not contend But his Texts prove it not they speake of the efficient not the meritorious cause who is so patient not who procured it but grant it this is not pertinent to the â—oint in hand He may be patient and long-suffering to all and yet not intend the Salvation of all to whom he is so patient neither is God patient to every Son of Adam to leade them to Repentance Could he prove that God or Christ intended the Repentance of every man I would confesse and prove too that he intended the eternall Salvation of every man For Repentance of any is not willed but as meanes to that end and it is considered as meanes in tendency to the end But the former he proveth not as for that Text Rom. 2.4 It speaketh of another patience then what every Son of Adam partaketh of viz. the patient waiting of God in the Gospells Ministry or such a deferring of Judgement as hath the Gospell annexed as appeareth in the whole Chapter but such an one every Son of Adam hath not enjoyed Besides this patience and long suffering of God leadeth to Repentance that Moraliter not physice by swasion not efficiency worketh not Repentance but admonisheth to Repentance and so this place is expounded Act. 17.30 Now he admonisheth every man to Repent which sheweth that the patience of God without the Word is no fit meanes to bring men to Repentance Now this place which denoteth such a longsuffering that every Son of Adam hath not is not well produced to prove such a worke as is common for every Son of Adam and that God intendeth by his patience to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance it is not easie to grant and as hard for the Author to prove 3. By him is procured some meanes with some light therein and according thereto to lead men to Repentance c. though to some more darke some more clearely First to remove such generalities and indefinite Expressions fit only to deceive then his Expresses will the better appeare That Christ did procure meanes and Light and Spirit to lead men to Repentance whoever yet denied This commeth too short of his Doctrine for that he procured meanes to bring every Son of Adam to Repentance this neither he nor any else hath yet proved That he procured meanes and God gives such meanes to every man whereby they may know something of God I grant but that he giveth to every one so much as leadeth them to Repentance this is doubtfull every measure of the knowledge of God serves not for this businesse I would know what he thinketh of those that have only Verbum rei the Book of the Creatures to read on True They may know something of God as Rom. 1.20 As his Power and Godhead yea so much seene of him the Text saith not as to bring them to Repentance but as may leave them without excuse and that not for not Repenting but for their Idolatry because there is so much seene in the Creatures as may convince men of the Deity of God that he is not made with hands nor any such Creature as they worshipped Ver. 23. But how will he prove hence that the Creatures are fit meanes to bring men to Repentance To bring men to Repentance there must concurre these things A fight of Sin to be Sin A sense of our condition without it A Hell to affright with other things but which of these are obnoxius to them that have but the light of Nature only For the knowledge of Sin to be Sin the Booke of the Creatures discovers not St. Paul said I had not known sin but by the Law Rom. 7.7 And that not the Law of Nature or any thing written only in Nature but lex superaddita A Law that was not alwaies knowne that said Thou shalt not lust Besides that men repent it is requisite that men should know it is a duty to Repent For that which discovereth not that cannot be said any way to lead to Repentance But doth the Creature or the light of Nature command this The time before the Gospell commeth admonishing to Repent is a time of ignorance of that duty Act. 17.30 Againe it is requisite that men know the danger of not repenting the punishment due to Sin that shew men the necessity of repenting But how doth the Creatures dictate any such thing Therefore that which discovereth not Sin to be Sin nor it to be our duty to repent nor the danger of not repenting or the benefit of repenting such a thing is not a fit meanes to leade us to Repentance But at the end of this his Assertion I find some Scriptures annexed I shall perpend them to see if they affirme any such thing as that God giveth to every man such means as may and to that end to lead them to Repentance Rom. 1.19 Because that which may be knowne of God is manifest in them c. And what is there in that Text but this viz. That something of God is seene in the Creatures as his Power and Godhead which might keep them from Idolatry or worshiping of such things as they did worship but not so much as to bring them to Repentance for that Idolatry the Text saith no such thing Acts 17.24 30. Now he admonisheth all men every where to repent This is the same nature with the former It is spoken of those and to those that worshiped the unknown God as Ver. 23. To which he addeth these words and tells them that God Created the Worlds and placed the bounds of our Habitations as Ver. 24 25 26. