quia Deus nominem salvat nolens And if he can will to save us without Christ then he can will to save without Christ Salva justitia otherwise he cannot will it he cannot will to do any thing injustly And that he had a possibility to save and to will to save without Christs Death and that his Justice safe to me seemeth evident because neither a possibility to save nor a possibility to will to save no nor a will to save is against the Justice of God this I have propounded to let the Author see that seing God had a possibility to save Sinners without Christ their Salvation was possible before and without Christs Death then to let him consider how derogatory to Christs wisdome it is to say that his end in dying was to make the Salvation of man possible I cannot conceive that he would shed his bloud to procure that which was in being before and without his Death 4. For his expressions associated with this viz. A possiblenesse of mens comming in to Christ and beleeving It is a farre different thing from the former when our Salvation is said to be possible we meane in regard of God that God can bring us to Salvation but when our faith is said to be possible it may be referred either to God or man That God can by absolute power bring men in to beleeve or else that we have a power to come in or beleeve what he meaneth is very dubious The ground of coupelling these together is yet obscure for our Salvation eternall may be possible and yet faith not possible for God can bring us to Salvation without Faith if he please and if by the possibility of our beleeving he meane only a power in God to bring all men in to beleeve I grant there is such a possibility as there is a possibilite of more worlds being created but then this is too rude and indetermined to make either the end or effect of Christs Death Neither is it cleare that Christ prepared a possibility on mans part to beleeue because he did not procure that all should enjoy the Gospell without which men cannot beleeve Rom. 10.14 15. A possibility to beleeve is too unworthy a thing for Christ to purchase at so deare a rate Christ purchased Grace not Nature for us but Posse credere est naturae A possibility to beleeve is a Priviledge of Nature not Grace I desire a more cleare explication of himselfe then shall he have a more perspicuous Answer He having summed up the particulars of this common Salvation but weakely seeing they cannot be proved to be the share of every Son of Adam he comes to repeat his speciall what he doth for Beleevers and that in Pag. 11 12 13. with severall unjustifiable expressions which because they are not pertinent to the Question I wave them till he come in the 14 Page to give us a Summ. total and entire result of this elaborate Chapter thus Now betweene these two Salvations that with God for men and that in men to God c. the Scripture doth often and many waies distinguish Parturiunt montes nascitur Behold the issue of this fruitlesse peece hath he been in so long a travell of opposition and hath brought forth nothing but what every man grants Let me againe interrogate where doth he find it denyed that the purchasing and applying the procuring for and bestowing upon men any good are two distinct Acts Nay What Treatise findeth he where it is not strongly asserted and therefore he needed not to have been at so much paines to prove it But by this foundation we may guesse what structure we shall find But yet the manner of their distinction as he layeth it down is something observable and such as we find no where else as followeth 1. The former is called a reconciliation by his Death the other a saving by his life Ro. 5.10 that his procuring reconciliation by his death should be here set downe under being reconciled by his Death is something distorted and improbable Doth the Author conceive that those words do not denote actuall Reconciliation If they do as it is cleare they do then this is the second Act not the first only Application not procurement of it The Text saith not If he merited Reconciliation for us much more shall we be saved by his life If the Text had favoured this conceit it would have run thus If he hath procured Reconciliation by his Death then shall we be actually reconciled by his life but it runs not thus the inference is not from Impetration to Application but from Reconciliation to Salvation two distinct degrees of good applyed the Scripture yields no such difference because both Impetration and Application of all good is said to be by his Death and by his Bloud 2. The former was a Reconciliation wrought for the world by God in Christ The latter a Reconciliation of some to God by Christ 2 Cor. 5.18 19. Herein lyeth a twofold difference couched but both absurd 1. He saith The one is For men the other In men But this is no difference for herein they both agree The second viz. the Application is wrought out for men as to instance the Grace and Faith that is given to some by which they are overcome is also wrought for else how comes it to be applyed or how can it be called the Application or Sprinkling of Christ if the Bloud of Christ did not procure the Application 2. He saith The former is wrought by God the latter by Jesus Christ As if he should say the Impetration or procurement was done by God the Application was done by Jesus Christ which foppery discovers it selfe sufficiently the contrary of is most true the Impetration is Christs Act the Application is Gods if this be true Christus Impetravit ut Deus possit c And herein is one difference the procuring is the Act of Christ as of one that dyed the Application is Gods the offended Party 3. In effecting the former he came from the Father for the effecting of the other hee went againe to his Father Joh. 16.28 Herein can lye no difference because his comming from the Father and going to his Father both were requisite to his first Act viz. Impetration or procurement else are not his owne expresses Orthodox Pag. 8. where speaking of things done after his going up to his Father he saith Thereby he doth present before his Father c. and so procures the grant of dispensation c. Which evidently cleareth that his Ascending is no part of his Application but an Act that tendeth to the perfecting of his procurement and that done as Mediatour Againe His comming from the Father was not tyed only to Impetration but it was also for the effecting of Application He came to save them that were lost Math. 18.11 And he dyed not to procure purging only but that he might Sanctifie to Sanctifie to himselfe a peculiar People Ephes 5.25
