Adam's Condition IN PARADISE DISCOVERED: Wherein is proved, That Adam had right to Eternal 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 Tailor, 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 Loins; 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, etc.) The truth is asserted, and proved; and the Errors 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, etc.  
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 quàm veritatis cupidiores,  Cic. Orar. l. 89. 
London, Printed for George Calvert, at the Half-Moon in the New Buildings in Paul's Churchyard, 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 errors: when, I remember, you took notes, covetous to inform your own spirit of the truth; What you once heard preached, you have here printed by your timely encouragement. And indeed, though I own more than myself to many friends in and about Sutton (as to your noble Cousin Mr. Edward Taylor, of Hollingborn; to my ingenious Friend, M. Edw. Knatchbull of Sutton; to my bountiful Friend, Mr. Tho: Tyndall; to my Cordial Friend, Mr. James Lamb of Sutton) yet this Book owes its self to you (next to myself) 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 Soldiers to fight, (as George Hammon almost doth the Clergy); Erignis an old, but spirited man, accepted the Challenge, with that expression: What Soldiers Alexander once had, I'll show you; and at the first Onset, slew him. 'Tis 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, ●h●ar Motis (in Erasmus) saying, that to go about to confute Hammon is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to measure the sand, etc. when I consider the many; errors 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: 'tis wished he had more of their knowledge, that his book might have had fewer errors; but in that, he is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I find errors of moment in his book not tolerable in a Commonwealth. 
R. Answ. in the Book.  As that Adam's sin brought on him, and all in his loins but temporal death, etc. Hence no Children eternally lost, or need Baptism: (yet the Apostle says,) One man's offence brought condemnation on all, Rom. 5. were we not by nature Sons of wrath? twice dead? by nature, and otherwise? Judas 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 confess, all in Adam sinned only against the first Covenant; but that the breach of that Covenant merited no more than temporal death, I deny, because of Rom. 5.18. That the souls of Adam's 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 Saviour's body, whose conception was extraordinary. Another error is, holding that actual sins only, 
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) only the means to bring it about. God's decree to be glorified in mercy and justice, is the first cause of all. Were not some fore-ordained to condemnation? Judas 4. read Exod. 9.16. Prov. 16.4. Wicked made for the day of destruction. God raised up Pharaoh for temporal ruin; but why not for eternal? 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 only adam's; 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 cried 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 Char●.  l. 2. c. 13. because of hell. And are not all souls of Saints alive unto God, Luke 20.38? where 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 paid 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: Moor.  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 than he doth, believe them not, though Matth. 23.37. speak that Language at first sight. Lombard or Moulin will inform 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 God's work? Isay 53.13. But to end, I fear my studying to be brief, makes me too obscure. I pass by George Hammonds jeers, as telling Mr. Rutton, that Hell was under his Coat: I could tell him, that except he repent of his errors, I would not be in his Coat one day, for— And 'tis well (though he call himself Pastor) if Cyprians words may not be made good of him and such, 
Lib. 1. Ep. 7.  Non fidei duces sed persidiae magistri, Nam pastores sunt impostores— but farewell Sir,— You know I am making haste for Ireland, and 'tis well if my friends salute me not with the Poet's words, 
Hom.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; having been absent from them above a dozen years. Pray God make this poor pains of mine beneficial to his people. Sir, I am your loving Friend and Servant.  
Sutton-valence Febr. 3. 1655. Hez. Holland.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

To George Hammond, of Biddenden in Kent.  
SIR,  
ONe of your judgement, having presented me with your book; which being dedicated to the Clergy, I thought with myself, that if I should have passed it by in silence, you might have said I was such an one as yourself, according to Psal: 50 21. or unable to answer you: for I confess you have gotten into great repute with those who know not how to contradict you. You have the substance of all your Book answered, and your material quotations of Scripture, I confess your Treatise of Original sin, has more witty (if not wicked) arguments in it, than any piece written by any Heretic, since the Resurrection of our Saviour to this hour: and I know I have the Epitome of all Errors or Heresies from Christ's time, to this, lying by me. Therefore I shall be larger in answering that part of your book, but briefer (yet full enough) in considering Zions Redemption, being not so material. You have quoted many texts of Scripture, contrary to the purport or meaning thereof, as shall appear: I wonder a man for liberty of Conscience, should force the Text of Holy Writ to take your part volens nolens against the intent of the Spirit thereof: But I begin to consider your Examination of Mr. Rutton's Letter about Baptism and Original Sin,   

George Hammonds Examination of Mr. Ruttons Letter, examined.  
Where you say, 
Page 9 Sprinkling of Infants is Baptism.  that sprinkling a little water in the face of a Child, is not Baptism, but a cozening shift brought in, by Pope Innocent the 3d. (what acquaintance you have got with Popery of late!) and that Baptizo doth not signify sprinkling (bue Rantizo doth) but only to plunge, or over-whelm in water. Magisterially spoken! Here I must consider, first, that sprinkling is nought. 2. Infant baptism, a cozening shift. 3. Pope Innocent the first Author of it. To the first, baptizo is taken for dipping or sprinkling often: as Mat. 3.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost. And pray, are not sanctified men rather sprinkled then plunged with the spirit? Are we not imperfect here below? knowing in part, and sanctified in part? Again, in Matth. 20.22. Christ says, he has a Baptism to be baptised with, meaning that of his 
* Est ergo baptisma triplex; fluminis, flaminis, et sanguinis.  Passion; (as Paraeus on the place.) Now Christ was rather sprinkled, than plunged, in regard of outward man. Suppose the Thorns were on his head (indeed we read not of their pulling off) and Nails and Spear wounding also, yet he was not wounded in each part of his body: 
Jo. 20.25.  Therefore, this Baptism rather was sprinkling then plunging. And remember how the Parallel lies between John's Baptism with water, and Christ's with spirit, Act. 1.5. So if Christ's giving the spirit (compared to pouring, in respect of the few drops in the Law) be rather sprinkling (for Christ only was plunged with it (receiving it without measure) so was his Water-baptism, or else the Parallel is nothing, which the Evangelist from Christ urges: But what think you of that known place, in 1 Cor. 10.2: All our Fathers 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To dip or sprinkle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To plunge, vide Pasor on the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these much differ.  baptised in Cloud and Sea: 'Twas Water-baptism, yet they went on dry ground: some water might sprinkle on them from the Sea, as they walked through, and a Cloud doth fall by drops (as Experience testifies) more like to sprinkling, than plunging; especially considering how little rain falls in those parts, where Israel then was, if we will believe Travellers; or Reason, because of the Sun's excessive heat drying up the Clouds.  