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 27. That they might enquire after the Lord to know so much of him as to convince them that the Godhead is not like to Silver or Gold or the worke of mans hands as ver 29. But that it was for such an end as to bring them to Repentance the Text owneth not nay it altogether disclaimes as Ve. 30. The time of this ignorance God regarded not as if he should have said when there is only the Creatures and light of Nature in regard of the duty of Repentance it could be no other but the time of Ignorance seeing that by that light they neither knew that they should nor how they should Repent But now he admonisheth all to Repent no such admonition by the Creatures then had his words But now he admonisheth beene to no purpose Therefore his joyning 24. and 30. verses together as if he intended to prove that by the Creatures God intended to lead men to Repentance is very weake and frivolous Now if he shall reply that Rom. 2. saith The Gentiles did the things contained in the Law and that by nature and therefore why not Repent I answer Let the Text be well weighed and we shall see a difference betwixt Legem implere and Ea quae legis sunt facere to do things that the Law commands and to fulfill the Law The second requires that
what is done be done out of obedience to a knowne Law the other not The Gentiles might do something that the Law commanded as Seneca Plutarch who gave good rules of life but not out of obedience to any Law of God but was it otherwise though the Law of Nature taught what to do yet it teacheth not Repentance for not doing of it because the first Law of God admitteth it not He commanded to do or else adjudged to suffer the Curse To come to happinesse by Faith and Repentance is a secret of the Gospell which all the light of Nature is never able to discover nor the severity of the Law did ever admit Rom. 10.18 No doubt their sound went through all the earth Which place he alleadgeth to prove that the Gospell is preached to every Son of Adam to bring them to Repentance or else I know not to what end but of this it falleth short To passe by the severall Judgements of men on this place for it is not very cleare what the Apostle meaneth by the 18. ver But admit that we grant that the Gospell is gone out through the world yet that Text is not of greater Latitude than that of Col. 1.6 Where the Apostle saith the Gospel had commed to all the world and brought forth fruit but he will not say that the Gospell had commed to and brought forth fruit in every Son of Adam And I leave it to be the Authors taske to prove hence that the sound of the Gospell commeth to the eares of every Son of Adam that was is or shall be So that yet it is not cleare that Christ procuring meanes for every Son of Adam to bring them to Repentance 4. By him is sent forth at one time or other some Supernaturall light and motion of his Spirit c. Tending to and striving with them to reprove them of sin moving to Repentance seeking after God c. Joh. 1.5.9 Pro. 1.23 Joh. 16.8 9. Gen. 6.3 Mic. 2.7 And thus he calleth many yea all the Sons of Men. 1 If By him denote Christ the Bestower and efficient in sending that supernaturall light as I conceive he doth by Joh. 1.5.9 then it is nothing to his purpose for then it plainely belongeth to the Applicatory part but that which he is to prove and illustrate is the Impetration and procuring as all the former particulars run Therefore I would know a ground of the change of his expressions seeing this with the other set forth the same Act of Christ â—mnes homines â—igna vocatiâ—e vocantur Arm. in Perk. 59. 2. I am yet to seeke for proofe from tht Author or else where That every Son of Adam hath Supernaturall light to bring them to Repentance What will he say of those that have only the light of Nature and perish without Law Rom. 2. Will he say that such have supernaturall light Certaine those that Act meerely by nature and naturall light have not a supernaturall light for then naturall light should be supernaturall Yet he urgeth that God calleth every Son of man to Repentance A stiffe Arminian His Scriptures I shall examine Acts 17.30 Now he commandeth all men every where to Repent Hence inferring he calleth every Son of Adam But let us wave what men may possibly raise to please themselves let any sober mind judge whether the Text meaneth every Son of Adam or those only and that All to whom the Gospell comes and then when it was preached Else why should he say But now he admonisheth if that any were called to Repentance to whom that Gospell came not as well might they have been admonished before it came And so that word Now been Uselesse Or can we thinke that the admonition of some to Repent could beget an Obligation in every Son of Adam to Repent though command came not to them Certainely not because the time of the Gentiles ignorance God regarded not their non-repentance though the Jewes were before both by John Math. 3. And by Christ himselfe admonished to Repent as if it were not their duty till that command came to them according to the Remost rule Lex non lata non obligat Math. 23.14 The word of the Gospell shall be preached through the whole world Not now to stand on the Phrase whole world I shall give him the Phrase in the desired Latitude And what doth the Text affirme No more but this that the Gospell shall be in the last daies preached through the world this we may expect and pray for but yet it is not so much lesse can he prove that God by the Gospell hath doth and will call every Son of Adam that have are or shall be this he is to prove but yet hath not proved it have not Millions dyed and known nothing of Christ And are not many now without that knowledge and yet in little probability of enjoying it Prov. 8.4 5.31.34 O men I call unto you And doth this place prove any more then this that wisedome strives with those to whom she utters her voice and those are men yea simple men and fooles And this is no more then this Now he commandeth every man to Repent Acts 17.30 But how doth