from Adam so the righteousnesse of one came on all men that come from him and here lyeth the perfect Analogie betwixt Christ and Adam and this will more appeare if we well consider the Text That Redemption and Justification which he gives to every Son of Adam is such as only is wrought out for men but not on men for this is to partake of Actuall Justification but of this latter the Text speakes it saith It commeth on all men but Justification is upon none but Beleevers Rom. 3.22 23 24. Againe this Righteousnesse is said to come upon all as the Condemnation came upon all by Adams Sin but Condemnation came Actually upon all so that they were without a Saviour in an infallibility of perishing So this comming of Righteousnesse on all must be Actuall too and so as all on whom it so commeth shall infallibly come to glory and life Eternall but so Righteousnesse commeth not on every Son of Adam but Beleevers only Againe This All men in Ver. 18. is supplied and expounded Ver. 17. by those that receive abundance of Grace and the gift of Righteousnesse which maketh it appeare that is an Actuall Justification which the Apostle speaketh of here and therefore favoureth not such an one which may be though none partake of Justification and such an one as none can be truly said to be justified with but those that Beleeve therefore owneth not such an one as is competible to every Son of Adam So that the validity of his Scriptures I see not I shall examine his Reason It may be understood and beleeved as well as this that all men were made righteous in the first Adam and were truly righteous in him of which Righteousnesse none ever yet felt or partaked Rom. 5.12 And so though all recovered c. The Question is not how it may be beleeved and understood if it was so in truth but whether it be so or no. Secondly We may grant the whole both may be understood alike that is neither of them at all I know no Scripture that saith all the Sons and Posterity of Adam were made righteous That Text Eccles 7.29 faith no more but that man was made righteous which is true in that Adam and Evah were so Not that every Son of Adam was made holy none were made holy but those that were Created but his Posterity were not created holinesse was not derived to any by propagation A ground why every Son of Adam is not said in Scripture to be righteous in Adam I conceive is this to be made righteous as Adam was is a reall denomination and quality induced into the Patient and that by a transient Action passing from the Agent into the Patient but such an Action there cannot be In subjecto nondum existente In a Subject that hath not actuall existence So that our Author must cleare this to us before he can make it the standard of our beliefe of the former that every Son of Adam is Reconciled and Justified in Christ Thirdly I shall grant him that all are or were made righteous in Adam yet I cannot subscribe to the other neither is it any way explicatory of this that All Adams Sons are made alive and justified in Christ for let us consider there were none made righteous or could be so said but those that were to come from him by propagation and under that notion as comming from him he was made righteous and betrusted with Grace as a publique Person to convey to his Posterity and such as came from him so that all that come from him his off-spring we shal grant for Conference sake that they were made righteous in him Now will this inferre or help us to understand that all were justified in Christ It helps us to beleeve that all that do or are to come from him were made righteous in him but no further for what ground can be deduced from Scripture or Reason that as Adams Figure Christ makes more righteous in him then come from him to have a being from and in him let us grant him that all the Sons of Adam were made righteous in him because they were to come from him yet we cannot yet yeeld or understand that every Son of Adam is justified in Christ because they have not nor ever are to have a being from him Having laid down his reason he produces a dissimilitude betwixt Adam Christ thus As the first Adam being a living Soule and of the earth He lost all our soules in his Fall without remedy on his part So the second Adam is a quickening Spirit the Lord from heaven and loseth none but who ever now perisheth destroyeth himselfe and loseth his owne soule The absurdities and obscurity of these expresses far exceed the pertinency or usefulnesse to the Point in hand 1. The Author pretendeth a dissimilitude but yet he brings an As So As the first Adam lost So the second Adam loseth none Now there is none but knoweth that these words As So set forth a similitude as the Apostle when he would shew a Similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5.18 19 21. he saith As by offence of one c. So Righteousnesse c. But when he sheweth a dissimilitude he useth other expressions