the words But he illustrateth himself in this manner If a man say to his servant reach me my cloth in the presse and a Dame to her maide turne the cheese in the presse the child cries to his mother the pot runneth over cannot these be understood in the sense that the words import Certainely Animus fuit in patinis his minde was in his dishes or in the potridge pot but if his understanding had not runne over with the pot he might have seen a wide difference between a Metonymy and a Metaphor the instances that he produceth are no way opposite to the case in hand for if they had they should have run thus If a man should lay to his servant I am a presse oâ— the child to his mother I am a pot let the Author tell may such sayings be understood in the sense they seeme to import I am necessitated to traverse his exotricke examples He proveth it false thus It is false for Christ is the doore and way of entrance into peace with God and he is the true Vine indeed John 15.1 Be it so yet as he intendeth his owne meaning the naturall import of the words doth not afford it we say not that he is not the doore of entrance into God and peace but that by the naturall import of the words themselves such a meaning cannot be deduced besides Christ is no more a doore or a Vine then he is said to be the seeds man the field the World the good seed the Children of the Kingdome the Tares the children of the wicked one the harvest the end of the World the reapers the Angels Mat. 13.37.38 39 but these have not a reall identity but a similitude as verse 24. The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a man that sowed so in the rest so in this it meaneth but thus Christ is like a doore and like a Vine beareth an analogy with them therefore the Text saith he spake to them this parable Iohn 10.6 relating to the same businesse yet if any shall thinke him a materiall doore they shall be deceived though he say I am the doore As for that phrase This is is my body he thus answerâ—th He saith not this bread is my body nor any word to colour such a grosse conceit as transubstantiation Whereas he saith it saith not this bread is my body he must meane as if Christ should say this meaning his owne body he being there present is my body but this is weake and absurd not to insist upon those reasons deduced from the Sacramentall use and relation betwixt his body and that which he spake of but it could not be Sacramentall if he meant his body for it could not be both the signe and thing signified Not to insist on reasons deduced from our shewing Christs death till he come in breaking of bread as 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be if the bread broken and given was not the signe of the body of Christ Nor yet to insist upon frequent use of Scriptures wherein such expressions are used to call a thing by that which they only represent as Gen. 41.26 The seven leane Kine are seven yeares c. But this argument I chiefely propound when he took the cup and said this is my blood what did he shew them some drops of his blood certainely he meant not his blood but the wine that he took let him decide himselfe Luke 22.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup is my blood then it is absurd to say or thinke that the other should not be this bread is my body and was not the Author ambitious of confuting a Papist after the new fashion he could not but see that that word This relateth to bread which he tooke now the words being thus following the import of the word Is may wee not runne into the error of transubstantiation let but the Author grant the Papist that the bread is the body of Christ as they take the word according to its naturall import that is really identically corporeally and they will not be beholden to him to grant it transubstantiate for if it be what it was not it must be transubstantiate into what it is so that now what injury injustice absurdity falsity there is in our first reason let any judge and clear it is that the Scripture doth not alwayes mean as the words import no not in those Texts mentioned therefore those Texts 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2 9. may not be understood as the words seeme to import Reason 2. The second reason by which we prove that all Scripture is not understood as the words seeme to import is this because the phrases All men every man c. seems to import no lesse then every sonne of Adam else the Author would not so confidently fasten that large sense upon them but in many Texts such phrases meane but some of Adams sonnes therefore not to be understood as the words seeme to import to this he answers This reason is already answered and proved vaine and fraudulent in Cap. 5. In this reason there are two things the Antecedent and Consequent the Antecedent is of two branches First that All men every man seeme to import no lesse then every sonne of Adam Secondly that in many places it is
That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man The whole verse is thus being directly rendred from the Originall We see Jesus made little lower then the Angels through the suffering of death crowned with honour and glory that by the grace of God c. Now here are two things affirmed of Christ First that he was made a little lower then the Angels Secondly that through death he was crowned with honour and glory now it would give some light into the after words if we could tell on which of these two they depend or to which they relate I must confesse it very obscure The Author page 65. seemes to make them relate to both as if he was made little lowet then the Angels that he might taste death and also crowned with honour and glory because he tasted death for every man but this least probable for then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie both ut and quia both that and because which is not likely but let the dependance be what it will for the words themselves I propound these following Queries First whether these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be well rendred thus That by the grace of God he might taste death for every man And whether it