falsely for his will so to doe is not after their turning away from him but long before it there is a double hatred of God mentioned in scripture 1. A denyall of saving grace to some which he giveth others whence their turning away from him followeth which others having turne not away 2 A punishment of such for turning away now the first is proper to our controversie and it is no way against Scripture to say that such hatred is before men turne away from God of the latter his Texts speakes as Hos 9.15 and nothing to the purpose for more then this cannot be concluded that God destroyeth none till they turne away from him which any may grant our hardning or not hardning our hearts cannot be the measure of his giving or denying grace or will so to doe because his giving or not giving saving grace is before our hardning or not hardning our hearts as also because God doth not deny grace and glory to all that turne from him all turning from him are not so hated of him Paul did so in a greater measure then many that God never willed to give grace or glory to and in them who are given over and denied his speciall grace and so hated of him he doing of it in time willed to do so before time as be confesseth p. 121. If so he hated them before they hardned themselves against him Esau was hated before he had done good or evill now if he be hated as they would have it in a small degree without and before his evill why may not God hate him in the highest degree before his evill Justice is seene in small things as well as great ones if any shall say his foresight of their sinnes is the cause why he so hateth them I demand why did not the foresight of Pauls infidelity move him to hate him which he saw to be greater then of many who were hated and passed by both in respect of grace and glory but he concludeth wherein if ever he must undoe our assumption For such as while his compassion floweth c. they will persist till he give them up to Satan such are reprobated of God and so hated of him Ezeck 24.13 Ier. 6.16.27.30 1 Ioh. 5.18 c. and none but such set forth in Scripture to be hated of God Prov. 1.23.33 which overthroweth the assumption Which words are yet very fallacious therefore not fit to satisfie us withall for we grant such as persist till they be given up are hated and that in the highest degree but here is the question do they then begin to be hated of him doth Gods hatred follow or precede their being given up yea their persisting Gods hatred or reprobation we make no more then a will in God to deny both speciall grace and glory Now did he not will to deny it nay did he not deny it actually to them before they persisted certainely he did else they would not so persist We never finde this method or God thus saying If thou persist I will reprobate thee Or if thou persist till I give thee over to Satan I will deny thee my speciall grace and decree so to do let the Author produce such if he can But wherein hath he in all this overthrowne the assumption his assertions are overthrowne and therfore have not strength to overthrow this assumption that is setled upon such evidence cleare it is all that he saith notwithstanding that God did decree to deny the height of his compassion to many long before they persisted in rebellion if so then he did not intend Christ to them which is the height of his compassion Those Texts cited by him do all speake thus much that every man is not loved with the height of his compassion as Rom. 9.13 speaketh thus much that Esau was not so much loved as Iacob and therein affirmeth that he was not loved with the height of his love for if he had been so loved he had received so much grace as to have kept his birthright And this the Author granteth page 93. That Esau was hated in respect of peculiar love But he saith The hatred of Esau may stand with the love of compassion Let it be so yet we are safe for his hatred cannot stand with the height of his compassion which is our assumption Againe he saith If laying his Mountaines waste did witnesse such hatred did not the giving him those Mountaines testifie like love though not so much as to Iacob Were it so yet we are where we were by his owne confession Esau was not loved with the height of his compassion because not so much as Iacob Besides let the Author consider were not those sayings waste and so Gods hatred of Esaâ— and love to Iacob though showne in part in temporall things yet to be accomplished in spirituall how comes the Apostle in Rom. 9. to use this example in his businesse which was to prove that all Abrahams feed according to the flesh were not heires according to promise As for his reiterated calumny viz. that our assumption confoundeth the love of compassion and delight it is not worth the naming the contrary hath appeared rather he confounds the severall degrees of compassion in arguing that because every man partaketh of some degree of compassion therefore every man must partake of the highest degree but this reasoning can never overthrow our assumption and so our argument still holdeth firme I shall againe resume it Those for whom Christ died so as to procure eternall life for he loved with height and top of his love But he loveth not every son of Adam with the height of his love Ergo He did not lay downe his life for every sonne of Adam so as to procure eternall life for them and what passage is there in all his discourse that everteth either of these premises from which the conclusion followeth firme CHAP. XV. Of the third Objection THe third Argument which he pretendeth to answer