reward for their sins for shall I not visit for these things saith the Lord and shall not my soul be avenged of such a people so that the great men and richmâ—n and chief Captains and mighty men shall hide themselves as prisoners in the Rocks and holes of the earth saying to the Rocks fall on us and hide us but yet for all this the Lord will bring them thence and visit them for their sins with the Rod or his wrath I could speak much to it but I studdy brevity and come to shew you that although I say there shall be a Restauration and the Sun shall be seven degrees lighter and the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and yet also say the earth shall be dark or the place of their punishment shall be utter darkness yet there is no contradiction in the words for I say that Christ shall Reign a thousand years before the last and general Resurrection and then shall all things be restored in which time of Christs Reign the Sun and Moon shall be restored into their primitive glory and brightness for all that was for mans use was cursed for mans sake but after this state of Christs Reign then shall the Saints have only the glory of God to be their light and so I pass to examine your examination of my Arguments of Original Sin and so to the first although it be laid down more fully in my Treatise Rev. 20 6 7 8. yet I shall take it for brevity sake as you have laid it down in yours which is That if Adam had decreed against him eternal death Argum. 1 and all in his Lines upon his disobedience and that not inflicted on them then is God changeable But God changeth not Therefore Your Answer is If God 's threatnings work not Repentance it breaks out into punishments God never decreed that Adam and his should eternally perish and yet you say that the death that God said they should dye for that sin committed in Paradice was eternal death now that death that God threatned to bring on Adam if he sinned he did decree to bring it on him and accordingly did being it on him and all his the which death was only the first death as I have already proved and I am very confident that all the opposites in the world can never prove that it was the second death but read my Syons Redemption and see your answer is no whit to the purpose I have also shewed what is meant in the Ephesians and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others and whereas you ask me whether Adams Fall was decreed I Answer God never did decree man should sin God did fore see man would but never did decree he should yet God did decree to send Christ seeing Adams Fall we agree in this that God did never intend or decree Adams eternal ruine but did decree him to the dust for that sin and when he had brought him there his Justice was satisfied and had God been onely Justice and not mercy there he must have hin for ever their Justice to him and their Mercy for him to bring some again from the dead and so saith the Scripture 2 Sam. 14.14 We must needs dye and be like water spilt upon the ground for God hath decreed it yet he hath used a means that his banished shell not be for ever expelled from him and whereas you say all School-men do allow of a concealed will and a revealed will the former is unchangeable not the latter that is his revealed will is changeable First Because God threatned Niniveh Adam and Hezekiah and yet did not punish them so as he threatned And secondly commanded Pharoah to let Israel go and Abraham to sacrifice his Son and herâ— God changeth his sentence To which I answer and first to the first that is that Gods revealed will is changeable the which if it be true as you say then although he have commanded us to obey the Gospel and in so doing promised salvation yet we know not whether he speak as he means or whether his mind will change yea or nay this and much of this nature I might say which is your opinion of God and how much less than bla sphemy it is I leave the Reader to judge of And Secondly as touching that of Hezekiah that when he told him that he should dye and not live and yet notwithstanding added unto his dayes fifteen years we know that God hath promised to turn away punishment from such as humble themselves before him hence he spared Ahab when he humbled himself and much more will he spare his own people when they humble themselves as Hezekiah did with tears yet Gods will altereth not though he do will to alter the dispensation of Mercy or Justice according to the Cretures obedience or disobedience as already proved Thirdly As touching Niniveh if God had destroyed them in forty dayes according as he said he would God had been changeable in his Decree considering their Repentance Gods will altereth not although he do will to change in dispensation of Mercy or Justice according to the creatures obedience or disobedience and Humiliation for before God sent Jonah to Niniveh to proclaim yet forty dales and Niniveh shall be destroyed he had decreed and declared it that in what instant he spake of a people to destroy thon if that people against whom he pronounced the judgement did repent he also would repent of the evil that he said he would bring upon them and Nineveh did repent of their evill and then if the Lord should not have repented of the evil of punishment that he said he would bring on them then he had been changeable that is he had said one thing and had done another but Gods revealed will changeth not although he do will to change as beforesaid And Fourthly God did bring the full summe of punishment upon Adam that he threatned and more than we find Recorded for all that was threatned was that he should dye or in dying he should dye the which is meant that he should be in a dying condition from the time of his sin till he fell into the dust from whence he was taken and so in the midst of lise to be in death or a dying condition till death never continuing in one stay but the earth being cursed for his sake we do not find there ended yet we see it was in the sentence and also the Womans conception to be in sorrow the which are as Pendicts or appurtenances to death Man is in a dying condition from the Womb till he falls into the dust and hat is meant by the Lords threatning him in dying thou shalt dye Gen. 2. all shewing Gods revealed will altereth not and so I come to the second Head which is Gods commands that is say you God doth command men to do that in his revealed will the which in his
then the shadow will flie away upon that account Christ being become our life or when we do enjoy eternall life The tree of life not a type of Christ or Eternal life onely a maintenance of a natural life in Paradice Adam was not Spiritual in his innocency but shall be in the time of the Resurrection a Spiritual body like Christ mark that the shadow viz. the tree of life must flie away my meaning is there must not be use made of him the which there will be at that time when we live Eternally as the Scripture hath said and if not then Christ would not restore all things to his people that was lost by Adam both these the Scripture will prove First That all things shall be restored unless the Serpent and disobedient man and also that we shall eat of the tree of life in future the which is no alligory but shall be fulfilled the which sheweth that the tree of life is not a type of Eternal life because they shall be enjoyed together the which is not proper in types And so I pass onely saying thus Whereas you charge me with agreeing with Papists that you do agree with them in many things is plain witness Baby-Baptism nay you are a branch of that root and your standing in your Ministry is from thence but more of that anon Secondly you urgean Argument from Rom. 5.16 Judgment came by one viz. Adam to condemnation and that Condemnation is not onely the first death but also Condemnation in hell say you Answer and first the Text will not imply what you say but readeth it Condemnation and so forth and the word Condemnation doth in Scripture mean onely the first death in some places were it is used as in the Gospel Luk. 23.40 where our Saviour was condemned to die or in the Condemnation one of the Malefactours reviled him the answer of the other which was penitent was on this wise doest thou not fear God seeing thou art in the same Condemnation that is the same Condemnation that Christ was in the which I think no sober man will think it was a damnation into hell viz. the second death but he was in a condemnation to a death the which was the first death equivolent with Adams death for that sin in Paradise and the same that is spoken of in Rom. 15.18 agreeing with Luk 23. These words used in both places viz. Luk. 23.40 Rom. 5.