Adams Condition in Paradise Discovered, Part 1
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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly eternall Death from Elect, and not temporal, onelyonly 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 onelyonly temporall Death. Now, that condemnation, there, is damnation,foreign. 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. Il'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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly a body, how got he a Childe in his own likeneſs? Indeed Peter Lomb. l. 2. diſt. 31. affirms, ſin to be onelyonly from the body; but Peter Du Moulin, onelyonly 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; 'tis 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 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 'tis united to the body,foreign Homer as Virg. has it hominum ſator atque deorum. & we will as eaſily tell them, how it entered into it; but lets 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 foreign: 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. aDion Carthuſian. in Rom. 5.12.As many members are in one Body, or Individuals, in one Species, ſo we in Adam: bBulling. in Heb. 7.As Levi was in Abraham, ſo we in Adam; Levi was in the Loyns of his Father, Ʋti 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 ſervantlike 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 onelyonly 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. Gorrhanus in Rom. 5. The Greck words may be read two wayes, either, By one mans offence ſinne entred into the world, and Death by ſinne, becauſe all ſinned: ſo the Syriac tranſlation: and Bulliger, expounding it foreign, for this cauſe: or elſe in whom all ſinned, we being all legally in Adam, and by way of Equity and Juſtice, to ſtand and fall with him. And thus your Expoſition of Pſal. 51. 5. (In ſinne I was conceived) falls to the ground, without any fur ther Anſwer. For if David vvere conceived in ſinne, there muſt be ſoul as well as body: Now the ſoul wants its original righteouſneſs, to guide and direct it, out of a juſt Judgment from God; which want to it, is ſinne beſides the bodies ſtains. So that what other Expoſitions you make on the Text, (which I ſhall not trouble the Reader with) are yours, not Davids, and ſit beſide the ſaddle. How David's, or any ones ſoul and body meet and work in the † contagion of ſinne, I willingly paſs by, and come to your objection out of Ezek. 18. The Son ſhall-not die for the Father: Which falls to the ground by what has been ſaid. I yield, An innocent Son ſhal not die for the Fathers ſinne (as that Chapter means) but Adam's Sons were not ſuch: in him we all ſinned, Rom. 5.12. As really as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham's Loyns, Heb. 7, But 2ly, that Chapter in Ezek. ſpeaks onelyonly of actual ſins, not ſuch as we have from Adam; therefore it proves nothing to purpoſe.
You draw an Argument againſt Childrens being defiled, (and that therefore they need not Baptiſme, nor were corrupted in Adam in the inward man) No defiled Creature can enter into Heaven; but children are fit for the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore not defiled. Magiſterially delivered Anſw. The Kingdom of Heaven is to be taken two wayes, and Children to be looked upon under a two-fold condition.
1. The Kingdome of Heaven is to be taken for the Kingdom of Grace, according to Mar. 9.1. and ſo in Mat. 11.12. Some were there ſtanding, who taſted not Death, till the Kingdome of God came with power; till Chriſt owned, Churches gathered, Ordinances adminiſtred: Now Children of believing Parents, belong to this Kingdome, and it to them, though ſuch as you bar them from the Ordinances of the Kingdom of Grace.
2. The Kingdom of Heaven is taken for glory, and no children fit for it, being all naturally defiled, and children of wrath.
Now conſider Childrens natural condition and they are defiled,foreign Praeparavit, ſayes Beza, in Rom. 9.23. foreign Idoneos licet non dignos fecit, Col. 1. and their ſtate a condition of wrath, But again, conſider them as Elected and in the Eternal Covenant with God in Chriſt, and ſo all the perſons of Election were ever beloved, and fitred for Heaven, by Juſtification, and Sanctification. That all veſſels of mercy, are fitted or prepared for glory: Read Rom. 9.23. and Col. 1.12. Now I ask the queſtion, Were children veſſels of mercy, or no? I am ſure, you'r ſay, yes: Firſt, then, they were loſt in Adam, and in miſery (for mercy preſuppoſeth miſery.) And 2. then they muſt be fitted for glory, therefore not naturally fit. Dr. Uſher tells us largely, in his book called, The Sum and Subſtance of Chriſtian Religion, pag. 416. How Children, by Sanctification, are fitted for glory; and though by reaſon of ignorance, and tender youth, they are not capable of juſtification, as to underſtand it, yet they have nefit of that Eternall and Immanent act of God in Chriſt Jeſus, in which he imputed their ſins to Chriſt, and his righteouſneſſe to them, though the tranſient act were not perceived by them: Read Dr. Kendal againſt Goodwins Redemption redeemed, In his moſt learned Digreſsion againſt Mr. Baxter. Pag. 17, 18.who will tell you, That if God did not ſome way act in Juſtification from Eternity, then God doth ſomething in time, not formerly decreed, which argues ſome change in God. But I proceed, to examine your mind about Eſau and Jacob: You conceive no Text proves Eſau's Reprobatior before born. I could produce the judgment of above a hundred famous Writers affirming it,Read Prov. 16. ver. 4. but I'le come to reaſon, and argue thus: If God did not hate Eſau before he was born, but after; then he loved him before he was born, but he loved him not; becauſe,
(1.) that would argue a change in God to love and hate the ſame perſon.