is this All they for whom Christ died to satisfie his Fathers justice are justified by his blood c. But. But every son of Adam is not justified by his blood c. Ergo He did not die for nor satisfie his fathers justice for every son of Adam which argument though any that will may finde it propounded in other termes in the third argument in the conference at Hague thus Those for whom he died he so died in their stead that he did translate the death which they deserved upon himselfe so that they died not thus to die for is taken 2 Sam. 18.33 Rom 5.7 Rom. 9.3 But he did not so for every son of Adam Ergo Not the former But seeing the Argument in the issue comes to one head I shall engage in the Argument as he propoundeth it and first I shall make the Argument appeare in its native and intended strength For God not to deale with Christ according to the exigence of his merits and with us
He thus saith He decreed to do all this by and through his son Christ and for him Wherein he lurketh under a manifold obscurity For 1. It is hard to determine to what these words to do all this are referred whether to all that went went before as election of Christ of his members to sonneship and the rest to service and the creation setting man in a publique place creating a world of creatures for mans use all this he had spoken of before or whether only to the fourth Section and the particulars therein contained viz creation of man and a world of creatures 2. It is hard to determine whether by for Christ he make Christ the finall cause or meritorious of all those decrees the phrase for Christ will admit either and I may well-query because his quoted Texts Col. 1.16 17 18. Rom. 11.36 clearely import the finall cause but there it speaketh both of God and Christ making the world for him And his expressions viz. doing all this for his son Christ clearely denote the meritorious cause as it is taken where ever God is said to do any thing for Christ But which way soever he meaneth in either there is a manifest falsity for God did not elect his Sonne for his Sonne Christ nor elect the faithfull for his Son Christ he merited not either of those neither did he create the world for his Sonne Christ he did not merit that he came to save the lost we finde not that he merited that the world should be made these are jumbled notions that he never found in Scripture A third particular observable is that he saith 3. page 119. That this decree was free without any foresight of good and evill or respect had to it but because he so willed Herein I must advertise him of his remisse expressions he should have said Without foresight of good or evill as the cause to determine his election else his Reader may well charge him with a contradiction for in the next Section he saith thus That God foreseeing that Adam would fall and loose himselfe and his he did elect c. Now for God to elect foreseeing and yet without foresight of evill is very strange A fourth particular is that he saith 4. 119. In this praedestination he did praedestinate all his elect sonnes to the adoption of sonnes Which neither Scripture speaketh nor reason comprehendeth for his elect sonnes to be the object of praedestination for them that are elect sonnes to be praedestinated to the adoption of sonnes are new found discoveries It seemes they were first elected then praedestinated many have to little purpose it seemeth perplexed themselves with the object of praedestination in their supra and sub-Lapsarian disputes some for the masse not made but to be made others for the masse made but not fallen a third for the masse made and fallen but they may leave such notions here is a new discovery the object of praedestination with our Author is the elect but herein he is by himselfe Whereas he saith 5. 118. In that election he appointed a great number of other men to be servants to his Sonne Christ and those chosen in him Wherein he seemeth to affirme that there is an election of all to service but this without Scripture for that there is an election of all to any thing Scripture speaketh not nor that this destination to service is called election it is better ranked under reprobation or praeterition as he himselfe gives the hint page 41. premis 1. Where he hath these words In that election of some to sonneship and praeterition or appointment of others to be servants where he affirmeth that his appointment of men to be servants is rather his praeterition or non election then his election yet here it must be inserted in his discourse about election he is not very constant to himselfe 2 He opposeth sonnes and servants which the Scripture owneth not they that are sonnes are servants both to Christ and one to another Eph. 6.6 Gal. 5.13 He saith 6. 119. 