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverb 40. Luke reads it thus Condemnation the very same word with the Apostle Rom. 5.18 and yet as I have said no sober man will think that the condemnation spoken by Luke is a condemnation to the second death and as the word is the same in our language that Paul speaketh Rom. 5.18 with Luk. 23.40 So it is the very same in the Greek Testament and also in the Latine see Luk 23.40 Rom 5.18 the Greek in both places readeth it Krima or Katakrima adverb and in the Latine see Luk. 23.40 Damnatione and Rom. 5.18 Condemnationem adverb it is one and the same word so that you may as well say that Christ was in the condemnation of the second death as say that Adam was in condemnation of the second death for that sin in Paradise the words being one and the same But now I shall clearly shew you that the condemnation spoken of in Rom. 5.18 is not a condemnation to the second death the Argument to prove it is thus If that death that entred in to the world by Adams sin passed upon all and reigned from Adam to Moses then it could not be the second death But that death which entred into the world by Adams sin passed upon all and reigned from Adam to Moses Ergo that death could not be the second death there is only the sequel of the Major that may be questioned the which I thus prove if there were many that lived between Adam and Moses which the second death passed not upon nor reigned over then it could not be the second death that entred into the world and passed upon all The second death passed not upon many that lived between Adam and Moses but that death that entred into the world by Adams sin passed upon all which sheweth it was not the second death and reigned over them as beforesaid But there was many that lived between Adam and Moses that the second death pâ—ssed not upon not reigned over Ergo that death which entred into the world as before said was not the second death The Minor of this Argument is clear that there were many that lived between Adam and Moses that the second death had no power of that is it passed not upon or reigned over them as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and Lot and Noah and several others the which clearly sheweth that the death that entred into the world by Adams sin was not the second but the first death and that passed upon all even Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the rest they all dyed the first death as they were dust so to dust they did return and so I pass to the next thing considerable the which is You would prove if ye could That the fleshly or mortal part of man begetteth the immortal part or Spiritual Soul of man and withal refer me to several Authors to prove it and yet when you have all done you lay down the Cudgels as I may say before you have struck a stroak saying but let us not look for the Souls Parentage on earth But if the Spiritual Soul be begotten by our Parents then it is easie to finde our Souls Parentage on earth And whereas we are said to be all of the off-spring of God it respecteth the Spiritual Soul for God is the Father of Spirits no man was yet called the Father of Spirits we have Fathers of our flesh as saith the Apostle which chastiseth us and we are in subjection unto them shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of Spirits There is Fathers of flesh and Fathers of Spirits opposed one to another but man is not any where called the Father of Spirits And whereas you ask me Whether Man do not beget as compleat a creature as the Beasts do in their kinde did not Adam beget a son in his own likeness meaning in sin say you To which I answer and first That man doth begot a perfect creature and yet but mortal for you your selves have granted it for first say you by his sins he became mortal saying a mortal stomack could not feed upon immortal food citing Doct Halls contemplations and say you Adam begat a son in his own likeness to the which I say it was a poor mortal creature for if Adam had begot the a Spiritual Soul which is immortal he had begat son partly in the likeness of God but that man and beast probigate alike and have one breath considered barely as man read
the Devil was a lyer from the beginning and this Death say you was the second death and also you confess tâ—at Adam and all his Lines did not dye the second Death so that if your opinion be true the Devil spake true and not God see your self I tremble to write so of the worthy name of God as your ignorant blasphemous opinion leads me to write in reference to discover your absurdities but you say That although God threatned it yet he did not peremptorily resolve it but sent Christ To which I answer as beforesaid that is but to make the Devils words true for God had said and decreed they should dye but the Devil perswaded them to believe a lye that they should not dye that the Devil might be a true Prophet say you God sent Christ that they might not dye and as to the case of Nineveh and Hezekiah I have already answered And again whereas you would have me say Either Christ brought not justification of life by his obedience or else conclude Adam brought evernal condemnation by disobedience or say there is no sence in the Apostles arguing Rom. 5.18 To which I answer there is good reason in the Apostles reasoning and yet his words imply not that which you would infer from them for I have already proved that the condemnation there mentioned is but to the dust viz. the first death Adams sin caused God to judge and condemn him and his posterity to the dust but in a short word take this as the Apostles reasoning from Rom. 5 18. that as by the offence of the first Adam judged or condemned all to the dust and so brought them all under the power of the Grave to have lain there eternally had not mercy been provided so by the righteousness of the Second Adam the free gift came upon all men to deliver or justifie them from that power of Death viz. the sting thereof so that it might be said in the promise as in the person of Christ O Death I will be thy death and thus the free gift came upon all men to justification of life that as in or by Adam all dyed even so in or by Christ all are made alive viz. raised from the dead it being done in Gods account from the foundation of the world so then the first Adam by his sin made all men liable to the power of the first death so that the sting of death did as we may say attach them but mercy through the Righteousness of Christ stepped in and jus tified man from that attachment and destroyed the power of it and brought life and immortality to light for although God did peremptorily Decree that Adam should go to the dust for that sin Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return yet he did not decree either in his threatning or in his sentence that he should lye there eternally yet the sting of Death viz. the power of the Grave would have seized on or surprized him had not mercy in the Promise justified man from it and thus the free gift came upon all men to justification of life I might say much more to it but I pass to that of Jude where you say They were of old ordained to Condemnation To which I answer and say that it is true that God of old did in his Decree ordain and appoint some to condemnation It is not denied that God did of old ordain ungodly