〈◊〉 I never read when spoken of Christ in an other sense but when the Scripture speaketh of giving faith confidence Sonship or any of the choice benefits it saith not he giveth his Son but his Spirit Luke 11.12 Rom. 5.5 1. Thes 4 8. and Gal. 4.4.6 the difference is cleare on both parts He sent his Sonne verse 4. He sent the spirit of his Sonne ver 6. So that it is cleare that the Apostle draweth this conclusion not from the receipt of the Spirit of Christ in beleeving but from Christs being delivered up for them to die and good ground for grace saith Sonneship glory all come short of Christ himselfe and the argument is strong from the greater to the lesse and doth not all that he saith appeare rather to pervert then to satisfie the Text Thus having done with the proposition he invadeth the assumption which is That he did not intercede for every man John 17.9 Now against this he thus saith That doth not say the world of wicked and ungodly men as the assumption saith Neither doth the assumption say so but when it is altered and corrupted by himselfe we say he prayed not for every son of Adam we have no reason to say he prayed not for the world of ungodly because all the wicked and ungodly are not of that world of ungodly that was excluded his prayers But he further saith thus The word world ver 9. includeth all the Elect that were in and of the world and uncalled forth and this appeareth in that for the same things for which he prayed for them that did beleeve ver 6.9 he prayeth for the same for them that after should beleeve on him ver 20. The contrary whereof doth clearely appeare for if at the same time he prayed for the same things for some elect and yet uncalled home ver 20. it is cleare that when he excluded the world from his prayers that word world doth not take in the elect uncalled for whom he prayeth ver 20. for then such must be both prayed for and yet excluded his prayers at the same time and for the same things herein he doth implicate himselfe But rather the word world is meant of those unregenerate men that neither did nor afterwards should beleeve in him for such he prayed not for faith or union or perseverance or glory As for that which followeth viz. All the way from ver 9. to 21. there is no petition for any thing for any before they beleeve or yet might bring them in to beleeve Which is false if he meane neither expresly nor implicitely for implicitely he prayed for faith whereby they are made one with Christ and the Father unlesse the Author will say that Christ prayed that such as did not beleeve might be one with him without the consideration of faith which I cannot conceive certainely in praying for the end he prayed for the meanes inclusively But he further urgeth So that the assumption rendring the word World for the wicked non elect opposed to elect maketh two sorts of elect one sort prayed for verse 9. another sort prayed for verse 20. These words deserve hissing rather then a solicitous answering and cannot be reduced to common reason we may affirme the elect prayed for though in a diverse state and condition the elect beleeving ver 9. the elect unbeleeving ver 20. and this without absurdity but then we oppose not the elect to the non elect but beleevers to such as yet do not beleeve both being elect neither doe we oppose but distinguish them we may clearely see two sorts of men 1. Such as are prayed for and they are such as did for the present or afterwards should beleive such as did ver 9. such as should ver 20.2 Such as are excluded his prayers and they must be such as they neither did nor should and I may urge if by world he meaneth elect unbeleeving then Christ did exclude such his prayers But this is false from ver 20. Or else it granteth a sort of people in the world that are neither of the world nor of the elect But this he spake at a venture without consideration I shall againe reassume the parts those prayed for ver 9. were elect called out of the world those prayed for ver 20. were elect uncalled yet to be called those excluded his prayers ver 9. were non elect of the world and never to be taken out of it now let him cleare up his sight and tell me if we make a sort of men that are neither elect nor of the world but this serveth with the rest to fill paper and puzzle his ignorant Reader As also that which followeth Which way soever the assumption will have it it holds forth this falsehood that none of the elect were are or shall be beholden to the prayers of Christ for all or any of that patience c. extended before faith or for the meanes of grace by which they are brought in to beleeve or for faith seeing no such thing is prayed for here for any but the world verse 21.23 Wherein these two things are granted and affirmed 1. That Christ prayeth for patience meanes of grace faith for the world opposed to such as beleeve ver 9. or should beleeve ver â—0 2. That he prayed not for faith c. for any but that world both these are false the first is false upon this ground he excluding that world from his prayers for unity with the Father and the Sonne would not pray for faith by which they are to be made one certainely if he exclude from the end he doth exclude from the meanes 2. How Christ should pray for them that neither did nor should after beleeve any that acknowledgeth Christs prayers not to be frustrate cannot comprehend 3. This is grounded on the 21. ver where it saith That the world may beleeve and so from hence he urgeth that Christ did pray for faith for the world so presuming that the word beleeve meanes saving saith by which we are made one with God and so saved But this is not cleare I conceive it onely meant of conviction of the minde and making them to know as ver 23. expounds it as the Devils may doe and such as neither doe nor shall beleeve of the like nature is Psal 83. last Psal 59.13 The second is false for either he prayed for faith for them ver 20. which were not of the world excluded ver 9. or else he prayed for onenesse with himselfe and glory without faith this latter is improbable But he further urgeth The Text saith not he will not but in the present tense in that very time it s not in the preterfective tense or future tense This is a very empty evasion for if he once said I pray not for the world and that indifinitely without such limitations as the Author pretendeth as for these things or at this time which if he had thus said I pray not for the world at
what it did not or doth desist to will that which it did but no such change is in God and Corvinus himselfe is afraid to owne any such change in God c. 5. s 4. he saith Non definit deus velle quod vult voluntate antecedenti that is God doth not cease to will what he did from eternity by his antecedent wil and so seemeth to averre that to eternity God doth wil the salvation of all then it must follow that he willeth the salvation of all either conditionally or absolutely when many are in hell and there irrecoverably his reason is annexed quia voluntas consequens est cum velleitate in contrarium that is because the consequent will of God is alwayes with a velleity to the contrary the assertion impious and the reason miserable so that now the reader may easily conjecture how the case standeth herein their doctrine throweth them upon one of these two rockes either God doth retaine that will to eternity and so will to save many when they are in hell which is ridiculous and impious to affirme whether meant of a conditionall or absolute will or else God is mutable and changeth his will ceaseth to will that which he formerly did will the latter of these Corvinus seeketh to remove and thus replyeth Cum divinam voluntatem mutabilem esse objecisti Ibid. parum attendisti ad ea quae â Thomâ disseruntur 1. Quest 19. Art 7. Aliud esse mutare voluntatem aliud velle retum mutationem potest aliquis voluntate immobiliter eadem manente velle quod nunc fiat hoc postes contrarium immò de homine verum est ut absque voluntatis mutatione destruat quod fecit etiam velit aliquid facere ac simul