he prove hence that wisdome striveth with those to whom she utters not her voice Or that she utters her voice to every Son of Adam Isa 45 22. Looke unto me and ye shall be saved all the ends of the earth shall be saved And will our Author inferre hence that every Son of Adam shall be saved If not then I say this Phrase The ends of the earth doth not imply every Son of Adam and if not this Text is nothing to the purpose This Phrase signifies no more then those that were far remote as Isa 5.26 Where Nations from far and ends of the earth are equipollent So Isa 43.6 From far and from the ends of the earth speake one thing and this Phrase sometimes meaneth the Gentiles which were many of them far remote from Jerusalem and so they speaking of them called them the ends of the earth as Isa 49.6 to be a light of the Gentiles and Salvation to the ends of the earth are Synonimous So Jer. 16.19 And what doth this Text prove more then this That those that are a far off Gentiles Sons of the earth shall have Salvation as well as those that were neare Jerusalem and so calleth them that are a far off to him But what is this to Gods calling every Son of Adam to Repentance He may call them that are a far off and yet not call every man that is a farre off but of this stampe are the most of his inferences 5 By him is procured and sent forth to men whilst they yeeld to and do that which by this light and these motions of his Spirit he leadeth to an encrease of mercies c. Gen. 20. totum 2 Chron. 11.17 2 King 10.30 Rom. 2.14 15. Prov. 1.33 Prov. 8.32 35. Joh. 8.31 32. Act. 10.1
well as an All of Bad 2 Thes 2.3 So that I need not oppose him in his Assertion he doth it effectually for me himselfe 5. Whereas he saith He so speaketh as the words may be taken in either or both senses as occasion shall serve Is an affirmation concerning Scripture beyond all president that one word like Rebecca her wombe should containe in the bowels of it two such different senses as All and but some only and that to serve two Sentences as men shall refer it to one or the other this is to make his owne Calumny that he groundlesly laid on our backs to be his own burthen that is to make the Word of God like the Heathen Oracles true whether way soever we take them neither is there any need in this place so to torture the words of Scripture for both Phrases viz. Bloud in the New-Testament and Shed for Remission of Sins will both agree in many taken in one sence and that taken as signifying only some But whether all this tendeth it is not easie to determine but I conjecture it is this to prove that where he speakes of Christ Death and useth this word Many it is no argument against him because All are Many and the word Many may comprehend All Thus the Remonst speake and I suppose he intendeth but then he must know this is brought but as a probable Argument that seeing the Scripture saith All sometimes Many it is probable that All is expounded by Many and herein it is still in force that seeing more places may be brought yet hundreds to one where the word Many excludes All then where it taketh in All we are to follow most frequent acceptation of Scripture unlesse we find some let from other Scriptures or the Analogy of Faith Again He urgeth something from the various consideration of the Ransome thus 1. As made in Christ with for God men without the knowledg of men 2. As made knowne in the Gospell that they may be convinced 3. As men thereby wrought upon to receive him and submit to him and beleeve on him the two first are common and generall the last peculiar not common Here we have many words to little purpose in this Controversie ransome was never yet taken in any other sence then as made in Christ and made known in the Gospell It was never yet questioned whether the Application of it was common or whether every man was wrought upon by the Gospell to receive him therefore he might have reserved his decision in these words The last is peculiar not common till it had been seasonable And this he saith is common to all and every Son of Adam but he proveth it not 2. As for the second viz. The making of it known in the Gospell he affirmeth it to be generall and done to every Son of Adam but he produceth not one Text that proveth it Yea he elsewhere affirmeth that every man hath so much light as that he may be thereby convinced because he hath not beleeved as P. 23. But this wanteth its proofe from the Word of God Certainely if some shall be judged without the Law some shall be judged without the Gospell for those that are judged without Law are judged meerely by the light of Nature but such are judged without Gospell for Nature meerely so discovereth no Gospell and why those that never knew it a duty to beleeve can be said to have so much light as to convince them for not beleeving I see not Certainely that which doth not convince me that it is my duty to beleeve cannot convince me it is my Sin not to beleeve the Remonst durst not rise so high as to say that every man had so much light Arm. in Pork 158 159. but thus he either hath or might have had if he had used naturals well or had it not been for their Predecessors that refused Grace and supernaturall Light as Causa cur Deus non omnibus singulis hominibus Christum revelet haec est quod parentes illorum verbum Evangelii repudiaverunt And if instead of proving the third not to be common which he undertaketh he had proved the former two to be common to and for every man he had better quit himselfe As for that Expression He shall so farre see the travell of his Soule argues that either he seeth not some part of his travell