The Riches of Gods Love, Part 42 – Part 47
IEANES.
IF you would hereby inſinuate, that we affirme, that God doth inwardly and ſeriouſly will or deſire the death or damnation of his Children, and yet at the ſame time alſo ſeriouſly injoyne his Miniſters, who are ſpirituall Phyſitians, to doe their beſt to recover them out of the ſnare of the Divell, you doe wonderfully miſconceive and misreport our opinion; for we ſay, that unto none hath he given power, right, or priviledge to be his Sonnes, but unto ſuch as believe on his name; and all thoſe who believe, he hath ordained unto eternall life, and will keepe by his power unto ſalvation; but of this ſee our Author, In the first Book of this Treatiſe. p. 133. 134. 137.
What hath been ſaid is ſufficient to convince him, that will not wilfully and obſtinately ſhut his eyes againſt the light, that the command of all who heare the Goſpell to believe and repent, and the purpoſe of God to deny faith and repentance unto many, are not contradictory. I ſhall, before I diſcharge my ſelfe of this Section, evince as much briefly concerning this latter purpoſe, and that purpoſe or decree out of which the command proceedeth, and which is ſignified thereby.
Here we muſt premiſe, that the commandement of God doth ſignify a decree or decreeing will of God, though not ſuch a decree or will as the Arminians uſually ſhape for themſelves. 1. It ſignifieth the decree of God concerning the commandement it ſelfe, 2. Concerning the thing commanded.
Firſt then, the command of God ſignifieth Gods will or decree of the commandement it ſelfe, of the externall tranſient act of commanding. Eph. 1. 11. God worketh all things after the Counſell of his own will. Gods commanding then of things in time, is a ſigne that from everlaſting he did decree to command them. But ſecondly, It ſignifieth a will or decree of God alſo concerning the thing commanded, viz, as touching the obligation to it, not as touching the exiſtence or non-existence of it, it ſignifieth, that God from everlaſting did decree, that the thing commanded ſhould be mans duty, ſhould be a thing Morally good, but it doth not ſignify or reveale, that the thing commanded ſhould actually exiſt, and be performed by every one unto whom the command is propounded. Indeed the obedience of the elect, for whoſe ſalvation only the commands of God are given, was both commanded and decreed, or determined by God Ezek. 36. 26, 27. And hence we may inferre, that the command of faith, repentance, obedience, &c. all which God hath determined to be neceſſary unto ſalvation, doe imply, and reveale in a generall, and indefinite way, that God from eternity did purpoſe to worke faith, repentance, and obedience in thoſe, whom he had deſigned to ſalvation. But this conceſſion will not ſatisfy Arminians, who will be contented with nothing, unleſſe we will grant them, that God willeth and deſireth the faith, repentance, obedience, and ſalvation of Reprobates; which we cannot doe, but withall we muſt renounce and diſclaime Gods omnipotency, and immutability.
Theſe things thus briefely premiſed, That Gods purpoſe or decree of commanding faith, and repentance unto all that heare the Goſpel, and his purpoſe or decree to deny faith and repentance unto many, are not contradictory, is manifeſt: becauſe Gods purpoſe or decree of commanding faith and repentance, referres unto the thing commanded, faith and repentance, only as concerning the obligation to them, not as touching the existence of them; now to decree and purpoſe, to bind and oblige all to faith and repentance, and to decree and purpoſe, that ſome yet ſhall never actually believe and repent, cannot be proved by any rules of Logick to be contradictory.