But what think you of the sprinkling of blood in the Law, so often mentioned? Heb. 9.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He sprinkled the people. Was not it a type of Christ's blood called the blood of sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. And why shall 〈◊〉 sprinkling on Infants (signifying Christ's blood shed for them) be counted Baptism, since the word will carry it, unless you believe 'tis the muchness of water, and not the sprinkled blood of Christ (signified by Baptism) doth the work? Peter was once for a kind of plunging, Joh. 13. till better catechised by our Saviour, ver. 9, 10. I am sure the Promise was of sprinkling, * Ezek, 36.25. 
† Sanguine Jesus Christi, says Trem, on the place.  and a Gospel-promise. Annotations of Assembly refer us to Ephes. 5.26: for a farther illustration of the place: Christ gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify it and cleanse it by the washing of water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sowhat sprinkling is in Ezekiel, is washing in St. Paul's Exposition; and why not sometimes used indifferently, since the word Baptizo, and Texts of Scripture will hold it out. The old Common-Prayer Book allowed of Dipping or Sprinkling, if our Climate could at all times suffer it. Our great Fonts in England show our former Custom; both have been used, Dipping and Sprinkling: but no way will please you, if Children be baptised, which we shall consider anon: only I wonder how the Jailor and his could be plunged (baptised they were, Act. 16.) 'twas night, ver. 33. and in likelihood, in the Prison, into which he sprang with a light, ver. 29. For though it's said he called them forth, ver. 30. (that is, out of the inner prison into which they were thrust, ver. 24.) yet they are but brought into his house afterwards, ver. 34. So that the Jailor's household came out of the house to the Apostles, not the Apostles into the Jailor's house to preach: but be it in Gaol or House; where was water enough to plunge him, and his in so dry a Country? Did he venture, trow, to carry them to some River; his fear, if not his care, hindered. But had they a large tub of water there, and were they plunged: How came they, being very wet, to sit at meat presently with the Apostles rejoicing? 
Nos pro baptismo ●●antismum potius habeamus hoe est aspersionem. Zep. de Sacram. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lix. vide Mr. Hall quarctect, pag. 114.  But I forbear, persuading myself, they were contented with some sprinkling: of which, says one, instead of Baptism, we have rather (the word bearing both significations) used Rantisme, considering the cold climes wherein we live. Yet I say, not that Baptism and Rantisme are quite the same; but that Baptizo signifies Sprinkling sometimes, as well as Dipping: read Leigh Cr. Sacra in verbum, and Dr. Featley, Dipper dipped. Circumcision to Israel was as Baptism to us: now that was not but in one part, read Gen. 17. and the Hebrew word for baptising (tabhat) signifies Washing in part, or Dipping: Read Josh. 3.15. and the feet of the Priests that bore the Ark were dipped in the brim of the water: The word Baptizo doth signify as much, therefore used for Sprinkling, moderate Washing, or Dipping; not Plunging. What the Apostle calls Washing, Heb. 9.10.13. (in Greek, Baptismous) he expounds himself by Sprinkling, ver. 19.21. in Greek, Rantismous: so that Baptizo signifies Sprinkling; for their Baptisms, or Ceremonious Washings, were Sprinklings. We read of 3000. baptised at once, and no mention of any Rivers, Act. 2.41. Therefore, in all likelihood, Sprinklings were there used. But, to draw to a conclusion, we deny not, but Baptism may include Dipping; but since it includes Sprinkling also, we use that out of care and tenderness to Infancy: For as the Sabbath was made for man, so Baptism for our good, and not detriment; and therefore Sprinklings, in cold Climates, to be used rather; since the word will bear it.  

Infant Baptism proved.  But I come to the second point, and prove, that Baptism belongs to Children: First, because there was but one Covenant since the Fall, (which in substance was Christ) though in respect of its several Administrations called Covenants, as being several ways administered; under the Law, by Circumcision; under the Gospel, by Baptism. Now if God allowed Israel's Children the prerogative of Circumcision under the Law, (as was accounted, Rom. 9.4) shall we, under the Gospel, be barred from an answerable privilege in Baptism? You'll say, 'twas no privilege, read Rom. 9 and consider, the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God stronger than men: in 1 Cor. 1.25. To be a marked sheep, or Lamb of the flock of Israel, is a mercy. 2. Believers Children are federally holy, 1 Cor. 7. therefore to be received by Baptism into the Church of Christ. 3. Children were baptised in the Cloud and Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. compared with Exod. 12.37. These, the Apostle calls Fathers, to the succeeding Israelites. 4. As God owned those Children presented to him in Circumcision, Ezek. 16.20, 21. and called them, his Children: So, we believe, he will own ours; especially, considering 5. The promise to those under the Gospel, and their Children, Act. 2.39. to them believing, and their Children, by virtue of the Parents Faith, (as to Abraham believing, and his Seed: for we have but one Covenant, Christ, by whom all are to expect Salvation) and to all afar off, when they believe; and to their Children, by virtue of their Faith; and to as many as God shall call to Faith, and to their Children, by virtue of that Faith. Hence the Apostle says, The Promise is made to you (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) quoting that Promise made to Adam Abraham, and Israel of Christ Jesus: and shall not we and ours partake of it, as well, as Israel, and their Children? Read Rom. 11.17. We partake of the fat of the Olive tree; as, those branches of Jews did before their cutting off; but they and their Children did; therefore we, and ours also. And here, by the way, observe, we plead a Church-priviledge for Children, to be, at least in outward Covenant: we say not all of them shall be saved; we use the means, and leave the issue to God: There are some branches seemingly in Christ, who bring not forth fruit, Joh. 15.1, 2. yet have the benefit of an external privilege, as in Israel, 
Mr. Marshal against Mr. Tombs, p 138,  In Mar. 6.10. To such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, must not be interpreted of all Children, (as such) but of Children, whose Parents were in the Covenant, as these were, and brought by Parents, or near friends, to Christ; suffer such to come to me: You believe these were Children of Jews, yet in Covenant. Now though Christ baptised them not, nor any other, Joh. 4.2. yet he laid his hands on them (A preparative to Baptism in the primitive times, if you'll believe Antiquity 
† Read Doctor Hammond of baptising Infants, p. 194. ) and blessed them. (If Christ gave Children the greater benefit, Blessing, why do ye deny them the lesser, which is Baptism?) Now I suppose you believe it was a spiritual blessing, being Christ's gift, for Esau had a temporal and earthly (an heir of the world, as well as Jacob) yet he counted himself deceived of the blessing, 
Read my Glim. of Christ's love, p. 93.  Gen. 27.36, 37, 39 Christ also affirmed, that to such (Children of Parents in Covenant) belongs the Kingdom of Heaven: Then deny not Baptism to the heirs of heaven.  
