John 2.19. Explained andvindicated C.XV1. merly walked Yvith them, but deferted their fellowfhip, and thereby mani- 389 felted themfelves never to have been true Believers, nor ever indeed tohave had fellowfbip with the Father and theSonne, nomere than they ofwhoin our Saviour fpake in the place before mentioned; And yet doubtlefï'e theApo- alemay notbe fuppofed tolay a foundation for jealoufyes, evil! fufpicions, and furmifes amongBelievers, though he plainely and evidently affirme that thofe who fall away were never trueBelievers, and that if they hadbeen fo, they would have continued in their Faith and fellowfhip with the people of God. Theywentourfrom us (faith he) but they were not ofus, for if they had beenof us, they would no doubt) have continued withus, but they went out, that they might be made manifefl that they were not all ofus. 4 xB. Apaffage (by the way.)clearely confirming the maine ofthe Do&rine we have hitherto infifred on And therefore I [hall turne afide , before I come to the clofe ofthis Chapter, having this occafion adminifired, to vindicate it from the exceptions Mr Goodwin gives in againft the Teftimony it beares in this cafe. The Argument that it readily furnifheth us withall, isof this import, Ifall §:21 they who fall away totally from the fellowfhip, and fociety ofthe Church, and SaintsofGad, what ever theirprofeffion were before that Apoliaf ,herenever true Believers, and are thereby raanife.{ted never to have been fo , then thofe who are true Believers cannotfall away: But the Firff is true , therefore the latter; The words are fodifpofed as tobe caft into anHypothetical! Propofition,which vir- tually includesa doubleArgument as every dif' reteAxiome doth; 'tis not thus, therefore thus ; Iftrue Believersmight fo depart andApoftatife as thofehere mentioned, no unyueftionable proofe couldbe drawne from fuch Apoftacy, that menwere never trueBelievers, which yet is plainely infifted on, in the Text. M. Goodwin Cap. to.Se&.21,22,23,24,, Pag.189,t90,191,192. gathers up §. zg, fundry Exceptionsfrom the Remonfirantswhich, (as they alfo did) heoppo- feth to this Interpretationof the words, and the Inferences from them infifted on I(hall briefely confider and removethem in that order as by him they are laid downe. He faith, Firft, This Inference prefumeth many things,for which neither it , nor any the Authors ofit, will ever be able to give anygood fecurity ofproofe, As Firfl, That this phrafe [theywerenotofus] imports that theywere never true Believers; this certainly can never be proved, becaufe there is another fence, and this evérywhit asproper to the words, andmore commodiousfor the Context, and fcope of theplace, which maybe givenofthem , as wefhallfee anon. Anf. That therefs not any thing prefiimed for the edu&ion of the lope- 4. 0, rence propofed, but what is either direly expreff, or evidently included, in thewords ofthe Text, will appeare in the farther confederation of what M. Goodwinbath tooffer to the contrary. That expreflion [ they were not of ne]. imports evidently, that they were not of them, in the fellowfhip and com- munion, which he was now exhorting Believers to continueand abide in. He tells them at the headof this Difcourfe Cap.'. 3. that the end ofhis writing to them, was todrawtheir into, and keep them in communion with himfelfe, and theSaintswith him; which Communion or Fellowfhip, he tells them , they had with the Father and the Sonne. But as for the Perfons, of whom in thefe words he is(peaking to them , defcribing them by their former and prefent condition, with the caufes ofit,he tells them , that though they abode with them for afeafon, yet they were never ofthem, as to theCommunion and fe!- low hip they hadwith theFather andBonne; and fo were never true Mem- bers of- the Church; The only reafon M. Goodwin gives to Invalidate this Ddd3 fence
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=