men to condemnation although it be denied that God of old did ordain men to be ungodly that thereby they might come to condemnation namely such as did refuse the grace of Salvation in the tenderness of it and put away eternal life and glory and turn the grace of God into wantonness and such were they that Jude speaks of there are certain men crept in saith he who of old were ordained to this condemnation and then tels us what disposed men they are and that is saith he ungodly men turning the grace of God mark that to wantonness I could shew you what is meant by the word this Condemnation but I pass And whereas you say That Children might be made liable in Adam to eternal Death Answer If you mean eternal Death as before promised that is to lye eternally in the Grave under the sting oâ— Death as beforesaid then we differ not but if by Eternal Death you mean â—he second Death they could not be liable to that by the sin in Paradice because the punishment of the second Death must pre-suppos a second Life that is a person must be said to be twice alive before he can be said to be twice dead or in danger to be twice dead and therefore the Lord sheweth that as there was a first Death that all mâ—n must taste of for that sin in Paradice so there is a lake of fire and brimstone the which God calls the second Death and where ever the word second is used it presupposeth a first otherwise there cannot be a second but the Death spoken in Genesis could not be the second unless there had been a Death proposed before it the which was not for by one man sin entred into the world and death mark that by sin so then sin brought death into the world and secondly in Christ is hid our second life the which we loose by loosing of him and Christ and that life in him which is opposed to the second death was never ours before the Fall and I could give many sound Reasons to prove both these but I pass it may be needless because no man upon due consideration can deny it and so pass But before I shall examine or try your lawful Ministry I shall through Gods assistance unfold unto you the mystery contained in the Ninth Chapter to the Romans partly because many poor Souls stand as it were amazed to know what God means in his Word for say they God sometimes saith He would have all men come to Repentance and swears he desires not the death of him that dyes but rather that they would return and live and therefore exhorted men to strive to enter in at the strait gate and to be diligent to make their calling and election sure and to beware lest any fail of the grace of God but so to run that they may obtain and the like and yet saith It is not in him that willeth or runneth but hated Esau before he was born as some say and makes persons vessels of dishonour from a Decree before they were born or had done good or evil in a word elect some and reprobate others before born and yet saith he would not their death but would have them turn and yet appoints them to run on in evill these and many more of this nature do persons conclude is in God and stâ—â—â— when they are brought in question as touching this their conceit they fly to the Ninth of the Romans as a refuge the which thorow Gods help I shall shew will
SYONS REDEMPTION AND ORIGINAL SIN VINDICATED Wherein are these particulars largely handled and discovered I. That sprinkling of water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not Baptism as by several Arguments together with objections of that nature Answered II Infants not the subjects appointed by God to be baptized as by several arguments disproved and Objections of that nature answered III That the second death was never threatned to to be inflicted upon Adam or his lines for that sin committed in Paradice IV A clear and large discourse as touching Gods Decree of Election and Reprobation V A large Exposition upon the Ninth Chapter to the Romanes with every particular Verse opened in its distinct order as concerning Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau and of Pharaohs heart being hardened and Objections of that nature answered VI A brief disproof of the unlawfulness of the paying or receving of Tythes of a Tenth in Gospel times as Ministers maintenance VII The Ordination of the National Ministery examined and disproved VIII The answer of Objections against the Jews return out of their Captivity and the Reign of Christ upon earth answered and disproved shewing that the Jews shall return and Christ Reign in Jerusalem over the house of David IX A clear discovery of the glorious effects or that which will be effected under the sound of the seventh Trumpet X A full discovery of Judah and Israels glory to be enjoyed in their own Land and of Christs being their KING in the midst of them reigning over them upon the Throne of his father David in Jerusalem witnessed by the mouths of all the holy Prophets Evangelists and Apostles that ever wrote since the world began which are known cited in in this Book whereby any that reads it may easily see the truth of this Assertion Published for the instruction and comfort of all that wait for the appearing of the Lord Jesus and Zions Redemption Being an Answer to a Book of Mr. Hezeklah Holland sometimes Preacher in Sutton-Valence in Kent By George Hammon Pastor to the Church of Christ meeting in Biddenden in Kent LONDON Printed by G. Dawson for the Author 1658. The EPISTLE DEDICATORY To Mr. HEZEKIAH HOLLAND SIR I Having obtained a Book of yours Intituled to me although as I suppose never intended me as by you I thought good to peruse it and also to give an answer to it although I might have better improved time and ink and paper than to have answered such a running kind of discourse the which hath out run both Scripture and sound reason but however truth hath overtaken it and given it its deaths wound and farther this discourse of yours hath engaged me to speak more largely of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation and to shew how Gods Decree in Election depends upon Christ viz. to chuse none to salvation and glory but such as are of Christs family either actively or passively when I say actively I mean such as are in Christ through faith and when I say passively I mean all Infants that have not forfeited their happiness by personal transgression for the Redemption is a free gift and is as large as the transgression so that as the first Adam lost the lives and blessing of all men so the second Adam the LORD JESUS purchased it again so that none are damned viz. taste the second death but such as deny the Lord that bought them but all men must dye the first death or be changed which is as death for the first Adams transgression and the very same all men are Rom. 5.18 19 by Christ made alive again that is even so many as were made sinners by the first Adam even so many are made righteous by the second Adam and so Gods mercy is over all his works I have also answered all your Arguments and Objections that I found to have but so much as a colour of reason in it I have also shewed that the Jews shall return to their own Land and that Christ shall be their King sitting upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem according to the letter of the Scriptures the truth whereof is witnessed by the mouth of all the holy Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles I have not given any interpretation upon the Prophets Evangelists or Apostles for these two reasons First because no person might have any colour to wave what is written as to that subject seeing it is the pure minde and will of God without the least mixture of mans meaning and interpretation And secondly because my occasion also would not admit of enlarging my self upon it And as touching your Ordination to the Ministery I have examined and shewn that your Presbyter by which you were Ordained was not a lawfull one nor you fitly qualified and also that no man may be appointed a Minister over any flock without the approbation and