z Tim.z.t9. Opened & Argued. CAP.111.S 4t, & fwallow us up,&grow upon the Church toa further defolation.The anfwer 8 i is: however the Gofpel is true,&Godbears gracious refpe&s to thé thatcleave to him in love, whilft they doe fo. cu,eflio efl de allüs, refponfiode cepis. Me- thinks the Apoftlé might haveput them upon thefe Confderatio,s, whichMr Goodwin propofes, as ofexcellent ufe & prevalency againft falling away, that they put men out ofdanger 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 theyfallaway. becaufe they degenerate into loofe, andfnfull courfes; that is, becaufe they fall away. A degeneracy into loofeand fnfull courfes amounts furely tono lefiè. 5. Againe; I would know, whether this FoundationofGodbe anA& of his Will commanding, or purpofing ? declarativeofour duty, or his intention? If the firft , then whatOccafion isadminiftred tomake mention of it in this place? Whether it were called in Queftion, or no ? and whether the Aferti- onofit conduces to thefolution ofthe Objection propofed ? Or is it inany parallell termesexpreffed in any other place ? Betides, feeing this Foundation ofGodis in nature antecedent to the sealingmentioned, ofGods knowing them that are his, and theObjet oftheA& ofGodsWill, be it what it will, being the Perfons,concerning whomthat Sealing is;whether it canbe any thing,but force diflinguifhing PurpofeofGod 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 tomemens certain prefervationuntoSalvation , which is manifeftly con- firmed by that Sealeof his, that he knower them, in a peculiar diftingutthing manner; Amanner 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 isno more, then what the Apoftle elfewhere fpeakes, Rom:3.3. What iffonte didnot believe ,Ad their unbeliefe make the Faithof Godofnone efeti? that is, Pall the Vnbeliefe of men be interpretedas any tolerable Argument, or ground, toprove that God is unfaithfull? or that he bathnoother Faith in him, then that which fometimes mifcarrieth, and produ- cethnot that, forwhich it (lands ingaged? Implying thatfach an interpretation as this, isunreafonable in the highefl. But truly by theway, ifit be fo, I know not who in the lowe.fi canquit Mr Goodwin from unreafonableneflein thehighell: for dothhe not contend in this whole Difcourfe, that the Faithof Godin his Proniifes,for the producing ofthat, for whichit ftandsingaged (aswhen he faith toBelievers, he will ne- ver leave them, nor for.(akethem) doth fo depend on the Faithof men, as to theEvent intended, that it is very frequently by their unbeliefe , rendredof noneEffe&? Is not this the fpirit, that animatesthe whole Religion oftheA- poftacy ofSaints? Is it not thegreat Conteft between us , whether anyunbe- liefeof men may interpole to render theFaith of Codof none effe& , as to the 'producingof the thing he promifeth? Tibi , quia intrifli, exedondum But (2. ) Let itbe granted, that thefe two placesof the Apoftle are ofa parallel] fignification, what will it advantagethe Interpretation impofed on us? What is the Faith ofGodhere intended? And what the unbeliefe mentio, ned?And whereunto tendsthe Apoftles vehement interrogation ? The great conteft in this Epiftle concerning the jewes, (ofwhom he peculiarly fpeaks, v.1,2,)was about the Promife ofGod made to them , and his Faithfulneffé M therein
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=