The Universalist Examined and Convicted, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Of the more enlarged proofe of the Propoſition.
THe Authors ſcope in this Chapter is to prove his aſſertion by the place that Chriſt ſtood in, viz. of a publike Perſon, and that as he was to anſwer his figure Adam who was a publique Perſon, and his inference is this; As the firſt Adam being a publique Perſon ſtood in the place of every individuall man, ſo Chriſt as a Publique Perſon muſt ſtand in the roome of ſo many, elſe he anſwereth not his Figure, and this is the ſumme of this Chapter▪ but how ſtrongly this argueth for him I ſhall briefly examine. But before he treate of the Compariſon it ſelfe he gives us ſome premiſes which deſerve a little examination.
1. [The buſineſſe which we are to view is the worke of Redemption wrought by Jeſus, and ſo of thoſe workes from God, outward, and towards his Creatures, and ſo not of thoſe workes which are in himſelfe, ſo only in Chriſt, and for Chriſt, as his ſecret Counſels of Election, &c.]
Firſt, This premiſe altogether needleſſe, becauſe the buſineſſe we are about is Redemption, he need not therefore feare that any would tranſlate the Controverſie to Election.
2. Why would he rather diſpute of Gods Acts upon the Creatures, then his Acts in himſelfe concerning the Creature, doth not he know that he worketh according to his Will? and doth not he ſay Pag. 120 121. [Looke how his word declareth him to proceed in his workes, ſuch we may be ſure was his Purpoſe and Decree?] Therefore I thinke it is as ſafe to diſpute the caſe whether God decreed to redeeme all. As whether he hath Redeemed all by Chriſt, therefore in this caſe this premiſe is but Empty.
3. His expreſſes ſeeme to infeere, that only his Decrees or Election are in Chriſt, and for Chriſt; but this untrue, for all ſpirituall bleſſings are in Chriſt, Eph. 1.3. but no Scripture ſaith that Gods Decrees are for Chriſt, of this may be ſeen more fully afterward.
4. What uſe this premiſe hath in purſuit of that publique place Chriſt ſtood in, and proving herefrom that he dyed for all and every man, It is not eaſie for any to determine, and I can count it no other but verboſity, that the Reader from multitude of words might conclude abundance of matter.
2. [However Chriſt was figured by Adam in the common place he ſtood in, &c. yet there is a great difference between thoſe two Adams and their worke: the firſt was a living ſoule, might have ſtood, and all his with him, but no power to riſe and live againe, but the ſecond was a quickning Spirit.] This premiſe might well have been ſpared, as I beleeve he will ſay in the cloſe. For,
1. I thinke there is none ſo blinded with his errour, as to thinke that Chriſt and Adam agree in all things as publique perſons.
2. It being granted, yet I ſhall improve it to cleare theſe three particulars,
1. Adam and Chriſt as they are publique Perſons are not equall and alike in all things.
2. If we find not the particular things wherein they agree, and wherein they differ, much may be ſaid in this Point to little purpoſe.
3. That it deſerveth examination, whether the preciſe number of Individuals be not one thing, wherein they differ, and whatſoever is brought to prove it muſt not be the compariſon it ſelfe or publique place, but ſomething that proveth particularly that they agree in this, or elſe he ſaith nothing.
3. [There is an abundance in Chriſt beyond that appearing in the Type, ſo that therein Chriſt commeth not ſhort, but goeth beyond the Figure in that wherein it figured him.] This is but one and the ſame with the former, for in that he ſaid, they were not alike in ſome things, he preſuppoſed that he went beyond in ſome things, and came ſhort in ſome things, or both. But,
1. That difference from Rom. 5.16. I grant, by one offence ſin entered: But the Pardon is of many offences; But this giveth no light to the deciding of this Controverſie, whether Chriſt procured Pardon for every Son of Adam or no?
2. As for his ſecond, viz [Chriſt leadeth to a better life than Adam by Sin overthrew,] I cannot aſſent unto, becauſe Adams integrity and holineſſe lead him to an eternall glory in heaven, and Chriſt leadeth to no more, and that Text, Rom. 5.17, 19, 20. is abuſed by him being quoted to this purpoſe.
