C. kV. t John3. 9. Argued and Vindicated. 37,o That which looketh towards the Argument under Confideration, appea 4.66. reth first in Se&. 3 t. whichhe thus propofeth: If thefaid Argilment ender. ßandetb the Phrafe[cannot finne] according. to thefifth andLift import mentio_ nedofthe word[cannot]wherein itfoundeth an utter and abfolute incapacity and impostbility, then in this.fence the majorProposition is granted: viz. He that doth not, nor canfinne cannotfall awayfrom his Faith: yet the minor is tardy rohich faiths Whofoeoer is borneofGodfinneth"not, neither canfanne 5 forhe that isborne ofGodis inno [itch incapacityoffnning5 of finning I meane in the fence formerly alerted to the Scripture in hand, which amounteth to an abfolute impo(abilityfor himfo tofan. Because this feemeth to be the fence intended in the Argument, and the minor Proposition in this fence tobe built upon the Scripturein hand, let us confider whether the Reafonwhich is affìgned for.the faidAfsertion, dothneceffarily inforce fuch a fence thereon. What we understand by this Phrafe both as to that lime that is here intended, and that impofability of commiting it,or falling into it often, in that expreffìon [cannot] hathbeenbe- fore difcovered. Animpoffìbility it is ofthe event, from the caufes above mentioned that the holy Ghost intendeth . An utter, and abfolute incapacity to ftnne, on anyaccount, we affert not An impossibility offo finning, in re- fpe&of the event, for the reafons and from the caufesabove mentioned, the holyGhoft averreth. In this fence thefirft Propofition isgranted,He that doth not commit fin norcan fin,cannot fall away fromhis Faith ,or cannot utterly lode it. TheMinor which is the expreffe language of theholy Ghoft is que- ftioned and foundtardy, that is, (as I fuppofe) falJe: and the R.eafon is added namely, that hethat is borne ofGodis inno fach incapacity offanning, that is, of finning in that kind offinning which is here intended, which amounteth to an impoffibility for him fo to fin : Not toplay fait and look,under thofè ambiguos expreffions ofincapacity and abfolute ampojfibility, the Event is po- fitively denyed upon the account of the prohibiting caufes ofit, and theirs- capacity afherted, relateth not to the .internall frame and principle only, but refpeð alfoother Confederations.: Whether thefe are fuchas to beare the weight ofthis Expofition, is that which cometh nextly to be difcuffed. viz. Thecaufes ofthis ftate and condition, ofthofe who are thùs borne ofGod, and the Reafons invefting that uuiverfall Propofition, everyone that is borneof God cannot fnne:with a necefary truth. In theReafons added ofthe former affirmation,thereis an emphaticail diftri- bution ofthe two partsof thepredicateof the former Propofition, by the way ofafcending to a more vehement confirmation of them. He that is borne of Godfinnethnot, Butwhy fo ? Hisfeed remaineth: neither can he £inne, why fo? becau{ehe is borne ofGod. It is an expreffiive purfüit of the fame things and not a redoubling ofthe Propofition; And thiscontextureoftheWords,is foem- phatically fignificant, that it feemeth ftrangehow any head of oppofition can bemade againft its There is no reafon then to refolve thewords into two Propofitions, ofdiftin& confideration, each from others it being one and the fame thing, that the Apoftle intendeth to expreffe , though, proceeding to heighten thecertaintyofthe thing, in the minds ofthem, to whom he delive- red it, by the contextureof the words which he maketh use of. What it meant, or intended by thefeedofGod, we need not dispute 5 the Argument ofthe ApoftJe, lieth not in thewords( feedofGod) nor in the word(abideth ) but in thewhole, ThefeedofGodabideth; and thereforeitwere to no purpofe at all, to follow M. Goodwinin his confederations of the word Seed, and then ofthefeed ofGod, and then, ofthe word (abideth) divided onefrom another: The fumme ofhis long anfwer is, The word (seed) cloth not import any (uch ,thingr
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=