2. The 9. of Rom. ſayes, God had a purpoſe about them before they were born, ver. 11. Was that purpoſe to love Eſau, or hate him? If he love him, how could he, without change, hate him? I perceive God after hated him: therefore, in all likelyhood, before he was born: for Gods Decrees are poſitive and unchangable; he calls the things that are not, as if they were, Rom. 4.17. He ſaw him condemned, before born; for Gods Decrees depend not upon man.
3. How comes Malachy to quote that place of Gen. 25. and, Paul to quote both, if not to one purpoſe? 'twas declared,foreign (As) notes the likeneſs and coherency of the Texts. the Elder ſhould ſerve the Younger, before they were born; and St. Paul ſayes, † As it was written, Jacob have I loved: To wit, before-born: And Eſau have I hared; to wit, before-born.
Or how comes elſe the Apoſtle to quote ſeveral Texts, if not one to explain another? Sure, none put an old piece to a new garment, or parallel texts where no agreement is. Pray, doth not the effect prove the ſame? Why found he no place in God, nor father, (to change his mind, after giving away the Bleſsing) nor in himſelf for Repentance, if not reprobated? And was not his ſervitude fore-told before born, a token of hatted? and Jacobs priviledge of Maſtery over his Brother, fore-told, beforeborn, and evident ſign of love? I could proceed to enlarge my ſelf on this ſubject, but I muſt ſtudy to be brief. You alleadge, Ezek. 33.11. that God deſires not the death of ſinners. Anſw. I confeſs,Voluntas ſigui non beneplacili. God deſires not the ruine of any ſinner who can repent; Eſau could not to any purpoſe, Heb. 12. which was a ſign of Rejection: For if Believing be a ſign of Election, (as 'tis Act. 13.48.) then Unbelief and Non-penitency is a ſign of Reprobation. God onelyonly can give Repentance, in a Tim. 2. But, ſecondly, were theſe ſuch wicked as Eſau? Then I deny, that God ever intended them repentance more then to Tyre and Sidon, Matth. 11. 21. but men utterly appointed to deſtruction, as Benhadad in the Letter, 1 King. 20.42. and fore-ordained to Condemnation, Jude 4. For God deſires Juſtice to be done to the Wicked. 3. Were not theſe Elected, but Wicked, while in their ſins, whoſe ruine God would not have? But 4. this expreſſion ſhews Gods revealed Will, (if he ſpake to Reprobates) to make them ſome way unexcuſable; not his concealed, or decretal will: of which anon. But you preſſe, 1 Tim. 2. God would have all to be ſaved. Pray conſider, how the Apoſtle commands to pray for Kings there, and gives that Reaſon, becauſe he would have all, i. e. all ſorts of men to be ſaved; though Kings then did perſecute Gods people much: And to that place, in 2 Pet. 3.9. I anſwer, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Saints and Beloved, v. 1. and tells them, Why God was ſo ſlack in coming to judge Wicked: Why ſo patient, &c. that Gods long-ſuffering was to Usward (not the Wicked) ver. 9. Not willing that any; to wit, of us, the Elect ſhould periſh &c. Pray, what have you got by theſe Texts though you brag of your acquaintance in Script; ob-rading Mr. Rutton, for not exerciſing therein, and for miſtakes: Though I am confident,Pag. 19. he is more apound Bible, them thouſands of ſuch as you. You proceed, and would prove that Rom. 9. [Has not the Potter power over the Clay?—] will prove nothing to our purpoſe; but would make the Apoſtle quote it out of Jer. 18.6. Which Texts are not a like, nor have any agreement: for that of Jeremy either means, Firſt, that the Potters work was Adam, and we in him: Secondly, Adam's marring, and we in him: Or elſe it means, 1. Gods work, in making them a people, Church, or State. 