it self Twisse is as clear I think as any Nec inquit minùs efficax esse dicimus decretum Dei de Permissione Mali quam de Effectione Boni 1. I make Voluntas Signi as put for Signum Voluntatis to be but metaphorically Voluntas yet I hold that there is Voluntas propriè dicta quae Signo indicatur 2. When I say so far forth as the Signum is praeceptum it is only as you might see to shew that Volunt as Signi not Signum Voluntatis but voluntas cujus signum est Praeceptum is the same with that which you call Will of Precept 3. If Dr. Twisse do not extend it to the whole Law but only to Precept it may be he had not occasion to extend it further Neither do you speak so fully in your Aphorisms as in this Writing You mention indeed Legislative Will but so as to call it also Praeceptive and to make the Object of it our Duty Aphor. pag. 4. 4. That he doth take notice of the Immanent Will de debito whereof Praeceptum is Signum is clear by the words which I cited viz. Precepta non indicant quid Deus velit esse Nostri Officii c. Yea your self here say p. 4. That he makes Praecipere Vetare to be the Objects of God's Will and that this clearly implies that he took in the Immanent Acts of which they were the Objects You add indeed That he so often contradicteth it by speaking otherwise that you doubt it fell from him ex improviso but I see no cause for any such surmise 1. Those words of yours to bestow good upon a Man I know not how I omitâ—ed perhaps because I thought there was no need of expressing them For however they must be understood because God's Word and Truth is else ingaged in a Threatning as well as in a Promise 2. You say Append. p. 48. That the absolute promise of a New Heart is made to wicked Men where you seem to speak of a Promise properly taken as distinct from Prophesie or Prediction Yet Aphor. p. 9. you say That Absolute Promises are but meer Predictions so that you seem not well reconciled to your self But you best know your own meaning only I think it meet that you express it so as that none may have occasion to stumble at it I see indeed that you call it Legislative Will But 1. you make Legislative and Preceptive both one and make the Object of it Man's Duty Aphor. p. 4. So that you rather seem to restrain the word Legislative by the word Preceptive than to enlarge the word Preceptive by the word Legislative 2. When you take the word Legislative largely you make Precept and Promise distinct parts of it So that still it is strange to me that you should say That Promises fall under the Will of Purpose not of Precept For if the Will of Precept be taken strictly and properly it is superfluous to say That Promises do not fall under the Will of Precept Neither on the other side is it true if the Will of Precept be taken largely and improperly viz. for the whole Legislative Will which doth contain both Precept and Promise These two Questions as you now make them you comprise in one Aphorism p. 15. and equally determine of both For you say That the Life promised in the First Covenant was in the judgment of most Divines to whom you incline only the continuance of that Estate that Adam was in in Paradise So that according to this Opinion Adam was both to have continued in the same place and also in the same Estate I think still he should have been changed in respect of both In Adamo inquit Barlous omnes in universum homines jus ad Coelum habebant si ipse stetissâ—â— ipsum Coelum unusquisque habuisset adeò ut jus ad Coelum in Adamo habuimus primaevum à Christo jus rest tutum Adam's continuance in the same Estate is most clearly expressed by those whom you seem to follow and how then can you say That you did not meddle with that Question And if he were to continue in the same Estate no question he was also to continue in the same Place For Heaven is no place for such an Estate as Adam had in Paradise I shall wonder if any will be so bold as to affirm That Adam was Created in Patriâ and not in Viâ How was he to be tryed by his Obedience if he were not Viator but Comprehensor It seems also strange that any doubt should be made whether Adam being Created after the Image and Likeness of God were capable of Heavenly Blessedness The Reasons which I alleadged notwithstanding any thing you say against them seem cogent 1. By the Second Death you might see I meant not the same degree yet the same kind of punishment The Scripture seems to speak of several degrees of Hell-Torment yet all is called the Second Death And this Second Death viz. Hell-Torment Adam by his sin became liable unto therefore if he had not sinned he should have enjoyed a Life directly opposite to that Death viz. Coelestial Glory The perpetual Death which Adam without a Saviour should have suffered was not a perpetual abiding in the Estate of Death viz. a perpetual separation of Soul and Body or a meer privation of that Life he had before his Fall but an enduring of eternal Torment and so consequently the Life promised upon condition of Obedience was not a perpetuating of his earthly Life but the fruition of Heavenly Happiness 2. I grant God was able to change Adam's State not changing his Place but it seems rather that both should have been changed And though we know not the Nature of the Life to come yet we know it is not such a Life as Adam had in Paradise to Eat Drink Marry c. 3. It is not in vain to say How in an ordinary way of Providence should there have been room for Men upon Earth if Adam and his Posterity still increasing and multiplying in infinitum should there have continued for ever Your Friend and mine Mr. Blake having urged this Argument seems to enervate it when he hath done saying But a thousand of these God can expedite when we are at a stand But yet that without a Miracle it could be done he doth not say and he there professedly opposeth you in this Point Whereas you add Especially seeing God knew there would be no place for such difficulties I know not to what purpose it is For the Opinion which I impugn doth suppose that upon which such difficulties do arise 4. How should Paradise be a Type of Heaven if Man should never have come to Heaven If Heaven had not belonged unto him upon condition of his Obedience Whereas you say That you little know where or what that Paradise was I do not well know what you mean By that Paradise I suppose you understand as I