120. To this end he decreed to use such meanes c. to call both sonnes and servants to acknowledge this their Lord that they might be happy To let slip many particulars I shall pitch but on this one his words import that God giveth meanes to call such and make such happy that is eternally as are destined onely to service but this is not consonant to right reason or Scripture upon this double ground 1. For any to be Christs servants needeth not the call of God to bring it about because the non elect are Christs servants but either active or passive to serve him or he to serve himselfe of them and they to be used as other creatures in his worke and this they shall doe whether any call or no. They that are destined to service are not destined to sonship or life as appeareth by his distinction or rather opposition page 118. Nay it appeareth that such in regard of sonship and eternall life are passed by page 41. That is he hath decreed not to bring in such to the inheritance Nay further that such being the residue of men not elected to sonship are from eternity decreed to obduration and to be given up and that he will not overpower them as he doth his elect yet such in his divinty God decreed in time to call that they might be happy He blusheth not to affirme this of God but as well may he tell us that when God hath decreed the world shall not see light he shall create the Sunne to enlighten it but of this more presently Making cleare the businesse of election he thus saith God decreed to overcome his elect freely forgiving disobedience by his Spirit making them willing bringing them in to beleeve Secondly to harden the residue and give them up for contempt of means Wherein some particulars are observable 1. Speaking of the first he giveth the name of elect as well he may because that decree to overcome and bring them in to beleeve constituteth them the elect both to grace and glory but when he speaketh of the other sort he giveth them onely the name of the residue as if his decree to harden did not bring them under the notion of reprobation as well as the decree to overcome did bring the other under the notion of election wherein he is either miserably blind or wilfully dissembles when he professeth that he is such a stranger to reprobation in Scripture Seeing now he is able to see from Scripture that God from eternity did decree to harden most men and reprobation is nothing else 2. It is strange that the Author treating of election should produce this decree in God to harden most men from eternity is this a particular of election then reprobate men desperate devils may be said to be elected certainely theâ—e expressions had been better reserved till he had treated of reprobation as he doth afterwards But herein
words in a threefold relation viz. to the Author whom he citeth to the former stating which he rejecteth to the Question of which he pretendeth it is a state As they relate to the Author cited by him I answer these two particulars 1. It cannot be either proved or expected that these words should be the state of this Question about Redemption because that was not his Theame he treateth there of Reprobation and therefore no rationall man will expect to find in that Discourse a full state of this Question 2. Our Author hath got the words of that learned man but hath left us doubtfull of his meaning for that Phrase He obtained a way of Salvation for every man may have a double meaning First That Christ hath obtained a way viz. faith in which every man that walketh shall and may through it come to life intimating thus much only that Salvation is not attainable but by Faith and Repentance Secondly That Christ made that a way with a purpose that every man should walk in it and through it have life Our Author taketh the words in this second sense else the words of Dr Davenant serve him not but thus the words are not taken by him whose words they are and that for these two Reasons Dr. Davenant on Heard Pag 198. 1. He expresly saith thus The way that he opened for every one of us to partake the fruit of our Redemption is by Repentance and Faith which saith no more but this that the way whereby every man partaketh of Salvation is Faith and Repentance or that every man that doth beleeve and repent shall come to life and to this tends his after words The Decrees of Election and Reprobation are no obstacles against any that do this 2. Because he saith Election and Reprobation crosseth not that Now let us consider the Decrees of Election and Reprobation he maketh Reprobation to be a denying from Eternity Grace and Glory to the most men And these two viz. That God decreed from Eternity to deny both Grace and Glory to the most men And that Christ opens a way for every man and so for them as that he intendeth to bring them into life by that way or that they might be so are in my thoughts inconsistent Thus as these words relate to the Author of them Secondly I shall consider them as they stand compared with the former statings which he rejecteth And then I demand what difference there is betwixt this which he receiveth and the third which he rejecteth The third state saith thus He dyed for all that all might be saved if they beleeve yet they shall not if they beleeve not And is not this one and the same with his last state I cannot see any momentous difference For between these two Christ by his Death impetrated and procured that all men have life if they beleeve yet so as none but them that beleeve should partake of it And this Christ by his Bloud redeemed mankind and obtained a way of Salvation for every man which way is Faith and yet this puts not any man presently into the possession of Salvation unlesse they beleeve I need a more piercing Judgement then I have to find any difference I shall expect to find one in the Authors next Againe What difference between this which he receiveth and the first which he rejecteth For that saith that the Death of Christ is applicable to all Now when this word applicable is expressed without Sophistry it is meant only applicable and so in an indifferency either to be applyed or not applyed as the condition is performed So applicable is applicandum si crederent non applicandum si non crederent That which is only applicable is not to be applied but on condition and then it is hence Corvinus maketh these two Deus est placabilis and