Before I proceed unto the conſideration of your next and laſt paſſage againſt D. Twiſſe, I ſhall only repreſent unto you, that our Author, whom you take to be one of the greateſt patrons of that cauſe, which you account adverſe, doth diſlike the accommodation of that diſtinction of voluntas ſigni and beneplaciti, or a ſecret and revealed will, unto 1 Tim. 2. 4. (the place which you have under debate,) as well as you, though, I confeſſe, upon different grounds. In his Booke againſt Jackson pag. 534. he informeth us, that neither Calvin embraceth it, nor Beza, nor Piſcator, but all concurre upon that interpretation which Austin gave many hundred years agoe. Peter Martyr propoſeth it (ſaith he) amongſt diverſe others, but embraceth it not, neither doe I know any Divine of ours that embraceth it. Cajetan indeed embraceth it, and Cornelius de Lapide, and Aquinas amongſt other interpretations; If you take (ſaith he ſpeaking to D. Jackson) a liberty to put upon us the opinions, and accommodations of diſtinctions uſed by Papiſts, you may in the next place make doubt, whether we have not ſubſcribed to the Councell of Trent. And againe in the next page 535. Neither doe I like (ſaith he) Cajetans interpretation after this manner, when he ſaith, Eſt ſermo de voluntate ſigni, qua Deus proponit omnibus homimbus praecepta ſalutis, doctrinam que Evangelii; and that for two reaſons: Firſt, becauſe God doth not propoſe his Goſpell to all: Secondly, if God ſhould propoſe the Goſpell to all, and bid all men to believe, this is no certaine ſigne that God will have them to believe; like as it is no certain ſigne that God will give them grace to believe, without which they cannot believe; For it is manifeſt that God doth not give the grace of faith and repentance unto all that heare the Goſpell, nor to a major part of them; but it is a ſigne I confeſſe that God will have it our duty to believe, by commanding us to believe.
The interpretation of this place, which D. Twiſſe ſticks to, is that of Auſtin, that God will have ſome of all ſorts or conditions to be ſaved, and he makes it good from the coherence, as here, ſo in his conſideration of the doctrine of the Synod of Arles and Dort &c. p. 61. and p. 62, 63, 64. he gives a full and ſatisfactory anſwer unto that which you call more then a Topicke argument againſt this expoſition, unto which why you doe not reply, I cannot but wonder, but perhaps you never read it; And yet againe 'tis very ſtrange, that you, who have ſearched ſo narrowly and throughly into theſe controverſies, as you profeſſe, ſhould be unread in all the workes of him, whom you confeſſe to be one of the greateſt Patrons of the Adverſe cauſe (as you call it) I will lay downe that which you call more then a Topicke argument, and compare it with the objection of Tilenus, and then put downe D. Twiſſe his anſwer unto Tilenus, and referre it unto the Reader, whether it doe not fully ſatisfy, that which you ſuppoſe to be a demonſtration.
M. GOODWIN. pag. 104.
IF it may be ſaid that God will have all men to be ſaved, becauſe he will have ſome of all ſorts to be ſaved, it may more properly & truly be ſaid of him, that he will have all men to be deſtroyed (at least in their ſenſe, who hold an irreverſible reprobation of perſons perſonally conſidered from eternity) becauſe not ſimply ſome, but a very great part of all ſorts of men now extant in the world, will in time periſh, and that according to the decree or will of God, the tenour whereof is, that all perſons dying in impenitency, and unbeleife ſhall periſh: yet the Scriptures doe no where ſay upon any ſuch account as this, either in terminis, or in ſubſtance, that God will have all men to periſh, and not to come to the knowledge of the truth which is ſomewhat more than a Topicke argument, that God is not therefore ſaid to will that all men ſhould be ſaved and come to the knowledge of the truth, only becauſe he will have ſome, ſome few of all ſorts of men to be ſaved, and to come to this knowledge, but ſimply becauſe his will is to have all men with out exception (viz. as they are men, and whilſt they are yet capable of Repentance) to be ſaved, and in order thereunto to come to the knowledge of the ſaving truth. (i. e.) The Goſpell.
TILENVS.
NOW if this New Evangelist doe tell the Infidell that the paſſages of Scripture, which ſay that God would have all men to be ſaved, are to be underſtood of ſome of every Nation, and condition, the Infidell will reply that then the Scripture ought with much more reaſon to ſay, that God would have all men to be damned; becauſe that in every Nation there are farre more of theſe than of them, and how that in all reaſon the denomination ſhould be taken from the greateſt number.
DR TWISSE upon the Synod of Arles &c. Pag. 62, 63, 64.
I Deny that the Scripture ought with much more reaſon, or with any reaſon to ſay, that God would have all men to be damned, although put the caſe that in every Nation & condition there be more of theſe, than of them; and his reaſon drawne from the denomination to be taken from the major part is nothing to the preſent purpoſe. For the queſtion here about the interpretation of Saint Pauls phraſe is only this, whether the word All be to be interpreted of all ſorts, or of all and every one; ſo that the rule of denomination taken from the major part is nothing pertinent to this, The queſtion being only, whether genera ſingulorum, or ſingula generum be here meant, not whether ſome of all ſorts, or all and every one of all ſorts. Which being reſolved, and that hereby is meant, genera ſingulorum, it may be farther queſtioned, whether genera ſingulorum doe imply every particular of theſe kinds, or only ſome of them? For it is well known, that the phraſe is indifferent to the one as well as the other, and that genera ſingulorum, are equally preſerved entire in ſome particulars, as in many, or moſt, or all. Like as the Species of the Sunne is maintained exactly as well in that one Sunne, which ſhines by day in the firmament, as if there were twenty Sunnes.