take upon him the form of a Servant But Mortality is no necessary consequent of Humane Nature as subjection unto God is and Christ taking upon him the Nature of Man did es nomine take upon him the form of a Servant for Man must be Servant unto God the Creature to the Creator He bids See the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 8. Sect. 5. and Dr. Featlies Speeches upon it These Speeches I cannot now see but I have seen them long ago and was not satisfied with them The words of the Assembly are such as that some question may be made of the meaning of them viz. Whether by Christ's perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself be not meant one and the same thing so that the latter words are exegetical to the former But to return to you who say The Question should be Whether it be only Poena Christi or Obedientia also that satisfieth and meriteth I think it is not simply Poena or Obedientia but Poena Obedientialis and Obedientia Poenalis 1. The Creator is absolute Lord over the Creature and so you grant no Work of the Creature can be meritorious 2. You seem to make even the Actions of sinful men capable of being meritorious though less properly 3. Though Obedience be absolutely perfect yet if absolutely due it seems repugnant to Luke 17. 10. that it should be meritorious The interest of the Divine Nature doth certainly put an infinite excellency into all Christ's Actions Yet see not how Christ's good Actions I speak of meer Actions which have no penality or suffering mixed with them could properly be meritorious they being otherwise due supposing Man had not sinned and so there had needed no satisfaction to be made for him Though I am not of their mind who think that the Son of God should have been incarnate though Man had never sinned yet I see no reason to doubt but so it might have been Now hoc supposito all Christ's meer Active Righteousness would have been due but not his Passive Righteousness I have divers times told you That when we speak of Christ's Sufferings as meritorious or satisfactory we are not to consider them meerly as Penal but as Obediential also so that your long Section hath nothing against me My interpretation of these words The Father judgeth no Man containeth indeed no absolute exclusion of the Father neither can I admit any such exclusion but an exclusion of him in some respect it doth contain He that doth a thing yet not immediately by himself but by another whom he hath put in authority to do it may be said in some respect not to do it When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Bread he bad them go to Joseph c. Gen. 41. 55. q. d. I meddle not with these things Joseph is to do all such matters Yet Pharaoh indeed did all though not immediately but by Joseph Your Arguments p. 13. press not me who never intended to deny that it belongs to Christ's Mediatorship and namely to his Kingly Office to judge the World only I shewed what I took to be the meaning of those Texts John 5. 22. 27. Wherein I followed Jansenius and Maldonate no absurd Expositors though Papists And even Calvin and Beza also seem to agree with me in the exclusion of the Father v. 22. In Patre nihil mutatum est c. Est enim ipse in Filio in eo operatur saith Calvin And so Beza Negat Christus â Patre administrari hunc mundum ita viz. ut Judaei arbitrabantur qui Patrem à Filio separabant cum Pater contrà non nisi in personâ Filii manifestati in carne mundum regat You seem to make the present death of Adam a part of the rigorous execution of the Law when you say Aphor. p. 33. That the Sentence should have been immediately executed to the full or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the Threat In the day that thou eatest c. I do not think for that would have prevented both the Being the Sin and the Suffering of his Posterity How would this have been prevented if Adam's present Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence i. e. in the rigorous execution of it Therefore though you argue That the words of the Threat were not so meant as that the Sentence should immediately be executed to the full yet your very Argument supposeth That if the Sentence should have been so executed Adam should presently have died Now though Christ had not died yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been suspended and supposing the propagation of Mankind must have been against this so far as I see you say nothing I desire to be as favourable an Animadverter as Truth will permit but how under the name of Animadversion I defend what you say I do not see If you had used the word Chastisements it would not have freed you from mine Animadversion For I shew that Chastisements are Punishments And whereas you speak of my great oversight it is indeed your great mistake for I did not take those words to express your Opinion only you seemed therein to allow the distinction betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punishments this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadversion You might see that I make the Afflictions of God's Children in their Nature to be Evil and a Curse though not so to them they being sanctified and working for their good And I presume those Divines whom you oppose meant as both you and I do though you interpret them otherwise The difference here betwixt you and me is this You allow their Expression and dislike their meaning I allow their Meaning and dislike their Expression They distinguish betwixt Chastisements and Punishments which distinction in your Aphorisms you seem to allow only disliking the Application of it The distinction it self I dislike though I think that some who used it did not err in that which they intended in it In the Contents of Isa 27. there are these words God 's Chastisements differ from Judgments which words I hold incongruous I like not that of Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin Chap. 4. p. 139. Punishment aimeth chiefly at the satisfaction of Justice Correction at the amendment of the Offender That is not true of all Punishments see Geld. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Yet the meaning of those that used them was not I think erroneous I would give you no cause to quarrel with me But is not this your own Argument Do you not thus oppose the Common Judgment as you call it They are ascribed to God's anger c. Aphor. p. 70. Do you not there oppose God's Anger to his Love Whereas Love and Hatred not Love and Anger are truly opposite God may be angry with us and yet love us yea therefore angry with us because he loveth us Rev. 3.