intendat postea illud destruere that is when thou objectest that the will of God is mutable thou didst but little attend the words of Thomas who saith it is one thing to change the will an other to will a change of things one may the will remaining the same will that this shall be done and afterwards the contrary and it is true of man that without the change of his will he may destroy that which he made and will to doe that which he may at the same time will to undoe In all which he doth discover sufficiently that he hath not well considered the placita of that learned Schooleman or however as little attended to the sense as his Adversary to the words of that angelicall Doctor Cleare it is to any mans reason that the expresses of Aquinas take place in those things in which there may be a change for God to will a change of things necessarily supposeth that those may be changed as to instance God might and did will at one and the same act to create and to destroy the world that change of things argued no change in Gods wil but that he willed a change but then it is because the world was capable of that change that is it was both created and destroyed and well might be so and so the wil of God fulfilled in both parts of it the same might be said of making Saul King and taking the kingdome away and so the instance of Corvinus Man may make a thing and destroy it true because that thing is capable of such making and of an after destruction but all these are impertinent to the case in hand the thing about which we treat is not capable of any change no not by divine power for let a man be eternally saved and there shall not succeed an other eternity in which he may be damned Let the ingenuity of Corvinus dictate to us Can the same man be as easily saved eternally and damned eternally as the world be created and so successively destroyed or the same peece of worke made by a man may be made and then after destroyed if not why doth he darken such cleare points with the mists of such empty allusions and herein his argumentation comes to this issue God may will a change in things that admit a change therefore he may will a change in things that cannot no not by divine power admit any or thus he may wil to create the world and to destroy it without a change of his will therefore he may will the salvation and eternall damnation of the same man at the same time or thus when he willeth to make and destroy the same thing he willeth but a change not changing his will therefore he changeth not his will when he willeth the salvation and damnation and both eternall of the same man at the same same time but of these I may say as he of his Adversary Jnvidiosè omnia misere Thus farre I urge seeing there can be no change in this there must be a change in his will in such a will as that is Absurd 3. If God will at the same time the salvation of all and the damnation of some so by consequence the salvation and damnation of the same persons at the same time then inducitur pugna inter duas dei voluntates that is there is a fight and contrariety betwixt the wills of God to will to save and yet to damne the same persons are repugnant disagreeing wils because they cannot both have execution To this Corvinus replyeth Diversitas objecti tollit contratietatem voluntatis Objectum hic non est idem eodem modo affectum versatur prior voluntas circa hominem qua talem posterior circa illum quâ fidelem vel infidelem potest deus ante fidei considerationem velle omnes salvare eâ conditione si oredant simul velle eos qui non credunt damnare That is the diversity of the object taketh away the contrariety of the will the object in this case is not considered as the same manner affected so not the same the first lookes on man as man c. 5. sect 8. 11. the second as a beleever or not beleever God may before he consider faith will to save all and yet at the same time will to damne them that beleeve not Which reply satisfiâ—th not upon this twofold ground 1. Be it granted that a diverse manner of considering the object may take away the contrariety of his will yet such various and diverse consideration of the same man is not competible to God nothing appeareth to God anew every man appeareth to God under the same notion from all eternity to all eternity there was no instant when God did not see or not consider every man as he is and whereas he saith God might will to save all ante fidei considerationem before he considered faith that there was an instant before he considered the faith of them that come to beleeve but this is false I shall onely herein insist upon the placita of Arminius himselfe who is of some authority with Corvinus in his publ disp th s 4. he saith thus Ab aeterno novit omnia nihil de
he here magnifieth his peircing judgement in descrying that tye that few besides himselfe could see but his ground I shall examine because happily it may reflect on them that are of a contrary judgement yet are under the same Covenant with him His grounds are twofold 1. He professed to maintaine the Protestant Religion against Popery and Popish Innovations To which he thinkes the denyall of his Doctrine sets a wide doore open I know not what his conscience is I am sure his understanding is weake if he herein speake as he thinks as for any feare of Popery I conceive no ground there is no affinity at all Let the Author peruse the Jesuites over looke the Remists in the Controverted places and then let him tell me if that Protestation tyed him against Popery obliged him to hold universall Redemption the Authour if he tooke the Protestation in judgement doth or may know that Papists are divided in those Points as well as Protestants and that ours hath no more affinity with Popery than his Doctrine because Papists there are on both sides as well as Protestants on both sides 2. The second ground is because he protested to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England As if his Doctrine fetched any authority from that He produceth foure severall Articles I shall examine them severally 1. Art 6. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation so that what is not there read or proved by it is not required of any to be beleeved True But why doth not he thinke himselfe by this obliged rather to relinquish his opinion than to defend it Seeing no Scripture speaketh so much as is afterwards shewne and in that no Scripture faith so much this Article of the Doctrine of the Church of England binds him not to beleeve it much lesse to defend it First let him prove that his Tenent is the language of Scripture before he be bound by that article to defend it 2. Art 20. It is not lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to the Word of God neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be so repugnant to another And still this is no friend to him or his Doctrine or way of maintaining it it must be first tryed who are most guilty of giving such uncouth interpretations of Scripture as that they cannot be reconciled to other places which I feare will fall upon the Author and this the ensuing Discourse will make appeare Herein the Reader may take a survey of the size of the Authors understanding and judgement in his Protestation taking 3. Art 2. Christ very God very man who suffered was crucified c. to