Adams Condition IN PARADISE DISCOVERED Wherein is proved That Adam had right to Eternall Life in Innocency and forfeited it for Him and His. ALSO A Treatise of the Lawful Ministry and The manner of Sion's Redemption opened In Answer to a Book of George Hammond a Taylor of Biddenden in Kent who calls himself Pastor of Christ's Church there And affirms that Adam's Sin did bring but Temporal Death on him and all in his Loyns and that all his Enjoyments in Paradise were Earthly That none yet are in Heaven or Hell That the Jews shall return to their own Land and enjoy it That Christ shall reign in Earth a thousand years c. The truth is asserted and proved and the Errours refuted By Hezekiah Holland Anglo-Hibernus Minister of Sutton-Valence in Kent Geo. Hammond's Book is in part an Answer to a Letter sent him from Mr. Rutton about a former Dispute between them about Original Sin c. Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge Job 38.2 Desiring to be Teachers of the Law but understanding neither what they say or whereof they affirm 1 Tim. 1.7 Contentionis quà m veritatis cupidiores Cic. Orar. l. 89. London Printed for George Calvert at the Half-Moon in the New Buildings in Pauls Church-yard 1656. To his benevolous Friend Mr. Maximilian Taylor of Sutton SIR YOu remember how George Hammonds Books were spread in my Parish was it not time for me to look to my people I took his Book and by way of preaching answered and confuted its errours when I remember you took notes covetous to enform your own spirit of the truth What you once heard preached you have here printed by your timely encouragement And indeed though I owe more then my self to many friends in and about Sutton as to your noble Cousen Mr. Edward Taylor of Hollingborn to my ingenious Friend M. Edw. Knatchbull of Sutton to my bountiful Friend Mr. Tho Tyndall to my Cordiall Friend Mr. James Lamb of Sutton yet this Book owes its self to you next to my self of all men under Heaven For it lay by me as a dead thing forgotten till you revived my muse and your encouragements gave life to my Book When Satibarzanes who revolted from Alexander the great challenged any of his Souldiers to fight as George Hammon almost doth the Clergy Erignis an old but spirited man accepted the Challenge with that expression What Souldiers Alexander once had I l'e shew you and at the first On-set slew him 'T is a folly to think to conquer an Anabaptist persuadebis non persuaseris such will take no answer If I can strengthen my own people I am well enough for my thinks â—hâ—ar Motis in Erasmus saying that to go about to confute Hammon is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to measure the sand c. when I consider the many errours in his Book I am thinking how he might have excused all with that jest in Lipsius si vera dico agnoscite those are rare si falsa ignoscite that 's most of four Book He much speaks against learning Oxford and Cambridge-knowledg 't is wisht he had more of their knowledge that his book might have had fewer errours but in that he is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I finde errours of moment in his book not tolerable in a Common-wealth R. Answ in the Book As that Adams sin brought on him and all in his loyns but temporall death c. Hence no Children eternally lost or need Baptisme yet the Apostle sayes One mans offence brought condemnation on all Rom. 5. were we not by nature Sons of wrath twice dead by nature and otherwise Jude 12. Nay born altogether in sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 9. notwithstanding the Pharisees obrayding the blind man How the whole man was infected is some difficulty but as the blind man said John 9.25 this one thing I know I was blind and now I see and we did once see in Adam and now are naturally miserable poor blind and waked Rev. 3. I confesse all in Adam sinned onely against the first Covenant but that the breach of that Covenant merited no more then temporall death I deny because of Rom. 5.18 That the souls of Adams Progeny were in Adam according to subsistence I have proved not according to essence When the souls were created in disposed bodies is controverted Tract 4. de Anim. rat Quest 1. Pag. 327. yet Eustachius concludes in maribus circa diem a conceptu quadragesimum in foeminis circa octogesimum only excepts our Saviours body whose conception was extraordinary Another errour is holding that actuall sins onely Sum of Relig Pag. 92. make men Vessels of dishonour p. 22. Dr. Usher denies sin to be the cause of Reprobation and that truly onely the means to bring it about Gods decree to be glorified in mercy and