and others do the Garden wherein Adam was placed a place upon Earth for certain it was and very pleasant yet such a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life far beneath that happiness which he was made capable of Those words Thou shalt die being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed but also of eternal torment it follows That the Life implicitly promised is to be understood not only of the continuance of that Life but of Eternal Blessedness I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works but that some are so under that Covenant that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant nor are guilty of contemning it being utterly ignorant of it To whom God doth not say Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved to them in effect he doth say Obey perfectly and live or If thou sin thou shalt die eternally But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say Believe c. that Promise is altogether unknown unto them they live and die without ever hearing of it so that to them it is as if it had never been Consider I pray what the Apostle saith to this purpose Ephes 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death Do not many continue in the same Condition I yeeld that none are so under the Covenant of Works but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy and that by vertue of the New Covenant but that which I stand upon is this That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised being not revealed unto some nor any way dispensed unto them they cannot be said to be under it nor shall be judged as transgressors of it Add 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never been yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant might have been enjoyed Add 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchasafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made Man after his Fall though plunging himself into sin continually more and more yet had contracted no more Guilt nor incurred any greater Condemnation than he did by his first Transgression And 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects but as rebelling I conceive only against the Law not against the Gospel they being such as never were acquainted with it Add 4. There are common Mercies which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save If such Mercies as meer Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 12. Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose to shew That as they that sinned without the Law shall perish without the Law even so they that sinned without the Gospel shall perish without the Gospel That 2 Thess 1. 7 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ but also of such as know not God The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts viz. such as know not God so he describes the Gentiles 1 Thess 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel c. that is such as having had the Gospel preached unto them would not receive it either not at all or not sincerely Yet Christ he saith will in flaming fire take vengeance on both as well on the former as on the latter And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me and so as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do Infidels saith he that were never under any other Covenant than that of works and Covenant-breaking Christians are in the same condemnation there are not two Hells but one and the same for those that know not God and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ 2 Thess 1. 8. You pass by that which I alledged from Rom. 6. ult viz That death which is the wages of sin is opposed to Eternal Life which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven Ergo Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell and that you know is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say Call it the first or second Death as you please The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partnership with the Soul I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection Tertullian surely thought so or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument Age inquit scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione Negent operum societatem ut merito possint etiam mercedem negare Non sit particeps in sententia caro si non fuerit in causâ And again Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum And again also Non possunt separari in mercede caro anima quas opera conjungit And surely that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. That every Man may receive the things done in the Body doth imply That as the things were done in the Body so also the Reward must be received in the Body As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked until the Resurrection Therefore it is not probable that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the First Covenant What-ever some new Philosophers may say true Philosophy I think doth tell us That it is the Body which by the Sensitive Soul doth â—eel pain even as it is the Eye which doth see by the Visive Faculty You observe not it seems that I did but answer your Queries which you made Append. p. 10. To the second When should he have risen I thought and still think it sufficient to answer That Adam and so others should either have risen in the end of the World as now they shall or when God should please to raise them It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection which he speaks of unto all when he expresly limits it to those that are Christs vers 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory Expressè resurrectio Christi est