because he inserts that diminutive so far or else that Christ in his bitter Passion travelled with nothing but this that men might be convinced that Christ is their Lord either in Salvation or Condemnation both which are absurd Now by this distinction he hath gotten nothing because that the hearts of all men are wrought on by the Gospell to receive Christ no man hath said and that the Ransome was made in Christ with God for every man or discovered to every man and Son of Adam no man that I know of ever yet proved Having dispatched a twofold diversity he comes to third and more elaborate but as little successefull and that is from the diversity of Person and he saith thus The Ransome in himselfe as the Creation of men by Christ is mentioned diversly in respect of Person Herein I may not passe by his fallacious jumbling together Creation and Redemption which are not of equall latitude and extent which I should not have noted here seeing there is a particular Chapter for it but that his fallacy herein may dazle the eyes of his non-discerning Readers therefore I only now say thus much that betwixt Creation and Redemption there is no proportion nor Argument validly drawne either Negative or Affirmative as if all those were Redeemed that were created Certainly if Creation should be the measure of Redemption then all Creatures should be Redeemed yea devils and those Creatures that had the preheminence in the Creation should have it also in Redemption but we see it in both contrary in that the fallen Angels are not redeemed at all and these two He hath Created all things Col. 1.16 and He hath reconciled all things Ver. 20. Are not of the same latitude For take the latter in the largest sense you can desire yet it will come short of the former in that he created all things yea Thrones Principallities even Angels that fell but no Scripture saith that he reconciled them Besides whom he Reconciled he dyed for but it is no Scripture Language to say that he dyed for all things or for all that he Created but only for man in so much as he assumed no other but mans nature of this more in its place only this I desire that he will stand to his principles Pag. 31. That the matter treated of alters the sence of the same words and so from Creation to Redemption the Argument will not follow this being considered I proceed Sometimes in the first Person singular concerning the speaker Gal. 1.20 Who gave himselfe for me Job 10.8 Thy hands have made me no reasonable
alive by Christ is all those that are his and come from him as all that dyed in Adam was all his and so they answer one the other So for the second Text Rom. 5.18 19. It is of the same nature with the former and sets out Christ the Root and Fountaine of Righteousnesse and Life as Adam was of Sin and Death as appeares by the Conclusion Ver. 21. That as Sin hath raigned unto Death so might Grace by Jesus Christ and further it cannot in my Judgement be carried Indeed it saith Ver. 18. As by one Judgement came on all men to Condemnation so by one the free gift on all men to Justification of Life But this is not more pregnant then that of 1 Cor. 15.21 22. And thus I say to this also All Adams Sons by his Sin Judgement came on them to Condemnation and so by the righteousnesse of Christ the free gift came upon all them that come from him to Justification of Life and this appeares in Ver. 27. where this latter All is supplyed by They which receive abundance of Grace and this gift of righteousnesse If the Author will have more from the Text let him prove it and I shall receive it Therefore neither of these places confirme this That Christ stood in the roome of every Individuall Son of Adam Yet thus far I go with him All those he redeemeth by his Bloud in their roomes he stood and as this is produced as a particular gradation in his worke of procuring and meriting Life and Salvation I grant it But being produced as that which is done for all and every Son of Adam it still lyeth under a Non probatum est Besides to wave all that hath been said and to grant him that he stood in the roome of every Son of Adam yet he doth not touch the Question for then he must prove that he stood in their roome for this end to procure Remission and Eternall Life for them which he doth not in all this Indeed our side have ever been peremptory against Christs standing in the roome of an but the Elect and they prove it thus Quorum personas sustinuit pro illorum peccaâ—s at isfecit Perkin A Cat. Twissevn pag 266. for their sins he satisfied whose persons he sustained Now I shall not undertake to determine against them the least dramme of whose worth it would be ambition in me to think to counter-ballance but to professe my selfe not yet to have attained their light and to see the necessity of that Argumentation why he might not stand in the roome of many so far as to procure for them a freedome from the present Incumbency of the misery without which many of his Elect could not be nor be brought to Repentance and yet not satisfie for their sins only Remission and Pardon of Sins and Eternall Life require a satisfaction for Sin but the other doth not And of such a taking their Persons on him as to procure life for them I suppose they mâ—ne when they say he stood in the roome of the Elect only and this I subscribe to and of such is the Question And though we grant him that Christ for some good did stand in the roome of all yet he is short of the Question 4 Being such a publique Person in the nature and roome of all mankind he also became for them under the same Law and Obligation in which they were which charged them