election of the same people and he receive his Ordination and charge amongst them in their sight which is the ancient practice of Gods people by his command both in the Old and New Testament And as touching your grounds for Infant-Baptism I find also very weak and that the word Baptizo is taken for sprinkling as you say I cannot finde any where but I finde it s taken for washing as in the ninth Chapter to the Hebrews and elsewhere but never find that it will bear such a signification as to sprinkle according to that little knowledge that I have attained thorow mine own industry with Gods blessing in the Greek which is indeed very small but who may despise the day of small things if truth be found therein the which I shall leave to the examination and tryal of such as know it better than my self without over much confidence as to the infalibillity thereof although to my best understanding it is the truth and pertinent to the purpose that I have cited it for and as touching your discourse of me to your bountifull friends cited in * Your discourse is thus read In lipsius si vera dico agnoscite si falsa ignoscite to which you adde this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because I speak against Oxford Cambridge as you say Sir is this the way to convince me that Oxford Cambridge is of God I must see more sollid matter come from thence first I shall omit citing Cyprians words Latine and Greek is little to your honour knowing that evil communication corrupts good manners for he that made me an Asse if I be one is the same that made you a wise man if you be one and also I think that he that is blinde or seeth but little may see you to be imposterous and so Cyprians words fitly applyed to you and whereas you tell them that I much speak against Oxford and Cambridge learning I might say that your eye sight was not very clear or your understanding awake when you read my book for I never spake against it considered as
therefore I say that they are the onely wise men that drink not onely near but at the fountain head that is to take the practise of Christ and the Apostles to be their pattern and so I shall pass from this particular with some Arguments to prove that Insants are not the subjects that Christ and his Apostles Baptised or appointed to be Baptised and first to the first That which is practised in lieu of a Gospel Ordinance Arg. 1 which is not appointed by the Father nor the Son nor the Apostles nor hath been practised in the primitive Churches is mans tradition and will worship But Infants Baptism hath not a command from God nor Christ nor the Apostles nor practised in the primitive Churches Therefore mans tradition and will worship If those that are to be Baptised Arg. 2 are first to be taught and made disciples then a child of seven or eight dayes old which is not capable to be taught ought not to be Baptised But those that are to be Baptised are first to be taught and made disciples the which a child of seven or eight dayes old is not capable of Ergo Such are not to be Baptised And that such as are to be Baptised are first to be taught and made disciples you may see from the commission Mat. 28.19 Mark 16 15 16. John 4.1 2 3. If such as are to be Baptised Arg. 3 are to continue in the Apostles Doctrine in breaking of bread and prayers then children that are not capable so to do are not to be Baptised But they that are to be Baptised ought to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and in breaking of bread and prayer Ergo Children that are uncapable so to do are not fit to be Baptised and that such as are Baptised ought to be sted fast as before said I hope no sober man that knoweth the Scripture in the least will deny If those only are accounted fit to be members of a Gospel Arg. 4 Church that are able to show forth the prayses of him that hath called them then Infants of seven or eight dayes old who cannot show forth Gods prayses as aforesaid are not fit to be members of a Gospel Church But they only are fit to be members of a Gospel Church who are able to show forth the prayses of God in an upright conversation Ergo Infants who are not capable so to do are not fit members for a Gospel Church 1 Pet 2. If Faith Repentance Arg. 5 are the work of Gods Spirit manifested upon the Soul be that which onely admitteth the sons daughters of men to Baptism then Infants that have neither Faith nor Repentance nor the work of Gods Spirit manifested upon their Soul may not be Baptised but Faith and Repentance or the work of Gods Spirit is that only which admitteth to Baptism as before said Ergo Children that have not such qualifications as aforesaid may not be admitted to Baptism And that Repentance and Faith and the works of Gods Spirit manifested upon the Soul is that which fitteth and admitteth to Baptism read these Scriptures Act. 2.38 chap. 10 46 47. chap 8. If men and women were the persons onely Arg. 6 whom the Apostles Baptised and we commanded to follow their examples then men and women are the persons also that we ought to Baptise But men and women were the subjects that the Apostles Baptised and we commanded to follow their examples Ergo Men and women also ought to be the subjects that are Baptised by us This cannot be denied for they did Baptise such onely and we ought to follow their examples Acts 8 12. Mat. 3. Act. 19 1 2 3 4. much more might be said but I pass to the next particular the which is that of Original Sin the which you call your task having shewed you that you have neither a ground to use sprinkling in Baptism nor to Baptise children in their non-age the which neither of them is the minde of God revealed in the Holy Scripture but I shall now Examen what you say to Original Sin and thorow the assistance of God shall answer what you affirm and disprove it if it carry not truth with it That Adams sin brought more on him than temporal death say you with sorrow sickness and such like punishments I prove 1. Because Adam forfeited Eternal life which I thus prove what the second Adam restored the first lost But the second Adam restored Eternal life 2 Tim. 1 10. who brought life and immortality to light Answer There is several wayes I might reply to this Argument There was not a state of a second life or immorality in Pnradice and therefore it cannot properly be said to be restored but brought to light that which before was not and first That the Minor never can be proved that is that Christ restored Eternal life the text saith He abolished death and brought life and immortality to light the sum of that is no more but a state of Resurrection made known to the sons of men and in this you fight with your own shadow Again secondly the question that is between you and I is whether Adam lost a Heavenly Paradice and purchased a second death in the lake of fire and brimstone the which I say he did not neither had he an heavenly Paradice before the fall neither could he purchase a second death unless he had sinned against a second life the which he did not And thirdly I do affirm that had not Adam sinned he should not have dyed but lived in that earthly Paradise the which life in a sence had been Eternal if he had not dyed and when he had sinned then had not Christ brought life and immortality to light we had dyed and been like water spilt upon the ground and never come to a Resurrection and so in a sence it had been Eternal death but this is that you should have proved if you had intended to touch me that Adam had a promise of Heaven before his fall and that by his fall he lost it and purchised a second death the which your Argument toucheth not And whereas you tell me the opinion of Mr. Hall and I know not who it is nothing to me what their opinion is it is proof of Scripture for what you affirm that I look for and without it your words or theirs is nothing and further let me tell you that Eternal life and immortality dwelt in the second Adam and not in the first And whereas you say That Adam had an inclusive promise of Eternal life by eating of the free of life Answer That tree God did appoint him to eat of because there was life or preservation of life comprehended in it but was then that tree that which you call Adams Eternal life If so then it will be easily granted that he lost that for a time but that the tree of life was a type of Christ that will be denied because when the substance is come