placandus si crederent to be equipollent tearmes and this is the true meaning of the word applicable Now betwixt these two Christ by his Death hath made his life applicable to all that is to be applyed if they beleeve and not applyed if they beleeve not And this Christ by his bloudshed hath obtained a way of Salvation for every man but God never intended that the outward Act put any man into possession unlesse they beleeve I cannot see any momentous difference and the rather I am enduced to thinke so because the result of the eighth State which he receiveth is but this that all men are salvable Pag. 36. which is one and the same with applicable which he rejecteth Againe I would know what this last state of the Question which he receiveth differeth from the seventh State which he neglecteth as not the whole truth Doth not the first part of the seaventh viz. That Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved equallize and speake as much as this viz Christ by his Bloud obtained a way to Salvation for every man And what is there in the last that is not in the first To obtain a way to salvation for every man which way is Faith is no more then to say Christ dyed for all men that they might be saved by Faith And doth not the second Branch in the seventh viz. And for the Elect that they should undoubtedly be saved equallize and speake as much as the second part in the eighth State viz. None but them that enter into that way of Faith and Repentance shall possesse it And what is there in this last that was not couched in that first particular He pretendeth a Plea which is this The distinction betwixt the Redemption wrought by Christ in himself by bloudshed and that which he worketh in men by application of his Bloud is not expressed But this is empty and groundlesse because that distinction is not in expresse termes in the eighth State and by as good consequence in the seventh herein he appeares not so quicke sighted as he pretendeth Diruit edificat mutat quadrata rotundis Thus I have examined the last State given and received by him in comparison with the former which he neglecteth and I can see no cause why the last should be entertained when severall others are rejected Thirdly Let us see this State which he so eagerly fastneth on how it relateth to or looketh on the Question of which it is a State the result of it is thus So that Jesus Christ hath so dyed and given himselfe a Ransome to God for all men c. That in and by himselfe he hath so redeemed and saved all men that they are given to his dispose and he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them and make them alive before him That they shall acknowledge him Lord and come before his judgement Rom. 14.9 12. c. And he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it so knowne and with such tendernesse that they might be saved so all are made savable When this is embowelled we shall see little
more then was in the Roman Empire or went then to be taxed this is absurd to affirme and a wilfull injury to fasten it on us but thus we say that as the word world in Luk. 2.1 being spoken by the Evangelist inspired by God doth not take in all and every Individuall in the world So neither the word World in 1 Ioh. 2.2 though spoken of God and Christ and where is the ignorance and rashnesse in all this As for that Text Luk. 2.1 There went a Decree that all the world should be Taxed If it had run thus that all should be taxed it had suted with his expressions and we might easily apprehend it to extend to no further then all of the Roman Empire But this more Emphaticall that all the world should be taxed Let the Author tell me why when the Spirit of God is to speake of some only in the Roman Empire he should use such a generall word as All the world it this Phrase might not be taken in a limited sence even when it is spoken of and by God So the All that came to Christ Luk. 15.1 we make not of large and like and equall extent with the All he dyed for 2 Cor. 5.14 As if he dyed for no more then at that time came to Jesus But thus we say that if when the Evangelist saith All came to him it taketh not in every Individuall Sinner in the world So when the Apostle saith Christ dyed for all it is not necessarily taken in that large sence which the Author pretends and all this sheweth no weakenesse in our cause the weakenesse may be easily seene elsewhere In the close of this Chapter he descendeth to shew how many waies those Phrases All men Every man World Whole world are taken But no whit pertinent to his businesse in this Chapter yet I shall recite them happily some may be advantagious to us 1. For every one of mankind without exception as all are gone out of the way all have sinned all must appeare before God This we grant but he cannot prove that the Scripture affirmeth Christ to have dyed for All or that those places wherein Christ is said to dye for All to be taken in this sence 2. For one another rich and poore Beleevers and unbeleevers If he meane all and every one of those kinds then it is the same with the first and so a vaine repetition and if but some of those kinds then it is nothing against us for that is still a limited sense and we grant that he dyed for all and those places that say Christ dyed for all we willingly grant them in this sense whether spoken by men or by God 3. So as not meant of Gods people good men Beleevers True and more opposite proofes might be produced then he bringeth but this is not against us or for him because he himselfe will not say that Christ dyed for this All and so to