reconcile his Father to us and to be a Sacrifice not only for originall guilt but also for all actuall sins of men This is truth but then the Reader may see that is no such enemy to the Popish Innovation against which this Article was framed nor is this Article so great a friend to his Tenent as he in both pretendeth Let us take the Popish Innovation as he layeth it downe Pag. 98. That Christ only paid the greatest part of the debt to his Father wholly in respect of Eternall punishment and left a Part of the debt in respect of temporall punishments for his People to pay c. Now whether do we that say according to this Article that Christ by his death was a Sacrifice not for originall only nor some actuall sins only but originall and all actuall sins of them for whom he dyed So that â—here is no new debt required of them for which he did not satisfie or he that saith that there is a new debt which Christ did not satisfie for viz. Contempt of meanes of grace which God may require of them for whom Christ dyed as a debt not satisfied for let any rationall man judge But as the grounds of his protesting So are his performances very weake Secondly This Article is no friend to his Tenent for if he have not suffered shipwracke of his common understanding he may see a wide difference betwixt the sins of all men and all the sins of men and hence ariseth his mistake he referreth the Particle All to men and it is to be referred to sins That Chirurgion that saith he hath wrought a cure on all the members of mans body doth no way inferre that he hath wrought a cure of the Members of all mens bodies That Article tendeth hitherto to affirme that Christ did take away all the sins of them for whom he dyed as well Actuall as Originall and our Authour would stretch it to averre that he tooke away the Actuall and Originall sins of every man but this is not to defend but to destroy the Doctrine of the Church of England 4. Art 15.31 That by the Sacrifice of himselfe he should take away the sins of the world and all the sins of the whole world both Originall and Actuall and this against a Popish Innovation Truth and so he doth take away the sin of the world that is of men living in the world as he is said to be beleeved on in the world that is by men living in the world He taketh away sins from the world quoad partem credentem in them that beleeve as John 3.16 And for all the sins of Beleevers all over the whole world thus farre we grant it but he cannot with any shew of reason stretch those Articles any further he may see that the scope of them tend to another businesse for if they should speak as much as the Author intendeth they should say thus much That Christ took away all Originall all Actuall sins of every Son of Adam which no Scripture speaketh no Arminian affirmeth and the Author disclaimeth for he saith contempt of meanes is a new debt Therefore the Doctrine of the Church of England being Orthodox and so he haveing protested to defend it it cannot speake any such thing or any waies favour his Doctrine Many more particulars might be instanced in but they are of so low a flight that they cannot but be distastefull to the Palate of them that are any way ingenuous therefore with these I content my selfe as affording a sufficient taste of his forged Calumnies impertinent Allegations abuse and foule dealing with his Opposers infirm and weake grounds both in maintaining his Doctrine and matters of greater concernment his Covenant and Protestations which should be done in judgement Ex pede Herculem by the foot we may guesse at the stature of the Body so by this we may guesse at the whole but I prepossesse thee not with prejudice as thou findest judge Now happily thou mayest demand why this comes forth as a birth out of due time after so many in these Controversies as Mr Whitfield and others To this I answer First because this was finished before Mr Whitfield's came to light Secondly because if the men we have to deale with were of such ingenuity as
a boone But now for God to be actually placated reconciled this is to enjoy the application of Christs Bloud else is Corvinus short in his reasoning Per ejus mortem est placabilu placandâ— si credereat which intimateth that when he is placatus appeased and reconciled then is the Dâ—th of Christ applyed Now let us consider the words of the Text the words are He is the propitiation and the Author must grant a difference betweene these things First It is one thing for God to set forth his Son to be a Propitiation 2. A second for Christ to do that by vertue of which he is to be a propitiation 3. A third for Christ by vertue of that done to be a propitiation the two former do not require Faith â—o their actuall accomplishment but the third doth Hence is he said to be propitiation through faith Rom. 3.25 Which clearely demonstrateth that for Christ to be a Propitiation is the application of his Bloud Christ by his Death made God only Placabilem placable and this puts no man into actuall possession of remission as our Author saith Cap. 6. and in his Judgement not into any certainty of its but this reacheth not so high as for Christ to be a propitiation but stayeth here He is to be one or May be one if men beleeve for till men have remission actually or else in a certainty of having it he is not truly said to be a Propitiation In Molin c. 28.445 No better testimony would I desire in this case than Corvinus himselfe who on Rom. 3.25 thus saith Deum Christum proposuisse propitiatorium sed tale ut id nobis futurus sit si modo in cum credamus docet quomodo Christus futurus sit nobis propitiatorium viz per fidem Which clearely bespeaketh that when Christ is a Propitiation Ibid. that is meant of the application of his Death by Faith and this he not only averreth but strongly proveth thus Ista pertinent clarissimè ad applicationem non impetrationem quomodo enim potest esse ut nobis impetret remissionem per fidem nisi sides nostra una cum sanguine ejus sit coprotium remissionis quod est absurdum The sense thus He cannot be said to procure remission by faith unlesse our faith was a coprice with his Bloud in meriting remission which is absurd therefore this Phrase belongeth to the application not impetration and this very pregnant and full though I conceive against himselfe for to compare that place to the Text in hands doth not Rom. 3.25 He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith clearely affirm that when he is said to be a Propitiation it is to be meant through Faith and so of Remission not only procured but applyed And doth not the place 1 Joh. 2.1 2 say He is the Propitiation it saith not God hath set him forth to be a Propitiation nor yet He is to be a Propitiation but thus He is a Propitiation which is given us clearely by the Remonstrants owne Confession to signifie the Application and the Mortis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to meane the actuall enjoyment of pardon of sin which may further appeare if we consider the persons of whom he speakes viz. such as did beleeve and had overcome the world by Faith as in 1 Joh. 4.10 But that he loved us and gave his Son apropitiation for our sins Let us consider is this all the love that God beareth to Beleevers to give Christ that he might be in a possibility of being a