5.2 Grace seems to be lost when it is not so indeed some have sought for that they have had in their Hands so Mary did Christ 3. The Sun may be Ecclips'd yet wade out of it into his former Lustre the Tree may lose all its Leaves and Fruit in Winter yet have fresh Budding at Spring the Sea may ebb and retire from its Banks ye the next Tide return to them again The Babe may live though it spring not always in the Womb. uzziah by his Leprosie lost his Jus aptitudinale to his Crown and Kingdom but not his Jus Haereditarium Nebuchadnezzar when deposed was as a Tree that is lopped yet his Root springs up again in his returning to the Throne The Romans faith the Historian lost several Battels but never any War Israel flies once and twice before their Enemies yet conquer they the Land of Promise A Troop overcomes Gad yet Gad overcomes at last Gen. 49.19 Hot Water hath a Principle in it self to reduce it when removed from the Fire to its natural Coldness Thus some Saints may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Phil. 2.27 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as John 11.14 They may fall as Mephibosheth to lame them and as Eutichus to hurt them but not as Eli to kill them That is great Displeasure where such a Rout is as admits of no raliying 4. Sin make a Forfeiture of all into God's Hands and he might make a Seisure if he pleased as two Tenants for Non-payment of Rent forfeit their Leases and their Landlord may seize on the one and not on the other pro arbitrio We incur Divine Displeasure in every Act of Sin Demeritoriè though not effectivè and yet though God do not disinherit us according to our Demerit nor blot us out of the Book of Life yet doth he withdraw his Favour and imbitter all our Comforts as to Peter Mat. 26.75 he makes Relations that should be Comforts to become Scourges to us as to David 2 Sam. 12.11 He may fill us with Anguish Psal 38.3,4 which are strong and sufficient Curbs to any more new Out-bursts from God seeing the Evil we smart under after Sin is commensurate to the Pleasure found in Sin Could David have foreseen the Evil Consequences of his Sin which Nathan foretold him of he might have said to his Sin A dear bought Sin thou art like to be to me Yea sometimes as need is God adds Apprehensions of Eternal Wrath Psal 88.6,7 without any Hope of being eased Upon these Considerations this Doctrine begets no Looseness in any of the Reformed Churches Objection 2. Some suffer Shipwrack of Faith and Conscience the Prodigal a Child yet dead in sin Answer 1. That Scripture 1 Tim. 1.19 holds out no more than what is granted that as a false Faith may be lost in the whole so a true Faith may be lost in part though a Shipwrack be sustain'd yet there is Secunda post Naufragium Tabula as in Acts 27. no Life lost 2. That of the Prodigal is but a Parable and Dicta Symbolica non sunt Argumentativa It may illustrate but cannot proves besides he was but a lost and dead Son in his Father's Account only and seemingly in his own So God's Children may in their own Sense and in the Opinion of others seem lost yet truly and indeed not be so 3. If one cease to be a Son because he commits Sin then Saints as oft as they sin so oft are they out of Son ship and liable to Death Eternal the Wages of Sin and so can have neither Certainty nor Comfort in their Estate unless it could be shown what Sins rend this Relation and what not so come to the Popish Notion of Mortal and Venial Sins Objection 3. Angels and Adam did fall from Grace Ergo c. Answer 1. That Grace which was Creation-love was loseable but that which flows from Redemption-love is not so Neither Angels nor Adam were under the Grace of the New Testament nor were they righteous by Faith in Christ nor were they at all justified because they did not perform the Condition required that they might be justified before God 2. The Case is altered now in the New Covenant made with the Elect both Men and Angels they stood not by a Mediator as Saints do now Neither did Christ pray for them as in John 17.15,20 Luke 22.32 nor promise to them that The Gates of Hell should not prevail against them as Mat. 16.18 3. The Example of Angels is Nihil ad Rbombum for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Question iâ— concerning Men nor is that of