with Sin and bound them over to punishment by vertue of which all the punishment the whole Debt of mankind became his That Christ became under the same Law that they were under whom he intended to Redeeme I grant But this enferreth not that he intended to Redeeme all that were under the same Law He Redeeming but his Elect only yet he must become under the same Law that every man lay under because all men lay under the same Curse and Law It was never yet questioned whether Christ became under that Law under which every man was but whether he redeemed every one that was under that Law He would speake something and attempteth to prove it from Gal. 4.5 He became under the Law to redeeme them that were under the Law True Those whom he redeemed were under the Law else needed no Redemption but doth the Text say or inferre that he redeemed All that were under the Law Let the Author view againe Thus he useth to argue He justifieth the ungodly therefore All the ungodly And will he say He hath chosen the foolish things of the world therefore he hath chosen all the foolish things Therefore his Assertion By vertue of which comming under the Law the whole Debt and all the Sin and punishment of mankind became his wanteth proofes the whoe Debt of mankind doth not appeare to be his This I say that for whose Sins he came under this Law to satisfie He was rightly challenged with their Debt and that this being under the Law is a gradation in his procuring Life for men I grant but that he became so to free every man from the Law lies still under a Non probatum est 5. Being thus in the nature and stead of mankind under the Law for them God was pleased to challenge the whole Debt of him and to impute all the Sin the Law could charge mankind withall unto him and to arest and call him to an account and enter into judgement with him for all Which laboureth with the same deficiency that the former doth First This is little different from the former for betwixt these two All the punishment and whole Debt of mankind became his And this All the Sin and whole Debt that the Law could charge mankind withall was challenged of him and imputed to him There is no difference Secondly That Christ stood charged with all the sin and the whole Debt of those whom he intended to redeeme and satisfie for their sins I grant but that he stood charged with all the Sins of every man and the whole Debt that the Law could challenge any man withall was challenged of him this is not yet proved which only is to the purpose he attempts to prove it by some Scriptures 1. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe not imputing their Trespasses to them True he did so to men living in the world But will our Author say that non-imputation of Sins is every mans priviledge Is it congruous to Scripture Phrase to call every Son of Adam blessed and happy For so are they that have not their Sins imputed Psa 32.1 2. Such an Assertion as this viz. That Pardon covering not imputing Sins is the priviledge of every Son of Adam I leave to the Founder of it and must dissent till I find more cause of embracing it 2. Isa 53 6. And made him to be Sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 Laid on him the iniquity of us all 1 Pet. 2.24 He himselfe bare our sins Hence he concludes the Iniquities
The Authors expresses herein are something darke and obscure for his words may have a double sense First That God by him sends forth to men whilst they yeeld to or in yeelding to that light which he formerly gave them to which yeelding to that former light he himselfe enabled them an encrease of Grace and Spirit this I grant as a truth and this he doth to men but then this is not full for his purpose for thus he doth not to every Son of Adam for then every Son of Adam must have some light of Grace and Spirit which he cannot prove and so be enabled to improve it to any increase and so at last be saved but this he will not owne Secondly He may be thus taken That God by Christ sends an encrease and so hath tyed himselfe to give an encrease of light and Spirit if men use it well which they have which being thus generall comes not up to the Authors mind for this proveth not that he calleth every Son of Adam to Repentance nor that every Son of Adam hath this Light and Spirit given to them to improve but I thinke rather he meaneth as he must if he speake to his purpose That God hath given to every man some light of Nature and Gospell which if they improve well they shall have further light till they come to be saved according to that Saving Habenti dabitur to him that hath shall be given As his Master Arminius hath done before him In Perkin 218. Vide mihi an non in isto dicto Habenti dabitur promissio ista contineatur qua Deus spondet se gratia supernaturali illuminaturum qui lumine naturali rectè utetur If this be his meaning then I demand whether men have a power and ability to use naturall light well His decision herein will be usefull to us 2. I say that though God sometimes use this Method of giving to them that improve and taking from them that abuse yet this is not alwaies his Course it is no unbended rule as if Grace should be dispensed according to workes Sometimes he is found of them that sought him not Isa 65.1 2. Capernanm that abused both the light of Nature and Gospell had meanes when Tyre and Sydon that would have repented wanted them Math. 11.21 Debauched Sinners against Nature and Grace have enjoyed converting Grace when more morall men have been passed by This the Remonst confesse Deum pro liberrimo arbitratu saepenumero populos quosdam licet profanissimos peccatis