2ly, Their marring by diſobedience, &c. But could ought be marred in Gods hand, againſt his will? Was he deceived of his work, or in it, as the Potter. Was Adam loſt, or Iſrael ruined without God? and yet God is moſt holy, juſt, and good the Evil from Man: the over-ruling from God. (Read my Comment upon Rev. Pag. 135.chap. 17. v. 17. how God put it into the hearts of the Kings: how the matter of an action is from God: how the formality, or the obliquity is from man &c.) What made the Potter go about to make a veſſel of honour, was it any worth in the clay? Was it deſert in Iſrael cauſed God to make them a people? Or do you believe Election, and an Eternal Boſome of Love in God the Father? Was it not want of power made the Potter marre his Veſſel? And doth God lack power†Read Eſay 43.13. I will work, and who can hinder? to ſave thoſe who are loſt? Could he have done no more to Iſrael, in Eſay 5? Then he muſt ceaſe to be omnipotent, and ceaſe to be God. He did enough to Iſrael, to make them inex cuſable: He had power enough to ſave all the world, had he not otherwiſe decreed. But examine carefully, and you will find more in Rom. 9. then in Jer. 18. The former, pleads Gods Prerogative-Royall over all Creatures, making them ſuch as he pleaſes, rejecting Pharoah, Eſau, the Jews,Read Prov. 16.4. Exod. 9.16. Rom. 9.22. though murmuring at it, ver. 19, 20. with that Expoſtulation, Has not the Potter power over the Clay? The latter, means Iſraels marring in Captivity, being firſt marred with ſinfulneſs, Examine Rom. 9. and Jer. 18. and they will ſhew your miſtake: For in Jer. the ſame Veſſel is made; and being marred, is re-made into another form: But in Rom. 9. the Potter is ſaid to have power, out of the ſame lump, to make one veſſel to honour, and (another) to diſhonour, as in Jacob and Eſan: Pray, what agreement is here? Do not Reprobates murmure, ver. 19. ſaying, Why haſt thou made us ſo? We were caſt in Adam, and reſiſted not thy Will, till actuall tranſgreſſion, before which we were caſt: And why doth God yet find fault with us, ſince caſt in Adam? To which the Apoſtle anſwers out of Gods Prerogative,Sodom now ſuffering puniſhment in Hell ſire. Has not GOD (as well as a Potter) power over the clay of the ſame lump, (ſo we were in Adam) to make one veſſel to honour, &c.) Thus your Argument is marred in your hand, againſt your Will, as the Veſſel in Jeremies Potter. I have ſaid enough in anſwert to Tim. 2.20. already. We cannot make out ſelves Veſſels of mercy, if once our perſons were made veſſels of wrath. There is a great gulf fixed, Luk, 16. They are by God before prepared for glory, Rom. 9.23. who are veſſels of mercy; onelyonly man muſt co-work. Your Expoſition of Sodoms ſuffering, will ſuffer much upon Examination. You dany the Sodomites to be in Hell, and that fire was called Eternal, becauſe from Heaven, not kindled by man.
Anſwer, You almoſt deny, or give the Scripture the Lye: for Jud. 7. tells, that Sodom and Gomorrha are (ſuffering) the vengeance of Eternal Fire, that is, now in miſety. Now the former fire is†Sol in Pol Hiſt. ca. 48. out, which deſtroyed their bodies (for a great Lake called the Aſphaltite, in the vacancy of Inhabitants, has taken poſſeſſion of that Plain, where Sodom, &c. ſtood) Read Mr. Fullers Pisgah-ſight of Palestine. So, the fire in which the Sodomites ſuffer now,Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 270. is Hell. Jude (in all probability) took part of his Epiſtle, our of the ſecond Epiſtle of Pet. 2.6. (Read Mr. Fran. Roberts, on Jude.) Though you 06 would not have one man borrow of another,Key of Bible. (pag. 69.) where Peter tells how the caſes, or bodies, were deſtroyed: but Jude tells us of their now ſuffering; therefore the Jewels are by the Devill burning in Hell.
Apriori, or apoſteriori.I could laugh, and tell you, that if Sodom's fire were Eternall, it muſt be Eternal as God is, and then ſome Creature coeternal with the Creator, or to laſt for ever, and then Hell-fire and it will be kin to each other.
Now if the Devil actually ſuffers in Hell, the Sodom, as it is plain in Jude 5.6.The Devill ſuffering in Hell. The Angles which kept not their firſt habitation, even as Sodom, ſuffering the vengeance, &c. But you deny the Devil yet ſuffers, p. 28. Read 2 Pet. 2.4. If God ſpared not the Angels that ſinned, but caſt them down to hell, foreign. What plainer? Now if Devils in Hell, then Sodomites, (for Peter and Jude parallel them) then children, then they deſerved damnation in Adam. That Children ſuffer, we believe, becauſe all in Sodom ſuffered, in which were Women and Children (young and old, ſayes Gen. 19.4.) And John ſaw ſuch, Rev. 20.12. ſmall and great ſtand before God ready to be judged, therefore ſuch are guilty.
But you deny any ſoul yet in glory:Pag. 34. What means Rev. 14.13. Bleſſed from henceforth are the dead? And Luk. 23.43. This day thou ſhalt be with me in Paradiſe. If you ſay, a day with the Lord is as a thouſand years, 2 Pet. 3.8. I anſwer, Chriſt meant it of a Natural Day:Saints now in glory. As Jonah was in 06 the belly of the Whale three dayes; ſo the Son of Man in the Earth, Matth. 16.4. And one of thoſe ſay, that Paradiſe is not heaven: Read 2 Cor. 12.2-4. and be ſatisfied. For what the Apoſtle calls Heaven, v. 2. he calls Paradiſe 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, 'twas 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. 'tis 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:foreign. 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 onelyonly againſt the firſt Covenant, (which is true) and in your third Argument, that all his enjoyments were onelyonly earthly: now ſay you, the puniſhment of the firſt Covenant was onelyonly temporall death, &c. and the ſin againſt the ſecond Covenant, onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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, then they were loſt, as if they had been in the ſecond Covenant: if ſome go to Heaven without Chriſt, what means Acts 4. no other name men have to be ſaved by, but by the name of Jeſus. Now though Adam's enjoyments are named moſt as earthly, did they not ſignifie, heavenly to be enjoyed upon obedience? was not Paradiſe a Type of Heaven? What meant Tree of Life, but eternall life? Rev. 2.7. why was he not endued onelyonly with an earthly ſoul? or what needed an immortall ſoul for onelyonly earthly enjoyments? You do not wiſely look unto the end and meaning of theſe things; but as the Jews on their ſacrifices: or, art willingly ignorant, as in 2 Pet. 3.5. which is worſe. I paſſe by your Expoſition of 1 Cor. 15. what though Chriſt was the quickener after Adam's fall, and beyond Adam? was not Adam inveſted with an immortall ſoul? was he not ſuperiour to the earthly condition of Beaſts? had he not a poſſe non mori? foreignwhat means that Text, in dying, thou ſhalt die? as the Hebrew has it, but in dying temporally, thou ſhalt die eternally, (according to Gods revealed will.) Read my Glimps, how many Deaths, p. 29. But ſuppoſe it but an Hebrew expreſſion;Wolleb. lib. 1.….12. yet under Death, all mans miſery is contained as Death ſpirituall, Rev. 3. I know thy works, and that thou haſt a name that thou art alive; but thou art dead, 2. the death of afflictions, as Exod. 10. Intreat the Lord, that he remove from me this death. 3. Death temporall, the body ſhall return to duſt, Eccleſ. 12.4. eternall death, as Rev. 21. called the ſecond death; but I attend what you ſay in your fifth Argument, where you argue thus, That opinion wh…h makes God a lyar, and the Devill tell true, is to be rejected; but that Opinion which holds, that Adam ſhould die more then a temporall death, is ſuch; for Adam's Poſterity are not in Hell, onelyonly die temporally, and Satan told them, ye ſhall not die, &c. but God ſaid, ye ſhall ſurely die: therefore Adam was onelyonly threatned with temporall death.
Anſw. Your Minor is falſe; for though God threatned Adam with eternall Death, yet he lyed not, in not inflicting it, becauſe his threatning was to deterr Adam from ſinning, and not Gods peremptory reſolution, but as to Hezekiah and Niniveh; for God had decreed before the ſalvation of the Elect in Adam, by Chriſt Jeſus: therefore intended not their ruine; but of this already. Gods ſentence was for Death, not his decree, except for Reprobates; but you that can excuſe the Devill, and accuſe God, according to this judgement: how did the Devill ſay true, do not men die temporally and eternally for firſt ſin? By one mans offence judgment came upon all to condemnation, Rom. 5.18. as the free gift in Chriſt Jeſus, was to juſtification. Either ſay, Chriſt brought not juſtification to life by his obedience, or elſe conclude, Adam brought eternal condemnation (on non-Elect) by diſobedience, or elſe ſay, there is no ſence in the Apoſtles arguing, Rom. 5.18. all were condemned to die temporally the day Adam ſinned, but were repliev'd to increaſe the world: ſo all the Reprobates were condemned in Adam (fore ordained to condemnation in Jude) but judgement deferred for many Reaſons, not remitted. Your ſixth Argument is already anſwered, that tho Children bring into the world ſuch ſins, as make them liable to the ſecond death, yet they may belong to Heaven, as I have ſhewed: the perſon of an Elect Veſſel may be loved, ſanctified in time—though the naturall condition were hated. And it were ſad for Children, if not naturally Children of wrath and loſt, or elſe have no Saviour, if no ſin,Matth. 18. not are to be found, if not loſt. To ſuch the Kingdom of grace belongs, by vertue of Parents faith. How prove you, that their Parents or friends that brought them, had not faith? they were Sons of Jews yet in Covenant, who had a good opinion of our Saviour, and in all likelihood, brought them for a ſpirituall end; or elſe how did Chriſt anſwer their expectation, in bleſſing them? You ſay Matth. 18. is not underſtood of Children in Age. What think you of verſ. 2.foreign— Jeſus called a little Childe? what think you of his placing him (which intimates the Childs youth and ignorance) from which Childe Chriſt ſayes, men muſt be converted as Children. Goe then 1. Children are ſubjects of ſanctification (which is part of converſion) or elſe go not to Heaven, becauſe fleſh and blood cannot, 1 Cor. 15. (2.) have faith, though not actually, yet the ſeeds and habit of faith, which will appear in time. (3.) may be offended, or you an offence to them, in denying them admittance into the Kingdom of grace by baptiſme.
Of the Lawfull Miniſtry.
ANd thus much of your Treatiſe of Originall Sin. I come briefly to your Characters of Miniſters: and ſhall tell you, that it would be too great an honour to you, to anſwer you at large in this particular; and it were to confeſs ſome guiltineſs in our Calling: Yet had you queſtioned our Office, or our Ordination, or our coming through the Church of Rome, I would have endeavoured to ſatisfie any ordinary man therein; and a word anon of it. However, I remember when Scaliger that proud Critick, had abuſed the noble Engliſh Nation, Dr. Heylin tells him,Deſcription of Prit. p. 468. (as I can tell you) A Fools bolt is ſoon ſhot; and quotes Socrates Reſolution, foreign. If an Aſs (excuſe the expreſſion) kick us, we muſt not put him in the Court; the beſt is, Many ſhoulders will make the burden light. You endeavour to diſgrace all Miniſters, 'tis thought your mouth is no ſlander;L. 10. & Ep. 82. ſuch wounds, are our glory. Ambroſe his Obſervation upon Iſraels diſowning the Prophet Elias, is ſeaſonable Corvi agnoſcebant prophetam Domini quem Judei non agnoſcebant, 1 Tim. 4.14.paſcebant corvi quem genus illud per ſequebatur. The Ravens owned him for a Prophet of the Lord, whom the Jews diſowned; and fed him, whom thoſe people perſecuted.
Is not our Ordination good? We had impoſition of hands by the Miniſtry, as Timothy (in ſome way) had. You'l ſay, Then the Spirit was given by Impoſition.— Pray ſhew me a Reaſon, why we may not uſe the Ceremony, and hope for a bleſſing? Is not the weakneſs of God ſtronger then man? 1 Cor. 1.25. And that foreign fooliſhneſs of God wiſer then men? You'l ſay, We are ordained without conſent of People: I muſt tell you, that Titus (in all likelyhood) did ſo. Paul left him in Crete, foreign, to ordain Elders in every City, as Paul appointed. Now I know no other Appointment, but by Impoſition of hands: The people could not make them Miniſters themſelves, or by their choice; for then what need had Paul to have left Titus there? Again, the word implyes, that the power was in Titus: and ſo the ſame word is uſed, Act. 7.10. The King of Egypt did appoint Joſeph (foreign, the ſame word) Governour of Egypt, where, I hope, the power was conceived to be in the King, not People: Which paſſage, Philo Judens renders by foreign. As Dr. Hammond quotes him; intimating the power (as the Greek words uſed for Impoſition of hands, or Setting apart,Concerning Ordination, pag. 314. imply) to be in Titus, and the Preſbytery, not People: though I ſhould conſent to the Peoples approbation, could it well be obtained. You'l ſay, our Miniſtry came from Rome. I anſwer, Suppoſe once Popery crept into England, have we not ſeparated from all their Ceremonies, and keep cloſe to the word, and ſhall we not be accepted? Or, could their Ceremony ſpoyl the ſubſtance? But I deny that we are of Rome, onelyonly were in Rome, or came through it. And came not Chriſt from Adam through ſinfull Loyns, and yet the true Chriſt? Did not Aarons Prieſthood ſucceſſively come to our Saviours time (ſed quare) through ſinful men, and yet owned by our Saviour? the Prieſthood, not the Perſons, who crucified him. And may not a Prieſthood come undefiled through Rome, for matter of ſubſtance? But I'le prove we were Chriſtians in England, and had Miniſters before Romes Apoſtacies many years.
Our Hiſtories make manifeſt,The Brittiſh Church, Independent from Rome. that Auguſtine the Monk was ſo far from being the firſt Planter of Chriſtianity here, that he found Brit. Biſhops, who did deny obedience to the Chu. of Rome, as appears by the B. of Bangors Letter, to Aug. the Monk, deſiring his ſubjection to the Romane Church. Notum ſit vobis, &c. Nos eſſe ſub gubernatione Epiſcopt Caerlegionis ſuper Oſca, &c. And before, Sir Hen. Spelman, out of the Annals of Gisburn cites, thus:Concil. Anglic. p. 188. and p. 26. Aburbe legionum Meneviam tranſlata ſedes Metropolitana tempore S. David Epiſcopiper Arthurum, from Caerlyon upon Oske the Metropolitan Seat was tranſlated to St. Davids, by King Arihur, in the time when St. David was Biſhop, where there ſtood 13 chief Biſhops,— where Conſecration was, without making any ſubjection to any other Church. And Lanfrank, Biſhop of Canterbury, under William the Conquerour, refuſed to be ſubject to Gregory the 7.of Feſtivals of the Church, pag. 419. of Rome. Of which, read Dr. Hammond, who pag. 412. proves, That Chriſtianity was planted in England, in the Apoſtles time. Oregine confeſſeth, That Chriſtianity was in England in his time, (on Ezek. Hom. 4.) And Tertullian affirms here it before his time. Some gather ſom ground from 2 Tim. 4.10. where Creſcens is ſent to Galatia, conceived to be France, from whence the Goſpel came to us. Mr. Cambden tells us from antient Authors, that Joſeph of Arimathea planted it here: but enough to prove, that our Original was not from Rome, though in after-time the Superſtition of Rome crept in amongſt us, which we have now forſaken, and are ordained according to the Goſpel-Rules. Who deſires more ſatisfaction about Miniſters Ordination, let him read the learned Treatiſe of Mr. John Collins, Vindiciae Miniſterii Evangelici.proving, That gifted-men ſhould take the Seal of the Church by Ordination, as Barnabas and Paul did, Act. 13. where the Miniſtry, and not People, ſet them apart; as Chriſt did his Diſciples, Act. 10.41. And the Greek word, when applyed to Eccleſiaſtical buſineſs, requires not the peoples conſent: Read Mr. Ʋines on 2 Pet. 2. 1. pag. 20 proving,foreign that the Apoſtles ordain Elders without the peoples conſenting, or giving in Suffrages, Act. 14.23. Read Leigh on the Word: Yet I am not againſt peoples choice alſo, where to be had conveniently. Read the Diatribé, printed 1647. proving, that many of our godly Reformers had onelyonly inward Call, and Peoples Suffrages: now as Election makes a King more then his Coronation; ſo peoples Conſent, more then Ordination. But I forbear, knowing that the approbation of the Miniſtry (by reaſon of their abilities) is far beyond that of the people. Well! we have Miniſters both ways ſet apart, yet the Baptizers own them not. But ſo much in general about Miniſters, which your Characters cauſed me to ſay: yet you find fault rather with the perſonall faults of the Miniſtry, than with their Office: The Office is good, though a Cataphas, or a Judas miſcarry in it: He, amongſt you that's without fault, let him throw the firſt ſtone.