justice is the first cause of all Were not some fore-ordained to condemnation Jude 4. read Exod. 9.16 Prov. 16.4 VVicked made for the day of destruction God raised up Pharaoh for temporall ruine but why not for eternall it seems he hated him nay hardened first his heart Exod. 7.3 so persons are reprobated by the means of sin and thousands for onely Adams being by nature Children of wrath and dying out of Christ Again he denies Hell in being at present See Answ in the Book or any in glory as yet contrary to 2 Pet. 2.8 Indeed such an Opinion was once as appears by Revel 14.13 but Reformation cryed it down vers 6. The great Humanist Dr. Fotherbey in his learned book against Atheists given me by a good Friend proves that Atheists are much tormented with fear at their dying hour Mr. Tho Barber of Charâ— l. 2. c. 13. because of hell And are not all souls of Saints alive unto God Luke 20.38 vvhere are souls departed asleep for so many thousand of years did not Moses and Elias talk with Jesus Matth. 17. I thought Peter knew not what he said it seems it was Moses and Elias who talked in their sleep to Jesus Why did God command a reward at Even to be payd to labouring men Mat. 24.14 since those who labour unto the death for him have no reward till day of judgement I will not much longer trouble you Mr. Taylor but refer you to the book Ep. Ded. to Sr. Tho Moore jamque tuum non meum in the words of Erasmus only when George Hammond or any of that judgement say De vol. Dei that God would save more then he doth believe them not though Matth. 23.37 speak that Language at first sight Lombard or Moulin will enform you that Christ did gather all ordained to life out of Jerusalem ipsis sacerdotibus nolentibus though the Scribes and Pharisees were unwilling to have it so Who can hinder Gods work Isay 53.13 But to end I fear my studying to be brief makes me too obscure I passe by George Hammonds jeeres as telling Mr. Rutton
the water Dulcius ex ipso sonte c. Fideliuns fili sanctitatis candidati sancti ex seminis praerogativâ And indeed I believe the cause why you complain against them is not for want of ignorance of their worth and abilities I could produce the testimony of Tertullian for Infant-Baptisme who lived in the same Century with Irenaeus who calles Children holy in respect of their Prerogative in Generation to wit because of believing Parents and federally holy Tert. 〈◊〉 de Anima but I refer the judicious Reader to Dr. Hammonds Treatise of baptizing Infants pag. 213. And I will wait upon what you say concerning Adam's sin What punishment Adams sin brought on his Posterity THat Adam's sin brought more on him and his than temporall death Habuit vitam aeternam partim promissione spe Paraeus in cap. 2. Gen. p. 348. with sorrows sicknesses c. I prove 1. because Adam forfeited eternall life which I thus prove what the second Adam restored the first lost but the second Adam restored eternall life 2 Tim. 1.10 who brought life and immortality to light intimating it to have had some kinde of being before to wit in Adam at least in an inclusive promise in feeding on the Tree of life c. The Tree of life was the representer of eternall life and of Christ Jesus the means to bring it about upon the Fall Rev. 2.7 Hence Paraeus In Gen. 1.3 Arbor vitae est Christus paradisus terrenus symbolum erat caelestis gratiae ejectio è paradiso signum aeternae abjectionis à Deo nisifuerit reconciliatus ibid. Paradise typed out glory the Tree of Life Christ the ejecting man Contemplation on Paradise signified mans rejection without reconciliation Hence Dr. Hall O infinite mercy Man saw his Saviour before him ere he had need of one he saw him in whom he should recover eternall life Ephes 2.12 Pag. 130.131 In Gen. Cap. 2. Pag. 345. ere he lost it Now that Adam was not promised eternall life in Paradise has been the opinion of many Mr. Love thought so Mr. Wotton in his Sermons on John 1. v. 11. whose Arguments prevailed with me to be once of that judgement Paraeus brings in 7. Arguments to prove Et sanè multis ne contemnendis rationibus nititur haec sententia Idem Ibid. that Adam had not promise of eternall life in Paradise but refutes them proving because we lost eternal life in him therefore he had promise of it and the Image of God in him was the earnest of it the Tree of life a symbolum of it and Christs restoring life proves it lost in the first Adam Here observe how differing Hereticks have been about this matter Pelagius held and Socinus after him that Adams sin brought onely eternall Death Trelcat de Orig peccato Pag. 169. and that temporall Death was by nature not the wages of sin