is an act of his meere mercy he is not bound to it by any rule of distributive justice and if he hate Esan that is if he do not love him with that peculiar love infallibly to bring him to salvation he hath no obligation upon him he may do with his own as he pleaseth His purpose is in the salvation of the elect to magnifie the riches of his grace as in the condemnation of the non-elect to set forth the glory of his justice But let us more attentively consider the words of the Apostle What if God willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction Rom. 9.23 Camero uppon the place hath this good observation Which difference saith he the Apostle hath prudently noted for when be doth discourse concerning them whom God hath called he doth use these words whom he hath before prepared to glory to wit that he may here decipher the effectual work of God But when he doth speak of them whom he doth not call he doth not say that they are such vessels which God hath before prepared but simply vessels prepared and fitted according to that saying thy destruction is of thy selfe O Israel Upon these grounds we do conclude in matter of election and non-election there can be no respect of persons with God for the elect are saved meerly by grace and the non-elect are damned and cast away justly for their sins nay for the slighting neglecting and most wilfull abusing of the patience and long-suffering of God and the voluntary hardning themselves in sin Reas 6. Further you argue If God were simply the worker of obedient actions in men or for men as be doth with other creatures then there were no use for repentance the ground of that work were wholly prevented For should they repent because God hath not acted it were all one as to repent because God hath made no more worlds pag. 60. Answ This argument of yours if it were rightly applied would be of good moment against that kind of men who are for enthusiasmes For if it be a good reason to affirme that there are no more worlds in being because God hath made no more the reason must be one and the same according to their doctrine such and such a man doth not repent because God did not work repentance in him as an inanimate instrument For our parts we plainly affirme that though God doth work repentance in men he doth it congruenter as in rational and intellectual creatures For we are to suppose that men have principles to act them and therefore when the Lord doth enable them to repent they have power to turne from their evil way In this case as repentance is Gods gift so it is mans act man doth freely repent by the power of grace received Many also voluntarily do harden their own hearts in neglecting of that grace which should bring them to repentance From all which we do conclude that obedient actions do belong to men as the power ability and grace is wholly from God We will go on consider the Scriptures which you do pervert to a contrary sense To begin therefore with that place of the Apostle work out your salvation with fear and trembling for it is God that worketh in you the will and the deed Here say you If God doth work the will and the deed what is here left for man to do ☞ Answ Such a good proficient you are in your way of wrangling against the Priests as you call them that now at last you are come to except against the words of the Apostle Doth he not say in plaine and significant terms that the Lord doth work in us the will and the deed and doth he not upon this ground exhort men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling But that we may clear the coherence and connexion of the text we will note three things in special First we are to distinguish betwixt Gods dealing in the work of creation and his dealing in the working of mans salvation For his dealing in the work of creation he made man in a moment of time but for the work of salvation he doth carry it on step by step Againe in the work of creation the Lord did make man without any act of his own he did not know when he was in making but it is otherwise in the act of salvation this work is carried on by mens own acts and by the concurrence of their own endeavour And hereupon though the Apostle doth affirme that God doth work the will and the deed yet it is mens duty also to work out their own salvation Secondly we are to note that the act of man in working out his own salvation must be by a supernatural power he may govern families he may build Cities he may learn arts and sciences without the communication of any special grace from God but he cannot do so in the working out of his own salvation God must first work the will and the deed and then man will be able to work out his salvation and not till then Thirdly these words are added with fear and trembling to shew that man must do it humbly carefully and with dependance upon the grace of God seeing he hath not the power of inspiration in his own hand But more fully to set forth the meaning of the Apostle we will cite another Scripture which is parallel to this These are the words of the Lord to the children of Israel in the wildernesse Behold I send mine Angel before thee to keep thee in the way to bring thee into the place which I have prepared Beware of him provoke him not for he will not pardon your transgressions for my name is in him But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice and do all that I speak then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary to thine adversaries for my Angel shall go before thee and bring thee unto the Amorites the Hittites and the Perizites and I will cut them off Exod. 23.21 22 23. Here if you diligently observe the text do ly first a promise secondly a Precept For the promise the Lord doth tell them That he will send his Angel before them as a Convoy to guide them in the way and to plant them in the land of Canaan And for the way because they were to be in the Wildernesse fourty years without fields without clothing without means to sustain the life of man therefore they should be more immediately under the custody and tuition of the Angel This Angel must needs be Christ he was the pillar of cloud that went before them by day and he was the pillar of fire that was their leader by night he fed them with Manna and supplied their want with water out of the rock To this the Apostle seemeth to allude they did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the
