notwithstanding their most rationall improvements Except the Father draw him not except he draws or surely ingages the Father by improvements but there will be necessity of further inlargements on this from what follows we see here that insteed of being ingaged by promise by naturall improvements we have the contrary he saith not because you have imployed Naturalls therefore according to my promise I will sâ—cond it with grace but contrarily notwithstanding your utmost improvements Yet No man be he ever so accurate in naturall improvements can come except the Father draw him which to do no improvements can draw God You next alleadged another Scripture Luke 13.24 Strive to enter in but as touching this I finde no absolute promise of Grace annexed from Gods being ingaged by naturall improvements therefore not as yet seeing any thing considerable therein whereof to take notice shall step over to what appeares to be of greater moment Wherein though I conceive it sufficient to have deposed what I conceive against the proofs whereon you ground your fifth assertion yet I shall with great presumption on your patience and candid construction give my grounds for the contrary namely to prove that Naturall men dead c. have not such a power of Reason Judgement c. as whereby if they will accordingly put it forth they may do such things as whereunto God hath by promise annexed Grace which I conceive might be clearly made out from sundry Scriptures whereof to Name 2. or 3. One is Iohn 5. verse 39. Search the Scriptures concerning which though the first word be usually rendered as the Imperative Mood Search ye as a Command given to search yet for my part as yet with Submission to the judicious I finde not how it may be read with good sence any other way then as the Indicative Mood ye do search which I ground not onely on my own Judgement though I finde this that the Originall Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scrutamini may as properly be so rendered for as I remember 't is the Judgement of Doctor Homes as in his book Of new Heavens and new Earth I have seen though not since divers moneths by-gone and that it may most properly be thus rendred may as I conceive be most cleerly proved from the context the occasion of all Christs discourse from the 19. verse of that 5. chap. seemes chiefely to arise from what 's expressed in verse 18. where this is given as one reason why they sought to kill Christ because he had said God was his Father making himself equall with God c. Whereupon Christ all along forward in a most convincing manner proves the truth of that for which the Jews would needs have slain him to which purpose telling them God sent not Christ onely to bear witnesse of himselfe but sent his fore-runner John to bear witnesse which John ye sent to your selves verse 33. who accordingly bave witnesse of me and he was once a man in great credit with you therefore why might not his Testimony carry it Yea after he had named other grounds of testimony from his Works done and the Fathers own Testimony that sent him he adds yet a further ground of confirmation in this 39. verse even from their own practise as before in sending to know Johns judgement so here from their own diligent inquiry into the Scriptures ye do search even your selves do the scriptures namely the writings of the Prophets which alone were then written as of Moses particularly insisted on Again that they did search them is clear from what follows Moses shall accuse you verse 45. whose Accusation shall be a sufficient witnesse against them without Christs Why Because thâ—y perused his writings and so were rendred inexcuseable yea further cleer from the concluding clause of that 45. verse In whom viz. Moses ye trust or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom ye hope now had they not searched diligently and conformed to his writings they would not have built such hope thereon knowledge must precede confidence Which acception supposed to be most warrantable seemes considerable towards the proof of what 's affirmed Ye search which word imports exact and accurate scrutiny and no marvail for therefore ye search 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because in them ye think to have eternall life upon this very ground they searched and therefore with all their utmost care and diligence as conceiving to finde life in them which Paul himself that strict Pharisee searched so into as that he thought he had found life in them but yet was dead whiles so alive Rom. 7 8 9. and they are they that testifie of me those Scriptures which ye think to have life by from the letter of them testifie of me what it must have reference as I conceive to what they sought for namely eternall life they testifie then that what life ye think to have in them must be had in me they send you from themselves to the Messia pointed at by them as John sent such as he baptized with water to Christ to be baptized with the Holy Ghost Notwithstanding your searching ye will not come to me that ye might have life