Eccles 3.18 19 in these words I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men that God might manifest them and that they might see that they themselves are beasts for that which befalleth the sons of men-befalleth beasts even one thing befalleth them as the one dyeth so dyeth the other yea they have all one breath so that a man hath no preheminency above a beast for all is vanity all go to one place all are of the dust and shall return to dust again From whence we may see that man considered as of himself there is no difference between him and the beast onely there is something that is in man which is not of or from man the which maketh him to differ allthough the Soul in Scripture is frequently taken for the mortal part as in the book of Joshua and so Christ is said to pour out his Soul to death and made his Soul an offering for sins But when you write again show what it is that is the Soul and what it consisteth of And whereas you tell me a story of Levi paying of Tithes in Abraham Answer it was imputed to Levi because the matter that Levies body did consist of Job 31.15 Zach. 12.1 sprang from the loins of Abraham but it is the Lord that formeth and fashioneth us in the womb and createth the Spirit or Soul in us that which Abraham did was imputed to Levi because it might teach us that there was a time that Tithes was to be taken from Levi and given to Christ or that of proper right Tithes doth belong to Christ as I have already hinted at Again You charge me with one errour worse then Pilagius that is because I deny as you say that children were lost or indangered to be Eternally lost in Adam To which I answer Adam and all his posterity was in danger to be lost in the dust had not Christ saved them in delivering from the power of the grave and say in your sense I do deny that children were lost or in danger to be lost in Adam that is to say to be lost as men now shall be lost that die in their sins namely to die the second death in the lake of fire and brimstone but I do beleeve that children were in danger to be lost as in the first death that is if Christ had not come and saved us and them from the sting of death which is the power of the grave we had been kept there and for ever had been deprived from the presnce of God and the Holy Angels and been like water spilt upon the ground and thus they were in danger to be lost from whence Christ hath saved all men for he is the Saviour of all men but especially of them that beleeve and thus we all were in danger to be lost by Adams sin in Paradice but to be lost in your sense by Adams sin that I positively deny and I know or am fully perswaded there is not a man under the Sun that can prove it from the Scriptures Again in your fourteenth page you seem to hint at this That Adam had the promise of Eternal life upon his obedience That natural life that God gave to Adam in Paradice was a free gift and not upon condition To which I answer that the life which God gave to Adam in paradice was free without condition in respect of the gift of it for God breathed him the breath of life and put him into his inheritance freely and afterwards telleth him what he should do there and also sheweth him that if he did sin and transgress his Law that then he must die the death God never told Adam that if he would obey him that there was a further life and happiness in future to be enjoyed but sheweth that the life that then he did enjoy the which was but a natural life should be taken from him and the like But if it be Objected and said Object That the Lord told Adam that in the day that he eat of that tree he should surely die or in dying he should die the which he did not in body the same day To this I answer God calleth things that shall be as if they were and say that according to Gods decree and in Gods account who calls things that shall be as if they were in being as saith the Apostle save Adam and all his prosperity dead they were dead in Gods account that same day and so soon as Christ was promised God therow him looked upon all alive again in a state of Resurrection as you may see when God appeared to Moses in the bush Exod. 3.6 Mat. 22.31 32. he saith I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and our blessed Saviour maketh use of it to prove the Resurrection shewing that in Gods account Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were alive in a state of a Resurrection to God And again the word will bear it from the Hebrew as in our English margen note in dying thou shalt die Job 14.1 2. that is Adam and all the sons of men are dying from the womb till they be dead never continuing in one stay but in the midst of life we are in death and so go from the womb to the grave and so in dying we do die or we be in a dying estate and condition till we fall into the dust Again in answer to what you say of our Souls being in Adam in essense and not in substance I say that then it is clear that Adam is the Father of our Spirits and not God for if it be so that our Spiritual Souls essentially be in and of Adam and not distinct then Adam must bear the name not onely of being the Father of our flesh but also of our spirit But if it should be Objected and said Object That God may bear the name of the Father of Spirits because he created or formed the Spirit in Adam Then we may as well say that God is the Father of flesh because he created and formed that but you say God may be called the Father of Spirits because he is Father of regeneration and sanctification The which is no answer There is three that bear witness in Heaven and three that bear witness in earth as I conceive at all for as much as there is not such a thing in Scripture to assist the answer as God is distinguished in three as in respect of his diversity of his operation the Spirit is that which begetteth newness of disposition so may be called the Father of regeneration and sanctification because the Spirit is that which sanctifieth and reneweth the Soul yet but one God and Father although thus distinguished and this hath more Scripture to countenance it and yet but a consequence But however there is in man or of man two parts viz. the flesh and Spirit and there is two Fathers the Father of the
flesh and the Father of the Spirits and when that which Adam begat which was dust even like himself Genes 3. did and shall return to dust then that which liveth or dwelleth in it returneuh to God the Father of Spirits who gave it but I pass to the next thing that which you say is David was conceived in sin and therefore there was Soul as well as body Answer And first you abuse the Text for it doth not read it as you have read it for it doth not say In sin was I conceived but I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me This far differeth one sense implyeth as if David lay the sin in the time of conception upon his mother in whom he was shapen in and your sense would imply thus much that is that David did acknowledge sin in himself in the time of conception but the Text it self will not emply it see it and read it distinctly Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me Psal 51.5 The Text is thus to be understood as if David should have said O Lord it is true I have sinned against thee and dâ—ne that which is evil in thy sight but take notice or consider or behold this one thing even of the frailty and weakness and imperfection of the mould that I was shapen in meaning her which is the mother of all living and so Davids mother and therefore Lord cast away my sins from before thee David doth not confess sin in himself in the time of conception but rather doth desire God to behold the weakness of his nature from the mould in the which he was shapen and consider my frame and remember that I am but dust agreeing with the words of the Psalmist in the 103. 