a secret will to them to whom it is revealed page 77. In this passage of yours there are some words of truth though after your manner you make an ill use of them I yield in the general that the revealed will of God was sometimes his secret will before it was revealed But the question in hand is this when Adam knew his duty that he should not eat of the forbidden fruit was not that part of the will of God concerning the permission of the fall and sending of the Son part of the secret will of God and whether by right ought it not to be secret so long as he was upon the triall or his obedience for the clearing of the point we will speak somewhat more largely concerning the secret will of God There is one part of his secret will absolutely secret that never shall be known either in this life or in that which is to come The Apostle speaking of the casting away of the Jewes and their wonderful calling again concludeth O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and the knowledge of God! Rom. 11.33 There is then a part of the secret will of God especially in the reasons of his decrees which none either can or shall know Secondly there is a part of his secret will which though it shall be revealed in the world to come yet it must be concealed in this life Now are we the sonnes of God but it is not yet manifest what we shall be 1 Joh. 3.1 2. Though the Saints know much of the mind of Christ and feel his love in their hearts by the teaching and demonstration of the Spirit yet the excellency of their future glory is hidden from them Thirdly there is a part of the secret will of God which though it be hidden from some yet it is revealed to others even in this life The Apostles did see those things which the Prophets and the righteous men could never see The Lord shewed Peter by what death he should glorifie God but he did not shew this to other men no not to John the beloved Disciple Joh. 21.20 21. Fourthly to one and the same man that part of the will of God which was secret heretofore by the event or revelation may prove to be his revealed will and so in the particular case of Adam the permission of the fall and the promise of the sending of the Son were the concealed will of God for a season and were afterward made known by the event If this be granted we have as much as we do desire But you put the question How God could decree by his secret will that Adam should fall before in his revealed will he commanded him to stand As hard a case as you make it I believe there is no man but will easily understand that that which the Lord had decreed concerning the fall of Adam in his secret will from all eternity must needs go before his temporal commands and injunctions But that which offends you is the seeming contrariety of the two wills You say is it a small thing that the righteousnesse of God should be questioned upon such low termes as to imagine that when in his revealed will he shall say eat not in his secret will he shall say thou shalt eat This opinion that renders God to have two wills renders them divided in their nature when they are but differing in termes For the external will is not another will but the same made manifest page 79. That the will of God is one entire will in substance we do affirm as well as you yet we would have you to observe that one and the same will may be discriminated and distinguished by divers relations As one and the same fire that hardens the clay may soften the wax so one and the same will may be distinguished according to divers operations Let us note the distinction betwixt Gods will of decree and his will of command That such a distinction must be made between these two wills is clear and manifest from many Scriptures Joseph said to his brethren Gen. 45.7 8. Ye sent me not hither but God His sending into Egypt was by Gods will of Decree to save much people alive yet none can say that Josephs brethren did the Lords will of command they went against his cōmand when they sold their brother as a bondslave So it is expressely said of the sons of Eli that they would not hearken unto the voice of their father because the Lord would slay them 1 Sam. 2.25 These disobedient children in not hearkning to the voice of their Father did fulfill the Lords will of Decree who had a purpose to judge the house of Eli for their sinnes But we cannot say that they did obey the Lords will of command unlesse such a command may be produced that children ought not to obey their parents So in the case of crucifying the Lord Christ the Apostle speaketh they did whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done Herod Pilate and the Nation of the Jewes did perform the Lords will of Decree to crucifie Christ yet we cannot say they did perform his will of command These and many other examples may be brought to prove the necessity of such a distinction And though the Arminians Corvinus by name do cavil at words and expressions yet they cannot rationally deny the substance of the thing And therefore to the point in hand we say it is true in a sense that God did not will the fall of Adam that is he did not approve that sinne by his will of command yet in a sense it is as true that by his will of decree he did permit it As in the like case the Apostle saith There must be heresies amongst you that they which are approved may be made manifest 1 Cor. 11.19 if there must be heresies this is spoken in relation to the will of God not in relation to his will of command for then God would have given men a command to raise heresies and damnable doctrines in his Church which none will imagine But there must be heresies this is in relation to his will of Decree to tolerate such things for the clearer tryal of those that are syncere So in the present case God did will the fall of Adam not by his will of command for he gave him no command to eat of the forbidden fruit but by his will of Decree he was pleased to permit the fall that it might be subservient and conducing to his more excellent end of sending the Son for the full declaration of the glory of his grace which otherwise would not have been so conspicuous if the first man had not fallen So then to gather up all into one sum you may easily understand if you will how God in his will of command may say eat not and yet in his secreet will permit him to eat These two are not so put asunder but they may well be joyned together