may not beare this reading That by the grace of God he might taste of every death or de tota morte of all or whole death That he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This reading I shall cleare to be no way contrary to the Scripture or Grammaticall construction then that the context clearely leadeth to it the most forcible objection from Grammer is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a verbe of sense governeth a genitive case without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But although this be true yet it is well knowne that this language delights in such pleonasmes and redundancy of prepositions is the elegancy of this language when yet the word will governe the genetive case without them But some may say that if it had been so meant the words would have been thus placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to this I answer that in the chapter there are two and in the verse one president for placing the verbe between the adjective or relative and the substantive And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often for totus not omnis as Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole death so that here is not one word rendred but justifiably by Scripture Secondly this is most agreeing with the context for if the Author will have these words to relate to his being made lower then the Angels and suffering death it very well agreeth thereto for if it be asked why he suffered such a death which death is not confined to the perfective act when his soule was separated from his body but extendeth to all the acts of his humiliation from his incarnation to his expiration for so all this was the death for which he was crowned as appeareth Phil 2.7.8 9. His taking on him the forme of a servant as well as his submitting to the crosse was that which got him that name now if it be asked why he suffered such a death of such latitude and extent it was that he might taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whole death both top and dregs no part of that death we lie under shall be untasted off Or if we will have them relate to those words He was crowned with honour it well agreeth with them for if the question be asked how he came to be crowned with honour and glory as he now is the answer is not to be given or the cause fetched from the latitude of the persons for whom he was humbled because his first act of humiliation viz. his taking our nature upon him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man for whom he afterward died and if the ground of his glory was drawne from the latitude of persons for whom he suffered his Father had as good ground to glorifie him at his Incarnation as at his expiration but that he did not but the ground is fetched from the latitude of sufferings when he had taken our nature on him and undergone a series and method of sufferings in his life and the dregs of all at his death and so drunke his potion and done his worke by tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all or whole death then and therefore he was crowned having so much suffered he entred into glory and so we see it well agreeing with the words foregoing And it well agreeth with the words that follow For it behooved him c. to make the Captaine of their salvation perfect through sufferings Now that word For sheweth that this 10. verse relateth to the 9. and that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might be perfect through sufferings now when is Christ perfect through sufferings whether when he hath suffered for all men or when he hath tasted of all sufferings or whole death certainely if the former then he might in his very incarnation be said to be perfect through sufferings for that he was for all for whom he died but this neither reason nor Scripture teacheth and it is most congruous to both to affirme the latter and so Heb. 5.9 saith and seemeth to refer this perfection to the ultimate act and then he was made the author of salvation Nay further we finde verse 17. that it behooved him to be like unto us in all things still expounding his being perfect in sufferings that is when he hath sufferings that we were lyable to and so might know how to helpe us in all afflictions he being like to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every death or affliction then is he perfect through sufferings This I determine not but desire the Author to transmit it to his oracle and I leave it to the judgment of the learned and if it be found congruous then this Text maketh but little for him Query 2 Wave the former sense how can the Author fetch his generall expression from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it was to be read for every man the substantive is not expressed but left so as indifferent to be rendred every beleever or son of God as every man or sonne of Adam the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any word from it when set alone is not alwayes to be rendred All men or every man as John 12.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not I will draw all men that is not verified but plainely from Iohn 3.15 where it saith the sonne of man is lift up that whoever beleeveth might have eternall life appeareth to be meant of every one that beleeveth and so 1 Cor. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praise shall be given is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every man but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every faithfull man as verse 2. So
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
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