as For But as Ver. 16. For the judgement was by one c. But the free gift is of many c. But we may expect no better from the Author but this Obiter 2. He saith The Scripture sheweth that dissimilitude but he sheweth not where The Apostle Paul who undertaketh the businesse of the difference and similitude betwixt Adam and Christ Rom. 5. yet this he mentioneth not 3. This Phrase Loseth none is very fallacious and doubtfully laid downe it may be taken either Actively or Passively Actively to cast away or to destroy so it is taken when he saith Adam lost himselfe and us all if he thus take it then Scripture neither doth nor can set downe such a difference Adam destroyed but Christ destroyeth none differences are Inter Entia positive beings do usually afford differences and we shall find that when the Apostles shew discrepances betwixt Adam and Christ they give them still betwixt Adams losing and Christs saving not Adams losing and Christs not losing this would import that Christs Office was only not to destroy Againe secondly It may be taken Passively that is He suffers none to perish and thus is it taken when Christ is said not to lose as Joh. 6.39 18.9 So Christs not losing is nothing but his not suffering to perish if it be thus taken then the dissimilitude must run thus As Adam lost all so Christ recovers all And as all were lost by Adam without remedy so Christ recovered all infallibly and without feare of being taken out of his hands he shall suffer none to be lost no not to lose themselves for then are they lost and therefore he removes all externall and internall principles that might destroy us Joh. 10.28 29.
cause why it should be after the expunging of so many Statings entertained with confidence as that which hath most pertinency and light in it But I shall first examine the members apart and then the whole conjoyned In this large result there are included these five particulars 1. That they are given to his dipose But let the Author seriously consider His opinion being laid aside a while whether this Phrase To dye for as it is spoken of Christ hath the same meaning with paying a price for as any man doth when he purchaseth any person or thing into his dispose And is this Phrase Given to his dispose a fit expression for Ransome or Redemption Ransome or Redemption when spoken of man alwaies presuppose misery and liberty as the tearmes from which to which men are ransomed and redeemed but being given into ones dispose requireth neither The Israelites had the Heathen in their dispose but they cannot in reason be said to ransome them nor to bring them from misery and slavery to liberty but rather the contrary Besides hath not Christ all the Creatures on Earth the Angels in Heaven the Devils in Hell in his dispose for the good of his Church But it would be no Scripture Language to say that he ransomed redeemed all Creatures on Earth Angels in Heaven Devils in Hell Therefore this expression let it stand by a while as of no worth to expresse ransome or redemption by till we see what is in the rest 2. That he will raise them out of the death he dyed for them and set them alive before him which expression savours much of the confusion of its Author His meaning herein dubious and when ever discovered it will appeare senselesse He must have one of these two senses either meaning of the Resurrection at the last day and so affirming that being raised out of the dust and being made alive before him out of the dust is that ransome or redemption mentioned in Scripture Or else that Christ dyed for us the same death which by his Death he freeth us from but both absurd For the first though it be put as a meanes and way to the possession of that inheritance to which we are ransomed and redeemed Yet no Scripture giveth the Resurrection the name of ransome or redemption as Christ is said to redeeme or ransome us and the former very unfit to expresse this latter by for then those that are raised by his Judiciary power only and that to receive their eternall and finall doome in hell may in that Act be said to be ransomed and saved but this who can beleeve So for the second it is not any whit shorter in absurditie for the death which we are freed from is no way proportioned by the death which he dyed we are to be freed from the death we were adjudged to not what death he dyed himself he came to save us so farre as we were lost but not to be so farre lost himselfe Some sutable proportion of sufferings which he endured to them which we deserved I grant but where they wanted indurance it was made up by the excellency of the person suffering temporary sufferings of that Person that was an infinite God Act. 20.28 did countervaile eternall sufferings of a finite Creature we were adjudged to deaths Temporall Spirituall Eternall but Christ did not dye all these for us yet freed us from the two last he dyed the first for us and freed us