plurimis implicitos rectae rationis dictamini non obtemperantes è reliqua turba deligere ad vocationem Evangelii vocare Antidot Remonst 73. Many Morall men as Plutarch Plato Socrates Phocion whose rules are admirable and lives blamelesse and improving the light of nature as well as any yet we never find that Supernaturall Grace was given to them When many so abused Nature and Grace as to become Idolaters Adulterers Fornicators Buggerers Theeves Drunkards yet for such to be Sanctified Justified Washed is no strange thing 1 Cor. 6.11 Where was the stop in the former that they had not an encrease of Light and Grace And where was the improvement in the other that deserved a new supply of Grace in Conversion And as for these Texts cited they prove but this that God sometimes rewardeth an improvement of Evangelicall Grace with more Grace But they prove not that is Gods unbended Method in giving or denying Grace neither is this any thing to this purpose to prove Christ procuring Life and Salvation for every Son of Adam because every man hath not that upon the improvement of which he promiseth more Grace 6. Yea with some where the Gospell comes he goeth further so enlightening them to understand the report of the Gospell that they do beleeve That he doth so is a truth but why inserted I see not 1. Hath he to soone forgotten that the thing which he pursues is such as is done for all and to cleare it he giveth us a taste of that which he saith expresly he giveth but to some this cannot be pertinent 2. He here supposeth that the Gospell is but dispensed to some which is no propitious Assertion to his former viz. That God by the Gospell calleth every Sonne of Adam one time or other in some degree or other 3. Whereas he speaketh of a further illumination either he meaneth of such as have used their first meanes well or with such as doe not if the former then this is nothing different from the former viz. If they abide in his call they shall know the truth and therefore deserved not to be ranged as a new particular If he meane the second then that Method of God for prounded in dispensing Grace is here infringed Therefore this must either be at least a Tautology or a contradiction to his first particular 4. Hath he so soone forgotten that the thing which he is to prove is the procuring and working out with God for men And he here produceth an Actuall bestowing and applying of the Bloud of Christ if to the enlightned and brought in to beleeve be to have the Bloud of Christ applyed All that might be said may not I may not follow him so farre in his extravagancies as I might sufficient is it to take notice that this is not opposite to his purpose it being done only for some and not for all and every Son of Adam We may reasume the whole number of his particulars and stand to wonder what light they bring to this Point or what he helpeth mean understandings in these darke Controversies by the perspicuity of his Method and order That we may review them alitle joyntly that which he is to illustrate to them is the common Salvation which is Christs working out with God for men Remission and Eternall Salvation and such as is done for all and as it is a working out for men distinct from working in and upon men His first and his last particulars are not opposite because they are such as are effected on and in men as it is to be for all men So all the rest intermediate particulars are not opposite seeing they are not nor by him proved to be procured or to be dispensed to all and every man take them alltogether and what do they cleare What do they prove Nothing certainly and serve for nothing but deceive and confound his Readers and thus I conclude Let him numerate never so many particulars procured for or bestowed on men if they be not such as are meanes in Gods series of Dispensing Eternall Life I shall not contend but passe them by as not pertinent to the Question and leave them to him as not only procured for but actually conferred upon men but if he produce any such things as are the meanes to bring us to life as Grace Supernaturall light the call of the Gospell c. Then I deny that such things are either procured for or
many as God by vertue of that Covenant betwixt Adam and God appointed he should So Christ stood in the roome of so many as God appointed in that Covenant betwixt him and Christ thus farre we agree But he would have them go one thus farre that as Adam stood in the roome of all that came from his Loines so Christ as publique person should stand in the roome of all that came from the first Adams Loines and herein we differ and as he saith As Adam stood in the roome of all that came from his Loines so Christ stood in the roome of all that came from Adams Loines making the Analogie to run thus So we say That as Adam stood in the roome of all that came from him so Christ stood in the roome of all that have a being from himselfe And is not the Analogie betwixt Christ and his Figure as cleare and full in our Assertion as in his So that though they for whom Adam stood and they for whom Christ stood differ in the precise number yet they agree in aliquo tertio being both the peculiar issue from their owne root receiving from the one death the other life This he hath no way to enervate but by affirming That Adam stood in the roome of mankind not as because they came from his Loines for so they were after his fall and losse therein of the vertue of that publique place but by vertue of the Account Covenant agreement betweene him and God Wherein we have his assertion it selfe then the reasons to backe it The assertion viz. That Adam stood in