furniture consecration for the businesse to which they are elected 1 Pet. 1.20 Act. 10.42 Heb. 10.5 Eph. 2.10 Wherein there is a learned discovery but little to the purpose For 1. What matters it how the word be taken in it selfe the question is how it is taken in this phrase Ordained to life 2. He intimateth that to be ordained constituted consecrated to eternall life is a further sense then to be elected to eternall life let any intelligent man extract the difference 3. He cannot produce any Scripture wherein the word in this Text signifieth preparation or furniture to that thing which they were before elected to if he can I demand it 4. He produceth foure severall Texts as he doth thousands to no purpose to prove the words in Acts 13.48 to have such a signification when the word in that Text is not found in any of these foure places no nor the word ordained in our translation in all of them 1 Pet. 1.20 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 10.42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is in every place a severall word and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13.48 nor any word of that root to be found in any of those Texts and yet these Texts are produced to show the meaning of that word testifying his insufferable impudence to darken a cleare Text upon such grounds whereof he is altogether ignorant 5. Admit all he saith yet doth the word ordaine or the words in the originall text in 1 Pet. 1.20 Acts 10.42 Eph. 2.10 comprehend any more then Gods instituting appointing consecrating Christ to his office and us to holinesse and not differing from his election to such things what ordination of Christ to be the Lambe shine before the foundation of the world but only in Gods purpose and was not this his prime election to that office what vaine flourishes he brâ—ngs to make us expect the explanation of that phrase ordained to life when he doth not produce any place whereby it may be explaned He further addeth So the word is used when spoke of the Church Acts 14.23 or of Gods ordaining Rom. 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 2.7 Joh. 15.15 Here is more forgery and falsehood still no one place here mentioned except Rom. 13.7 hath the same word as in Acts 13.48 let any consult with the Text and yet he dare averre that the word in Acts 13.48 is used as he speakes in those Texts how the man would boast of plenty of places to backe his forgery upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he labours with a great penury the word in Rom. 13.1 is the same and signifieth appointment not furniture it is spoken of offices not officers which are appointed not furnished He further addeth And this word to be thus taken for an actuall ordaining here is evident by the like use of it in other places speaking of the like blessing 1 Col. 12.13 1 Pet. 2.9 1 Ioh. 5.11.12 Ioh. 6.36 And because an actuall ordaining therefore not for ordaining by election as if Gods ordaining by prime election was not actuall ordaining a senselesse evasion 2. His Texts that he produceth are abused for 1 Col 12.13 he vainely saith that they are of like use is ordaining of men to life and making them meet to partake of light one and the same act let reason determine and for 1 Pet. 2.9 it is cleare that they were called a chosen generation in relation to prime election as appeares by the opposition to them that were disobedient to which they were appointed as also from the entire sentence in the like case 1 Thes 5.10 He hath appointed us to obtaine salvation yet he abuseth not satisfieth the Text but what meaneth he by actuall ordaining by comparing his words I gather this meaning page 151.152 whereby he giveth this interpretation of the Text Those that were ordained to life that is had unfeined and effectuall faith wrought in them and so did cleave to Christ and give themselves up to him c. they beleeved Something allyed to the glosse of the Remonstrants but he I beleeve considered not what a monstrous interpretation this will invite for then this must be the meaning they that had faith in them beleeved excellent interpreter inferring that men may have faith cleave to Christ give themselves up to him before they beleeve for cleare it is that they were so ordained to life before they beleeved but he hath an argument to prove that by ordained to life cannot be meant the prime election as he calleth and it followeth in page 152. It meaneth not so many as were elected in Gods councell to life for then what becometh of all beleevers since nor yet as many in that place or of that society many such might be that were afterwards called Wherein he hath plowed with the Arminian heifeâ— else this objection would not have been so ready at hand Act. Synod in locum Si de electione absoluta haec verba accipienda essent tum necessario sequeretur reliquos omnes c. a deo reprobatos esse but to this we may answer diverse wayes For 1. Let it be as he would have it that by ordaining to life is to have faith wrought in them will he say that all that had faith wrought in them and so cleaved to Christ did then beleeve Scripture showeth the contrary for then it must follow that all that did not at that time come in to beleeve did not cleave to Christ or give themselves to him or in the Remonstrants phrase were not fit to receive the Gospel but this is false 2. Our Author suggests an answer As many in that place or in that society as were ordained to life beleeved and all that he produceth against this is this only Many there might be that were afterwards called but this is poore probation 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes rendred As many but those or which the argument is not deduced from the quantity but the quality of them that beleeved in Acts 9.39 it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we read it not they show'd him as many coats as Dorcas made but those coats which Dorcas made that is those coats that they showed him were of Dorcas her making so here those which were ordained to life beleeved that is those that were beleevers were such as were ordained to eternall life so that let the Author of these be who it will yet they are free from his responsary cavills CHAP. XXII Of the benefit of this Doctrine IN which Chapter he attempts to lay lay downe the utility of this doctrine and that not without ground that so it might appeare that it is not without cause that he compasseth sea and land to make Proselytes runnes and tides from Dan to Beershâ—ba as if the care of all Churches were laid upon his shoulders leaveth his honest calling in which providence