which proves that mens naturall improvements do not ingage God to give them saving faith without which through utmost improvements they could only look on the Scripture while pointing to a Messia but as a covenant of works and learned by all but to be selfe Justiciaries which sanctuary of justification by works we most obviously finde was the strongest one which the profoundest wisdome of the Jewes could erect Rom. 10.8 Object But it may be objected Christ in Verse 40. charges them with this Ye will not come to have life or in faith doth it not hence seem that they might have power to believe or to ingage God to to give faith which power they did not put forth as they might and that 's the reason why ye believe not Answ Whereto for answer for the former supposition that they might have power to believe that you absolutely conclude against For the latter which you avouch that they might so ingage themselves in improvements as to ingage God to give faith this must as yet be denied because here they did improve to their utmost their naturals in searching even as for life and yet God added not faith which is most undeniably proved in Chap. 6. from Verse 28 to 45. Wherein the whole discourse most inevitably demonstrates that they did as it were put all their naturall powers of reason judgement c. on the wrack as is before shewed by propounding questions rationall discussing them praying for c. But all this did not make Christ confesse I see you have done your utmost therefore I le perform mine engagements to give saving faith no he tearms their strongest reasonings but murmurings adding no promise thereunto and therefore not ingaged thereby so to do and consequently their not improving naturals is not the reason of Gods not giving faith which
a principle that had it been revealed he had been enabled by a principle within him to have believed Answ To say that Adam had any power to believe any thing but what was some way necessary and sitting for him to believe whether revealed or not this reflects on the wisdome of God Now first that it was not necessary for him to believe in Christ was touched before being in a state of justification so that it had been impertinent but had it befitted him then certainly such a revealing should not have been with held by God 't is not to be believed that any thing should have been denied Adam especially in point of knowledge to hinder him from acting any thing convenient for him to do and therefore doubtlesse there was no such power in Adam to believe in Christ no nor on this supposition That Christ had been revealed to him on that condition Fourthly this is a demonstrative Argument to prove that Adam in innocency had no power to believe in Jesus Christ because then Christ was not given as a covenant to mankinde and till Christ be declared as Gods covenant for justification for Adam to have believed in him for justification this had been so far from being a likely means to justifie that it had been a presumption and more likely to have condemned him for as it is with the world since the covenant of Christ hath been revealed as it would be a very high and fearfull presumption for any man to wave this covenant and to betake themselves to the Lawes righteousnesse or the first covenant so on the contrary during the state of innocency it had been like presumption for Adam to have deserted that covenant of works the righteousnesse of the Law the only covenant then for justification and to have raised up another covenant which he knew nothing of the minde of God whether believing on him should be justification or no. Secondly suppose it granted that Adam had such a power as we speak of yet this will not heal the offensivenessâ— of that opinion against which we argue namely That God destroyes man for not doing that which requires an infinite strength to perform For first we know God hath made a new covenant of life with man since the transgression and breach of that covenant wherein Adam and consequently all his posterity stood in him when that power of believing is supposed to have been in him Now for God to deprive man of the benefit and blessing of that new covenant and to dash him as it were in pieces upon the pikes of the old meerly for a misprision or sin committed against the other and that such an one which was impossible for the creature to remedy or redeem himself from this is such a saying as is wholly inconsistent and destructive to the very nature and essence of the covenant of grace as for instance A Noble Family is attainted with High Treason against the Prince whereby they are at his mercy for life liberty honour and in this case the Prince professes much love to them and tendernesse and that he is far from taking advantage against them he hath no desire to destroy this Family yet neverthelesse he will not discharge them of the attainture but only upon such and such tearms now if they were such tearms that neither the Family nor other for them could procure and yet the Prince professes great care and tendernesse c. Can any man