3. As for the third, viz. [That the benefit of Chriſt redounds to more then the fall of Adam did damnifie,] Lyeth under a (non liquet,) for I conceive the Act of Chriſt as Mediatour is only reſtorative. Now in ſuch an Act how could he reſtore more then Adam hurt? None elſe needed Chriſt; I conceive by his Texts alleadged that he meaneth the Angels: But that they have any benefit by Chriſts reſtoring Act, or ſtood in need of any ſuch, his Scriptures prove not at all, for how Chriſt ſhould do Angels good, being in the nature of man, more then he could do man good in the nature of Angells, I ſee not: If Chriſt did Angells good it was in regard of their ſtability, but why Chriſt ſhould have a hand by way of merit in their ſtability, more than he ſhould have had in Adams ſtability if he had ſtood, I ſee not: But I ſuppoſe if Adam had not ſinned there had been no place for Chriſts merits.
4. It deſerveth examination, Whether Chriſt may not come ſhort of his Figure in ſome things, as well as exceed in ſome things, and yet anſwer his Figure, and ſo his comming ſhort in the preciſe number of Individuals, and yet anſwer his Figure well enough? Not now to inſiſt upon the Impertinency to the Authors preſent buſineſſe, I ſhall examine the Compariſon it ſelfe, Adam and Chriſt as two publique Perſons, he urgeth thus:
[The firſt Adam ſtood in a publique place not ſingly for himſelfe alone, but in the roome of all mankind, &c. not only as they were in his loynes, but by vertue of the account and worke of God, and Covenant between God and Adam, ſo what God did to him he did to all mankind: So the ſecond Adam ſtood in publique place, not for himſelfe alone, or for ſome, but all mankind, all fallen; elſe had he been ſhort of his Figure, whereas God did more honour to Chriſt then Adam.] Herein we have the ſumme of the Argument, what is in it ſhall appeare, and firſt I ſhall ſhew wherein we agree, then wherein we differ, we agree in theſe things.
1. That as Adam ſtood as a publipue perſon not ſingly for himſelfe as one, but for others, ſo Chriſt as a publique perſon not for himſelfe but others.
2. As Adam by vertue of his publique place ſtood in the roome of ſo 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;I… 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. 9He 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 twas 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 …s carcrent; hinc accidit ut omnes ex ipſis propagandi, morti obnoxit evaſer…nt.] So that now reduce the Authors aſſertion to truth, and let us ſay, That Adam ſtood as a publique pe… 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 ground that can be no reaſon againſt his comming ſhort in this particular, becauſe he is to anſwer his Figure; for this notwithſtanding he may exceed and go beyond, in our Authors Judgement. Secondly, If he ſtand in the roome of all them that come to have a being from him, he anſwers his Figure that ſtood in the roome of all that had a being from him, although he did not ſtand in the roome of every Individuall, or the preciſe number of Individualls. And if a part of Scripture did affirme that unleſſe Chriſt ſtood in the roome of the preciſe number of Individualls, he ſhould come ſhort of his Figure, I ſhould yeeld to him in this point, but till then he muſt give me leave to thinke this Reaſon of no force.
A ſecond Reaſon by which he proveth it is this, [God honoured Chriſt more then Adam.] True, and herein, Adam was a root of Life and Death, life if he had ſtood, and death if he fell: But Chriſt was to convey only life, herein Chriſt was more honoured than Adam. But the honour of Chriſt is not placed in the preciſe number of them for whom he ſtood, ſo as that he that ſtands in the room God ſhould honour moſt, for then in that God honoured Chriſt more than Adam, it muſt follow that Chriſt ſtood in the place and roome of more than Adam loſt, or that came from his Loines, which is abſurd.
As for the ſecond particular which he obſerveth in this Similitude betwixt Adam and Chriſt, Pag. 44. is not pertinent or uſefull to the Controverſie at all, therefore I ſhall wave it.
A third which he obſerveth is the [Effect and fruit of this publique buſineſſe, It was publique, and concerned all mankind, the diſobedience of the firſt Adam, overthrew all mankind, ſo as in and by him they were all deprived of life, &c. So the obedience of the ſecond Adam hath recovered and reſtored all mankind, ſo as in him they are reſtored, redeemed, and made righteous.] It matters not what comes from the Authors Pen, but what proceeds from the mouth of Scripture; but this no Scripture ſpeaketh.
1. No Scripture ſpeaketh that Adam ſtood in the roome of all mankind, that is, of every individuall man, the Author confeſſeth that he ſtood not in the roome of Chriſt.
2. Adams ſin loſt not every man, he loſt not Chriſt himſelfe, but only ſuch as came of him by propagation, which Chriſt did not: both theſe particulars are concealed, if not denyed, by him, though contrary to himſelfe.
3. No Scripture ſaith, That as Adam loſt all that came from his Loynes, ſo Chriſt recovered all that came from the firſt Adams Loynes.
4. No Scripture ſaith, that Chriſts recovery concerned all that came out of Adams Loynes.
5. The Scripture no where ſaith, that if as Adams loſſe concerned all that came from his Loynes, ſo Chriſts recovery muſt concerne all that came from Adams Loynes, rather the contrary: 1 Cor. 15. [All dyed in Adam, ſo in Chriſt all ſhall be made alive.] The All in the former part is Adam, and all that came from him: but the All in the ſecond part, is not all that came from the firſt, but the ſecond Adam, Verſ 23. Firſt Chriſt, and then Chriſts at his comming. So that what is herein ſpoken the Author ſpeaketh, but not Scripture; he produceth ſome places, Rom 3.24, 22. where it ſaith, All are juſtified, and the righteouſneſſe of God on (All) but herein he diabolically clippes the Text willfully, leaveth out that which would decide the Controverſie, it is not all that came from Adams Loynes, but all that beleeve. So Rom. 5.18. [Free gift came on all men to Juſtification of life.] True, but it is on the All that is mentioned Cap. 3.22, 24. as may appeare by the 17. verſe, it ſaith, not on all Adams Sons, or all that came from Adams Loynes.
A fourth particular which he obſerveth from this compariſon is this, in regard of the vertue and operation of this publique buſineſſe, thus; [When any commeth to have a being from the firſt Adam, they do neceſſarily in that participation of his nature partake of the guilt, &c. So when any do come by a ſpirituall birth to have a being in Chriſt, in that participation, &c. He now freely imputeth it to them,] This being well conſidered will ſhew his weakeneſſe, and the truth at once: For,
1. How is it that every man in and by partaking of Adams nature, and comming from him, partaketh of the guilt, if he ſtood not as a publique for mankind as comming from his Loynes, which he even now denyed?
2. I demand, Why thoſe that come to have a being from the firſt Adam partake of his guilt and miſery, is it not becauſe he ſtood in their roome? And is it upon this ground, that as it was intended in his ſtanding in publique, ſo it taketh place in them that partake of his nature: And as they that come to partake of his nature come to partake of his ſin, becauſe he ſtood in the roome of them that ſhould partake of his Nature; So muſt it not A pari follow, if a reaſon being demanded why them that have a being from Chriſt come to partake of his righteouſneſſe? Is it not to be anſwered, becauſe he ſtood a publique perſon for them? What is this but to averre, that as Adam ſtood a publique perſon for all his: So did Chriſt for all his, and all that were to have a being from him. Which falleth ſhort of what the Author intendeth, and what he hath obtained in all this purſuance of this Compariſon, only thus much appeares, that herein they agreed, both conveyed their proper influence to them that came of them, but they did both to the preciſe number of Individuals, he proveth not in one word of his Diſcourſe, nor one place of Scripture. And all this, and all that which followeth being of the ſame ſtampe with what went before, riſeth not ſo high, as to prove that Chriſt obtained life for all that came from the firſt Adams Loynes.