the roome of mankind not as or because they came from his Loynes This is contrary 1. To reason because Adam as a root could propagate neither life nor death but to such as came from him and as so to what can a root communicate either good or bad sap but to such branches as grow out of it selfe by vertue of which comming out of it it hath a meane to conveying such to it as it hath it selfe 2. It is contrary to all mens Judgements both dogmaticall and polemicall they all grant that Adam was betrusted with no more than came from his Loines but the testimony of the Remonst are the most convincing in this case Iâ— Molin c. 9 Sect. 1. See Corvinus Ita representavit genus humanum in origine ut sibi posteris simul peccaverit That he did so represent mankind as in the root that he sinned for himselfe and his Posterity See Spiscopius Communicatio homini facta est ut stirpi generis humani Part. 2. disp 15. Sect 4. cujus inobedientia reatus ad omnes posteros lege naturae perveniret That the Communication was to man as the roote that the guilt of the Law of nature is to come to his Posterity See Arminius Disp privat Thes 31. Sect. 9 He speaking of that stipulation betwixt Adam and God saith that God betrusted with Grace for himselfe and that those gifts Ad posteros transmitterentur and that he wanting them posteri etiam iis carerent and thence concludeth Hinc accidit ut omnes homines qui naturalter ex ipsis propagandi fuerint morti obnoxii evaserint That is those that come of them by naturall propagation all which clearely demonstrate thus much that Adam as publique person conveyed death to mankind as comming from his Loynes and to so many as come from his Loynes and no more 3. This assertion is contrary to himselfe Pag. 119. where he saith that the first man was made a publique person in the roome and place of all mankind to stand or fall for all that came from him by propagation what is this but to say that he was a publique person for them as comming from his Loines So Pag. 48. 4. Yet further it apeares that he stood as a publique person for them not as men but as such as came from his loynes because though Christ was truly man yet by vertue of his publike place he neither had profited him if he had stood nor did hurt him by his fall did not convey sin and death to him as to his posterity and the reason of this is because he came from him not by propagation but supernaturall overshadowing and something in his owne words there as to this purpose Pag. 119. He decreed that all the rest of mankind should come from this first Adam by propagation except his Son Christ Having thus examined his assertion I shall perpend his Reasons and they are weake as that false The first is this For so they were after his fall arguing that because they came from him by propagation after his fall therefore by his loines strong reasoning If our Author will not have it because they came from his loynes it must be because they were mankind But is not reason as valid against this thus not as mankind because so they were after his fall nay doth it strongly overthrow him for seeing now after the fall men are his off-spring and all such and none but such as come from his Loynes are guilty of sin and death doth it not appeare that he was a publique person for all such as came out of his Loynes and under that very notion His second reason is this It was by vertue of the Covenant between God and Adam A fond and weake reason to oppose these two and say not as comming from his Loynes but by vertue of the Covenant they agree very well and we may say t was for them as or because they came from his loynes because it was the agreement betwixt God and Adam that he stood as a publique person for himselfe and his Posterity and such as came from his Loynes If he will beleeve any thing Arminius himselfe Ratio faderis a Deo cum hominibus primis initi haec fuit ut si ipsi ingratid permonerent ad posteros dona transmitterentur si se indignos facerent posteri vero â—s carcrent hinc accidit ut omnes ex ipsis propagandi morti obnoxit evaserâ—nt So that now reduce the Authors assertion to truth and let us say That Adam stood as a publique peâ—â— in the room of all that came from his Loynes and under that very notion And then the Analogie will come to this even so doth Christ the second Adam stand in the roome of all those that come to have a being from him And if the Author would have it driven any further he must prove it Indeed he would fain conclude as In this his publique place he is not betrusted with fewer than Adam And he would prove by such Arguments Else will he come short of his Figure But this is no convincing Argument for first it is no paradox to say that in some things Christ comes short of his Figure for in our Authors Judgement they are not alike in all things Now in the rules of proportion it is no more discrepant to come short than to exceed And upon this