look on such proceedings as any way gracious nay will it not rather expose such a Prince to the harder thoughts of men and had he not better have made use of an advantage against them saying they have so and so behaved themselves against him and he will take the advantage then thus to professe love and that he desires not to take advantage if they will be redeemed on such and such tearms which yet are impossible for them to performe as to demand of them to catch all the fishes in the sea and all the fowles of the aire and make a present of them to him alas all the world will easily see here is not the least touch of any such gratious disposition in him what ever he pretends So those that will make the saving tearms of the Gospell so hard and impossible to be performed by men that though they should strive and endeavour and rise to the utmost pitch of all that they are able to performe yet they that say they may do all these and yet God no way accept of them nor they never the nearer the grace and favour of God doubtlesse they represent this new covenant of grace and mercy which God hath made with the world with as much disadvantage and reproach as those tearms which we speak of of the Prince would be If I were of the judgement of Arminius about the point of Free-will and were to debate the point before men any whit ingenious I would desire no greater advantage against him that is mine Adversary be he who he will if he would maintaine his judgement in a way of opposition to me thus That let men doe their utmost all their lives yet they are never the nearer nor have the more assurance of grace and favour howsoever happily I should be never the nearer any demonstrative proof yet I could have this advantage to put my opinion into a dresse ten times more plausible and consistent with the understanding of reasonable men then that opinion with all the colours or arguments that may be put upon it Secondly that power in Adam to believe supposing 't were granted he had such can be no sufficient ground to justifie God in point of equity in the condemnation of them that do their utmost that they are able because Justice and Equity stands in a Geometricall not Arithmeticall proportion as for instance We know our Saviour saith the Widow that cast in her two Mites cast in more then all who yet are said to cast in great sums and matters of great value because they cast in out of their superfluity but she casting in two Mites cast in all her substance how cast she in more then they all that is in a Geometricall proportion that is more in consideration all things considered that is more for her to cast in then those great sums for men of estate to cast in more for commendation not more absolutely and simply So the Parable of the Talent Matth. 25.22 the Master putting forth his Talents to his Servants gave the same commendation to the Servant that gained but two Talents as to him that gained five and the reason was Geometricall there was as much reason why he that had but two Talents to gain withall should be commended for gaining two more as he that had fire for gaining other five because there was as much diligence required in him to gaine two Talents more as for the other to make five more by way of increase and the generall rule in Scripture
â—â—â—â—ning or sentence of death or destruction upon him if he shoâ—â—â— disobey Gen. chap. 2. vers 17. Thou shall surely â—ye Wâ—â—â—â— threatning could not have been justly denounced against 〈◊〉 except his first power and perfection had such an answerable proportion thereto as might justifie that threatning The latter also That to examine c. is a needlesse question for clearing Gods justice c. follows inevitably because seeing the estâ—â—ce of Adams first power was sufficient to justifie God in destroying man disobeying 't is therefore needlesse to inquire what 〈◊〉 power could produce Yea seeing you understand a power of beleeving as having relation to the second Covenant onely tâ—â— therefore could not be at all necessary to the clearing of Gods justice in mans death or destruction because the threatning of death was denounced against him onely with relation to the tâ—aâ—â—â— of the first Covenant which alone he know which threaâ—â—ing was as just before Gods promising Christ in a second Covenant upon mans fall as afterwards because God made not that promise to clear his justice To proceed now to the second sort of reasonings being on supposition That Adam had such a power yet that this would not avail because God having made a new Govenant c. to which I reset Touching which it must be affirmed 1. That for God to daprive man of the blessing c. As you there expresse this is wholy 〈…〉 with and destructive â—o the â—ssâ—â—â—â— of a Coveâ—â—â—â— of Univâ—â—sâ—ll gooâ—◠〈…〉 enyes that all â—â—â—e power to obtain Grâ—ce or intereâ—â—e thouâ—â—â—lves therein but if we speak of the Covenant of Free-Grace them the truth is for God that he might not deprive any man of the obâ—ssing of it therefore to hold it forth on such tearmes as are attainable