exclude his People and Beleevers or any place so to be taken whether spoken by man or God 4. For all upright Beleevers spirituall men Which he doth not plainly set downe as a fourth acceptation of the Phrase All men which had been honest and ingenuous dealing but he tacitely implyeth it as if he would not have that taken notice of as any may see Pag. 31. and he had good reason so to expresse himselfe for it doth not a little helpe us for it that place 1 Cor. 4.5 where All men is used doth not take in every individuall man in the world even then when it is spoken of God it may also be that those places 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 though spoken of Christ are not taken in that large sence that he pretendeth And then to what issue all his words in this Chapter come let the wise judge Something I find in Pag 31 32. purposely set downe to prevent mistakes and cavills he saith thus The Death of Christ as a Ransome is to be understood of the Death of Christ as risen and ascended Which words have neither pertinency nor perspicuity they are of no use at all in this Chapter or the businesse treated of in it neither can they well be understood therefore they no way conduce to prevent mistakes rather to raise them his words are so laid downe as that no man can tell whether he make his Resurrection and Ascension conduce to his Impetration or Purchase to his Application to say That it was the Death of Christ as he is risen again and ascended May admit of either there is a difference betwixt things associated and coupled in the same Action The manhood of Christ with his Divinity suffered but not the manhood and the Divinity Faith with Workes justified but not Faith and Workes So his Death with his Resurrection was the means of Purchase or Ransome but hence it doth not follow that his Resurrection and Ascension are themselves meanes of procurement or belong to the Impetration And this ambiguous way of expression he borroweth from the Arminians as Corvinus Cum amissae salutis Impetratio immediatus fructus est Christi mortis talis mors omnino intelligitur quae resurrectionem habeat conjunctam And that to serve at need their contradictions in this point In Molin cap. 28.438 sometimes affirming sometimes denying that his Resurrection and Ascension belong to his Impetration But this I say as formerly that Resurrection and Ascension is so conjoyned with his Death that it hath equall share in the Impetration and hath no share in the Application as in every bargaine the bare depositing so much money as is agreed for any where is no true payment but the bringing of it to his house to whom it is paid or at a place appointed so in this though nothing more was to be paid as price yet something else was to be done viz. presenting that Bloud as shed without which no perfect Impetration as in the Law there there was as we I ostensio as mactatio the shewing as the shedding of Bloud But to returne to the Author either his Resurrection and Ascension belong to the Impetration or not if not whether tend these words His Death Resurrection are herein comprehended Pag. 32. Meaning his first Redemption and such as is done for all which in his Language is the Purchase or procurement and if it do whether tend these words as For effecting the other viz. the second Redemption which is the Application he left the world and went to his Father In one part he affirmeth them to belong to the Impetratory part in another to belong to the Applicatory part and is this to prevent doubts and cavills Whoever followes the Author shall run into uncertainties and contradictions and as carefull as he is to prevent mistakes and confident that any that will may understand yet I dare avouch that not any of his admiring Readers can give a good account of him neither do they know whereof he affirmeth I wish he himselfe knew
maimeth the Text let him produce it intire and satisfaction will be more easie it is thus He hath elected us in him that we should be holy now it must be decided whether the phrase in Christ be referred to the word elected as if Christ was the meriter of election or to us as if he elected none but whom he foresaw in Christ that is beleevers or to the words that we should be holy that is he elected us to obtaine holinesse and other blessings in Christ that is for Christ and ground there is for this Query because the Remonstrants take the liberty to be fluctuating in their sentence about it especially about the two first acceptations sometimes affirming the first sometimes the second sometimes both the Remonstrants in their Synod Script appropriate it to the word us Synod scrip 60. in Molin c. 25. s 14. in Perk. 32. and so to denote the object of election that is such as are in Christ beleevers yet Corvinus who is one of the cited Remonstrants he applied it to the word elected so to denote the foundation of election and meritorious cause of it And Arminius putteth both together and saith both are meant which to me seems rather to strangle the text then to interpret it now seeing they doe so vary it gives us occasion to think that there may be a fourth interpretation which may come as neare the minde of the Apostle as any of the former and that is to referre the words in Christ to the last phrase that we should be holy and so to show in whom that is by and for whom we come to partake of our holinesse and graces as Col. 1.28 perfect in Christ Jesus and if thus his argument herefrom falleth to the ground Indeed Corvinius saith Ista verba liquido conjungenda sunt ad verbum elegit that is in Molin c. 25. s 14. those words in Christ plainely appeare to be referred to the word elected but his bare word is all we have for it and to his adversaries charge he layeth rash bodlnesse if he say otherwise and I thinke his share is no lesse in so saying without ground all his reason that I can conceive is thus much because they are so neere in place therefore they must be referred each to other in construction but this is invalid for in 2 Cor. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was in Christ reconciling where the placing of the words are much alike with Eph. 1.4 And Ambrose following the method of Corvinus referring the word in Christ to the foregoing words interpreteth it thus Deus erat in humanitate the godhead was in the manhood but thus Gorvinus himselfe interpreteth it not but referreth the phrase in Christ to the afterwords Reconciling the world So Col. 1.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In him it pleased the Father that all fulnesse should dwell why doth he not say that this phrase in him should be referred to the word it pleased as if Christ was the meritorious cause of that good pleasure there is as much ground for this as that Eph. 1.4 yet so he doth not I thinke but cleare it is that though in him be first in the Text yet in construction it agreeth with the last dwell dwell in him let the Author rejoyne for Corvinus his friend and show me why the phrase in Christ may not in Eph. 1.4 be refered to the afterwords as well as in those places fore-named and so the sense to be this Christ is the meritorious cause of our holinesse not of our election Besides were it so that the words were to be read thus He hath elected us in him yet we may finde a more commodious interpretation then this that Christ merited our election and to be elected in Christ is no more then to be destined to obtaine grace and glory by Christ and so Christ shall be an essentiall to the definition of election but then his place shall be in the good things elected to not the election it selfe Thus Molineus interpreteth â—t elected us in Christ is no more then to be elected to salvation in Christ which Corvinus brandeth with boldnesse in referring the words to salvation upon this ground verba autem ad salutem non extant Ibid. that is because the words To salvation are not in the Text but then he did not remember or not well consider that Arminius whom he defendeth lyeth under the same lash for he saith in Petk 31. Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in capite mediatore that is we are elected in Christ as in the head and Mediatour when yet those last words are not extant in the Text therefore Corvinius might have had so much candor as to thinke that as Arminius added these words not as the Text but as the meaning so doth his adversary and then his words are no opposition And Corvinus himselfe cannot deny but that by He hath elected us is meant to salvation Ad salutem electionem intelligi non nego Ibid. so that now let us take the Text as it is meant He hath elected us to salvation in Christ is no more then 1 Thes 5.10 appointing us to obtaine salvation by Christ and so Christ to be meanes of salvation not election and this he might have seen from Arminius himselfe whom in that section he defendeth for let it be granted that by these words He hath elected us in him it appeares that Christ is the foundation of election yet then we must inquire what it is for Christ to be the foundation of election disp thes 40. sect 5. Arminius explaineth himselfe esse causam meritoriam istorum bonorum quae fidelibus in isto decreto destinata sunt that is it is to be the meritorious cause of all good things decreed in election and in that enumeration of good things which we have by Christ he mentioneth only grace and glory not election sect 5. Materia est benedictiones spirituales gratiae gloriae nominibus appellari solitae So in Disp pub Thes 15. sect 5.6 Whence it appeareth that election is not any of those spirituall blessings which we have in Christ Hence it appeareth that the expresses of our Author of Christ being first elect or we elect in him as the head or him to merit our election is besides the language of Scripture and I feare above his understanding I hold Christ and his members elected together in one act and if wee should be put upon a priority in nature I thinke first the faithfull then Christ for it is suteable to Scripture to say that Christ was elected to his office that he might save his people but we finde it nowhere said that God elected some to life that Christ might become a Saviour certainely the work is in intention before the workeman Againe having mentioned Gods election of his Sonne and his members and his servants and his decree to create the world