had been ten thousand times more sinful yet without an Ordinance from God death could never have seized upon the world page 101. 102 103. What is all this but a palpable and grosse mistake of the question or as Logicians call it an ignorance of the elench We do confesse as shrist brought life into the world he brought it in by the institution of his Father so when sinne brought death into the world it was by the just appointment of God to punish sinne with death The question that is in debate betwixt us is whether sinne be the 〈◊〉 cause of death as the obedience of Christ active and passive is the meritorious cause of life If you yield this as yield it you must we have as much as we do desire Next you enquire how sinne may be the cause of condemnation supposing that it cannot be the principal cause you demand whether it may be a cause in subordination And here you tell us that sinne will not be found neither seeing such causes are good in their own nature Well then what is the cause you tell us seeing sinne is an invention of man and the Devil a meere accident that cleaveth to the subject man we may call sinne an accidental cause of condemnation seizing upon man found sinful page 105. If this way of reasoning be good why may not I proceed in the like manner Heat is an accident in the subject fire therefore the heat of the fire is a meere accidental cause of the boyling of the water The force of your reason is no better when you say sinne is a meere accident in the subject man therefore it is onely the accidental cause of condemnation If you well observe the expression you shall find it to be very absurd to call sin a meere accidental cause of condemnation Condemnation is alwayes set in relation to the guilt of some sinne that doth deserve it how then can you call sinne an accidental cause of condemnation The Scriptures say that the Lord will render to every one according to his works that they who commit such things are worthy of death And many passages of the like kind What will you say to all this Here you have a pretty shift to help you out Sinne say you puts a man in a sutable disposition and qualification for death page 106. Indeed our Divines when they speak of eternal life that the Lord will render to every man according to his works they take the word worthy onely for a sutable qualification According to that of the Apostle he hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light Col. 1.12 Though this may be affirmed of the Saints that they are made meet for eternal life it were too short and too diminuent an expression to affirme that wicked men onely are made suitable to receive vengeance for then the wicked are no more worthy of eternal death then the Saints are worthy of eternal life ☞ which is plainly to crosse the Apostle the wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternal life I cannot then but mention your words with a kind of horrour with which you close the Chapter speaking of the wicked they are say you a sutable matter to receive vengeance as Gods people are sutable to receive all the joyes of eternal life Now the joyes of eternal life are the free-gift of God All qualifications dispositions frames of spirit though never so evangelical in the abundance thereof do not abate the worth of an hair of eternal life to be the free-gift of God For there was not the least desarts in a holy life to the procuring of eternal salvation but onely it was the will of God to make eternal life as a Crown to put upon the head of those men that lived holy here which were fit or sutable for the Crown of honour So men that have lived never so notoriously wicked rebeling and blaspheming against God day after day to their lives end are no otherwise worthy than persons fitted as the true subjects sutable for wrath and God is as simply and intirely the authour of the one as the other And so farre you Now I leave it to all tender consciences to understand and to give sentence We do willingly confesse that we cannot merit any thing by our own works in the way to salvation there being such a disproportion between them and the glory to come But I do detest and abhorre that speech of yours when you say that the greatest sinner who continues so all his life long is no otherwise worthy of death than a person fitted or a subject made sutable for wrath and that God is as much the cause of the damnation of the one as the salvation of the other If this doctrine of yours be sound and Orthodox why may not the wicked in hell cast all upon God as the sole Authour of their misery as well as the Saints in heaven ascribe all to the glory of his free grace I will use your own words though to farre better purpose If a man should study many years for a destroying Principle to dishonour his Creator he could not parallel this which is the sharpest Sword that was ever drawn against the righteousnesse of God I have staid the longer upon this point because you have used so many arguments to prove sin to be no meritorious cause of condemnation I have more carefully endeavoured to vindicate the truth because this is one of the first fundamentals that is put into the heart of the Gentiles They knowing the judgment of God against them which do such things that they are worthy of death not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them Rom. 1.32 That sinne is the meritorious cause of death and that a sinner is worthy of death is graven in the heart of every man alive and God at seasons doth stirre up the confideration of the guilt of sinne in the conscience of the Gentiles to look after pardon and to make their peace with God The first convictions of the Spirit do begin with considerations of the Godhead and the guilt of sinne that so men may be brought to see their misery And yet you teach us here in this Chapter that sinne is not the meritorious cause of condemnation Now we proceed to your next Chapter CHAP. XII What Adam retained of his forfeiture till his death HERE also you teach such things as do little lesse then strike at the foundation You tell us that Adam after the fall for his body had all the parts and lineaments thereof He had his senses and retained his knowledge And further you adde I make no question but God had so ordered the imployments that he had for Adam some of them to be more spiritual than ever he had to do before his fall and then that he should utterly disable him from the performance thereof will never be made good by any man under