by mans improvement as upon which Goâ—â—â—gagiâ—â—â—â—â—â—â—ly by 〈…〉 of thâ—s Covenant to grant acceptation and grace which you assirâ—â— to uphold the freedome of his grace this is 〈…〉 and destructive to the very 〈◊〉 and â—outh of that Covenant of grace which conâ—â—â—ws saving grace peculiardy 〈◊〉 soâ—â—â— for 't would be impossible for God 〈◊〉 not to faâ—â—fiâ—â—e sâ—â—â— a Covenant as should both promise grace to some â—â—ely and not to there which the Covenant of grace doth and yet also should promise the same grace after the sâ—â—e manner 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 It must therefore be 〈…〉 that the 〈◊〉 of the second Covenant are utterly 〈…〉 by 〈◊〉 utmost power but yet this no way destroyes the freedome of Gods 〈◊〉 in that Covenant for though God therein â—â—â—â—â—â—ds â—â—â—taiâ—â—ble conditions from all yet his promise wherein 〈◊〉 work those conditions in some is of Free grace Gods 〈…〉 do â—â—â—t make hiâ— promises of none effect And touching your instance of a Noble fâ—â—â—ly 't is wholy impertinent for all it shews is â—â—t this That the conditions required in the Covenant Grâ—â—ce are such as cannot tender all no nâ—r any one capable of grace by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 st indeavour which is â—â—â—d enviably 〈◊〉 â—â—â—g thâ—◠〈…〉 of God to work such conditions in 〈◊〉 i◠〈◊〉 of Free Grace this is still to be proved By which instance you deny the Gospell to proâ—â—sse any peculiar thing to some making it onely to 〈…〉 the same conditions from all whereas iâ—â—â—â—ed its promises and as large to some as the command 〈…〉 'T is then most ground leâ—â—t 〈…〉 because the Covenant of Grace is not common to all 〈◊〉 gâ—â—â—â—lly upon improvement that therefore 't is not of grace to some for grace in iâ—â— own nature is more free and transcend 〈◊〉 because to some onely and not to others Which 〈◊〉 may be pâ—â—â—llâ—â—â—ed to the â—â—so thus viz. suppose a Prince 〈◊〉 a Noâ—â—◠〈◊〉 guilty of high 〈…〉 so as that without 〈◊〉 of justice he cannot but condemn them if now lie will give 〈◊〉 onely son 〈◊〉 be â—â—câ—â—ficed 〈…〉 randome for part of them from the condemnation because â—e findes nothing in them to satisfie his justice without their destruction this betokens abundance of grace yâ—â— further to work also in them that necessary condition which he requires because they cannot attain thereto of themselves this is also a high strain of Free-grace Next follows your applying that instance They that make the sâ—ving tearms of the Gospel c. Concerning which it must be affirmed that in respect of obtaining grace to salvation man by his utmost improvement cannot tread as much as one sure or steady step in that way so that his utmost improvement shall of it self at best be successelesse therein And this is so far from rendring the Gospel reproach as that Paul establisheth the freedome of Gods dispensation upon this very ground Rom. 9.16 Where after examples given to set our the freedome of Gods grace Verse 11. in choosing and refusing according to his good pleasure without any regard had to any improvement or work done be layes down this as a sure conclusion Verse 16. So then t is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sâ—emeth mercy where Paul that he might lay down and declare the sure ground of salvation like a wise builder he first destroyes the rotten ground of the Arminians and that by â—utting off all manner of intailement or ingagement of grace on mans willing yea and running which tearms cannot but import greatest intention and extâ—ntion of abilities he saith not upon willing or running God hath promised mercy or grace but t is not of him c. but of God c. The Apostle most emphatically expresseth it by the rearme but a knowne particle of opposition thereby cutting off any binding of the latter Gods mercy to the former mans improvement The reason of which method is clear because if it were of him that willeth or runneth so as that to and upon it grace is â—â—nexed then it could not be free and without respect to mans improvement which thing Paul is proving Verse 11. but must then have been of Grace ingaged upon running Touching your next expression Were I of the judgement of Arminius I could c. I must with griefe of heart say thus much I fear your left hand hath learned too much of this cunning and indeed there in that enmity in the understanding of reasonable man against the truth that is may be more easie to represent many eâ—â—ours plansible to them then one truth Next followes your second reason upon supposing Adams having a power of believing c. which will not justifie God c. because justice stands in a Geometricall proportion c. Which Argument reaches far higher then the tenent it should prove yea makes it void For this proves not that God is ingaged by promise c. but which is far more intolerable this makes it but an act of justice in God to give men life or save them from condemnation upon improvement For if after mans falling from his perfect power God cannot in equity condemnâ— man doing his utmost and