Adam to the Point for he had not that Evangelical Justifying Faith which we say cannot be utterly lost Objection 4. Saul Judas and Esau lost Grace Ergo Answer 1. They could not lose what they never had what they had were only Illuminations and such as Balaam the Sorcerer had We grant that Common Grace is loseable Gratia gratis datae sunt amissibiles 2. The Romanists in the Vulgar Latin read 1 Sam. 9.2 concerning Saul that he was Bonus et Electus yet their own Vatablus reads Bachur Tob as we do A Choice Young Man and a Goodly for Grace consists not in the Beauty of the Body but of Soul 3. Judas was only Elected to the Apostleship not to Salvation and that by one who knew how to make good Use of Evil Men even of Vessels of Dishonour in his Houshould 4. Who can say that Profane Esau so he is branded ever had a true Justifying Faith Objection 5. David and Peter fell totally and Solomon finally Ergo c. Answer 1. They all fell fouly yet none of them finally because they all repented â—nd are call'd Holy Men of God 2 Pet. 1.21 â—y the Holy Ghost Neither did they fall toâ—…lly because that Grace remain'd in them by which they repented Thus where Sin abounded Grace did much more abound 2. That Solomon fell not finally appears 1. In being called Jedidiah Beloved of God 2 Sam. 12.24,25 which is not a Name given to any Reprobate A Seal tho' dim and defac'd will pass in Acts of Record so Evidences for Heaven 2. He is of the Holy Prophets that Sits down in the Kingdom of God Luke 13.28 3. He was a Type of Christ so never was any Reprobate 4. God took not his Mercy clean from him 2 Sam. 7.14,15 5 Ecclesiastes is his Book of Repentance and never any that repented could perish Luke 13.3 6. Koheleth signifies his being joined again to the Church by Repentance which is the Hebrew Word for Ecclesiastes Kohelleth Nephesh A Soul added to the Congregation 3. Their own Cornelius à Lapide saith Petrus non perdidit fidem peccato suo So that Jesuite answers Bellarmine yea he answers himself accordingly lib. 4. cap 4. Lest Peter's Fall should cut off the Entail of the Pope's Inheritance to say nothing of David who writ so many Penitential Psalms Objection 6. Heb. 6.5 10.20,26 Ezek 18.24,26 proves a Falling from Grace Answer 1. Suppositio nil ponit in esse suppose Saints should do so this proves not that they will or may do so there may be a Supposinâ— Quod non est Supponendum As for Ezek. 8.24 it 〈◊〉 to be understood of Hypocrites Ezek. 3.20 3â— 12,13 2. 'T is spoke Heb. 6.10 c. of such as only taste but digest not that have their Minds informed not their Hearts reformed sactified in Profession not in Power that had Fidem Dogmaticam not Salvisicam 3. 'T is spoke of that Sin unto Death for which There is no Sacrifice from Devilish Malice not Humane Frailty Saints can never thus sin to waste Conscience unto Death Objection 7. Saints may lose Grace totally but not finally Answer 1. As Christ once dead dies no more So in his Members the Life of Grace cannot dye totally ut suprà Rom. 6.8,9 The Seed remains 1 Cor. 5.5 That his Spirit might be saved that remain'd still in him tho' fouly fallen as Paul saith of Eutichus He is not dead Acts 10.9 When Peter repented Non novum infulit habitum sed suscitavit 2. Then there must be a new Engrafting into Christ and a Renewing of Baptism as oft as this is done Faith is but once given to the Saints Jude 3. as we are but once born so but once born again 3. Those Saints may fall so as to lose Jus ad Rem yet not Jus in Re the Spirit blows upon the Sparks that lurk under the Ashes of Sin Objection 8. Then to what purpose be Admonitions c. It destroys Humility c. Answer 1. None say Saints cannot sin save that unto Death 1 John 1.8,9 with 3.9 so Useful enough 2. He was not proud that said God will deliver me from every Evil Work 2 Tim. 4.18 Rom. 8.38 3. But rather those that boast of having sufficient Grace both in Converting and Confirming Work FINIS