But 7. What if Matth. 28.19. make for Infant Baptism? though (I wis) you take that Text for your Masterpiece. Go, discipulize all Nations; for so is the Original. Pray, may not Children be made Disciples by Baptism? read Joh. 4.1, 2, 3. where Christ is said to make more Disciples than John, baptising them, intimating the way to make Disciples, is, to baptise them, and after to teach them, ver. 20. Read it carefully, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that though some small knowledge, and confession, or desire after Christ was required in grown people (none in Children) before Baptism: yet most teaching, and consequently knowledge, was afterwards. And hence that passage of St. Peter, 1 Epist. 3.21. is most admirably opened by a learned man, 
† Dr. Hamond of Infant Baptism, p. 196.  not to be rendered, the Answer of a good Conscience (speaking of Baptism) but the question, of a good Conscience toward God; for so the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies. For men were discipulized with small quantity of knowledge, and children with none, but taught afterwards, and so asked after the things of God, and a good Conscience after its Baptism. Now that Children are accounted Disciples, read Act. 15.5.10. where, when Circumcision was urged (which was most peculiar to Children) Peter answered [in that most famous Council] why put ye a yoke on the Disciples, meaning on Believers, and their Children, under the Gospel: so Children were Disciples, and may be discipulized. You'll say, Why were not Children mentioned in the Commission? Answ. because needless: for what was oft mentioned in Old Testament, is more sparingly in the New: Now what more frequent in Old Testament, than to be a God to men, and their Seed, Gen. 17. [if well prepended] and (ye and your Children stand before God 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 rendered, either upon one day of the week, or on the first day, or on the Sabbath day (for that day was observed, as well 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 memorial of theirs Saviour's 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 . This I the rather write, to show, that what was commanded oft in Old Testament, is sparingly in the New. Now the Sabbath being moral (only 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 'tis 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 Tithes (forgive that Jewish expression) in 1 Cor. 9 Even so has God ordained (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that those that preach the Gospel, 
Tithes in Gospel time proved.  etc. the Apostle quotes a former Statute or Ordinance for Ministry-maintenance, and that seems out of Moses Law, for v. 9 the Levitical Text is alleged, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, etc. 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 Tithes, which was never type of any thing, nor never repealed; and indeed if Moses Priesthood had a set maintenance, why should our Saviour's come short? And the Apostle pleads a set maintenance, Who goes to war at his own charges, 1 Cor. 9 have not Soldiers set-pay? I could here be large with reason, but 'tis a digression. Here is a plainer Ordinance for Tithes, then for the Lords day, yet not looked on. What special Command have you for women's 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, etc. and under man comprehend both sexes: the words are masculine (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉): but you'll say, The man is a courteous Creature to the woman, and will be content to comprehend her under him. Thus though in express terms in the new Testament, we are not commanded to baptise Children, nor keep Lords day, nor pay Tithes, nor admit Women to the Lords Supper, no nor to speak against Usury, or to hold Christian Magistracy: yet by good consequences in the new, & Commands 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 Christ's blood (represented in Baptism) to wash away their sins: The baptizers say, the Text calls them Sons of wrath only, who walked in sinful and evil courses; but I answer, That Exposition, gives the Text the lie; for the Apostle there plainly shows, first, the Ephesians actual transgressions, v. 2. and part of the third; and then their original state in respect of Adam, they were by nature Children of wrath (of which more anon). Were not Children, when born, natural Children? well then by nature Sons of wrath, which made them break forth into so many actual 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 original sin; but thus much for Baptism of Infants, I could produce more Arguments, and answer Objections, but 'tis not my task: there is abundant satisfaction to be had in Dr. Featley, Mr. Martial, Mr. Hall, Mr. Fuller, B. D. Dau. 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 children's Baptism. The third thing you affirmed, was that Pope Innocent brought in Baptism of Infants; but this is a most gross 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. Marshal against Mr. Tombs, 
Pa. 92.93, 94. etc.  has taken pains to prove the Antiquity of Infant-Baptisme, to have been in the year, 150. after Christ, in the days of J. Martyr, 
Infant-Baptisme very ancient.  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 Paedobaptism to be a tradition received from the Apostles, [in whose time the word Tradition was used in a good sense, read 2 Thes. 2.15.]. Irenaeus a Grand Father, who lived in the same Century, with I. 
Page 23.24, 25. etc.  Martyr confirms Infant-Baptisme to have been in use in his time. You may read Mr. Martial, who will also give you account why Constantine, Greg. Nazianzen, nor chrysostom, etc. were baptised when Infants, to wit, because their Parents were 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 near 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 Fountain's head as he can, because of the pureness and clearness of the water. 
Dulcius ex ipso sonte etc. Fideliuns fili sanctitatis candidati, & sancti ex seminis praerogatiuâ.  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 calls 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 baptising Infants, pag. 213. And I will wait upon what you say concerning Adam's sin.  

What punishment Adam's sin brought on his Posterity.  
THat Adam's sin brought more on him and his, than temporal death, 
Habuit vitam aeternam partim promissione & spe. Paraeus in cap. 2. Gen. p. 348.  with sorrows, sicknesses etc. I prove 1. because Adam forfeited eternal life, which I thus prove: what the second Adam restored, the first lost; but the second Adam, restored eternal life, 2 Tim. 1.10. who brought life and immortality to light, intimating it to have had some kind of being before, to wit, in Adam at least, in an inclusive promise (in feeding on the Tree of life, etc.) The Tree of life was the representer of eternal 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 man's 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 eternal life, 
Ephes. 2.12. Pag. 130.131. In Gen. Cap. 2. Pag. 345.  ere he lost it. Now that Adam was not promised eternal 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 eternal 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 Christ's restoring life proves it lost in the first Adam. Here observe how differing. Heretics have been about this matter. Pelagius held (and Socinus after him) that Adam's sin brought only eternal Death, 
Trelcat. de Orig. peccato Pag. 169.  and that temporal Death was by nature not the wages of sin, because not removed by Christ. Pighius denies any to be guilty of eternal death, till they have actually sinned, the very Opinion of George Hammond: mark how he agrees in part with a Papist. Mark how Heretics descent among themselves; but consent (as Pilate and Herod) against truth. That place in the Romans, Chap. 5.12.14. proves, Death reigned 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 only eternal Death from Elect, and not temporal, only 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 sense mortal, in some immortal; 
L. 2. distinc: 19 p. 368.  and Lombard gives the distinction how, mortal in respect of body,— immortal 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.  spiritual meat was not fit for a mortal stomach, says Dr. Hall. But let us consider the first Argument: What Christ restored, that Adam lost, but Christ restored eternal life. Hence Adam was called the figure or Type of Christ, Rom. 5.14. therefore some similitude between Adam's loss, and Christ's restauration, that as Adam lost eternal 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 only temporal Death. Now, that condemnation, there, is damnation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  read the same Greek word in Rom. 8.1. There is no condemnation to those that are, etc. 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'll show 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 complete Creature, 
Gen. 5.3.  as the Beasts do in their kind. How did he beget a Son in his own likeness, meaning in sin? was Adam only a body-can a body beget without a soul? 