that because justice stands in a Geometricall proportion or in taking an exact accompt or consideration of the persons present power and improvement in answer to their power lost which according to your instances produced and your direct application of all to Adams case you understand by those expressions of Geometricall proportion hence then it followes that Gods ingaging himself by promise to improvement is no necessary ground of mans salvation but Gods justice beholding them and their improvements is made a necessary ingagement on God to save such improvens so that without salvation of such his justice cannot be salved and consequently his grace needs not act in their salvations but for the right improvement of your Argument I adde this Mans losing his first perfect power of obedience c. cannot but in equity justifie God in his condemning man doing his utmost according to his power now remaining and that from your very reason Because justice stands in a Geometricall proportion or in a strict consideration of persons their conditions abilities c. For if Gods justice stands in judging acts according to the abilities where with the person is intrusted then it must in reference hereto count what abilities have been given him whereupon finding man in Adam to have been intrusted with a fulnesse of power to believe which power throughout your second reason you suppose and grant it cannot but require an act correspondent for as much therefore as man after utmost improvement cannot but fall infinitely short of such an act which you also grant Gods justice upon computing both together must needs be so far from rewarding it with grace as that it cannot but condemne man for acting no way answerable to the power given and that in greatest equity because of the infinite disproportion between each which â—ight 〈…〉 If Gods justice in judging the 〈…〉 be so â—â—riâ—t 〈◊〉 compâ—â—ng the 〈◊〉 given 〈◊〉 person in relation to the act as that a great saâ—â—â—â— from a mâ—â—ied 〈…〉 then two â—â—iter from a widow and that because it judgeth according to their respective abilities then certainly justice weighing spirituall actions with the power given 〈…〉 Adâ—â— which you suppose cannot but condemn 〈…〉 because his actions â—â—â—ct utmost improvement hold a vast dispropâ—â—tion with that power Againe according to the parable of the talent â—f justice so exactly requires by way of â—â—taâ—iation 〈◊〉 for â—alout two for two five for five then open râ—quiâ—ing acts answerable to the power here supposed to be given man in Adam it mâ—st needs 〈◊〉 man falling 〈◊〉 short â—t best So that indeed there is no congruity between the reason and the instances For first your reason is mainly grounded on this suppostion That man had power in Adam 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 it But the instances import not the least â—ittle of my power which 〈◊〉 the Widdâ—w or Lords servants had and lost Againe the instances prove it a matter of equity to accept of the endeavours of such as act propoâ—tiâ—nably to their 〈◊〉 but fall infinitely short of proving the acceptance of such as act no way answerable to their talents Which instances can only be parallel'd to your second reason thâ—â— That 〈◊〉 the Widow been inâ—â—â—sted with a great 〈◊〉 and â—ewdly spetâ—â— all but two 〈◊〉 yet those mâ—st in justice have been coâ—â—ted us much as the large contributions of others because she hath now no more left And the Lords sâ—rvaâ—â— after â—osing ten talents being intrusted with one more upon his improving that to his power though not well his Lord in justice must 〈◊〉 such improvement and not require satisfaction for the 〈…〉 whereas in just seveiâ—ty hâ—â—ust his other servant 〈…〉 darknesse oâ—â—ly for not making profit of â—m single â—alent though 〈◊〉 mis-spent it not but 〈◊〉 it up Yet I would not here be mistaâ—eâ— as if I conceived it matter of moâ—â—nt to shew your mis-application of there instaâ—â—â—â— for could they be proved to be answerable to 〈…〉 would no way advantage it for though you 〈…〉 by way of proofe yet in so doing you pervert the use of instances which may indeed illustrate a matter but cannot prove it according to that approved sentence Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa or thus parabolae illustrant non probant And touching your applying all to Adams posterity that though it be supposed they had a power of believing c. 