those whom Christ dyes for he gives to them Repentance and Remission of Sins Acts 5.31 Freedom from the slavery of Sin and Regeneration to Newness of Life Rom. 6.5,6 2 Cor. 5.15 Heb. 2.14,15 Jer. 31.33,34 Purifying Grace Acts 15.9 Heb. 9.13,14 and Eternal Life John 10.15,28 those Fruits evidence our Reconciling by Christ's Death Argument 9. Those whom Christ dyed for have the greatest Love of Christ but all have not the greatest Love of Christ Ergo c. The Proposition is clear from John 15.13 and 1 John 3.16 Friends cannot be more loved than by dying for them Herein is the Love of Redemption advanced above the Love of Creation in the latter God gave the Creature to Man but in the former Himself than which no greater Love can be shown The Assumption is clear also for Pilate Judas yea Cain and Pharaoh then in Hell could not have the greatest Love of Christ in his Death seeing the chief Evidence hereof is to give Men Grace here and Glory hereafter Praying for them and Together with himself freely gives us all things Rom. 8.32 all spiritual Blessings Eph. 1.3 Love especially greatest Love is a willing to one the greatest Good which cannot be a common Kindness but special and peculiar Favour Psal 106.4 and 119.132 If Christ willed the greatest Good to Esau how can it be said Esau have I hated yet under this greatest Love of Christ dying for him according to this Hypothesis Argument 10. If Christ dyed for all Mankind and obtained Reconciliation for them then all Infants are reconciled their Sin is forgiven them and so by Consequence are saved dying in their Infancy but this cannot be affirmed of all Infants Ergo c. The Assumption is proved It is the Judgment of the Catholick Church that the Infants of Pagans God 's Secrets being still reserved to himself are destitute of Supernatural and Saving Grace and they are not only born Children of Wrath Eph. 2.3 but are altogether Strangers to the Covenant of Grace and upon this account are esteemed unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 so dying are bound under the damnable guilt of Original Sin This is acknowledged by the Romanists themselves saying Bannez in 1. Quest 23. Parvulos Paganorum filios nihil auxilij supernaturalis recepisse in seipsis but if all were reconciled by Christ's Death then none of them could be born Children of Wrath and subject to the Curse and it would be a Priviledge to them to be kill'd in their Cradles rather than to be kept alive and brought up in Paganism whereby they must undoubtedly perish to all Eternity Besides if all be reconciled then none can be born without the Covenant contrary to Eph. 2.3,12 Argument 11. That cannot be a Truth which the Scripture of Truth no where affirms but it no where asserts that Christ dyed for all Men much less for all and every Man individually between which two there is a vast difference therefore it is not a Truth To explain the Assumption It is true Christ is said to give his Life a Ransom for all but not for all Men or for every Man individually The Scripture is the best Expounder of it self and that All is interpreted to be Many Mat. 20.28 and 26.28 Mark 10.45 and it is so frequently restrained to his Sheep Friends Church Believers Chosen and such as are given to Christ that it must be meant some of all sorts which in equivalent Terms is express'd clearly Rev. 5.9,10 Thou hast redeemed us out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation And I cannot see how the Arminians can have any part in that New Song there mentioned which say they are no more beholden to Christ for their Redemption than Cain and Judas was The Word All therefore must be taken for all the Elect all his Church all his Children that the Father hath given him c. not all Men universally and every Man individually Those places 1 Tim. 2.4,6 Tit. 2.11,14 plainly shew that it is some of all sorts Princes and Peasants Kings and Servants and of such only as he brings to the knowledge of the Truth whereby the Universality of the Expression is plainly restrained in the Connexion of that Clause for God gives not nor so much as offers the Knowledge of Truth to all Argument 12. That which opposes the Attributes of God ought not to be received but the Universal Point doth so Ergo c. The Assumption appears as 1. His Justice Numerari pretium captivum non redimi adversatur Justitiae If Christ paid the Price for Pharaoh and Judas c. then reconciled Souls are unjustly damned ut supra This Hypothesis sets the Death of Christ in a direct Opposition to God's Justice and how could Christ dye for Judas's Sin when Christ's Death was his very Sin as if Christ should say Father receive into thy Favour those whom I know thou wilt never do so being before of old ordained to destruction Jude 4. This is to make Religion a Laughing-stock 2. His Wisdom As if God should love and hate the same Person at the same Time Esau must be loved in giving Christ to dye for him yet hated as being ordain'd to Death from all Eternity and what is this but Childrens play in giving Judas a Ransom with one Hand and sending him to his place for his satisfied-for and remitted Sin with the other Hand 3. His Power If Christ died intentionally as to God for all then God's Intentions are frustrate seeing all are not saved and then he is not Omnipotent if cross'd in his Designs by the Work of his own Hands and to say that Freedom was obtain'd by Christ's Death for one but not that he should be freed is ridiculous Objection 1. It is Objected Impetration is Universal though the Application be not so Christ obtain'd for all though it be not applied to all Answer 1. This Distinction cannot hold true in God who grants nothing but what he bestows for he cannot repent of his Grantings 2. The End cannot be sever'd from the Action if God will'd that Redemption might be obtain'd of him it was that it might be applied to some and if to some and not to all then there is some Disparity in the Impetration it self and in the Intention of it and not in the Application only and so the Distinction falls 3. This Distinction hath no place in the purpose of Christ for therein they are both united Christ's aim being to bestow what he obtains he obtains nothing but what he applies for doth he apply any thing which he did not obtain Deus et Natura nil faciunt frustra 4. It is absurd to say that Redemption is obtained when both he that obtains and he of whom it is obtained do know it shall never be applied nor ever profit those for whom they say it is obtained 5. It bespatters the unvaluable Price of the Blood of God as if Christ should obtain Food for such as were never to be
destroy them absolutely is not in Man's Power 2. Those were Prefessors of the Gospel so were those in Heb. 10.29 he says not that Saints could crucifie the Lord afresh c. Suppositio nil ponit in esse Though Professors in the Judgment of Charity be reckoned the Redeemed Ones and called there Weak Brethren yet what is this to the whole Word that lies in Wickedness and far short of Professors 3. Those false Prophets in Peter were not bought by Christ from Eternal Death but from the Pollutions of that Age neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herus a Name of Christ as Mediator but 't is God's Title 4. Grant the Premisses it follows that such as think themselves Redeemed or are thought so by others may blaspheme and perish yet this makes not all the World redeemed The Third and Fourth Point concerning Free-will and Conversion follow First in General ARminianisme implies That the Fruit of Christ's Death depends on the Contingent Assent of Man's Free-will that not withstanding his Death it was possible in respect of Free-will that all should perish that now by his Death for all true Grace is given to all that all Pagans are reconciled to God that in Man is no Original Sin but all are born in a State of Innocency Some affirm that Nature without Grace will save through the Direction of Right Reason Others say that Grace depends on Nature Others that the Fall took not away the Power of the Mind but it 's Exercise only so that the Mind is as bound in Fetters only and that in the first Acts of Grace as well as in posterior Acts Nature and Grace do concur and walk hand in hand together but what is all this seeming Zeal for God In maintaining General Redemption left God should mock in his Promises and Free-will to Good lest God should mock in his Precepts but a speaking wickedly for God and an accepting of his Person Job 13.7,8 'T is indeed an Advancing of his Mercy but not of his Truth in the former and of the Will of Man Embalming a dead Carcase above the Wiil of God in the latter The Will of Man is Naturally a self-determining Power and Principle and bears God's Image as it hath a Dominion over the whole Man but since the Fall hath the strong Byasse of Sin upon it Freedom is Radically and Originally in the Will not in the Understanding and 't is an Essential Property