Propitiation that he might only procure Reconciliation notwithstanding which they may misse of it nay is it not incongruous to say he hath procured reconciliation for them that beleeve if they beleeve This cannot be the meaning of the word Propitiation when spoken of Beleevers because they do beleeve and so have it applyed And let the Author shew where he is called a Propitiation or said to be one but where mention is made of Beleevers and these things being considered I wonder why our Author or any Remonst whatever can upon their owne principles produce this Text to prove that which they would have done to all and every man when it is granted by them that Reconciliation is not applyed to all Now to conclude this Text He is said a Propitiation in that by vertue of his Mediation Reconciliation is applyed as he is said to be our Peace Col. 1.10 and our Redemption and Sanctification and both metonimically And that he may be said to be a Propitiation for them that do not yet beleeve I will not contend against it but men it is with respect had to the certaine futurition of it which is all one in this point with the other And that this Phrase He is a Propitiation necessarily presupposeth his meriting and procuring remission as the ground of application I grant But that it doth not principally point at actuall Remission whereby he is said to be a Propitiation the Author should do well to prove These I transmit to the disquisition of the Author expecting satisfaction in the Premises for this will helpe us in two points 1. That this place doth not favour any such Salvation wrought by Christ with God distinguished and divisible from the application and such as may be attributed to and as done for every Son of Adam 2. It will help to allay the Controversy about the Phrase whole world and determine who are comprehended under it Whether every man in the world to whom Remission is not applyed or all beleevers throughout the world to whom it is applyed and so he is a Propitiation 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world c. The sense of which place if it second our Authors allegation must be thus Christ was with God working out Reconciliation with God for men whereby God is reconciled to man and this not to prove any worke of God in man reconciling man to God And such a thing if he can extract out of this Text he will shew himselfe a Divine Chymist but in this businesse he bewrayeth want of consideration or common understanding 1. That which he propoundeth is an Act of Christ with God an Act of the Mediator distinct from the offended Party as appeares by his expressions Effecting it with God So that if it had spoken his words it would have run thus Christ was with God reconciling the world but see a diametricall difference it saith God was in Christ reconciling c. 2. That which he is to prove is whereby God is reconciled to man and that opposed to mans being reconciled to God and so should have run thus Christ was reconciling God to man but see a diametricall difference it saith Reconciling the world to himselfe and so prevailes with men to God it saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belongeth to the second Redemption as he confesseth P. 11. 3. That which he is to
from Adam so the righteousnesse of one came on all men that come from him and here lyeth the perfect Analogie betwixt Christ and Adam and this will more appeare if we well consider the Text That Redemption and Justification which he gives to every Son of Adam is such as only is wrought out for men but not on men for this is to partake of Actuall Justification but of this latter the Text speakes it saith It commeth on all men but Justification is upon none but Beleevers Rom. 3.22 23 24. Againe this Righteousnesse is said to come upon all as the Condemnation came upon all by Adams Sin but Condemnation came Actually upon all so that they were without a Saviour in an infallibility of perishing So this comming of Righteousnesse on all must be Actuall too and so as all on whom it so commeth shall infallibly come to glory and life Eternall but so Righteousnesse commeth not on every Son of Adam but Beleevers only Againe This All men in Ver. 18. is supplied and expounded Ver. 17. by those that receive abundance of Grace and the gift of Righteousnesse which maketh it appeare that is an Actuall Justification which the Apostle speaketh of here and therefore favoureth not such an one which may be though none partake of Justification and such an one as none can be truly said to be justified with but those that Beleeve therefore owneth not such an one as is competible to every Son of Adam So that the validity of his Scriptures I see not I shall examine his Reason It may be understood and beleeved as well as this that all men were made righteous in the first Adam and were truly righteous in him of which Righteousnesse none ever yet felt or partaked Rom. 5.12 And so though all recovered c. The Question is not how it may be beleeved and understood if it was so in truth but whether it be so or no. Secondly We may grant the whole both may be understood alike that is neither of them at all I know no Scripture that saith all the Sons and Posterity of Adam were made righteous That Text Eccles 7.29 faith no more but that man was made righteous which is true in that Adam and Evah were so Not that every Son of Adam was made holy none were made holy but those that were Created but his Posterity were not created holinesse was not derived to any by propagation A ground why every Son of Adam is not said in Scripture to be righteous in Adam I conceive is this to be made righteous as Adam was is a reall denomination and quality induced into the Patient and that by a transient Action passing from the Agent into the Patient but such an Action there cannot be In subjecto nondum existente In a Subject that hath not actuall existence So that our Author must cleare this to us before he can make it the standard of our beliefe of the former that every Son of Adam is Reconciled and Justified in Christ Thirdly I shall grant him that all are or were made righteous in Adam yet I cannot subscribe to the other neither is it any way explicatory of this that All Adams Sons are made alive and justified in Christ for let us consider there were none made righteous or could be so said but those that were to come from him by propagation and under that notion as comming from him he was made righteous and betrusted with Grace as a publique Person to convey to his Posterity and such as came from him so that all that come from him his off-spring we shal grant for Conference sake that they were made righteous in him Now will this inferre or help us to understand that all were justified in Christ It helps us to beleeve that all that do or are to come from him were made righteous in him but no further for what ground can be deduced from Scripture or Reason that as Adams Figure Christ makes more righteous in him then come from him to have a being from and in him let us grant him that all the Sons of Adam were made righteous in him because they were to come from him yet we cannot yet yeeld or understand that every Son of Adam is justified in Christ because they have not nor ever are to have a being from him Having laid down his reason he produces