because not removed by Christ Pighius denies any to be guilty of eternall death till they have actually sinned the very Opinion of George Hammond mark how he agrees in part with a Papist Mark how Hereticks dissent among themselves but consent as Pilate and Herod against truth That place in the Romans Chap. 5.12.14 proves Death raigned over all who had not sinned actually as Adam because we all sinned in Adam of which at large anon Now Christ was to remove onely eternall Death from Elect and not temporal onely its bitterness And though it may be objected that Adam had principles of mortality within him before the Fall yet he had never died had he not sinned which made Paraeus say he was in some sence mortal in some immortal L. 2. distinc 19. p. 368. and Lombard gives the distinction how mortall in respect of body immortall in respect of his Creator whose will it was had he not sinned to have preserved him from Death by feeding on the Tree of Life but after the Fall Contemplation on Paradise spirituall meat was not fit for a mortall stomack sayes Dr. Hall But let us consider the first Argument What Christ restored that Adam lost but Christ restored eternall life Hence Adam was called the figure or Type of Christ Rom. 5.14 therefore some similitude between Adam's losse and Christs restauration that as Adam lost eternall life once so Christ restored it This I prove further because Judgement came by one viz. Adam to condemnation Rom. 5.16 Here is damnation on all by Adam not onely temporall Death Now that condemnation there is damnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read the same Greek word in Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are c. that is no damnation read John 5.24 This may be proved further because we were all in Adam Rom. 5.12 and sinned all in him Now the grounds are just had Adam stood we all had stood and lived for ever therefore since he fell we fell all in him he being our representative or Parliament as I may say a common person the root of mankind But you say Our souls could not sin in Adam Page 15. because they were not in him being not in being To which I answer We were in him enough to be guilty with him of his Sin I l'e shew you the most acute judgements of learned men on that place of Rom. 5.12 to give satisfaction to any indifferent man but give me leave a little to play the Scholar with you were not all souls and bodies in Adam then did not Adam beget a perfect or compleat Creature Gen. 5.3 as the Beasts do in their kinde How did he beget a Son in his own likeness meaning in sin was Adam onely a body-can a body beget without a soul Du Moulin ag Armin. p. 66. c. 10. was a sinfull body his likeness can a body be well sinful without the soul Adam's soul did first sin there was the wills consent before the hand took the fruit Sin comes not chiefly by the body Magister hîc non approhatur nor a body can't sin not beget alone If Adam were onely a body how got he a Childe in his own likeness Indeed Peter Lomb. l. 2. dist 31. affirms sin to be onely from the body but Peter Du Moulin onely or chiefly from the soul I believe from both in some sort For the body who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean Creando infunditur c. For the soul it is created though holy yet destitute of its former Original righteousness which deficiency to it is sin nay That we call original Amesius med Theol. c. 17. Pag. 70 The learned Amess tells us that the want of Original righteousness may be considered as a punishment or sin As from God a soul is created in the body without it 't is a just judgement from God but as that originall righteousness should be in our nature and is not ipsa deficientia est animae peccatum Read his
to make a Covenant Deut. 11.12 where 's a special command now for Sabbath except 1 Cor. 16.1 and that so variously read by Authors that it seems not clear for that purpose And Dr. Heylin †History of the Sabbath part 2. c. 1. p. 26 27. brings in many Expositions of those words upon the first day of the week 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occasioned by the Greek words which may be rendred either upon one day of the week or on the first day or on the Sabbath day for that day was observed as wel as the Lords day many years after the Resurrection as Dr. Heylin observes out of Gal. 4.10 an Epistle written in the year 59. after Christ And so far were the Primitive Christians from believing there was a Command to keep holy the first day of the week that after Divine Exercises used in memoriall of theirs Saviours Resurrection and other blessings which befell them that Day they went to