the words of the Apostle Rom. 5.12 by one man sinne entred into the world c. You should finde that all then were in one publick man and sinned in him and this is the reason which the Apostle giveth why death passed universally upon all men because in one all have sinned his one act was the act of all But for more abundant confirmation let us consider the scope of the text The drift of the Apostle is to draw a parallel between both the Adams Frist in those points wherein they do agree Secondly in those wherein they do disagree For the points of agreement the most remarkable to the purpose in hand are these First the two Adams are described as two persons which are the roots to their several and respective posterities The first Adam is a root to all his branches and the second Adam is a root to all branches I marvail then what delusion hath seized upon the Examiners who do positively maintain that the first Adam is not here intended as he was the Father of us all Secondly they are described by the plurality of branches as the first Adam had a multiplicity of branches out of him so the second Adam had a plurality of branches out of him And therefore the Apostle doth elegantly proceed in the collation as by the offence of one many be dead so the gift of grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many As by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ And so the Apostle doth compare one Adam to one Christ Adam the root of all his branches Christ the root of all his branches Thirdly they are set forth by the passage of the common sap out of each root into its branches respectively And therefore the Apostle speaketh concerning the first Adam by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death passed over all men The common sap then that passed out of the first man into all his branches is first sinne and then death by sinne By sinne is here principally meant original sinne and all other sinnes that flow from this as the fountain But if further enquiry be made concerning the passage of sin death into all the branches that come of Adam the passage is not all at one and the same instant It is now five thousand six hundred years since the fall of Adam and in all this time original sinne hath been in continual flux and succession As in several generations men come to be born so they actually participate of the sap that comes from the first root The like may be said of the second Adam and of his branches They which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life by one Jesus Christ ver 17. The sap then that cometh from Christ as the common root is grace and spiritual life this doth flow out of him into all his branches And for the passage thereof it is not all at one time but as men come to receive the gift of righteousnesse and to be born anew they come to the actual fruition thereof For let the death of Christ be never so largely tendred to the lost sonnes of men there is no actual participation of him till he be received by faith The words of the text are most emphatical and significant They which receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life As who would say in plainer termes they only shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ who do particularly receive the gift of righteousnesse which is generally offered This is the undoubted meaning of the text And therefore for you to say that we could not sinne in Adam our soules and bodies not being in him how do you answer the scope of the text by the disobedience of one many were made sinners by one man sinne entred into the world Adam is here set forth as the root of all his branches and al the branches were in him as the first publick man What can you or the Examiners say to this 2ly you say that we had no Law in Adam Now where there is no Law there is no transgression if we had received any Law it must have been made known to us but there was none made known to us and therefore there was no Law page 127. To this I rejoyn ☜ if there was no Law given to us in Adam how come we to be guilty of his transgression how come we to bear the burden of his sinne why doth the Apostle speak so plainly by the disobedience of one many were made sinners We must then necessarily come to affirme this for a truth that the Law was given to Adam as a publick man and in him to all his posterity And whereas you say that there was no Law made known to us at that time therefore we had no interest in the Law why do not you infer by the like reason when the second Adam the Lord Jesus Christ suffered death upon the Crosse because at that very time the merit of his death was not made known you had no part or portion in that death which was one thousand six hundred years before you were born If you will be loth to stand to the latter to lose your priviledge by the second Adam I pray you give us leave to maintain the dammage that was brought in by the first Adam And yet further to take away all scruples from tender consciences if it might seem harsh for all the sonnes of men to perish by the disobedience of one man especially when the Law was not made known to them in their own individual persons but in the common root of all mankind let us consider how the second man came as a remedy to free the same miserable sonnes of men from the state of sinne and death especially when they neither thought nor knew any thing concerning the means of their salvation The greatnesse of our misery by Adam doth amplifie and set forth the merrit of Christ in the fulnesse thereof Now then when the Examiners and you both go about to extenuate the misery of the fall you do rob Christ of the glory of his grace You say The branch hath not any thing but what it hath by dependance upon the tree Now it is not so with us for that which we call the Principal part of man his soul or spirit was not dependant upon Adam but had his dependancy from the very same fountain from whence Adam received his even from God himself p. 128. Here I confess there is a great question concerning the manner of the propagation of Original sin and men do wearie themselves very much to find out whether the soul be by infusion or by traduction But I see no cause why we should intangle our selves in that difficultie ☞ For whether the soul be infused or
