om.8.z8,z9. Wc. further Argued. CA r.111.4:3;, be fo, becaufe theyare not fo. From thedefigne and (cope of the place, the 73 intendment of the Holy Ghoft in it, the meaning ofthe words, the Relation andRefpe& wherein the A&s ofGod mentioned, Eland one toan other, the difappointment ofGodsPutpofe &Decree in cafe ofany interruption ofthem, or non-producing of the effects, which lead the fubje&s, of whom they are fpoken, fromOne to another, we prove the infallibleefficacy of everyA& ofGods Grace here mentioned,as to theirtendency untothe end aymedat:& thefehe that is called tobelieve,may infallibly doe fo. But (ayes Mr Goodwin this is otherwife Well let that paffe. He adds fecondly,Suppofe it begranted, that the Calling herefpoken o f is that l¿inde ofCalling which is alwayes accom- panied with afavingAnfwer ofFaith;yetneither cloth this prove, but that even filch calledones may obftruil andprevent by Wickedneffe and Vnbeliefe their fr- nall fuftification and rconfequently their Glorification; Iffo;then that Chaîne of Divine Adisor Decrees hereframed by the Apoftle,is not indiffolveable in anyfilch fence, which imports an Infallibility, anduniverfall exertionor execution ofthe latter, whenfoever the former bath taken place? In this Anfwer Mr Goodwin deniesour conclufion, towit, that the Chaine ofDivine A&s ofGrace in this place is indiffolveable which that it is,we makeout and prove from the words oftheText, the Context and(copeofthe place: and adds his reafon; Eecaufe they who are fujiifzed, may lay barrs in their wayfrom,being finallyfo, or being Glorified; That is, it is not fo, becaufe it is not fo. For the Efficacy of the Grace afferted, is for the removeall ofthebarrs intimated, or wherein may its efficacy be fuppofed to confift, efpecially in its Relation to the end defigned. And fo this place is Anfwered: Saith the Holy Ghoft, thofe whomGod fufli - fleth, he Glorifies; perhaps not, faithMr Goodwin; Tome things mayfall in, or fall out to hinder this. Eligite cui credatis. Were I not refolved to abflaine from the Confideration of the Judge- mentsof men,when they areAutoritatively interpofed in the thingsof God, I could eafily manifeftthe fruitlefneffeof the following endeavour toprove the effeflnall Calling offudas,by the Teflimony ofChryfoflome and-Peter Mar- tyr: for neither haththe firft in the place alleadged any fuch thing; (leaft of all is it included in M.G's Marginali Annotation, excludingCompulfion, Ne- ceffity, and Violence fromVocation) and the latter in the Seçlion pointed to, and that following, layes downe principles fufciently deflru&ive to the whole defigne, whofe management M., Goodwin hath undertaken. Neither fhall I contefl about the impofing onus in this difpute, the notion offinall ju- ftification, diflin&from Glorification, bothname, and thing being Forraigne to theScripture, and fecretly including, (yea delivering to the advantageof its Author) the whole Do&rine under confïderation (fated tohis hand. If there be a Gofpell-juflification in Sinners or Believers in the bloodofChrift, not final!, or that may be cut off, he bathprevailed. But Mr Goodwinproceeds to obje& againft himfelfe, See: 46. But fome it 4.33. may be will farther ohjetl again/I the interpretation given , andplead that the Contexturebetween thefe two linker of this Chaine,PredefIinationto a conformity with Chriff,and Calling, is fimply andabfolutely indiffolveable, fo that whoever is foPre eflinated, never failes of being called. 2. That it is altogether unlüe.ly that in one and the fame feriesof Divine allions, there (!.could not be thefame fixedneffe or certainty of coherence, between allthe parts. The firft of thefe be- ing the bare Thetis which he oppofed, I know not how it came tobe made an Obje&ion. I {hall only adde to the latter Obje&ion, which includes Come- thingofArgument, thatthe Efficacyofany one A&ofGods Grace heremen- tioned, as to the end propofed , depending wholly on the uninterruptible concatenationof them all, and their effeCtuall prevalency and certainty, (as L to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=