a dissimilitude betwixt Adam Christ thus As the first Adam being a living Soule and of the earth He lost all our soules in his Fall without remedy on his part So the second Adam is a quickening Spirit the Lord from heaven and loseth none but who ever now perisheth destroyeth himselfe and loseth his owne soule The absurdities and obscurity of these expresses far exceed the pertinency or usefulnesse to the Point in hand 1. The Author pretendeth a dissimilitude but yet he brings an As So As the first Adam lost So the second Adam loseth none Now there is none but knoweth that these words As So set forth a similitude as the Apostle when he would shew a Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5.18 19 21. he saith As by offence of one c. So Righteousnesse c. But when he sheweth a dissimilitude he useth other expressions as For But as Ver. 16. For the judgement was by one c. But the free gift is of many c. But we may expect no better from the Author but this Obiter 2. He saith The Scripture sheweth that dissimilitude but he sheweth not where The Apostle Paul who undertaketh the businesse of the difference and similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5. yet this he mentioneth not 3. This Phrase Loseth none is very fallacious and doubtfully laid downe it may be taken either Actively or Passively Actively to cast away or to destroy so it is taken when he saith Adam lost himselfe and us all if he thus take it then Scripture neither doth nor can set downe such a difference Adam destroyed but Christ destroyeth none differences are Inter Entia positive beings do usually afford differences and we shall find that when the Apostles shew discrepances betwixt Adam and Christ they give them still betwixt Adams losing and Christs saving not Adams losing and Christs not losing this would import that Christs Office was only not to destroy Againe secondly It may be taken Passively that is He suffers none to perish and thus is it taken when Christ is said not to lose as Joh. 6.39 18.9 So Christs not losing is nothing but his not suffering to perish if it be thus taken then the dissimilitude must run thus As Adam lost all so Christ recovers all And as all were lost by Adam without remedy so Christ recovered all infallibly and without feare of being taken out of his hands he shall suffer none to be lost no not to lose themselves for then are they lost and therefore he removes all externall and internall principles that might destroy us Joh. 10.28 29.
every man else therefore I may love my Wife yet so as to love every woman what would this open a doore unto and follow our Author and this cannot be avoyded therefore his giving himselfe for his Church being an argument to move to a speciall love cannot be thought to be in common to all If the love be to be exercised to unbeleeving ones or Adversaries then it is thus he hath suffered for us 1 Pet. 2.18 24. for the unjust 1 Pet. 3.14 18. The Author mistaketh those Texts they shew not our duty to love Adversaries but to be obedient to froward Masters and to be patient under sufferings for well-doing and as an argument he useth Christs Death for Sinners and for them being Sinners But to take his argument as it is laid downe by him the love is a generall love to all even enemies Now certainly if the thing had been true he would have used this as an argument for he dyed or suffered for all but this he no where doth no nor by a division which taketh in all as he dyed for just and unjust but only unjust not meaning all unjust but them Beleevers who were unjust when Christ dyed for them Therefore considering that in such a case it is a most pregnant argument and he not using it it may appeare that it is not a truth that Christ gave himselfe for all and every man Under this ranke of Scriptures there are few others that require any answer they being not places used by us therefore might be passed by but one place or two I shall mention 1 Cor 8.11 13. Which place he saith containeth an argument to make love operative to Brethren But let us consider the expression If the Authors Doctrine had been truth certaine it would have run thus Shall a man perish for whom Christ dyed Because he saith that Christ dyed for all men as men But he saith shall a Brother perish for whom Christ dyed As if he dyed for none but such as come under the notion of Brother 2. Cor. 5.14 Which he saith is an argument to make love operative to all men but therein he is deceived there is no such duty commanded in that Text. But the Author discovers his ingenuity in that he bringeth this Text in the number of them that do not shew how many he dyed for when they say he dyed for all and in other places is produced as a proofe for his first Redemption for all and every man one more there is of some consequence Sometimes it is propounded to such as are overseers of Congregations as to admonish them to keep this Doctrine firmely and teach it 1 Tim. 1.11.15 To provoke them to watchfulnesse over them Act. 20.28 To constancy in sufferings 2 Tim. 3.8 But these shew not how many he dyed for 1. As for that Text I wonder that he should say that that place 1 Tim. 1.15 sheweth not how many he dyed for what was the reason that in Pag. 3. he brings this place to prove the first Redemption for all and every one And that place that proves that certainly sheweth for how many he dyed for he dyed not for more then All however the Author hath lost his memory in the croud of Notions 2. For that Text Act. 20.28 We must first consider that this is a speciall and peculiar care that the Apostle exhorteth to and the arguments by which he moveth is twofold First Their Charge they were made overseers Secondly Christs Purchase he purchased them with his owne Bloud Now cleare it is that that care the Apostle exhorteth them to was a peculiar care and that first argument from their Charge was a peculiar and speciall Charge and so must the second be also of Christs Purchase for still I ground my reason upon this Aequalis acquisitio non potest esse fundamentum inaequalis curae What reason can be shewen why the Death of Christ and the Purchase with his Bloud can be given as an argument to move the Elders to a peculiar care over the slocke above others if he equally purchased others with them It is not congruous with Scripture to give such Heterogenious arguments when God commanded not to shed the bloud of men he saith not because he is a Creature for this being common with other Creatures moves no more to the care of mans life then to care for any Creatures life But thus for he is the Image of God and this is peculiar to man from other Creatures Let the Author search the Scripture and see whether it gives any argument from a common thing to move to a speciall duty and faithfulnesse over such and such Till I heare further I shall conclude that Christ purchased none but the Flocke So that these places produced by him although they do not define how many he dyed for yet they clearely say that he did not dye for all and by cleare and strong intimation averre that he did not give himselfe for every man in the world A second sort of waies of propounding follows wherein he saith that we have it shewne for how many Christ dyed as followes Sometimes it is laid downe as the foundation laid to offer life and bring in such as knew it not to beleeve Joh. 1.29 3.16 17. Sometime to such as beleeve to shew what Gospell was preached among them 1 Joh. 4.14 c. To be a ground of praise for such as beleeve not 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. And here shall we find the question resolved how many he dyed for Whereas he saith It is propounded as a ground to offer life and bring in men to beleeve He seems to averre these three things all which want truth however probation 1. That wheresoever the Death of Christ is propounded as a ground of offering life it is propounded in generall termes as All men Every man The world But this is false for it is laid downe as a ground of Faith and offering life Joh. 3.16 17. 