principally stand in the divineness of the light Some differences there are between the knowledge which Adam had before his fall and the knowledge that is renewed in the Saints Adam had it by creation they have it by inspiration Adam could propagate it to his posterity they cannot propagate it to posterity Adams knowledge was without the sight of his misery their knowledge when they do begin to know as they ought to know doth begin with the sight of their misery Lastly Adams knowledge was not so perfect but the Saints knowledge shall be most perfect in degree when they come to live in the state of glory These circumstances considered respecting the manner there is some difference to be made yet in substance both kinds of knowlege is one and the same For though it did not belong to Adam to know his misery and to believe in a Christ yet the righteousness of the moral law did appertaine to him It did belong to him to love God to feare him to trust in him to obey him c. Now how could all this possibly be done but he must know him and believe him therefore his knowledge must needs be spiritual before his fall We come now to the next point he endeavours to prove that infants by the sinne of Adam are not heires of damnation We need not in this matter be careful to give him an answer If it be a question de jure we say the sin of Adam is such and Original sin in its own nature is such that it doth deserve damnation But if it be a question de facto there is no such need that we should possitively affirme the actual damnation of infants They that be saved we may safely affirme are saved by the mercy of God and they that are damned God can cleare his justice in their condemnation though in all things the reason of his proceeding is not so intelligible to us And our Author himselfe I beleeve when he hath well pondred the businesse will finde it to be more safe to rest in such a determination But as for his arguments they are fallacious in many particulars For most of them I have answered in the former part of the treatise And for the residue I shall have occasion to speak of them afterwards Here only foure things are to be noted in the general First by the same reasons as he doth overturne damnation by the sin of Adam any Jew or Turk may overthrow salvation by the merit of Christ For why may not such a one argue the death of Christ was an act of his and none of ours he suffered many hundred yeares ago What he did we cannot be said to do either vertually or interpretively in him or by him we had no being at all that our wills should be contained in his His sufferings were without any knowledge and consent of ours and wherefore should any benefit arise to us If there be any such thing why should it so many ages together be concealed from the greatest part of mankind Most of his arguments do go after this way and by the same reasons that he takes away the guilt of sin by the disobedience of the first man by the same he doth destroy all possibility of salvation by the second Secondly other of his reasons do go too far in questioning the absolute power justice and sovereignty of God As he would have men to be temperate in such speeches that seem to condemn infants to hell for the fault of another so he also should be more moderate in those sayings that question the power and the justice of God What is or what shall be the whole course of the Lords proceeding against infants that dye in original sin is variously disputed some speak of a Limbus infantum whither those infants go that dye without baptisme Others speak of the penalty of losse without a penalty of sense A third sort dreame of I know not what common receptacle where infants as well as the souls of others do still remaine in expectation of the resurrection But sure I am none do speak more dangerously and desperately than they that except against the justice and the mercy of God now in this our Author is too bold Thirdly in all his reasons he goes against that which he teacheth elsewhere For in sundry places he sheweth that without the infusion of supernatural grace no man neither infant nor other can enter into the Kingdome of heaven Againe he saith that by the fall of Adam mankind came to be divested and disrobed of those supernatural excellencies that formerly he had Now by the position of these two I leave it to any man to judge infants as now borne in their natural condition whether are they capable of salvation whatsoever he may say in words he and we as to this point may agree in the same principles But in his answer to the Bishops letter he seems to be of opinion that infants went neither to heaven nor hell at least such a collection may be drawn from his words Just so it is saith he in infants Hell was not made for man but for devils and therefore it must be something besides meere nature that must beare any man thither meer nature neither goes to heaven nor hell pag. 17. In which words of his we acknowledge it to be true in a sense that meer nature doth not carry a man to heaven or hell for that which is not true at all cannot carry a man any whither The Sophisters do indeed speak of the creation of man in puris naturalibus in his pure naturals but I no where finde that God did ever make or did intend to make any man in such estate that was neither good nor evil I know no such meer nature to be found in any part of the habitable earth and therefore it is some way a truth in this abstract consideration that a pure nature carries a man no whether But he hath another meaning in which he is greatly mistaken for under that notion and consideration as infants are now borne this nature depraved carryeth only to hell We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Eph. 2.2 3. But here perhaps he will except by such a tenet as this all infants will be necessitated to damnation Not so neither they will be borne only in a nature lyable to damnation But by our doctrine we do not say that they must be all damned I see nothing to the contrary but Christ is as well able to save them from the pollution and corruption of the natural birth as well as if they were all reduced to that imaginary state that he speaks of Concerning this matter he delivers his judgement in his answer to the Bishops letter When I affirme that infants being by Adam reduced and left to their meer natural estate fall short of heaven I do not say they cannot go to heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural