137 / 504
z
Tim.z.t9.
Opened & Argued.
CAP.111.S
4t,
&
fwallow
us
up,&grow upon
the
Church
to
a
further
defolation.The anfwer
8
i
is:
however the
Gofpel
is
true,&God
bears gracious refpe
&s
to
thé
that
cleave
to
him in love, whilft
they doe
fo.
cu,eflio
efl de
allüs,
refponfiode
cepis.
Me-
thinks the Apoftlé might have
put
them upon thefe Confderatio,s, which
Mr
Goodwin
propofes,
as
of
excellent ufe & prevalency againft falling away,
that
they put men out
of
danger ofit,(Cap.
9.)ratherthen
have given them an an-
fwer
not
(in
the leaft)
tending
to
their fatisfa&ion,norany
way
fuited
to
their
fears,
or
inquiries; no not
as
backed with
that
explanation,that theyfall
away.
becaufe they
degenerate
into
loofe,
andfnfull
courfes;
that
is, becaufe
they fall
away. A degeneracy
into
loofe
and
fnfull
courfes
amounts
furely
to
no
lefiè.
5.
Againe;
I would know, whether this Foundation
of
God
be an
A&
of
his
Will
commanding,
or
purpofing
?
declarative
of
our
duty,
or
his
intention?
If
the
firft
,
then what
Occafion
is
adminiftred
to
make mention
of
it in
this
place?
Whether
it were called
in
Queftion,
or
no
?
and whether
the Aferti-
on
of
it
conduces
to
the
folution
of
the
Objection propofed
?
Or
is
it
in
any
parallell termes
expreffed in any
other
place
?
Betides, feeing
this Foundation
of
God
is
in
nature
antecedent
to
the
sealing
mentioned,
of
Gods
knowing
them
that
are
his, and the
Objet
of
the
A&
ofGodsWill, be it what it
will, being
the
Perfons,concerning whom
that
Sealing
is;whether
it
can
be
any
thing,but
force
diflinguifhing
Purpofe
ofGod
concerning thofe
perlons,
in
reference
to
the
things fpoken
of?
Evident
then it
is,
from
the
words themfelves,
the
Oc-
cafon
ofthem,
the
defigne,
and
fcope
of
the
Apoftle
in
the
place,
that the
Foundation
of
God
here mentioned,
is his
difcriminating Purpofe concern-
ing tome
mens
certain prefervation
unto
Salvation , which
is
manifeftly
con-
firmed
by that
Seale
of
his,
that
he knower
them,
in a
peculiar diftingutthing
manner;
A
manner
of
fpeech
and Expreffion fuited
direly
to
what
the
fameApoftle ufeth in
the
fame cafe every
where,
as
Rom.8.28,29,
3o. Cap.9.
and
u.ti.
Fph.r.ç,5,6.
But, (faith
Mr
Goodwin,)
this
is
no more, then
what the
Apoftle elfewh
ere
fpeakes,
Rom:
3.3.
What
if
fonte
did
not
believe
,
Ad
their
unbeliefe make
the
Faith
of
God
of
none
efeti? that
is,
Pall
the Vnbeliefe
of
men
be
interpreted
as
any tolerable
Argument, or ground,
to
prove
that
God
is
unfaithfull?
or
that
he
bath
no
other
Faith in him,
then
that
which fometimes
mifcarrieth,
and
produ-
ceth
not
that,
for
which
it
(lands
ingaged?
Implying
that
fach
an interpretation
as
this,
is
unreafonable
in
the highefl.
But
truly by the
way,
ifit
be
fo, I
know
not
who in
the
lowe.fi
can
quit Mr
Goodwin
from unreafonableneflein
the
highell: for
doth
he
not contend in
this
whole Difcourfe,
that
the
Faith
of
God
in
his Proniifes,
for the producing
of
that,
for
which
it
ftands
ingaged
(as
when he faith
to
Believers,
he will ne-
ver
leave
them,
nor
for.(ake
them)
doth
fo
depend on
the
Faith
of
men,
as
to
the
Event intended,
that
it
is
very frequently by
their
unbeliefe
,
rendred
of
none
Effe&? Is
not
this
the
fpirit,
that
animates
the
whole Religion
of
the
A-
poftacy
of
Saints?
Is
it not
thegreat
Conteft between
us
, whether
any
unbe-
liefe
of
men
may
interpole
to
render
the
Faith
of
Cod
of
none
effe& , as
to
the 'producing
of
the
thing he promifeth?
Tibi , quia
intrifli,
exedondum
But
(2.
)
Let
itbe granted, that
thefe
two
places
of
the
Apoftle are
of
a
parallel] fignification,
what
will
it advantage
the Interpretation
impofed
on
us?
What
is
the
Faith
of
God
here intended? And what
the
unbeliefe mentio,
ned?
And
whereunto tends
the
Apoftles
vehement interrogation
?
The
great
conteft
in this Epiftle concerning
the
jewes,
(of
whom he peculiarly fpeaks,
v.1,2,)
was
about the
Promife
of
God made to them , and
his
Faithfulneffé
M
therein