1 Tim. 1.15 Math. 1.21 Joh. 11.51 In all these it is as plainly propounded for a ground of offering life as any he can produce yet not in generall termes 2. That where it is propounded in generall termes it is propounded as a ground of Faith and offering life but this is false for in 1 Tim 2.6 there it is in generall termes but it not to offer life or beget Faith but to move Beleevers to love and to exercise it in praise for all men as Ver. 1 2. 3. That there is no ground to offer life unlesse it be propounded in generall termes but this is false for that in Joh. 3.16 is a firme ground of offering life and the marrow of the Gospell yet no generall termes Though this be true that Christ purchased life and Salvation but for some of all sorts yet this is ground enough of offering life to all of all sorts and to admonish every man to repent So for the rest much may be said to
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 premises and let them be right I will warrant his conclusion now what strength of Argument can we expect from such as is so weakely versed in that way 2. His arguments are many six in number to call the eyes of men upon that truth that is backed by multitude of arguments when he deceiveth them utterly for his mediums are all coincident in one let us veiw them His 1. Saith That which the Scripture plainely affirmeth in plaine words is true 2. Saith Tâ—â—â— for whom Christ and his Apostles in plaine termes affirme Christ to come to save them he did come to save 3. Saith That which Scripture layeth downe as one end of his death c. is to be beleeved 4. Saith That which the Scripture sets forth in generall for the world it a truth 5 Saith That which may be proved in and by Scripture in plaine sentences c. is a truth Now let any divine Chymnist extract a difference betwixt any of these doe they nor deserve by the variety of matter to be ranged as distinct arguments should I have distinct answers I should runne into the Authors folly 3. Let us view the conclusions in all and so see what he proveth in all his plaine Scriptures His 1. Thus That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man 2. He came to save sinners world unjust ungodly 3. That by his death he is Lord of all 4. That he was sent to be the Saviour of the world that whoever beleeveth should not perish 5. That he hath in dying lordship over all 6. That he gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man Now not to insist on that peccancy in having such various conclusions about one and the same question wherein he cannot satisfie that requisite in reasoning to conclude with the question this I say none of these conclusions are against us which may be reduced to that peccancy in reasoning which is called ignoratio elenchi none of his arguments are in right forme they have more in the conclusion then his premises contribute to them all have some or other obliquity but seeing all of them are but one medium and so in effect but one argument I shall give this one answer conceditur totum and he can desire no more of us then to grant all he saith now in the issue either his weaknes appeareth in producing that against us which we may grant or ours in granting that which maketh against us let him put it to the triall CHAP. XXI Of removing some doubts hindring some from beleeving that which they confesse WHerein he personateth some that cannot deny but confesse that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all and tasted death for every man but they cannot beleeve that Christ died for all men I shall not insist on the Authors dexterity in framing such arguments and doubts that he may easily answer and render the objectors ridiculous his forgery lieth in two particulars 1. He knoweth none that cannot beleeve that which they confesse Scripture speaketh some may not confesse that which they beleeve but that any should not beleeve that which they confesse I beleeve not 2. He knoweth none that beleeve that Christ gave himself a ransome for all and yet do doubt whether he died for all or no this would be to exceed the Author in folly but here lieth the doubt though the Text say He gave himselfe a ransome for all men yet they cannot beleeve that it meaneth every individuall man without exception upon a threefold ground arising from severall Scriptures as first Eph. 2.8 By grace are ye saved through faith and this not of our selves it is the gift of God from this Text I doe not affirme that faith is said to be the gift of God though it be so and other Scriptures hold it forth yet I say not that this text saith so for having said ye are saved by grace through faith it saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not of our selves it doth not well agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being of the newâ—er gender but rather with the whole sentence going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God as Rom 6.33 the gift of God is eternall life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But to take it as as he propoundeth it and from this that faith is the gift of God which is a truth hence the doubt is this Seeing faith is the gift of God and he hath determined not to give to every man that faith therefore it is not probable that Christ would lay downe his life for them upon the condition of faith whom he seeth cannot beleeve without God and to them God will not give it to the salving of which he speakes many things but little to satisfaction he seemeth to distinguish of salvation 1. A salvation without man in Christ for men 2. A salvation in men inabling men to beleeve 3. A salvation upon men both in soul and body compleat in heaven Now he saith that this phrase Yee are saved by grace through faith in Eph. 28. is meant of the second salvation but first that is not cleare for then the sense must be this yee are brought in to beleeve through faith so that faith is by him the meanes conducing to faith this is absurd I thinke it plainely appeares to be meant of compleat salvation in heaven and it saith ye are saved because they were certainely to be saved through faith But be it so as he saith yet the doubt is where it was yet that being saved by faith is the gift of God and he not giving that grace to all he would not give his Son to merit life for all upon the condition of beleeving if I can in his next be informed of his strength in his expresses to this purpose I shall say more His second Text produced Iohn 6.37 All that my Father giveth me shall come unto me and him that cometh I will not cast out Now from this Text here lieth the doubt it is not consonant to reason or Scripture that Christ would lay downe his blood to purchase life for them whom his Father had not given to him seeing his Fathers giving is the measure of coming to him and so being within the compasse of the benefit of his impetration his will being one with his Fathers his impetration would be equall with his Fathers giving to him this he undertaketh to remove by showing a fouretold giving of men to Christ 1. Giving by election to sonship and inheritance 2. Giving men to him to undertake for them and to ransome them 3. Giving men to Christ they to be his and he to be their Lord. 4. Giving men to Christ in the heavenly call so they are given up to him But what neede so many words to darken a cleare Text and what need so many acceptations when it is cleare that all of them cannot be the