Du Moulin ag. Armin. p. 66. c. 10.  was a sinful 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 chief by the body, 
Magister hîc non approhatur.  nor a body can't sin not beget alone. If Adam were only a body, how got he a Child in his own likeness? Indeed Peter Lomb. l. 2. dist. 31. affirms, sin to be only from the body; but Peter Du Moulin, only or chief 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, etc.  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 original 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 persuade, 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 itself had engraven first upon it: one person of the sacred Trinity produced another; one Candle lights another, etc. but I forbear, 
Heb. 1.  because my Pareus calls it, bruta & pecuina opinio, and so Du Moulin. Otherwise, if any had questioned, how an immaterial being had or could have conveyance in a seminal way, let them show us the way how 'tis 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 let's not look for soul's Parentage on earth, We are of the offspring 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; spoke 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 parent & 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 yourself, 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 forbidden eating? surely what God spoke to Adam, he spoke to all mankind in him, as he spoke to him: well, he sinned in soul and body, and we in his loins: therefore his sin is imputed to our whole man; But mark one heresy of yours, worse than 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'll say, How were our souls 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'll 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 Adam's Posterity, just such, as he by obedience, or disobedience should make them capable of: so by virtue 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 Loins of his Father, Vti in arbore malum nondum enatum, says 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 sinful in his person, because conceived by the Holy Ghost: In Abraham, Christ in his servant-like condition may be said to have paid Tithes to Melchizedeck, the type of himself; though the learned Diodate thinks, Christ was not to be comprehended amongst the Tithe-payers (though in Abraham's Loins) 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 says, we were all in Adam's loins, as part of him, and so his sin was properly ours. The Syriac translation of Tremellius reads it, By the hand of one man sin entered— as if; 
Totus homo totum hominem naturaliter fundit: nec est peccatum materiae out partis hominis, sed totius suppositi: homo generans communicate, quoth materiale materialiter, quod immateriale causa litter. 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 etc. vide Calvin, nist. l. 2. c. 1.  A learned Protestant Divine tells us that the whole man begets the whole man naturally: the material part he begets materially; the immaterial causally, as being the cause of its subsistence in the body. And Gorrhanus expounding how we were in Adam, says, we were in Adam, as in the matter not only sinning by Adam's example (as the Pelagians affirm) but we were in him, as in the cause, because his sin was the cause of ours. Gorrhanus in Rom. 5. The Greck words may be read two ways, either, By one man's offence sin entered into the world, and Death by sin, because all sinned: so the Syriac translation: and Bulliger, expounding it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 sin I was conceived) falls to the ground, without any fur their Answer. For if David were conceived in sin, there must be soul as well as body: Now the soul wants its original righteousness, to guide and direct it, out of a just Judgement from God; which want to it, is sin besides the body's stains. So that what other Expositions you make on the Text, (which I shall not trouble the Reader with) are yours, not david's, and sit beside the saddle. How David's, or any one's soul and body meet and work in the † contagion of sin, 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 shall not die for the Father's sin (as that Chapter means) but Adam's Sons were not such: in him we all sinned, Rom. 5.12. As really as Levi paid Tithes in Abraham's Loins, Heb. 7, But 2ly, that Chapter in Ezek. speaks only of actual sins, not such as we have from Adam; therefore it proves nothing to purpose.  
You draw an Argument against children's being defiled, (and that therefore they need not Baptism, 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 ways, and Children to be looked upon under a twofold condition. 

1. The Kingdom 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 Kingdom of God came with power; till Christ owned, Churches gathered, Ordinances administered: Now Children of believing Parents, belong to this Kingdom, 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 children's natural condition and they are defiled, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praeparavit, says Beza, in Rom. 9.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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're 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 Eternal and Immanent act of God in Christ Jesus, in which he imputed their sins to Christ, and his righteousness to them, though the transient act were not perceived by them: Read Dr. Kendal against goodwin's 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, than 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 judgement of above a hundred famous Writers affirming it, 
Read Prov. 16. ver. 4.  but I'll 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. says, 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 likelihood, before he was born: for God's Decrees are positive and unchangeable; he calls the things that are not, as if they were, Rom. 4.17. He saw him condemned, before born; for God's 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, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (As) notes the likeness and coherency of the Texts.  the Elder should serve the Younger, before they were born; and St. Paul says, † As it was written, Jacob have I loved: To wit, beforeborn: And Esau have I hared; to wit, beforeborn.   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 foretell before born, a token of hatred? and jacob's privilege of Mastery over his Brother, foretell, beforeborn, and evident sign of love? I could proceed to enlarge myself on this subject, but I must study to be brief. You allege, Ezek. 33.11. that God desires not the death of sinners. Answ. I confess, 
Voluntas sigui non beneplacili.  God desires not the ruin 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 only 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 than 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, Judas 4. For God desires Justice to be done to the Wicked. 3. Were not these Elected, but Wicked, while in their sins, whose ruin God would not have? But 4. this expression shows Gods revealed Will, (if he spoke to Reprobates) to make them some way unexcusable; not his concealed, or decretal will: of which anon. But you press, 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 God's 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 patiented, etc. that God's long-suffering was to Us-ward (not the Wicked) ver. 9 Not willing that any; to wit, of us, the Elect should perish etc. 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 Potter's work was Adam, and we in him: Secondly, Adam's marring, and we in him: Or else it means, 1. God's work, in making them a people, Church, or State. 2ly, Their marring by disobedience, etc. But could aught be marred in God's 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 overruling 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 etc.) 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 Bosom of Love in God the Father? Was it not want of power made the Potter mar his Vessel? And doth God lack power 
† Read Esay 43.13. I will work, and who can hinder?  to save those who are lost? Can 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 Pharaoh, 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 Israel's marring in Captivity, being first marred with sinfulness, Examine Rom. 9 and Jer. 18. and they will show your mistake: For in Jer. the same Vessel is made; and being marred, is remade 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 murmur, ver. 19 saying, Why hast thou made us so? We were cast in Adam, and resisted not thy Will, till actual 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 God's 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, etc.) Thus your Argument is marred in your hand, against your Will, as the Vessel in Jeremy's Potter. I have said enough in answer 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; only 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 Lie: for Jud. 7. tells, that Sodom and Gomorrha are (suffering) the vengeance of Eternal Fire, that is, now in misery. 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, etc. stood) Read Mr. Fuller's Pisgah-sight of Palestine. So, the fire in which the Sodomites suffer now, 
Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 270.  is Hell. Judas (in all probability) took part of his Epistle, our of the second Epistle of Pet. 2.6. (Read Mr. Fran. Roberts, on Judas.) 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 Judas tells us of their now suffering; therefore the Jewels are by the Devil burning in Hell.  

Apriori, or aposteriori.  I could laugh, and tell you, that if Sodom's fire were Eternal, it must be Eternal as God is, and then some Creature coeternal with the Creator, or to last for ever, and then Hell-fire and it will be kin to each other.  
Now if the Devil actually suffers in Hell, the Sodom, as it is plain in Judas 5.6. 
The Devil suffering in Hell.  The Angles which kept not their first habitation, even as Sodom, suffering the vengeance, etc. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What plainer? Now if Devils in Hell, than Sodomites, (for Peter and Judas parallel them) than children, than they deserved damnation in Adam. That Children suffer, we believe, because all in Sodom suffered, in which were Women and Children (young and old, says 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 days; 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 Satan's being in Hell, may be thus answered: though the fullness of torment be not till hereafter, when Christ shall take full vengeance, as 2 Thes. 1.7, 8. & Judas 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, than they knew they should be in full misery, 'twas recreation to them, to do hurt to poor Creatures, Christ's 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. says, 
Matth. 17.3.  the Saints souls were under the Altar, Christ; therefore in bliss. Christ says, All are alive to God, Luke 20.38. therefore all Saints happy. But you say, the Devil 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: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Devils 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 God's hand, some by Assyrians, they by Babylonians, they by Persians, they by Grecians, etc. here on earth? then Hell is past, if the Text meant it. 2. High ones were punished, i. c. Emperors, 
Isay 24.21. opened and cleared.  Monarches and petty Princes under them, whose Thrones were, as it were on earth, in respect of them, whose Throne was among the Stars (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 than 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 temporals, 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) reigned 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 sign. 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, than 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 Adam's eternal ruin, and all his, upon his fall unevitably.  You further argue. That if Adam had decreed against him eternal Death, and all in his loins upon his disobedience, and that not inflicted on them, than 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 ruin 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, than God did somewhat about Christ and man's 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 Christ's coming into the world, than not Adam's eternal inevitable ruin, because these are contrary; but these two last were decreed, Adam's fall and Christ coming to redeem man. So that though Adam were invested with right to eternal life, and forfeited it for him and his, yet Christ was partly in that decree, to bring all about again for God's glory; and so no change in God; or plainer, God did not so inevitably decree Adam's ruin eternally, but that Christ was in that decree, to bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel.  
Now observe, God's outward will is not always, nay seldom, his decree: though he threatened Adam, 
Lomb. Lib. 1. & Distinc. 45. of God's will, or Petrus Aquila. in 46. of Scocus destinc.  he had not decreed inevitably his ruin. 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 threaten (as to Adam, Hezekiah, and Ninive) 2. Commands as to Pharaoh, to let Israel go, and to Abraham, to sacrisice his Son, etc. here God changed his sentence, not his decretal will, which is most one and unchangeable. Du. Moulin likes not this distinction, but Dr. Kendal maintains it; For plainer and for further satisfaction, read my Glimpse of Christian love, page 21.22. and come to the second Argument, wherein you say, that Adam's sin was only against the first Covenant, (which is true) and in your third Argument, that all his enjoyments were only earthly: now say you, the punishment of the first Covenant was only temporal death, etc. and the sin against the second Covenant, only, 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 temporal Death.  or damnation, Rom. 5.18. as is proved largely already, all being in his loins, as before is maintained: if Children sinned only against the first Covenant, (in your sense) 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, than they were lost, as if they had been in the second Covenant: if some go to Heaven without Christ, what means Acts 4. not 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 signify, heavenly to be enjoyed upon obedience? was not Paradise a Type of Heaven? What meant Tree of Life, but eternal life? Rev. 2.7. why was he not endued only with an earthly soul? or what needed an immortal soul for only 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 pass 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 immortal soul? was he not superior to the earthly condition of Beasts? had he not a posse non mori? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  what 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 Glimpse, how many Deaths, p. 29. But suppose it but an Hebrew expression; 
Wolleb. lib. 1. ●. 12.  yet under Death, all man's misery is contained as Death spiritual, 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. Entreat the Lord, that he remove from me this death. 3. Death temporal, the body shall return to dust, Eccles. 12.4. eternal 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 liar, and the Devil tell true, is to be rejected; but that Opinion which holds, that Adam should die more than a temporal death, is such; for Adam's Posterity are not in Hell, only die temporally, and Satan told them, ye shall not die, etc. but God said, ye shall surely die: therefore Adam was only threatened with temporal death.  
Answ. Your Minor is false; for though God threatened Adam with eternal Death, yet he lied not, in not inflicting it, because his threatening was to deter Adam from sinning, and not God's 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 ruin; but of this already. God's sentence was for Death, not his decree, except for Reprobates; but you that can excuse the Devil, and accuse God, according to this judgement: how did the Devil say true, do not men die temporally and eternally for first sin? By one man's offence judgement 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 sense in the Apostles arguing, Rom. 5.18. all were condemned to die temporally the day Adam sinned, but were replieved to increase the world: so all the Reprobates were condemned in Adam (fore ordained to condemnation in Judas) but judgement deferred for many Reasons, not remitted. Your sixth Argument is already answered, that though Children bring into the world such sins, as make them liable to the second death, yet they may belong to Heaven, as I have showed: the person of an Elect Vessel may be loved, sanctified in time— though the natural 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 virtue of Parent's 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 spiritual 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. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Jesus called a little Child? what think you of his placing him (which intimates the Child's youth and ignorance) from which Child Christ says, men must be converted as Children. Go 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 baptism.    

Of the Lawful Ministry.  
ANd thus much of your Treatise of Original 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 satisfy any ordinary man therein; and a word anon of it. However, I remember when Scaliger that proud Critic, had abused the noble English Nation, Dr. Heylin tells him, 
Description of Prit. p. 468.  (as I can tell you) A Fool's bolt is soon shot; and quotes Socrates' Resolution, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 Israel's 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'll say, Then the Spirit was given by Imposition.— Pray show me a Reason, why we may not use the Ceremony, and hope for a blessing? Is not the weakness of God stronger than man? 1 Cor. 1.25. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolishness of God wiser than men? You'll say, We are ordained without consent of People: I must tell you, that Titus (in all likelihood) did so. Paul left him in Crete, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 than what need had Paul to have left Titus there? Again, the word implies, that the power was in Titus: and so the same word is used, Act. 7.10. The King of Egypt did appoint Joseph (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same word) Governor of Egypt, where, I hope, the power was conceived to be in the King, not People: Which passage, Philo Judens renders by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 People's approbation, could it well be obtained. You'll 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 spoil the substance? But I deny that we are of Rome, only were in Rome, or came through it. And came not Christ from Adam through sinful Loins, and yet the true Christ? Did not Aaron's Priesthood successively come to our Saviour's 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'll prove we were Christians in England, and had Ministers before Rome's Apostasies many years.  
Our Histories make manifest, 
The British 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 Roman Church. Notum sit vobis, etc. Nos esse sub gubernation Episcopt Caerlegionis super Osca, etc. And before, Sir Hen. Spelman, out of the Annals of Gisburn citys, 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. David's, 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 Conqueror, 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 some 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 ancient Authors, that Joseph of Arimathea planted it here: but enough to prove, that our Original was not from Rome, though in aftertime 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 Minister's 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 applied to Ecclesiastical business, requires not the people's consent: Read Mr. Vines on 2 Pet. 2. 1. pag. 20 proving, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that the Apostles ordain Elders without the people's consenting, or giving in Suffrages, Act. 14.23. Read Leigh on the Word: Yet I am not against people's choice also, where to be had conveniently. Read the Diatribé, printed 1647. proving, that many of our godly Reformers had only inward Call, and People's Suffrages: now as Election makes a King more than his Coronation; so people's Consent, more than 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 personal 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.  

The manner of Zions Redemption discovered.  
NOw I come to examine your Sion's Redemption; 
How Zion redeemed.  in which you plead for the Jews return to their own Country. Brightman was of that Opinion, and that Euphrates therefore is to be miraculously dried up, Rev. 16. 
In Rev. 16.  that the Jews beyond Euphrates may not be hindered in their return: This Opinion Paraeus calls godly and probable, but not solid. Read my Exposition of that Chapter, how Euphrates shall be dried up: The Jews promise themselves an happy enjoyment of their Country. 
Rab. Men. Ben. Spes Israel  The learned Rabbi, in his Book dedicated to our longliv'd-Parliament, tells us, 
The Rabbi is his book, called, Israelis.  that the Ten Tribes live together beyond the Cordiller Hills, and the River Maragnon, differing in Religion from the Indians, in whose Country they are. Sed parvas spes habet, Troja, si tales habet. For the Readers sake, 
Chap. 9.15, 16, 17.  I shall enlarge myself a little on this pleasant subject. The ten Tribes are threatened never to be a people more, in Isaiah 7.8. Pray, what hope of their return? And Hosea tells us of the Ten Tribes, God will love them no more (as to return them) God will cast them away, and they shall be wanderers amongst the Nations. 
The Jews return to Judae disproved.  Yet I believe there is hope of their Call, because Rom. 11. and that passage of Tamars' Children prove in Gen. 38.28. Sarah might represent the Jew, with the scarlet Thread, or Sacrifices, who first made proffer to serve God, as firstborn, but drew back like a stiffnecked people; Pharez, in the mean time, steps forth, Behold the Gentiles call! but Zarah was born at last: 
Zach. 10.10.  the Jew then shall be a people belonging to God. Nay, I believe the dispersing the Ten Tribes will be a means to gain others to God upon their Call. Hence God is said to sow them among the people, (good seed shall not perish) and they shall remember me in far Countries.  
Now, though their return to Gilead, and to Lebanon be there, it must be spiritual: to wit, to the Church, or Spiritual Jerusalem, and that Spiritual Land of Promise. Read Annotat of Assembly on the place. 
Book Changed 35. pag. 5.  Hence, Mr. Fuller says of Israel converted; Any Mountain shall be their Oliver, River their Jordan, Field their Carmel, Forest their Lebanus, Fort their Zion, and City their Jerusalem. I am the rather induced to believe this, because Canaan was their peculiar Land, whiles they, God's peculiar people: now, the partion wall is broken down. And as for Judah's return to the Land of Canaan, the Scripture is flat against it; as in Zach. ●. 6. I will no more pity the Inhabitants of the Land, and out of their enemy's hands I will not deliver them. And Jeremy tells us, God will break this people, 
Chap. 19.11.  and this City, as a Potter's vessel, which cannot be made whole again. Ezekiel is yet plainer, Chap. 16.53, 55. When Sodom and Gomorrha shall be restored to their former estate, and Samaria to hers, then shall Judah's Captivity be restored. 
Rossaus, p. 375.  That will never be; jerusalem, says Hierom, in aternos collapsa est Cineres. Indeed, the Sceptre was to departed from judah when Shilo came. Their house is left desolate now, their Figtree cursed, and (wonder it was) their Land by the Romans was sold: Here was Digitus Dei, who sold no other Land but that, says Mede. But it may well be objected, That God promised them a return out of Captivity, (all his people, to wit) that he would have compassion on them, and remember them, Deut. 30.3. Leu. 26.44. Answ. Out of several calamities he did, and out of the Babylonish Captivity: But hithetto they had only stoned the Prophets, and abused his servants; but when once they had murdered his son, his mercies (in returning them) were at an end for evermore. Hence forward any Text (good Reader) that promises the Jews a return, either understand it, out of the Babylonish Captivity, or construe it in a Spiritual sense, That the Jews shall return to God, or out of darkness, to light, and out of the power of Satan to Christ, to enjoy the true jerusalem, and Celestial Land of Canaan. And thus, Friend Hammond, your Texts are answered; except that of Esay 60. which speaks chief of the glorious estate of the Church under Messiah, described by the multitude of proselytes, and those of chief note and place that should be joined to it; so that the Heathens should bring in their riches, and join in the service of Christ. Hence you perceive, that Prophecy must not be taken literally, but spiritually: thus understand, 
The lews not to enjoy their Temple.  her opened gates, v. 11. to admit proselytes and members; and by the City Jerusalem, the Church. Places which sound literally in the Prophets, must be spiritually expounded, and applied in the Gospel. Thus the Apostle expounds, Amos 9.11. in Act. 15.17. You proceed to prove, that Israel shall have their Temple rebuilt at their return, because Ezekiel saw a Temple, Chap. 41. v. 1. But Ezekiels Prophesy is spiritually to be looked on, 
Read Mr. Th. Fuller, l. 5. c. 1.  as appears by the miraculous Fruit which never fades, Chap. 47.12. And the strange waters in the beginning of that Chapter. Now as was the Waters and Fruit, so the Temple, Spiritual. The Temple was a Type, which is ended in Christ. The Saints are now the Temple, 1 Cor. 3. and jerusalem the Church, Gal. 4.  
I come to examine how the Jews shall be converted: You say, Not by a Gospel-Ministry; but you greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures. For,  
First, Rom. 1.16. confutes you, where the Apostle tells us, That the Gospel is the power of God to Salvation, to the Jew and Gentile.  
Secondly, There is no other Name under Heaven, 
The jews to be converted by the gospel.  by which men must be saved, then by the name of Jesus, Act. 4. Now die Name of Christ is conveyed to men in a gospel-way.  
Thirdly, the Jews shall (through our mercies) obtain mercy, Rom. 11.31. that is, through Christ and his Gospel, (for those are our infinite mercies) therefore, without doubt, the Jews are to be called by the Gospel, and not to wait in their Sacrifices, or Temple, for Christ.  
Now, should not these Jews be tolerated amongst Christians?  

1. Because elected, Rom. 11.28. and beloved.  
2. Because Christians own all to them, as having both Law and Gospel by their means, and we grow on their Root, Rom. 11.18.  
3. Because Christ left his glory (in part) for their sakes and he and his Disciples went after them.  
4. Because they begin to read Christian Authors. (Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel quotes August. de Doct. Christiana, cap. 28. quòd omnes sunt aequé diligendi, in his Book dedicated to our Lord Protector, pag. 23.  
5. They will not sacrifice but at jerusalem, as the same Rabbi testifies, p. 22.)  
6. And are no great Usurers of late, 
Toleration ●f Jews.  taking but 4 or 5 per cent. as he affirms, p. 20. But enough! You proceed to tell us, that the Witnesses in Rev. 11. are to dissuade the Jews from believing in Antichrist; and not so much to preach Christ to them: But you do but say it; they will never take the Pope for their Messiah; and the work of the Witnesses is to draw people from Antichristianism, which had overrun all; but the Jews were not infected with Popery: therefore needed not the Witnesses help to deliver them from him. I have general acquaintance with a dozen and half of Commentaries on Rev. 11. And all believe (as I remember) that the Witnesses work, was to reform the Church (signified by the Temple, Rev. 11.1, 2.) then overspread with Popery: The Rod, like a Reed, is the * Word. So here your second proof for a Jewish Temple is void, 
† Read my Exposition of Rev. Ch. 11.  because the Temple is not literally to be expounded, but spiritually. Other matters in your Argument, are answered above, where I proved, that by jerusalem, is meant the Church: So, by the Temple, may the Worship be understood; and by the Courts, the Priests who officiated there, (as Paraeus on the place affirms) Yet Piscator thinks by the outward Court, 
●n Rev. 11.  the ungodly multitude is meant; whose time of Reformation was scarce come.   
An easy Trope will give us leave to call the Court, the people, or to understand the people by the Court. Thus we say the Court of Chancery, and Sutton Church, though no people be there; though not the naked benches or stones, make Court or Church.  
I come to your third Argument, to prove a Temple, because Antichrist shall sit in it, 2 Thes. 2.4. But none but the ignorant Pastor (as he calls himself) of the Church at Biddenden, took that for a Jewish Temple: But for the Church over which Antiechrist reigned as Lord and King, too too long: of which anon. But suppose this a Jewish Temple, how doth the Apostle set forth Antichrists tyranny, by laying, he sat or set up his throne there: A poor honour! But he as God sits, in Templum Del, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  (as Augustine learnedly speaks) for a Temple, or, instead of Temple, Qracle, Priest and all. But Christ has destroyed him, partly, by the Word and Spirit, (that breath of his mouth) and shall after confound him, by the brightness of his coming to judgement: Till when, Antichrist will, in some measure, reign, and hinder your Saints 1000 years' glory. 
The Pope is Antichrist.  But you deny the Pope to be Antichrist: in troth he is beholding to you: but I believe him Antichrist, (and you a limb of him. But what makes you huddle up so many texts together, to prove the man of sins arising? pag. 101. I perceive you understand not, what is meant by Gog or Magog, like enough forerunners of Antichrist, as the little horn was a type of him, in Dan. 7. meaning that Tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes, (that sagacious or cunning, but blasphemous wretch). You quote Esay 14. 13. to be understood of Antichrist, which was plainly spoken of the King of Babylon, v. 4. And, 2 Thes. 2. you will have understood of Antichrist, not the Pope: Have you not been tutored by a Jesuit? But let us try your Reasons, why the Pope no Antichrist.  
First, because the Pope, or rather Romish Babylon, is ser forth by the name of a Woman: as Rev. 17. but Antichrist is called the Man of sin, 2 Thes. 2.3.  
Answ. Antichrist is set forth with a double form, Rev. 13. 4, 11. As Tyrano, and false Prophet; yet but one Beast, v. 18. So Antichrist, as Woman, or Whorish Church seducing; but as Man (viz the Series of Popes) tyrannising.  
Secondly, the Romish Babylon confesseth God; 
Qui scribit seservum servorum provat s●… tyrannum tyrannorum.  but Antichrist shall exalo himself above all Gods, 2 Thes. 2.4.  
Answ. He shall confess him in words, but deny in deeds: so does Romish Babylon, or rather Pope, exalting himself above Augels and Kings, who are called Gods.  
3. You say, That Romish Babylon shall be destroyed before the appearance of Christ, but Antichrist shall not. Answ. The Romish Church shall be diminished before Christ's appearance as Judge; but not quite destroyed. Partly, she is destroyed by the breath of Christ's mouth (his word and spirit) already, and the rest by the brightness of his coming, 2 Thes. 2.8. but you may find that in Rev. 17.17. and chap. 18.18. the City of Rome is to be destroyed by fire; but the Pope shall survive, and the Romish Church (though diminished), till last day, 2 Thes. 2.8. Rev. 19.20. plainly.  