11 12 13 14 in these words For as the Heaven is high above the earth so great is his mercy towards them that fear him as far as the East is from the West so far he removeth our transgressions from us like as a Father pitieth his children so the Lord pitieth them that fear him for he knoweth our frame he remembreth that we are dust So that David useth his mothers frailty and the imperfection of the mould in which he was shapen an Argument to prevaile with the Lord to have his sins removed out of his sight because he knew God was a God of righteousness weighing every thing as they are and considereth that we are but dust and therefore saith David that thou maiest in mercy pass by my faults that I have committed against thee remember my subjection unto sin for behold or take notice I was shapen in a lump of iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me take notice there is a difference in a person being sinful in the time of conception and being conceived a sinful lump or shapen in an imperfect mould But you will say Who can bring a clean thing out of unclean no not one Answer Object And where it is said who ean bring a clean thing out of unclean it speaketh of the subjection to mortality see Job 14.4 Jesus Christ was clean and yet was conceived in sinful flesh and in reference to what he was shapen or conceived in he was in a subjection not to be tempted onely but did fear death when he prayed that the cup of sufferings might pass from him if it was Gods Will although he came into the world for the same purpose and yet in respect of the matter of which Christs flesh was made of it could not be subject to the least imperfection in that nature it being the word which became flesh But my exposition of the 51 Psalm Will clear the matter more to you and by what is said there and here it standeth undenyably true and what you have said hath not so much as a good collour of an answer Again I pass to the Examination of what you say to my alledged Argument passing your other discourse that of Ezekiel which saith The Soul that sinneth shall die I have made a difference between Adams sin and ours as well as the punishment that is Adams sin as he was natural and not spiritual so his sin brought death upon the natural part but the son is not disabled in respect of the Soul by his Fathers sin but the Soul that sinneth shall die but the Argument that I did urge is this That no defiled creature is fit or can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But children in their non-age are fit for the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore children not defiled To which you answer thus The Kingdom of Heaven say you is taken two wayes first the Kingdom of Heaven is taken for the Kingdom of Grace as Mark. 9.1 and Math. 11.12 There are some that stand here that shall not taste death till the Kingdom of God come in power till Christened Churches gathered Ordinances administred and children of beleeving Parents belong to this Kingdom though such as you barr them from the Ordinances of the Kingdom of Grace To which I answer and say in what you affirm there is these two things mainely to be considered the first is that the Kingdom mentioned Mark 9.1 in these words There be some that stand here that shall not taste of death till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power is the Kingdom of Grace to wit the Gospel Church and Ordinances And secondly children are fit for that Kingdom as you say but the question is whether we may beleeve you or not but upon Examination I shall prove it to be a false doctrine And first to the first That the Kingdom coming in power is not meant of the Gospel Church or Ordinances but of the power and glory of the Church triumphant agreeing with or being the same with the words of Matthew Mat. 16.22 the which are thus read Verily Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste if death till they sie the Son of man coming in his Kingdom Now that this is not a Gospel Church or Ordinances which is called the Kingdom of God coming in power or the Son of man coming in his Kingdom is evident because it is no where so called Secondly if he had meant the Gospel Church or Ordinances he need not have said Some of them that stand here shall not taste of death till the Kingdom of God come in power or more properly the Son of man coming in his Kingdom because none of them that stood there did taste of death till they saw the Gospel Church and Ordinances unless Judas Iscariot but I shall shew most evidently that it is not meant of the Gospel Church and Ordinances coming but of Christs coming in Glory But by the way it is possible you will say What then is not all the Apostles dead I might say somewhat to it but admit they were all dead many hundred years ago yet there was some that did
not taste of death till they saw Christ come in his Glory But that neither Mark or Matthew will carry it to the Gospel Church read that which goeth before the Text and that which followeth the Text you will finde the Text it self meaneth not the Gospel Church and Ordinances as you say see Mat 16.27 28. compared with chap. 17.1 2 3 4. compared with 1 Pet. 1.16 17 in these words For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of his Father with his Angels and then he shall reward every man according to his works Verily Verily I say unto you there be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom And after six dayes Jesus took Peter James and John his brother and bringeth them into a high mountain apart and was transfigured before them and his face did shine as the Sun and his Rayment was white as the light And behold there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him then answered Peter and said to Jesus Lord it is good for us to be here c. From whence we may see that it was not meant of a Gospel Church and Ordinauces coming in power and Glory when he speaketh of the Kingdom of God coming in power but the meaning ning of the place is that some of his disciples should see the manner of his coming in the Glory of his Father that you may see also more plainly manifested to be meant as before said of Christs Glory The Kingdom of God coming in power proved not to be the Gospel Church and Ordinances but to shew the manner of Christ coming in glory 〈◊〉 by transfiguration or the manner of Christs glorious coming in his Kingdom read 2 Pet. 1.11 comp with 16 17. verses In the 11 verse the Apostle exhorteth the Church to endeavour so to walk that an entrance might be administred unto them into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And that our Saviour hath such a glorious Kingdom as if Peter should say is very certain for as our Lord did say that some of us should not taste of death till We see him coming in his Kingdom he also did take us apart that we might see the glorious manner of his coming and Kingdom and this we are eye-witness for we have not followed cunning divised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were eye witnesses of his majesty for he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and this voice we heard when we where with him in the Holy mount From whence we may plainly see if we compare the Scriptures together that Christ coming in glory or the Kingdom of God coming in power was not meant the Gospel Church and Ordinances for that is but in word and form but the transfiguration of Christ and the appearence of his Saints in glory with him is meant the Kingdom of God coming in power or the Son of man coming in his Kingdom thus hath the Scriptures overthrown clearly what you have said as touching the Kingdom of God coming in power and because you have inferred nothing from your Text Mat. 11.12 I shall pass saying nothing to it onely the Text in it self is