Cap. II Sol. Arg. 5: ancestor-covenant dodge refuted — Adam ok, Indian via grandparents not
Some, to save the opinion, press that through every age God willed each person to come to truth and be saved insofar as they stood in his covenant, not insofar as they fell from it in themselves or in their parents — and that he called everyone to the truth either in their own person or at least in parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Nothing is more foolish. First: if for some prior cause God decreed, before they were born, never to call countless particular persons to the truth, he did not will to call those same people one by one. Next: how far from common sense is it that God called this one person to saving truth in the person of his grandparents? Is that the universal sufficient grace by which they prove he wills everyone's salvation person by person? Is each ancestor one person with his grandchildren? Or did God will to give something personally to a grandson because he once gave it to impious grandparents who threw it away? Anyone who wants to defend sufficient grace and a general will to save all this way should go not to grandparents but to the first parent of the race. In Adam — the root, the common person of humankind — we may fairly say God willed the salvation of all. But to say he personally willed the salvation of this Indian or American, and that he was sufficiently called to saving truth, though God never sent him a herald of saving grace — and to rest that only on some ancestor five hundred or a thousand years ago who by his own fault rejected the Gospel and cut his line out of the covenant of grace — that defense belongs to someone with nothing left to say; refuting it belongs to someone with nothing better to do.
Latin
Sed nonnulli, ut tueantur hanc sententiam, urgent Deum per omnia secula voluisse omnes singulatim ad veritatis cognitionem venire, & salvos fieri, quatenus in foedere Dei comprehendebantur, non vero quatenus ab illo foedere in se, aut in parentibus exciderant: Vocasse etiam Deum universos ad veritatis agnitionem, vel in sua persona, vel saltem in persona parentum, avorum, abavorum, &c. Sed hoc commento nihil stultius. Nam primo, qui ob aliquam causam antecedentem decrevit, antequam nascerentur, innumeras singulares personas ad veritatis agnitionem nunquam vocare, is non habuit voluntatem vocandi hasce easdem singulatim. Dein, quam a sensu communi alienum est, Deum vocare voluisse hanc singularem personam ad cognitionem salutiferae veritatis in persona avorum aut abavorum suorum? Haeccine est illa universalis & sufficiens gratia ex qua probant Deum velle omnium salutem sigillatim? An quilibet ex majoribus una persona esse praesumitur cum suis nepotibus? Aut Deus ideo nepoti aliquid dare voluisse dicetur sigillatim & personaliter, quia id dederit impiis & ingratis avis ejus aut abavis qui illud rejecerunt? Qui hoc sensu sufficientem gratiam & generalem Dei voluntatem quoad omnium salutem velit defendere, non ad avos aut abavos, sed ad primum parentem humani generis se recipere debet. Nam in Adamo, qui fuit radix, & sustinuit quasi communem personam humani generis, non incommode dicere possumus, Deum voluisse salutem omnium: Sed dicere Deum sigillatim voluisse salutem hujus Indi aut Americani, atque insuper voluisse ut is ad veritatis salutiferae cognitionem sufficienter vocaretur, cui nunquam misit praeconem aliquem gratiae salutiferae, nec alia ratione id asserere quam quod avus ejus aut abavus, aut quisquis tandem ille fuerit majorum ejus, quingentis aut mille fortasse abhinc annis sua culpa Evangelium rejecit, & hoc suo facto posteros a gratiae foedere exclusit, hoc, inquam, tueri, est ejus qui nihil aliud habet quod dicat; refellere autem illius, qui nihil aliud habet quod agat.