their common work the remainder of the Day And the learned Hierom tells us that a devout and pious woman one Paula who lived at Bethlehem with certain poor Widows and Virgins privately after they had been at the Holy Exercises of the Congregation one Lords Day returned home to their common work †Instabant operi et vel sibi vel aliis vestimenta faciebant See Helyn Hist Sab. part 2. c. 3. p. 79. which was making cloaths This I the rather write to shew that what was commanded oft in Old Testament is sparingly in the New Now the Sabbath being morall onely the Seventh Day changed into the first day of the week what needed new Commands And so for bringing Infants into Covenant in the New Testament We have just grounds having so many Commands in the old if you say that in 1 Cor. 16.1 there is a Command for observing the Lords day because 't is said As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia I answer that relates rather to the collections there mentioned then to the enforcing a Command for setting a part the Lords day And in a digression we have firmer Ordinance for Tythes forgive that Jewish expression in 1 Cor. 9. Even so has God ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that those that preach the Gospel Tythes in Gospel time proved c. the Apostle quotes a former Statute or Ordinance for Ministry-maintenance and that seemes out of Moses Law for v. 9. the Levitical Text is alledged thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe c. Now never did God appoint any †Free will-offerings of a atter date way to maintain those who did his service but the way of Tythes which was never type of any thing nor never repealed and indeed if Moses Priesthood had a set maintenance why should our Saviours come short And the Apostle pleads a set maintenance Who goes to warre at his own charges 1 Cor. 9. have not Souldiers set-pay I could here be large with reason but 't is a digression Here is a plainer Ordinance for Tythes then for the Lords day yet not looked on What speciall Command have you for Womens partaking of the Pascall Lamb or Lords Supper now except you court that Text of 1 Cor. 11.28 to take your part Let a man examine himself c. and under man comprehend both sexes the words are masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but you 'l say The man is a courteous Creature to the woman and will be content to comprehend her under him Thus though in expresse terms in the new Testament we are not commanded to baptize Children nor keep Lords day nor pay Tythes nor admit Women to the Lords Supper no nor to speak against Usury or to hold Christiā Magistracy yet by good consequences in the new Cōmands in the old Testament or Rules that look very like Commands My last Argument for Infant-baptisme is in Ephes 2.3 since by nature they are Children of wrath and therefore need Christs blood represented in Baptisme to wash away their sins The baptizers say the Text calles them Sons of wrath onely who walked in sinful and evill courses but I answer That Exposition gives the Text the lye for the Apostle there plainly shews first the Ephesians actuall transgressions v. 2. and part of the third and then their originall state in respect of Adam they were by nature Children of wrath of which more anon Were not Children when born naturall Children well then by nature Sons of wrath which made them break forth into so many actuall sins Person may be loved and their State hated of which in v. 2.3 here observe because the Ephesians were elect that their persons were ever beloved but their state was the state or condition of wrath in respect of originall sin but thus much for Baptisme of Infants I could produce more Arguments and answer Objections but 't is not my task there is abundant satisfaction to be had in Dr. Featley Mr. Marshall Mr. Hall Mr. Fuller B. D. Dav. Chytraus de infantum Bapt. Mr. Pagit Rossaeus and others so that Mr. Fishers voluminous Book where he calls Baby-Baptisme Babyisme shall never prevail with me to deny Childrens Baptism The third thing you affirmed was that Pope Innocent brought in Baptisme of Infants but this is a most grosse error for Innocent the third lived but about the year of our Lord 1198. and brought in Transubstantiation Description of Italy pa. 184. and Auricular confession as Dr. Heylin tells us but Infant-Baptisme was in use above 1000. years before but you are not the first who have fathered this Infant-Baptisme upon Innocent the third as you may read in Pagit his Heresiography page 16. Mr. Marshall against Mr. Tombes Pa. 92.93 94. c. has taken pains to prove the Antiquity of Infant-Baptisme to have