true although it be not for your purpose but I commend you in that you gave no interpretation because to besure you have not abused it as you did the Text the which you did interpret And again whereas you say That children of beleeving Parents be fit for his Kingdom according to your interpretation viz. the Church To which I answer I have already proved that such are not fit members for a Gospel Church which are not lively stones Children proved not fit members of the Gospel Church although they be the children of the Faithful showing forth the praises of him that hath called them unto that state because there is to be none in Christs vine-yard viz. Church but such as are labourers the which a child of seven or eight dayes old cannot do and therefore not fit to be members of Christs Church But if the Gospel Church did onely look for a fair shâ—w in the flash as membership in the Church under the Law then children might either be Circumcised or have their bodies washed according to the carnal washings and so might be clean but membership in a Gospel Church is of another nature that requireth cleanness within the heart to be purified by Faith and the tongue speaking forth Gods praises for as with the heart man beleeveth to righteousness so as to fit them for a Gospel Church so with the tongue confession is made to Salvation Rom. 10. And whereas you repeat again of our barring children of Church priviledges I say as I have already said that it is your selves that barr children from Church priviledges for Baptism is not so properly called a Church priviledge as the Lords Supper the which you barr children from But you may see your self answered more fully as in my former Treatise But by what I have said here I have clearly took off your seeming answer to my Argument whereby it standeth undenyable that as to what you have said And again whereas you ask the question Whether children were vessels of mercy yea or no and you say you are sure that I will answer yes and then first say you they Were lost in Adam and in misery for merâ—y presupposeth misery and secondly then they must be fitted for glory therefore not naturally fit To which I answer that I have already shewed how the sons of Adam were lost and how not lost and therefore I shall wave this and come to shew how they are fitted for glory and that is the seed of the woman brake the Serpents head viz. Christ by or thorow the grace of God tasted death for every man and woman not onely to bring them to a Resurrection but he had an Heavenly inheritance to bestow on the sons of Adam which became his by purchess for he bought them when they were lost or sold by their iniquities But you will ask me Object They that are lost and die the second death are such as put away Eternal life and deny the Lord that bought them and will not have the Lord to rule over them but bid him depart and desire not the knowledge of his wayes If Christ died for to buy the whole world how cometh it to pass that the Whole world are not saved Answer There are some that put away Eternal life and tread under foot the blood of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified but I know your old objection The blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified that is wherewith Christ was sanctified say you but if your eyes be in your head and open
had a purpose about them before they were born was it to love him on hate him Answer Because I shall give forth the Exposition of this Chapter in its particular order I shall give a short answer to the question here and the answer is thus Israel stood much upon a fleshly account as I shall show you more at large in the discourse of the Chapter and pleaded their birth-priviledges very much and God did purpose both by Ishmael and Isaac and Esau and Jacob to take them off from that fond conceit and therefore as he purposed not to choose heirs to the heavenly Canaan by a fleshly discent or eldership according to the flesh so he purposed to discover it by these Esau and Ishmaels casting off sheweth the casting away of Israel and grafting the Gentiles in their place to type to wit Ishmael and Esau who were the eldest and so by consequence heirs to that inheritance which was but a type of Heaven the which the Lord shewed by dispriviledging of them of that earthly land and promises and giving it to the younger that also fore-seeing Israels unworthiness he would take away the Kingdom to wit the Gospel which of right did belong unto them and was first preached unto them and give it to the younger brethren to wit the Gentiles and yet notwithstanding did bestow great inheritances upon them and hated neither of them but for their sins committed personally and so I pass to the next thing which is a question also that you ask How Malachy comes to quote that place of Gen 25. and Paul to quoteÌ„ both Answer The very reason that Paul quoteth it is to prove the choice of the Gentiles as in Rom. 9.24 25 26 30 They being counted the younger people as Luke 15. And for the very same reason Malachy quoteth it and calleth it the burthen of the word of the Lord to Israel and sheweth them although Esau or Edom were the elder people yet for their sins the Lord cast them off and you Israel as if the Prophet should say who are accounted the eldest people to whom the service of God hath been committed yet you have broken it and done abomination before me and poluted my Ordinances and therefore as I was magnified upon Pharaoh and Edom by impoverishing them so will I be magnified by impoverishing you O house of Israel For I have no pleasure in you saith the Lord neither will accept an offering at your hands For from the rising of the Sun even to the going down of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles Mat. 1 11 12. and in every place Incense shall be offered unto my Name and a pure offering For my Name shall be great among the Heathens saith the Lord of Hosts but ye have prophaned it c. From whence take notice the Apostle Paul quotes his saying As it is written Esau hated for his sins which he committed in time and not for Adams Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated For the very same cause that the Lord hated Israel and cast them out and calleth them the people of his wrath for the same cause he hated Esau And that he hated Esau for his sin and not before he was born see Amos 1.11 Obad. 6.9 10 11 15. How are the things of Esau sought out thy mighty men O Teman shall be dismayed to the end that every one of the mount of Esau might be cut off by slaughter for the violence against thy brother Jacob Shame shall cover thee and thou shalt be cut off for ever Thou shouldest not have looked upon thy brother in the day that he became a stranger as thou hast done it shall be done unto thee thy reward shall return upon thy own head From whence we may see Esau was hated for his evil and not before he was born Again there is not one Text in the whole book of God that saith Esau was hated before he was born Rom. 9. saith no such thing As God respecteth not persons but looketh upon one man in misery as well as another with the eye of pity so he wanteth not ability to do them good Again If God did hate Esau before he was born then he must be a respector of persons for illustration take this comparison If two men were in misery and a third should redeem one out of his misery and leave the other in misery he must want ability or otherwise be a respector of persons the which neither of them is in God he is no respector of persons and to say he wanteth ability is Blasphemy but God hated not Esau before he was born but all that were lost by the first Adam was redeemed by the second otherwise the free gift was not so large as the transgression For as by the offence of one Judgement came upon all men to condemnation So by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life So that if Christ did redeem but a part then there was but a part lost for so many as were made sinners by the first