Secondly, though the reaſon here given from the denomination to be taken from the greater part, were pertinent, yet were it nothing pertinent to the Apoſtles purpoſe in this place, to ſay, that God would have all men to be damned; For this were no agreeable reaſon to move them to pray for all, for Kings, and all that are in authority. As if the Apoſtle ſhould ſay thus, I will have you to pray for all, for God will have all to be damned; for ſaith Auſtin, if Gods Church knew who were predeſtinated to be ſent into eternall fire with the Divell and his Angells, they would no more pray for ſuch, than they would pray for the Divell himſelfe.
So that this Author doth miſerably overlaſh in this his ſubtilty, and betraies more nakedneſſe than any ſober and wiſe Infidell were like to doe.
Then againe, the inſtances of Scripture are clearely againſt him. For when every foure-footed beaſt (as the Scripture ſpeakes) was ſeen by Peter in a viſion; in all likelyhood they were not the moſt part of every kind, but the ſmalleſt rather of every kind: and accordingly this Author might conclude, that conſidering denominations are taken from the major part, therefore it is rather to be ſaid, that every foure-footed beaſt was not ſeen by Peter, for certainly the major part of every kind was not; yet in this ſenſe to ſpeake of it, in that caſe was nothing pertinent, but rather contrariant to that which followeth: Riſe Peter, kill and eate..
In like ſort ſeeing in all likelihood more people ſtaid at home both in Jeruſalem, and in Judea, then were they who went out to John, and according to this Authors rule, it were more fit to ſay, All Jeruſalem and all Judea ſtaid at home, when John the Baptiſt Preached: yet was it nothing congruous, but contrariant rather to the Evangeliſts ſcope to write ſo; His purpoſe being to ſet downe of what eſtimation was the authority of Iohn by the confluence of all people from all parts unto him & therefore when he writes that all Judea, and all Jeruſalem went forth unto him, the meaning can be no more than this, namely, that from all parts of Judea and of Jeruſalem ſome flocked unto him.
IEANES.
I come unto the third and laſt exception in your Book againſt Doctor Twiſſe. pag. 245.
Mr GOODWIN.
HAnging upon the Croſſe he prayed for his enemies, and thoſe that crucified him, that they might be forgiven. May it not as well be inferred from hence, that therefore all his enemies, and all ſuch, who (in any ſenſe) crucify him, ſhall be forgiven by God; as it is argued from his praying for Peter, that his faith might not faile, that the faith of no true believer ſhall faile. Doctor Twiſſes notion upon the caſe is not ſo authentique; and though admitted, will not heale the difficulty: Chriſt (ſaith he) prayed for his enemies, ex officio hominis privati, i. e. according to the duty of a private man, but for his elect, as Mediator. This is ſaid but not proved, nor indeed probable. For very unlikely it is, that Christ being now in a full inveſtiture of his great office of Mediator, ſhould wave his intereſt in Heaven, by meanes hereof in his addreſſements unto God for men, and pray only in the capacity, and according to the interest and duty of a private man; This would argue, that he prayed not for them with his whole heart, nor with an effectualneſſe of deſire to obtaine what he prayed for. But let it be granted, yet still it followes, that whatſoever Chriſt prayed for, was not ſimply, or abſolutely granted or done; and if whatſoever Christ prayed for, was abſolutely granted, it is not materiall, as to matter of impetration, whether he prayed as Mediator, or as a private man. But the intent of Chriſts Prayer for thoſe that crucified him, was not that all their ſinnes ſhould be forgiven them, much leſſe that ſimply and abſolutely (i. e. without any intervening of faith and repentance) they ſhould be forgiven (which had been to pray for that which is expreſſely contrary unto the revealed will of God) but that that particular ſinne of their crucifying him ſhold be forgivem them i. e. ſhould not be imputed unto them, by way of barre unto their repentance, either by any ſuddaine or ſpeedy destruction; or by delivering them up to ſuch a ſpirit of obſtinacy or obduration, under which men ſeldome or never repent.