been in the year 150. after Christ in the dayes of J. Martyr Infant-Baptisme very antient and produces his Testimony for it which was long before any Pope of Rome was in being and Origene who lived not very many years after affirms Paedobaptisme to be a tradition received from the Apostles in whose time the word Tradition was used in a good sence read 2 Thes 2.15 Irenaeus a Grand Father who lived in the same Century vvith I. Page 23.24 25. c. Martyr confirms Infant-Baptisme to have been in use in his time You may read Mr. Marshall vvho vvill also give you account vvhy Constantine Greg. Nazianzen nor Chrysostome c. vvere baptized vvhen Infants to vvit because their Parents vvere not believers at their births And having mentioned some of the Fathers Scientia non habet inimicum nisi Ignorantem I wonder why you so speak against them for darkening the light of the Gospel Some of them lived neer the Apostles times saw them who heard the Apostles and received light from their light he that is wise will drink as near to the Fountains head as he can because of the pureness and clearness of
book pag. 15. That deficiency is sin Thus in jesting with my Antagonist I have almost answered the Question unless he oppose that souls are from God not Adam Zach. 12.1 Eccless 12.7 the soul returns to him that gave it It may be answered God gave it in giving Adam at first a power to get it If that of Heb. 12.9 where Fathers of flesh are opposed to Father of spirits and so Fathers of flesh there are not Fathers of spirits It may be answered that by Father of spirits Read Paraeus in Gen. c. 2. v. 7. p. 338. Du Monlin ag Ar. p. 67. may be understood Father of Regeneration because sanctifying our spirits And we know Augustine was almost of this judgement to his dying day who was mallens Hereticorum Who doth desire more satisfaction faction let him read the most elegant and learned reasoning of Mr. Nathaniel Culverwel Pag. 106. in the eleventh Chapter of the light of nature who would almost perswade that as materia oritur ex materiâ so forma ex formâ one soul may produce another one doth print another with the same stamp of immortality that it self had engraven first upon it one person of the sacred Trinity produced another one Candle lights another c. but I forbear Heb. 1. because my Pareus calls it bruta pecuina opinio and so Du Moulin Otherwise if any had questioned how an immateriall being had or could have conveyance in a seminall way let them shew us the way how 't is united to the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer as Virg. has it hominum sator atque deorum we will as easily tell them how it entered into it but le ts not look for soul's Parentage on earth We are of the off-spring of God Acts 17.28 Prometheus stole fire from Heaven to quicken bodies as the Poets fabulize Yet we were all in Adam and sinned in him Rom. 5.12 How did Levi pay Tithes in Abraham Heb. 7. did his body and not soul just so friend Hammond you pay Tithes now without any consent of the soul when God said to Adam the day thou eatest thou shalt die spake God to Adam's body without the soul Omnes erant in Adamo peccarunt non actualiter sedvertualiter incurrendo originale peccatum quod iis imputatur is culpam in quantum aliquo modo erant in primo parente idem cum ipso as Dion Carthas in loc Rom. cap. 5. on as Lyra 92. futura erant membra ipsiu◠in Rom. 5. I am so charitable to your self friend Hammond to pay for all you will eat be the meat never so costly when your soul has left your body or was soul and body both in Adam and forbid eating surely what God spake to Adam he spake to all mankind in him as he spake to him well he sinned in soul and body and we in his loyns therefore his sin is imputed to our whole man But mark one heresie of yours worse then that of Pelagius You deny that Children were lost or endangered to be eternally lost in Adam how came they saved what without Christ no sure Acts 4.12 will deny that But did Christ save them then they were lost in Adam for he came to save what was lost Matth. 