not from it he dyed not a Spirituall death that is in sin for then he had not been an unspotted Lambe 1 Pet. 1.20 He dyed for our sins but we read not that he dyed in our sins and Eternally he dyed not then had he not been justified himselfe nor justified us yet he freed us from death both Spirituall and Eternall therefore this expression of the Author is obscure confused and however taken absurdly laid downe as not reduceable to any right reason 3. They shall acknowledge him Lord and come before his Judgement Seat that all men acknowledge him Lord and come to be judged by him none yet denyed But that being brought before his judgement seat and being made to confesse him Lord is to be ransomed and redeemed none before our Author have ever been so weake to affirme for in and by eternall destruction men may be caused to acknowledge him Lord but is it a sober expression to say that in eternall destruction we are ransomed and redeemed 4. That he is so filled with Spirit for them to make it knowne and with such tendernesse to them that they might be saved But what is it which by his Spirit he makes knowne Scripture telleth us that he is filled with Spirit to preach the Gospell Glad tidings Liberty Isa 61.1 But this is none of that god newes Gospell that Christ is to Preach For these viz. all are in his dispose shall be raised out of the dust shall acknowledge him Lord and stand before his Judgement Seat are no Gospell newes no glad tidings to them that call to the hils to cover them from the presence of the Lambe but to such these particulars equally belong with all others Againe He is filled with Spirit to make knowne that which requireth the worke of the Spirit to the actuall enjoying of it and so filled with Spirit to give Spirit that men might enjoy that which he maketh knowne Luk. 4.18 As liberty opening Prison doores Remission of sins eternall life and to the enjoyment of these the worke of the Spirit is requisite but to those particulars which he furnisheth us withall the workes of the Spirit in the hearts of men are no way requisite for men are and shall be brought into his dispose raised up out of the dust stand alive before him acknowledge him Lord come before his Judgement Seat though they never feele the worke of the Spirit upon their hearts therefore why he should be filled with Spirit to make any or all of these knowne I would be enformed Againe To make these known that men might be saved is not consonant to reason or Scripture seeing these may be done and made known to such men and at such a time when in the judgement of all men they are not salvable Certainely herein the Author commeth very short that which he is filled with Spirit to make knowne that men might be saved goeth further than all those particulars 5. So that all are made salvable This is the Helena on which the Universalists are so enamoured but this is no congruous expression to expound Ransome and Redemption and Salvation by no not in his owne principles for Ransome and Redemption is to all and every man as he urgeth But to be salvable is not attributed to all men but to the residue that are not Elect. For by salvable is meant only salvable and not infallibly to be saved and so salvandi now he saith the Elect are undoubtedly to be saved and so salvandi and the rest they are
for all and his advocation that is onely for Beleevers I know the Authors understanding is not able to reach the difference betwixt confounding and not dividing the argument contends for the non dividing of his death and advocation but not to confound them the argument and them that forme it hold it distinct But we would have his advocation and death to be to the same persons and so his death and ransome not for all and every sonne of Adam 2. Whereas he saith his advocation is peculiar to beleevers I conclude he hath lost part of his lesson viz. the distinction of Arminius of Advocation into generall and speciall for without this how will he free himselfe from a contradiction in that he saith here that his advocation is peculiar to beleevers yet he contendeth page 110. 111. that he prayed for the world John 9.21 for transgressors Isay 53.12 for crucifiers Luke 23.34 all which he opposeth to elect and beleevers 3. How his advocation is proper to beleevers that is in act I see not because he prayed for some that after should beleeve and therefore then did not ver 22. 