sense of this place or give any light to it The second giving cannot be meant because all for whom he undertook and ransomed in the Authors judgement doe not come to him that is beleeve on him so contrary to the text all that my Father giveth me shall come to me Neither can the third be the sense here meant upon the same ground many who are Christs at his dispose so as to be their Lord they yet come not to him that is beleeve on him and those that by his judiciary power come to be judged or come to sue for mercy many of them are cast out as is seeme in the wedding and the five foolish virgins therefore little need be said of these because they doe not expound the Text by any one of these all the contestation betwixt the Remonstrants and their adversaries and me and my Antagonist is betwixt the first and the fourth he affirmeth the fourth to be the genuine sense of this place but against not onely reason but common sense for by comming to Christ is certainely meant beleeving in him comming by faith as is cleare by many Scriptures Mat. 11.28 come unto me yee that are heavy laden that is beleeve in me Iohn 6.64.65 compare them together yee beleeve not no man can come unto me except my Father draw him and ver 35. both are put together He that beleeveth shall not hunger he that cometh shall not thirst so according to him the sense must be this they that have come shall come or they that have beleeved shall beleeve but this is very improbable the glosse of the Remonstrants solveth it not Act. Syn. in locum veniet for venite debet that is shall come by it is meant ought to come for it is still under the same absurdity to say they that have come ought to come as to say they shall come The next thing is to consider whether the first interpretation be the right or no it seemeth to be the right because the giving is antecedaneous to comming or beleeving therefore most probable to be the giving by election now of this sense he saith So they may be though not in Scripture truly said to be given him But whence doth he deduce this liberty to say that it is truly said of Christ which is not said in Scripture it seemes the Scripture is not the adequate subject of truth But these are not the onely number that are given to him for as they are given to him to be heires with him so were all the rest given to him to serve him and his people Which is very impertinent to the case in hand for we question not whether none be any way given to Christ but such as are given by election but whether in this Text the giving by election is meant or no let all be given to Christ to be his servants yet here those that come to him are given to him to be heires with him and this giving is before coming therefore by election Againe Where election is set forth under this tearme of giving to Christ is hard to finde in Scripture But herein he did not compare his noâ—es well and consider what he saith in the next page 149. there he saith In all these three senses giving comprehends Adam and all that come of him all men being given to Christ in all these three senses as Scripture testifieth Now we must consider that the first of these three is giving to Christ to be heires and that by election as he saith page 148. and this in one page he saith the Scripture testifieth that this election to sonship is understood by giving to Christ but in page 148. he saith it is hard to finde where it is so taken this is an egregious contradiction besides the extream falsity because we never finde it testified that all are given by election to Christ to be heires with him And then he groundlesly concludes In this place it neither is nor can be so taken But we have no reason nor Scripture to prove but his bare word only to affirme it but it is not of weight to carry it 2. If it be not a giving by election and yet antecedaneous to beleeving I hope he will in his next make it appeare what it is and thus notwithstanding his groundlesse evasion the doubt is still unsatisfied from that Text John 6.37 The third Text produced is Acts 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved the doubt hence is this that seeing the reason why men beleeved was because they were ordained to eternall life and so the number of beleevers and the ordained to life are equall and run in an equipage it is not probable that Christ would shed his blood for those to procure life upon faith whom he knew were not ordained to eternal life This he would remove thus The words ordained to eternall life it is to be feared are mistaken as if they signified only the prime election to sonship whereas it is not found where that only sense is set forth in the words ordained to life The clearest truth may be eclipsed by the interposition of humane glosses and suspicions but to any unprejudiced man these three things may appeare 1. That it was God that did ordaine them for so of his act it speakes ver 47. and of setting Paul to be for salvation he did also ordaine them to life that were to beleeve indeed the Remonstrants are pleased to say Act. Synod in locum non dicuntur ordinati a deo that is they are not said to be ordained of God but what then is it a hard thing to prove it so to be meant why are we not to thinke it to be Gods act in ordaining to life as well as in appointment to life and salvation as 1 Thes 5.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He hath appointed us viz. God to obtaine salvation but if it be not Gods act let us be informed who it is that ordaineth men to life 2. We may see it is an appointment to eternall life and that in plain terms so that it must be an ordaining to sonship and inheritance 3. It is an act that was precedaneous to saith as is cleare as many as were ordained to life then beleeved therefore it could not be that temporary election of which the Author speakes therefore it must meant of the prime election now seeing that it meaneth the prime election to inheritance and he cannot produce any place of Scripâ—ure where this phrase signifieth any thing else we may conclude that this phrase here signifieth onely such prime ordaining to inheritance and therefore the place is not abused But I hope if he remove that sense he will furnish us with some better and not leave words without a sense let us therefore see how it is taken in his judgement He urgeth thus The word ordaining being found in Scripture to have a further sense even of ordaining the elected constitution preparation