which is as valid as if they were repugnant inter se in themselves it is not sutable to the workings of rationall agents to have the will carried out in its acts on those things which aâ—e knowne certainely shall never come to passe and my reason doth not satisfie me but that the will may be as soon carried out on impossibilities as that which the understanding dictates shall never be obtained for though some difference be betwixt impossibility and infallibibity of not being yet both present to us the non obtaining of thâ—t object which before we will deterreth us from positive willing that thing therefore such a thing would be repugnant to the nature of God and thus it may be demonstrated if he will that which he knoweth shall never come to passe then either must his will not be the cause of things or his prescience not the measure of things nor be infallible both which not onely the generall streame of Schoolemen condemne but Arminius himselfe dares not owne He saith Intellectus dei certus est non potest falli vidit omnia in seipsis in causis and thus disp pub 4. sect 36 54. Deus per voluntatem est causa omnium rerum mediante potentia that is the prescience of God is infallible his will the cause of all things but now let us consider if his will to save them be the cause of their salvation then it must exist necessarily by vertue of that decree and will If so then his prescience by which he seeth it not to come to passe must be infallible and if that be not fallible then their salvation must not exist if not his will whereby he willed their salvation is not the cause of it thus must it one way or other be repugnant to the nature of God part 1. Q. 14 Art 8. Q. 19. Art 4. Certainely seeing his prescience is mensura rerum the measure of all things and his will causa rerum the cause of things as Aquinas saith needes must there be a due proportion and a faire correspondency betwixt both for God to will one thing and to foresee the contrary to come to passe this is to overthrow both 2. Let us againe view the reasoning of Arminius and we shall further see that there is a repugnancy betwixt Gods willing a thing and his knowing such a thing not to come to passe in Perkins 129. 142. he thus saith Infallibiliter dicitur respectu praescientiae divinae necessario respectu decreti voluntatis divinae and elsewhere Ex praescientia concluditur infallibilitas ex decreto necessitas both come to this that necessity proceeds from Gods decree and infallibility from his prescience Now to say that he willeth the salvation and yet foreseeth it not come to passe doth argue that the salvation of all is necessary yet the damnation of some shall be infallible and so the same thing necessary and yet the not being of it infallible necessary to be by vertue of the will of God infallibly not to be by vertue of his prescience but certainely these are very repugnant necessitas eveniendi infallibilitas non eveniendi a necessity of existing and infallibility of not existing of the same thing at the same time comes little short of a contradiction and sure I am cannot both be true And therefore as repugnant as the necessity of existing and infallibility of non existing are so repugnant are the wil of God of a thing to be and his foreknowledge of such a thing not to be from which will and prescience such affections proceed and flow So that we shall need more then his bare assertion beyond which we have not in that eight section to convince us that Gods willing some mens salvation c. 5. sect 7. and yet knowledge that such a thing shall never come to passe are not repugnant Indeed something more we have by way of illustration but as little probation as formerly which it is not amisse to rehearse also he saith Deus quando aliquid intendit vult non necesse est ut consideret utrum id obtenturus sit nec ne that is when God intendeth or willeth any thing it is not necessary that he then consider whether he be to obtaine it or no let it be so yet the impertinency of his reply is obvious the question is not whether God can will a thing and not consider whether he be to obtaine it or no but whether he can will that which he knoweth shall not come to passe now betwixt these is a great difference they that have tasted of the logicall rudiments know that though we may praescindere rationalitatem ab homine yet we cannot amovere that is though we may consider a man and not consider his rationality yet we cannot consider a man and consider him not rationall so in the case in hand it is one thing for God to will a thing and not consider whether he shall obtaine or no and another to will a thing and consider himselfe not to obtaine it though neither can be yet I shall grant the first for arguments sake yet the second he cannot and herein this is his argumentation God may will a thing and yet not consider whether he will obtaine it or no therefore he may will a thing and consider himselfe not to obtaine it or no And againe he thus saith Sicut homo potest desiderare quod non sit eventurum si modo sciat se obtinere posse ita etiam de deo dici potest Ibid. that is as man may desire a thing which is not to come to passe if we know he can obtaine it so we may say of God which reply labours not with a single impertinency and is unsatisfactory many wayes For 1. The question is not whether God may desire that which he knoweth shall never come to passe but whether he can will that which he knoweth shall never come to passe the controversie is not about his desire but will as may appeare by that position which his adversary oppugneth and he defendeth viz. simul possit velle omnes salvare sect 11 aliquos damnare that is God may will to save all and will to damne some at the same time as also the absurdity which his adversary fastens on him and he attempts to remove vïz. Deus flatuitur velle quod scivit nunquam eventurum that is sect 8. God willeth that which he knoweth shall not come to passe as also his owne words Quum deus aliquid intendit ac vult non necesse est c. that is when God willeth any thing sect 7. it is not necessary that he should consider whether it will come to passe or no now for him thus to reply brings his argumentation to this issue Man may desire that which is not come to passe therefore God can will such a thing or at best thus God may desire therefore he may will such a