4. That his advocation is proper to beleevers that is such as are or shall be I grant but then why his oblation should be of larger extent I see not they are joyned acts in his mediatourship the one shedding Col Hag. in Arg. the other presenting that blood as shed Hence the Remonstrants grant pro omnibus Christum imercedere ut pontifices ejus typi solebant and these acts are never disjoyned but connected as Rom. 8.34 1 John 2.1.2 for him to appeare on earth for them for whom he appeareth not in heaven Scripture owneth not and if he can prove Christ to have interceded for all I for my part shall grant him to have offered blood for all and seeing he granteth intercesion to be peculiar so shall I conclude oblation also they being both of the same latitude and whereas he saith This confoundeth ransome for all and advocation for beleevers is a weake confutation because in in it there is petitio principii a supposing that his ransome is for all and every man which is yet sub judice nay cleare to the contrary Yet upon this weake batâ—ery he can after his usuall custome manfully conclude that The whole argument is fallen without further answer But why doth he attempt workes of supererogation in producing so many leaves in a businesse that is done allready but his meaning is as much as it will with all the rest that follow he then attempt thâ— to answer that Text Rom 8.32 wherein the strength of the proposition lieth and from it we urge if he gave us his Sonne his Sonne will give us his prayers if not the latter not the former to this he thus answers This is not spoken in the third person nor of ransome onely nor as a proposition to bring men in to beleeve This antidote like an Empericke he applieth to every Text not considering how it is applied to the constitution of the same for what though it be not in the third person the consequence is good that to whom he giveth his Sonne to them he giveth all things and that as firme as if the words had runne thus If he hath given his Sonne to every man how shall he not with him give them all things what person soever it be spoken in first second or third yet this is firme that if he give the greater gift he will not be niggardly of a lesse the argument of confidence is not drawne from the persons to whom but the gift that was given 2. Whereas he saith that this phrase He hath delivered him up for us all meaneth not of ransome onely it is false and contrary to any common understanding it is cleare that these words relate to his death in which he is said to be delivered up for us But he urgeth further It serveth not the proposition for it saith not how shall he not freely give us all things but how shall he not with him freely give us all things so speaking of his free giving him to us and with him all things A wise interpretor would stand the Author in much stead to explicate his meaning herein the difference betwixt Shall he not give us all things and this Shall he not with him give us all things is very obscure and had he kept his owne councell we should have remained expectants of some rare discovery but from page 107. we may gather what his abuse of the Text is and what he meaneth by this phrase With him give us all things there I finde this expresse They now by beleeving receit having Christ and in him life and being sonnes thereby which giveth hope of all good he concludeth having freely given us this his owne Sonne whom before he delivered up for us how shall he not with him freely give us all things So that hence I conceive his evasion is this viz. that phrase With him speakes of such a giving his Sonne as consists in giving his Spirit by bringing them in to beleeve and being so a beeing made sonnes and having adoption and thus having him given us with him thus given we shall have all things but this is injurious to the Text many wayes as 1. Then the sense must be thus having the Sonne and all things with him how shall he not with him give us all things this would be absurd Let the Author tell me what thingt are they of which he concludes upon the having of Christ are they not all those things mentioned in the Chapter as redemption of our body ver 23. spirit to helpe infirmities ver 26. the utility of all things for good v. 28. conformity to his Sonne ver 29. vocation justification glorification yea as as a strong Remonstrant affirmeth Omnia quae spectant ad vocationem glorificationem nostram Certainely then if vocation and spirit Cornel. A lapid in locum be those things that he concludeth from Christs being given then those things are not included in that giving of Christ then it would meane thus if we have vocation and spirit how shall he not with those things give us those things but this sense I leave to the Author 2. Is it not as cleare as the light that this phrase with him is no more but with him so delivered up for us there is no mentioning of a giving of Christ as distinct from his being delivered up for us as he suggests 3. This would intimate that to be brought in to beleeve is set out in Scripture by this phrase of having Christ given for us or having given to us but this I no where finde where Christ is said to be given either by his Father or himself it relateth to his death and ransome as Mat. 20.28 Joh. 6.17 Luk 22.19 Ephes 5.2 especially where this phrase delivered up for us is used that is most cleare that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