18.11 and that Chapter speaks of little Children verse 2.3 whom the world offends verse 6 I believe in denying Church-priviledges to them Let your Needle-ship well consider this Wollebius tells us that Adam must be considered not as a private person so you esteem him making our souls no way engaged in his but as the Parent Persona Adae infecit naturam natura personas nostras Wolleb l. 1. c. 9. head and root of all Mankind So what he received for himself and his as the Image of God and promise of Eternal Life upon his obedience he lost for him and his But you 'l say How were our soules in Adam I answer with the learned Trelcatins the soul is not †out of Adam or we in him De Orig. pec pag. 154. Trelcat according to its essence but according to its subsistence sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for though it be created of God yet it is not created but in the body neither has it subsistence before the body You 'l never be able to deny upon any good grounds but that we were all in Adam according to what is here said God promited a soul to each one of Adams Posterity just such as he by obedience or disobedience should make them capable of so by vertue of Covenant or Promise we were all in Adam which Promise might some way be included in that Command Increase and multiply a Dion Carthusian in Rom. 5.12 As many members are in one Body or Individuals in one Species so we in Adam b Bulling in Heb. 7. As Levi was in Abraham so we in Adam Levi was in the Loyns of his Father Vti in arbore malum nondum enatum sayes Bullinger as an apple in the Tree before Fruit-time And so was our Saviour both in Adam and Abraham In Adam the Nature sinned which he took In Heb. 7. ver 10. Joh. Diodati but it was not sinfull in his person because conceived by the Holy Ghost In Abraham Christ in his servant-like condition may be said to have paid Tythes to Melchizedeck the type of himself though the learned Diodate thinks Christ was not to be comprehended amongst the Tithe-payers though in Abrahams Loyns because as Son of God he was Priest in whom his humane nature subsisted The same Author tells us In Rom. 5.12 All were in Adam as in the main stock of all Generation being the head and root of mankind And the Assemb Annot. use the same words on that place In Gen. 2. pag. 409. Paraeus sayes we were all in Adams loyns as part of him and so his sinne was properly ours The Syriac translation of Tremellius reads it By the hand of one man sinne entred as if Totus homo totum hominem naturaliter fundit nec est peccatum materiae out partis hominis sed totius suppositi homo generans communicat quod materiale materialiter quod immateriale causa liter lucas Trel pag. 153. when Adam took of the fruit we all stretched out our hands in his and are when he are †Coucludimus nec in substanstià animae out carmis hanc contagionem habcre causam sed quia a Deo fuit ordinatum c. vide Calvin nist l. 2. c. 1. A learned Protestant Divine tells us that the whole man begets the whole man naturally the materiall part he begets materially the immateriall causally as being the cause of it's subsistence in the body And Gorrhanus expounding how we were in Adam sayes we were in Adam as in the matter not onely sinning by Adams example as the Pelagians affirm but we were in him as in the cause because his sinne was the cause of ours
v. 4. Now the Objections brought against Satans being in Hell may be thus answered though the fulness of torment be not till hereafter when Christ shall take full vengeance as 2 Thes 1.7 8. Jude 14. may be understood yet the damned suffer in part as is proved You object Matth. 8. Why art thou come to torment us before the time Answ They knew not how soon the day of judgement would come and desired liberty to sin till then then they knew they should be in full misery 't was recreation to them to do hurt to poor Creatures Christs miracles and preaching dispoffessed them and troubled or tormented them Hell is the place of wicked hence Judas went to his proper place Acts 1.25 Tell me where are all the souls of Saints and wicked departed Revel 6.10 sayes Matth. 17.3 the Saints soules were under the Altar Christ therefore in blisse Christ sayes All are alive to God Luke 20.38 therefore all Saints happy But you say the Devill is Prince of the Air therefore not yet in torment besides Earth shall be Hell Isay 24. Answ though he exercise under God some Authority yet he is in some torment as is proved 2 Pet. 2.4 't is some pleasure to do hurt hencethey beg not to be dispossessed Mar. 1.24 chap. 5.7 freedom and liberty from Hell is some pleasure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence they plead not to be cast into Hell Luke 8.31 with we render by into the deep which is Hell for if by Deep Hell were not meant Read Pasor on that word the Devills foolishly begged not to go into the deep v. 31. and yet desired to enter into the Swine and run into the Sea v. 32.33 You affirm Hell will be in Earth therefore none for the present Your proof is in Isay 24 21. God will punish the Kings of the Earth in the Earth or on it Answer Pray what Kings of the Earth have not been punished by Gods hand some by Assyrians they by Babylonians they by Persians