thing as he knoweth shall not come to passe which is no sound reasoning for though desire may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to God which I grant not yet it will not follow that if he can desire he may will that which he knoweth shall not come to passe neither doth it follow in man 2. The matter controverted is not whether God may will that which is not to come to passe but that which he knoweth shall not come to passe which is all one in God but not in the instance produced by him he himselfe produceth his adversary thus speaking sect 8. sect 7. Deus statuitur velle quod ab aterno certus est non agere and thus Deum intendere quod novit non futurum both propounding the absurdity thus then God willeth that which he knoweth shall not come to passe now to this he saith man may will that which is not to come to passe and what then if he had been opposite he should have said thus man may will that which he knoweth shall not come to passe but this neither doth my reason comprehend nor faith beleeve and his ratiotination comes to this man may will that which he knoweth shall not come to passe therefore God may will that which he knoweth shall never come to passe which is but a miserable consequence Ibid. Againe he saith Legislator desiderat ut subditi omnes legem servent c. quanquam eam ab omnibus servatum non iri non possit ignorari quidni de deo idem dicamus That is a Lawgiver may desire that his Subjects may keepe the Law though he know it is not to be done of all what if we say the same of God Not to insist upon that diversion translating the question from the will of God to the desire of God which in rationall agents the one may be conversant about that which the other is not for the desire may be conversant about impossibilities that they might be possible but the will can never to passe by that there is a manifold discrepancy betwixt man and God in this case 1. The Lawgiver is bound by Gods revealed will to desire that all keep good Lawes but God no way bound 2. The Lawgiver cannot certainely know but that all may keepe the Law therefore may desire and will also but God is not so ignorant 3. It is not in the Lawgivers power to make all men keepe the Law therefore he may desire and wish but not so of God he may not onely by his absolute power but modo decenti in a manner becoming himself and mans nature make all to keep his Law and be saved therefore no cause why he should desire 4. The Lawgiver because he desireth and desire accomplished breeds joy but disappointed breeds sorrow of heart useth all possible meanes that lie in his power and which he knowes are requisite to make men keepe those Lawes but God doth not use all those meanes which he knoweth requisite to make men obey and beleeve no not those which he might and neither does any indecent thing to his owne nature or mans liberty therefore I see not how it may appeare that God desireth the salvation of all though that similitude hold on mans part 5. This reasoning and argumentation from man to God I cannot see to be safe too faire a way is there laid open to delirate with the grosse Anthropomorthites and to make mans imperfection the measure of Gods perfection and my Antagonist will tell Corvinus Cap. 6.29 that It is ungodly to compare God and man to compare the workes wordes and thoughts of man to them of God and to make them equall and alike And the argument herein comes to this issue A Lawgiver that knoweth not but all may obey hath it not in his power to make all obey that useth all meanes to cause men to obey may desire that all his subiects doe obey therefore God which knoweth that all shall not be saved and in whose power it is to cause men to beleeve and be saved and who useth not all meanes that he may to that purpose may will the salvation of all the validity of which reasoning is not cleare And in all these I can not conceive that his understanding did betray him to such inconsequences but rather he desired to dazle the eyes of his readers with such phrasiologies Absurd 2. The second absurdity is this If God will from eternity the salvation of all and yet the damnation of some then voluntas humana efficit ut deus rescindat voluntatem longe optimam c. That is c. 5. s 4. then the will of man causeth that God doth cut of his antecedent will from which Corvinus himselfe concludeth the minde of his adversary Vis dicere voluntatem dei mutabilem statui that is thou wouldst say that we make Gods will mutable and this indeed is the genuine absurdity that we fasten upon their doctrine and upon examination I thinke it will be found to be neither invidiose nor misere enviously nor miserably as he is pleased to reply for let us consider God being affirmed by them to will the salvation of all from eternity either he must retaine and persist in that will to eternity and so will it even then when they are actually condemned in hell or not retaine it I suppose none will affirme that when men are irrecoverably in hell that then God doth retaine his will to save them if he doe not then must he needs be mutable but this Arminius himselfe durst not owne but granteth that act whereby he willeth any thing is actus aeternus immutabilis eternall and immutable and his reason is nihil potest de novo bonum videri disp pub Thes 4.5.51 quod illi semel bonum visum fuit perpetuo illi tale videtur that is nothing seemeth anew to God to be good and what once seemeth good to him alwayes appeares under that notion therefore what ever he willeth and however whether upon any condition or absolutely he must so will to eternity else is he mutable in Arminius reasoning Gods decrees are eternall so the same granteth and upon this ground Secus deo mutatio impingitur disp pub Thes 15. sect 6. otherwise a change may be fastened upon God now that Gods decrees may be eternall requisite it is that they be so both ex parte ante and ea parte post that is both from eternity and to eternity he must neither begin to will that which before he did not or leave of to will that which before he did if either he nor his will can be said to be eternall So Aquinas explaineth himselfe part 1. Q. 19 Art 7. Mutatio est in voluntate cum incipit velle quod alias non volebat vel cum definit velle c. sed in deo nulla talis mutatio that is the will is changed either when it beginneth anew to will