'T would indeed be tedious work it to reckon up the least part of all the dangerous confequences thereof for if Adams fallen posterity may do that which may be of more consideration in point of equity c. as you expresse Then it followes that mans fall is no prejudice at all but matter of advantage rather Againe hence 't will follow that God hath no respect to the state of the person acting whether he be in a state of acceptation with God or of rejection but only to the action done in that man full of enmity may do that which may be of greater consideration in the eye of Gods justice then what spotlesse Adam could doe Whereas touching the acceptance of the person in relation to the acceptance of acts 't is evident from the generall current of Scripture that the acceptance or non-acceptance of acts principally depends on the acceptation or non-acceptation of the person hence the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord while the prayer of the upright is his delight Prov. 15.8 so God accepted Abel and his offering Whence was his offering accepted even from Gods free accepting the person and not the person for the offerings sake But here you make God bound by equity as much yea more to accept an accursted man for his improvements sake then Adam a righteous man and his righteous works which argument directly maintaines justification by works and merit in that you say Man may now do what is as good or better in valâ—â— then Adam who then stood by works To adde yet one word against the force of all your Arguing upon supposition of Adams having a power to beleeve c. viz. Man beinging death on himself by breach of the first Covenant the work of justice hereupon is to inflict death what ever tearmes therefore are tendered to prevent death these are all fruies of free-grace though then those tearmes are unattaâ—â—able by man fallen God may notwithstanding without any injustice suspend the gift of a power answerable to them though man perish thereby God was not bound in justice to offer any tearmes beside those to Adam Doe thus else thou shalt surely dye much lesse is he bound to give a power correspondent to new tearms Next followes your second reason If men putting forth themselves c. and not finde grace c. Touching which I must affirme that though in my former discourse I gave you no ground to think I feared your opinion to comply with the opinion of Free-will in the Gospel sense yet am I constrained to affirme that the force of
acknowledge with thankfulnesse Gods long suffering and freedome of dispensation who might in justice have hurld thee from out of the womb the place of thy sinfull conception into hell the place of endlesse woe as he hath done multitudes and may now justly leave thee in all thy improvements to go with the five foolish Virgins to the gate through which the wise Virgins entred in â—nd yet shut thee for ever out of the bride chamber neverthelesse waite thou in Gods prescribed way abhorring thy self in all thine endeavours as being so far from ingaging God to give grace as that the loathsomenesse of them all may justly provoke God for ever to suspend his grace from thee Again in point of tryall sing not this requiem to thy soul I have earnestly laboured to reach the terms of the Covenant of Grace therefore certainly God hath added thereto the work 〈◊〉 faith because otherwise the Gospell could not be a Covenant of Free-Grace but contratily examine whether the powers of nature in thee be so carried up above themselves by divine operation as that they renounce and abhor thy most choyce improvements as having no worth no comfort in them and in steed thereof do cleave vigorously and intirely unto Christ as the onely fountain of all true comfort yea all this done so as in steed of finding matter of self-boasting in thine own improvements thou findest great ground of admiring the free dispensation of Gods over-powring grace working such a change in thee contrary to above thy self this being found may afford much comfort But I must totally though most abruptly decline further progresse Sir Post Script HAving laid by this Work of Vindication for diverse moneths and that in hope of commending it in some most convenient time to your perusall and finding after so long expectation multiplicity of occasions more and more flowing in unto you to the greater disappointment of such your convenient leisure as I hoped for poudring withall the so great importance of this matter so greatly concerning the doctrine of the Gospel to which as supream subordinate matters of order and discipline ought to give the right hand of pre-eminence I count it my duty without further delay to crave both your perusall therof as also your impartiall care and zeal to vindicate a truth so choyce and fundamentall so far forth as it hath been defamed that so after my being made by accident an occasioner of your defaming truth viz. by my former discourse I may by this be made the occasioner of your vindicating the same and that you also who after your most solemn under-taking to destroy the Arminian doctrines have laid again the main foundations thereof and so according to Pauls expression have made your self a transgressor may no longer continue so to be by upholding those rotten principles Which service for truth in all bumility and respect committing to your timely performance as you are a prâ—mover of truth I devote my self steafastly to continue Tuus usque ad Aras veritatis SAMUEL LANE Certaine Reasons alleaged to prove the Souls enjoying CHRIST after death before the Resurrection And that against these three ensuing errours 1. That the Scripture speaks nothing of the state of the Souls from Death to