they by Grecians c. here on earth then Hell is past if the Text meant it 2. High ones were punished i. c. Emperours Isay 24.21 opened and cleared Monarchs and petty Princes under them whose Thrones were as it were on earth in respect of them whose Throne was among the Starres in conceit Isay 14.13 But it this place meant Hell how could they be visited again as v. 22. should their visitation be for better or worse if for better here 's good news for damned if for worse pray what can be worse then Hell especially if men be in full torment as you mean by this place applying it after the day of judgement but in brief God punished Kings but visited them again in temporalls or their fuccessors and Nations with the Gospel of peace in respect of whose glory Sun and Moon were dim when Christ by ascension and sending the spirit garthering Churches raigned before Israel gloriously In my conceit when you say Hell shall be on earth and that darkness no Sun nor Moon you oppose your Tenet of the restauration of the Creation In conclusion of your examination of Mr. Ruttons letter you say he asked you for a sign of your Ministry Sed cum nullum fecil ipse suit miraculum You tell us An adulterous Generation seeks for a signe John came with no miracle yet acknowledged for a true Teacher of Christ John 10.41 but I answer if you have no more to plead for your being a Minister of Christ then this lying book you may read your doom in Mat. 7.23 Go I know you not And thus much for your Examination of Mr. Ruttons letter God decreed not Adams eternall ruine and all his upon his fall unevitably You further argue That if Adam had decreed against him eternall Death and all in his loins upon his disobedience and that not inflicted on them then is God changeable according to those that maintain that tenet To decree a thing and alter it argues a change but God changes not therefore Answ God never decreed that Adam and all his should eternally perish God decreed to send Christ therefore decreed not to eternally ruine Adam and his Posterity which I prove thus If God decreed not to send Christ to redeem man foreseeing the fall and that from eternity then God did somewhat about Christ and mans salvation not formerly decreed Causa transgressionis Adami nec Deus nec decretum 92. interdixit homini à fructu decretum non impellebat ad peccandum Wolleb cap. 9. Canon 1. or decreed in time a strange and unheard of decree of God the same may be said of Adam's fall was it decreed or not If Adam's fall decreed and God no way guilty and Christs comming into the world then not Adam's eternall inevitable ruine because these are contrary but these two last were decreed Adam's fall and Christ comming to redeem man So that though Adam were invested with right to eternall life and forfeited it for him and his yet Christ was partly in that decree to bring all about again for Gods glory and so no change in God or plainer God did not so inevitably decree Adam's ruine eternally but that Christ was in that decree to bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel Now observe Gods outward will is not alwayes nay sildom his decree though he threatned Adam Lomb. Lib. 1. Distinc 45. of Gods will or Petrus Aquila in 46. of Scocus destinc he had not decreed inevitably his ruine All School men allow of a concealed and revealed will if I could render the words so volunt s sigui beneplaciti the former is unchangeable not the latter In the latter are 1. his threatnings as to Adam Hezekiah and Ninive 2. Commands as to Pharaoh to let Israel go and to Abraham to sacrisice his Son c. here God changed his sentence not his decretall will which is most one and unchangeable Du. Moulin likes not this distinction but Dr. Kendall maintains it For plainer and for further satisfaction read my Glimps of Christian love page 21.22 and come to the second Argument wherein you say that Adam's sin was onely against the first Covenant which is true and in your third Argument that all his enjoyments were onely earthly now say you the punishment of the first Covenant was onely temporall death c. and the sin against the second Covenant onely did deserve damnation in Hell now Children in Adam sinned but the first way against the first Covenant Answ All in Adam sinned unto condemnation Breach of fir covenant deserved damnation not onel a temporall Death or damnation Rom. 5.18 as is proved largely already all being in his loyns as before is maintained if Children sinned onely against the first Covenant in your sence how are they Children of wrath by nature as is expounded before how came they to enjoy Heaven by Christ or not if by Christ