of it that it cannot be compell'd by any Created External Agent In actu elicito in its own free Choice yet In actu imperato in the commanding Act it may suffer force as the Martyrs were dragg'd against their Wills to Idol-worship and Christ tells Peter They shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not John 21.18 Now 't is no Wonder if many Mistakes arise about this great Engine of the Almighty seeing the Soul knows not it self but by Reflection and though we know its Qualities and Operations yet cannot we know its Essence Man is considered in a fourfold State 1. The State of Creation or Generation therein he had Free-will either to Good or Evil but was necessitated to neither 2. The State of Degeneration wherein he is a Servant to Sin and necessitated to Evil. 3. The State of Regeneration wherein he is freed from the Slavery of Sin but not from the Necessity of it 4. The State of Glorification wherein Man is both freely and necessarily good and is not free Libertate Indisserentioe as Adam before the Fall for that in cludes a Mutability in it In the First Estate Man is Liber free in the Second Servus a Slave in the Third Liberatus set free in the Fourth Liberrimus having a Glorious Liberty The Controve sie lies concerning the Second State wherein we say that Man is under a Necessity of Sinning yet free from Coaction he is free to Evil but not to Good which appears by these following Arguments Argument 1. To prove that there is no Free-will to Good in the fallen Estate is taken from the Fall it self If Man in the Fall lost his Free-will to Good then it cannot be found in the fallen Estate but the Antecedent is true Ergo c. to prove the Antecedent were it not so it could not properly be called a Fall it implies a Loss of that Original Righteousness and Perfection wherein he was created And if the Fall did deprave the other Faculties of the Soul and deprive them of their Primitive Lustre then must the Will be a Sharer also in that Depravation Now the Depravation of the Will it self by the Fall doth further appear by the Good it hath lost and by the Evil it hath got thro' Adam's Sin The Good it hath lost is sixtold Power Order Stability Prudence Obedience Liberty The Evil it hath got is threefold in Opposition to the Obedience it lost a threefold Rebellion 1. Against the Counsel of the Mind 2. Against the Controuls of Conscience 3. Against the Commands of God Besides all the other Vices wherein Original Sin consisteth This King of the Isle of Man when he came first out of God's Mint was a curious Silver-piece and shone most gloriously being cloathed with Excellent Jewels and Properties but now being fallen among Thieves is robb'd of all hath Ashes for Beauty c. and is a Tyrant upon a Dung-hill yea is free from Righteousness and a very Slave to Sin Rom. 6.17,18,20 before the Fall the Will had Liberty both Contrarietatis Contradictionis to Good or Evil to do or not to do But since the Fall the Will is evil only evil and continually evil Gen. 6. 5. the whole Heart is evil Extensively only evil Intensively and cortinually evil Protensively Argument 2. If Conversion be a New Creation then fallen Man hath not a Free-will to Good but the Antecedent is true Ergo c. that the Antecedent is true appears a Convert is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 6.15 2 Cor 5.17 a New Creature or a New Creation Now Creatio est ex Nihilo Creation is a Production of something out of nothing but if there be a Free-will to Good in Man before Conversion then there is something that is of its own Nature spiritually good in Man unconverted towards the Work of Conversion so can it not be called a New Creation Sure I am every Experienced Soul finds the contrary in that Work The whole Frame is out of Frame in the Unconverted Estate and Man is Tohu va pohu a confused Chaos and a vast Emptiness when this Creating Power comes upon him Yea a greater Power is required to re-create this little World than was first to create the greater for in this though there be no pre-existing yet there is resisting Matter The Creation of the great World was the Work of God's Word Psal 33.6 of his Fingers Psal 8.3 or of his Hands Psal 102.25 but to restore the little World MAN requires God's Arm Luke 1.51 Nay Christ set his sides to it