the Resurrection 2. That it no where declares the Soules happy 〈◊〉 glorious state from Death to the Resurrection 3. That the Soule is mortall and dyeth with the body ABout which I shall only alleage one proof viz. 2 Cor. 5. v. 6 7 8. Whereof a word touching the coherence The Apostle having in the foure first Verses spoken of 〈◊〉 eternall house in Heaven and of their gorâ—ing to be clothed upon therewith laying down v. 5. two grounds to prove that they shall be clothed therewith testifying that assurance v. 6. Therefore we are alwayes confident he proceeds in the middle of v. 6. to discusse the happiness of the soule after death as also his desire thereof Knowing that being present in the body we are absent from the Lord and consequently that our presence therein is matter of disadvantage which he proves by the reason annexed v. 7. For we walk c. viz. whilest in the body by faith or by believing the glory to come the things not seen as in cap. 4. v. ult And not by sight i. e. a beatificall vision of glory And thus the teams walk describes glory to come Rev. 3.4 Shall walk with me in white Yea thus also our being with and beholding God are put together Iohn 17.24 May be with me and behold c. Implying that when our state is changed from being present in the body and absent from the Lord as v. 7. into an absence from the body and presence with God as v. 8. then we shall walk by sight And that this is fully implyed appears because the not walking by sight is alleaged to prove absence from God and therefore contrarily presence with him must argue walking by sight Next in v. 8. he further inlarges upon the former beginning thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may well be rendred we are confident therefore or from those grounds foregoing namely the disadvantage of our present state exprest the advantage of the future implyed And thus the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is elsewhere used for which of many places see especially 1 Ioh. 4.18 where t is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the therefore that feareth for though some translations omit therefore yet the sense necessarily requires it because that last clause is a conclusion drawnâ— from the major or main proposition beginning the Verse There is no feare in love therefore he that feareth c. It followes And we are willing or approve rather to be absent out of the body present with the Lord of two states preferring the better And so he doth Phil. 1.23 Destring to depart and to be with Christ which is far better better then what see v. 22. then â—o live in the flesh 〈◊〉 All which may be summ'd up thus as we know that in stead of our earthly house distâ—lved we shall be clothed upon with one eternall which we grâ—â—â— afterâ— so we know that in the mean time that is to say the time of the soules absence from the body we shal be 〈◊〉 with the Lord 〈…〉 〈◊〉 in the â—oâ—y Which being tâ—uâ— opened 〈◊〉 shal 〈…〉 Frist against the first error viz. That the Scripture speaks nothing of the state of the soul from death to the resurrection and that 〈◊〉 If the 〈…〉 the state of the soul when absent from the body then the Scripture declares what the state therof shal be aâ—ter death unto the Resurrection But the former is true that the Scripture declares the state of the soul when aâ—â—ent from the body for Paul confidently concludes it shal then be present with the Lord. The Fatâ—er therfore that the Scripture declarâ— what the state of the soul shall be after death c. is as evident because there being
you quite forgot what you had said before But that such a saying rises up with such contradiction against Gods justice grace c. as no principles of reason common sense c. can reconcile c. this shall yea must be granted you yet all so far from the least disparaging its truth as that it shalâ— have meat out of this eater for could the heights and depths of Gods justice in wayes of condemnation be compast about by the reason and comprehensions of men yea or Angels they could not be themselves incomprehensible whose judgments are past finding out therefore to say they are without the line or sphear of the largest created understanding is to give them their due valuation whereas to say that cannot be justice in God which no reason can reach this is to make his justice comprehensible and that we must believe nothing of Gods wayes above our reason And whereas you affirme â—t were as good reason to say God destroyes man for not being God c. as for not believing because man can no more do the one then the other c. First if it be granted that man hath no more power to believe then to become God c. it followes not therefore that us as good reason to destroy man for not being God or for not creating as for not believing for in Adam in whom you after-say all his posterity stood man in order to his perfect happinesse had a power to performe what ever might have been by God commanded for without such a power man-kind in Adam could not have had power to stand happy but had at best bin siable to