Adam so many were made righteous by the second Adam or otherwise Christs redemption was not as large as Adams transgression and then an imperfect Saviour the which to say were Blasphemy but the Scripture saith He tasted death for every man and a Sacrifice for the whole World and gave himself a ransome for all men and the like but it no where saith that he did not die for all or that he dyed for part of the world But you will Object Object and say That his bloud is said to be shâ—d for many Answer All are not a few then they are many but no man can rationally conclude that Christ did not die for all from the Text that saith he dyed for many or this is the blood of the New Testament Sometimes the word many is to be understood all which is shed for many If they consider that all are not a few as aforesaid and if not a few then it must be many and you shall see that the word many in Scripture sometimes must be understood all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Daniel 12.1 2 3 4. Many of them that sleep in the dust shall arise some to Everlasting joy and some to Everlasting shame and contempt From 〈◊〉 if your sence be to be understood in the word many not to imply all in some places then at the general Resurrection when good and bad shall arise some to joy and some to shame all shall not rise onely some of both sorts and this is the manner of your reasoning from the word many but it cannot be proved that Esau was reprobated before he was born And although it be read in Romans the 9. That before the children wâ—re born or had done good or evil it was said uwo her the elder shall serve thâ— younger But in the 25. of Gen. it is not said children But two
secret will never intends they should do as first he commanded Pharoah to let Israel go and secondly commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac and did not intend they should do it Answer And to the first that is God did command Pharaoh to let Israel go and yet did not intend he should let them go To which I say God did intend that Pharoah should let them go although God knew that Pharoah at the first would not let them go but Gods fore knowledge that men will do evill is not the cause that they do evil God knew that Cain would stay Abel yet he was not the cause of his so doing But you will say that God hardened Pharoahs heart Answ So he might justly do as I shall shew the cause in the exposition of the Ninth of the Romans if the Lord please but that is not our question but our question is Whether God did intend Pharoah should let Israel go we argue noâ— the case whether he should have let them go-sooner or later but singly thus whether Pharoah should let Israel go the which I do affiâ—me that God did intend that Pharaoh should let Israel go and the Lord said that he knew that he would let them go although not at the first as you may see Exod. 3.19 20. and if Pharoah had let them go at the first be had not sinned in so doing yet it pleased God to shew to Moses that he would harden his heart bee use he had hardened himself against him so that Israel must not expect to go presently and yet the Lord sheweth Moses that he would so weary him with his signes that he would make him willing to let Israel go at the last these two things observe First That God intended when he had tryed Pharoah by his signes that he should let Israel go God did not harden Pharoahs heart on purpose to keep Israel from going but because Pharoah had slited the Lord in saying who is the Lord I will not obey his voice and let you go that therefore the Lord did harden Pharoah when first Pharoah had hardened The Scripture saith that Pharoah hardened his heart against the Lord. himself that he might know that the Lord was stronger than he I might spend much time in running thorow the causes of things but of that anon And Secondly take notice this was not Gods secret will namely in appointing Pharoah not to let Israel go when he had commanded him to let them go but it was his revealed will made known to Mosis and Aaron and in the next place I come to examine the matter as touching Gods commanding of Abrahams offering up Isaac and so shall pâ—ss from this particular to the second Argument I shall be very brief saying that in a sense as beforesaid Abraham did offer up Isaac and also this is not a secret thing because the Scripture saith it was but to try Abraham as I have before proved therefore I pass to the third Argument the second you grant to be true And the third is If Adam in his best condition as he stood in Paradice before the fall were but an earthly Adam In his best estate was but an earthly man man and all his enjoyments earthly then he could loose no more then what he had to loose which was but earthly but Adam in his best condition was and enjoyed but as beforesaid Ergo all that he lost was but earthly enjoyments Your answer seems very weak in my opinion which is say you All sinned in Adam to condemnation or damnation and hence Insants by nature are children of wrath or otherwise say you what is meant by the Hebrew Text in dying thou shalt dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is guilt or cause of punishment or judgment the which may be taken for the first or second death as the Scripture offereth it unto us ndifferently To which I answer and first to the first which is All sinned in Adam say you to condemnation it is very true that for Adams sin all men were condemned for saith God Dust thou art and to dust thou shall return meaning not only Adam but all his Lines and therefore it is appointed once for men to dye for we must needs dye and be like water spilt upon the ground and as I have said the word condemnation will not help you because there is the very same in Luke 23.40 and yet it is only a temporal death and so I am come to the next thing which is That Infants say you are children of wrath by nature If you mean they are children of wrath as in respect to outward punishment we differ not because Gods Justice must be satisfied for God thereupon to inflict it if he sinned but he did sin therefore it must of necessity be punished otherwise Justice not satisfied because there was no Repentance given or required as in reference to that sin but if you suppose that Infants be children of wrath as in respect of punishment to the second Death we much differ and I will give you seven years time to prove it in which time prove it if you can And whereas you ask me what is meant by the Hebrew word in dying thou shalt dye I answer as beforesaid that so soon as Adam had eaten he was in a dying condition and so are all men dying untill they be dead so that in the midst of life we are in death continuing not in one stay and so I come to examime what you say to my fifth Argument which is That opinion which in the extent of it will make the Devil to speak true and God to lye is anabsurd blasphemous opinion but such is the opinion that saith that the Death that God threatned to Adam was the second Death and yet that second Death not inflicted for that sin on Adam and all his Lines so he saith God speaketh falsely and the Devil truth Ergo that opinion an obhor'd blasphemous opinion but the minor is false as you say for say you Although God threatned Adam with eternal death yet he lyed not in inflicting it because his threatens was to dehort Adam from sin not his peremptory resolution but as to Hezekiah and Niniveh To which I answer you have said nothing at all to prove my minor false for as I have said that God did say that if Adam did eat he should dye and that eternally say you but the Devill said that he should not dye viz eternally but Adam did eat now if Adam and his Lines did nor so dye aâ— God said they should viz eternally as you say then who it was that spake true God or the Devill I leave the Reader to judge God said they should dye but the Devil said they should not surely dye All men did dye the first death or shall be changed which is as death as God did say and so its plain that