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
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
account of all that which is done by us whether good or evill for he that hath improved his talent must come and stand before his Lord as well as he that hath not improved it to receive the sentence so that the small standing before God maketh not for you and again you say I deny that there is any yet in glory in the four and thirtieth Page of my Book Answer You do somewhat abuse me and my Book in saying I do deny any yet in glory Some Saints in glory as Enoch Elijah and Christ and possibly Moses and others although David be not yet ascended into Heaven I have not such an expression in the four and thirtieth page as I know of for I am perswaded that Enoch and Elijah and Christ and possibly Moses are at this time in glory although David be not yet ascended into Heaven the summ of what I say in the four and thirtieth page of my Treatise is That although the spirit of man returneth to God that gave it yet without the body is not in capacity or capable of joy this is my judgement or thoughts concerning man before the Resurrection that the Righteous go to sleep in peace and when they awake out of the dust of the Earth All the time of their sleep although they lye many years in the dust it will be but as it were a moment and also the wicked shall lye down in trouble and horror and their troubles will come fresh on them so soon as they awake out of the dust and their time will be also as a moment because there is no remembrance of time or any thing amongst the dead but if any be otherwise minded provided they hold fast the Foundations they may do well for this is nor so material for this we agree in that we shall all arie at the general Resurrection and shall come to judgement and then receive according to what we have done in the body whether it be good or evil and whereas you cite Christs words to the Thief on the Cross which is I say unto thee this day shalt thou be with me in Paradiâ—e To which I say that all that may be safely gathered from these words is that Christ gave him a promise of Paradice that day not that Christ and the Thief were to be both together in Heaven that same day for Christ dâ—d not ascend in many dayes after Although Christ said that day to the Thief that he should be with him in Paradice yet it doth not follow that Christ and the Thief were that day to be together in Paradice because he Thief not dead nor Christ ascended that day and it cannot be proved that the Malefactor was dead that day but as to these things I have spoken before both in private conference with you and also I have discovered it in publick and therefore at present shall insist on the next thing only say as to the Saints lying under the Altar Table if you please to resolve this question without doubt What the 〈…〉 is that cryeth for vengeance because the soul is variously taken in Scripture and because Abels blood is said to cry for vengeance and Christ poured out his Soul to death and made his Soul an offering for sin and we know that Christs blood is that which is the offering for sin for without it there were no remission of sins and might also ask you what the Altar Table is and mach more I could say to it but I pass to the next but by the way I cannot but take notice of your merry conceit where you say you could laugh tel me that if Sodom fire wire eternal it must be eternal as God is and then some Creature coeternal with the Creator or to last for ever and then Hell fire and is will becken to each other Although a Fools mouth be full of laughter you have no great cause to laugh at me for saying that the fire that the Sodomiter were destroyed withall was an eternal fire because that Iude faith It was the vengeance of eternal fire that they suffered and also if we consider that God ever was a consuming fire and his breath as a devouring flame and when Tophet is set on fire it shall be by the breath of the Lord. I could say very much as to both these particulars Psal 18.8 Isa 30.27 Dan. 7.10 Heb. 12.29 Psal 97.3 only I leave you to peruse the Scriptures in the margent and so I shall pass to what you say in answer of that of Is 24. of the Kings of the earth being punished on the earth which is say you some were purishedby Assirians and by Babylonians by Persians and Grecians and then hell is past and if this be meant hell how can they be rejected again say you To which I answer and first that this Chapter is a Prophecy of the destruction of the habitations of the earth and of the last Judgement is plain to him that hath his eyes in his head because the Prophet spake of the general Resurrection before he makes an end of his speech and we know order of words proveth nothing in many places and that the Prophet doth carry on his discourse to the state of the general Resurrection see Chapter 25.8 and also Paul speaking of the general Resurrection to the Corinthians Whereas the Prophet spake of punishing of the host of high ones and Kings on the earth and after speaâ—s of gathering them as prisoners into the plâ— is not another thing but the method of the punishment before-mentioned and order of word proves nothing referreth them to this Text saying As it is written Death is swallowed up in victory O death where is thy sting O grave where is thy victory and whereas you by order of word would prove a visitation after their punishments to be the Gospel in respect of whose glory the Sun and Moon are dim To which I say there is not so much as a colour of truth in it as I conceive and whereas the Text speaketh of gathering them as prisoners into a pit and after many dayes to visit them After he hath spoak of punishing them on the earth therefore you conclude that the visitation is after the punishment To which I answer and say it is no such thing for first he speaks of punishing of them and the place where and then the manner how he will punish them First punish them he will to wit the hoast of high ones that are on high although happily they may think they are too high or out of the wrath of punishment and the Kings of the earth who have lived there in pleasure shall there be punished and as he saith he will punish them and where he will punish them so he sheweth the method of their punishment that is they shall be gathered as prisoners into the pit and then after wards shall be visited that is the Lord will visit them with a due recompence of
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