misery by disobedience and that through impotency seeing therefore that while he could haue stood in a state of life he prophanly changed it for a state of death with most reason might God require him to doe as much for recovering his happines after lost by his own transgression as before for continuing it and so may require any act from him whether faith or any other who was at first created with a power correspondent but contrarily man never had power to be God nor to create c. Therefore 't is not a like reasonable to require him to become God for his recovery as to believe Again 't is denied that man hath no more power at all to believe then to make himself God c. For there is such a power in man as may be made a meet subject to receive and close with Gods work of faith but man is not made a subject capable of the Godhead nor of the supremacy of creation Next then to proceed to the chiefe question whether Adam in innocency had a power of believing or not Touching which controversie it seems most necessary to consider strictly what 't was for him to have such a power or wherein it truly consists that we confound not our selves by compounding it with some other thing because if we consider not what 't is simply in it felt we may conceive it not to be where 't is because some other power or thing taken or indeed mistaken for it may not be there also Concerning which a power of believing according to your own definition may be said to be that whereby the soule is inabled cordially to assent to or intirely to close with what God shall reveale to be believed Which cordiall assenting you expound to be an act which the whole heart closeth with even the understanding will and affections as in your Sermon forementioned preached at Caple oâ— John 20.31 Which act of closing whether it may be taken in without an act of recumbency which you then understood to be immediately and as it were inseparably following or else as essentially comprehending an act of recumbency this needs not be questioned here both agreeing in this that a power of believing is a power of entire closing with things revealed and whether only to be closed with as true or vvith relying also this rather concernes the manner of propounding or revealing though to follow your definition would be greater advantage to me which laid dovvn may be very usefull tovvards the matter in doubt As first for your first reason against Adam having such a povver because no necessity thereof c. suppose it granted that he had no need to believe yet this proves not his not having a povver for the use or need of a povver given not essence to it nor is it the essence thereof there may be a povver to do vvhere no need is else a man hath not povver to do any thing vvhereof he hath not need as not a povver to vvalk speak c. because no need vvhereas a man hath povver to do thousands of acts needlesse and God hath a povver to raise of stones children unto Abraham though it be a needlesse vvork So that povver is here mis-understood in making povver and need to believe vvhich are tvvo evidently distinct things to be in one individuall But secondly by vvay of exception against your Argument that because he needed not to believe to justification therefore he needed not a power to believe This consequence may be denied thus If there may be need and use of believing this mysterie in or among such as have no need nor use thereof unto justification then Adams not having need or use of believing to justification cannot prove his not needing to have believed at all But the former is true vvitnesse the Angel Gabriel Luke 1.26 Who having no need nor use of believing to justification had yet need and use thereof for the testifying the truth of this mysterie vvhich he could not have done without a true believing it himself The like might be proved from that company of Angels solemnizing CHRISTS birth with a song so befitting it Luke 2.15 The litter therefore plainly followes that Adams not having need to believe this mystery unto justification cannot prove that he could not have need to have believed for some other end Yea thirdly and that partly by way of concession and partly by way of exception if it be granted that Adam needed not to have believed this mysterie to justification nor for any other end yet this proves not that he needed not a power to have believed this mysterie because such a power so excellent might be needfull and usefull to the producing of other acts needfull though altogether uselesse for this and that it vvas needfull so appears from the next particular Therefore in the fourth place the thing to be proved is that he had both need and use of such a power for other ends that what you say against Gods Wisdome in giving man such a power may thereby be overthrown and that he needed such a power I prove from this your own Argument alleadged to evince the contrary and that thus Adam standing righteous by the Law of works which is your Argument that he might so do could not but need a power of true closing with the righteousnesse