Sancta Maria Regena calisalva nos.  I could show you many Arguments to prove the Pope Antichrist, as 1. Who is against the honour, Church, and truth of Christ, is Antichrist; such is the Pope, praying to Saints (which derogates from Christ) counting himself as head of the Church, remitting sins, bidding the Virgin Command her Son, etc.  
2. Who exalts himself above all that is called God, 
Though he 0204 0725 V call himself Servus serverum Dei.  is Antichrist; but so doth the Pope, as above Emperors, Kings, nay Angels, who are called Gods. The Lateran Council applauded the Pope, saying, Thou art all things, and above all things. And again, the same Council said to him, thou art another God on earth. Read Jewels Apology, page 447. or Aug. Civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 19 expounding in Templum; or, Annot. of Assemb. on 2 Thes. 2.4.  
But 3dly. Who sits in the Seat of Antichrist, is Antichrist; but so doth the Pope on seven hills of Rome, Rev. 17.9. where were seven Governments, and the Pope the eighth, trading for souls of men, Rev. 18. And in John's time ruling over Nations, (Rome to wit, was the now feat, of Antichrist,) what need further proof?— From your page 112. to 128. you almost trifle away Pen, Ink, and Paper: for my part I shall not fight with your shadow. Yet a word to what you say. You would prove, that upon the last return of the Jews to their Country, Antichrist, which you call Gog, out of Ezek. 38. shall destroy or spoil Israel, till Christ secure them. But. 

1. The Jews final return to their Country, is disproved already.  
2. Gog is not literally Antichrist (though an enemy to Christ's Church.)   By Gog, understand the people of Asia, so called from Gyges' the King; by Magog, the Scythians; and by both understand the Turk who came of them, and reigns over them. Nov, 
Who Gay and Magog.  though the Gogims did much spoil Israel under Antiochus, and were overthrown by the Macchabees (God wonderfully assisting) upon the Mountains of Israel, in the latter days (not the last) Ezek. 38.16.21: Yet we expect a further destruction of the enemies of God's Church, comprehended under Gog and Magog, Turk, etc. (Read Rev. 20.) which will hardly come to pass, till Christ come to judgement, Rev. 20.9. when Christ shall come with flames of fire to destroy his enemies. But Gog cannot be Antichrist, because of Unbelieving; for Antichrist must sit in the Temple, as owning God, etc. Now you would prove, that this Gog Antichrist, shall be destroyed by Christ, before the end; and quote Rev. 19.11. 
No wart with Gog on Israel's Mount.  to prove it; but that Text is meant of Christ's coming to judgement, as appears by vers. 15. the sword coming out of Christ's mouth, being his sentence to the wicked at the last day, when he shall slay them with, Go ye cursed, etc. Thus all wars (in the letter) on the Mountains of Israel are ended. 
P. 128.  And I come to examine Christ's personal reign in earth 1000 years, when Gog and all enemies shall be subdued to him, where a thousand to one, but I shall find you tardy. Your grand proof is, because Christ was to enjoy the Throne of David, Luke 1. which was not spiritual but temporal. But consider, Christ tells Pilate, that his Kingdom was not of the world, John 18.36. 
Christ's personal Reign disproved as in Earth.  in the sense that Caesar's was: so Christ must succeed David spiritually, because also, Of his Kingdom there must be no end, Luke 1.33. Now by Jacob and Israel there, the Saints are meant, the true Israel of God: thus he is called King of Saints, Rev. 15,— And to this purpose, other Texts of Scripture must be understood, where Christ, is called a King: that learned Sermon of Dr. Goodwin on Rev. 5.10. (we shall reign on earth) speaks louder, and more to purpose then all other Books on that subject: yet because Christ's Kingdom was spiritual before his ascension, I believe it will be so still, because the Angels told the Disciples so, Acts 1.11. This same Jesus shall so come in like manner, as you have seen him go into Heaven. So that Paraeus expounds the Saints raiguing in earth spiritually, as they shall be Kings and Priests, to wit, sacrificing sin, reigning over wicked, by the spirit in them; for the head Christ reigning, the members reign; but the Weapons of our warfare are not carnal. The Saints reign in earth may be these ways, first by their prayers, 
Saints Reign spiritual.  prevailing with God to bring judgements or blessings upon the earth: thus read Isay 45.11. Concerning the works of my hands, command ye me: how did Moses and Elias even govern the world by their prayers? to say nothing of the witnesses. (Rev. 11-2.) By being admitted into high privileges in Heaven, of which 2 Rev. 17. Dun. 4.17. holy ones with Christ, carrying on the Government of the world. What think you of Rev. 6.10. How long O Lord? But you'll say, Saints know not what's done below: (therefore can't govern, or reign on earth, whiles in Heaven;) for Isay 63.16. says, Jacob knows us not, etc.  
Answ. Of themselves, Saints above cannot tell what's done below, 
Saint's knowledge of things below by Angles.  because of their remoteness, and because without bodies;— but they have acquaintance of the affairs below, by means of Angels, who partly govern this world (under God) Heb. 2.5. Now Angels and Saints can make matters known to one another, r. Luke 15. of joy in Heaven over one penitent sinner: therefore Heaven (or Saints there) must know it. And in Rev. 18.20. upon Babylon's overthrow, Heaven, Prophets, and Apostles rejoice, therefore knew of its overthrow; but enough. The grand objection against the spiritual reign of Christ only, lies in Dan. 7.27. a Kingdom under the whole Heavens shall be given to Saints, and v. 18. and v. 14. and this after the Beasts body is given to be burned, ven. 11. But all this may be taken spiritually of Christ's Kingdom upon earth, ruling and reigning in his Church; and thus the Saints building and planting (of Churches, to wit) and eating (i. e. feeding in Ordinances) may be spiritual: in Isay 65.22. without wresting the Text; but let us briefly examine Dan. 7. The four Beasts are the four Kingdoms. The fourth, some take to be, not the Roman, but the Selucidan Kingdom of Syria, called a fourth, 
The same for substance with Alexander, but differing in ten horns, read Annor.  because not absolutely Monarchical at present (for Macedonia, Asia, and Egypt, were Kingdoms also in the hands of Alexander's succestors) as the former were, and more terrible to the Land of Judea and Saints, which the Beast even consumed, verse 23. The ten Horns were ten Kings in that Kingdom, 
Read Junius, Eng. Annot. Diodati on Dan. 7.  from Seleucus to Antiochus (the little Horn) who was the tenth (as Junius proves) and last, that reigned over Judaea, till Christ's time. Well, in sum this Beast was slain by the Parthians, and King Tygranes of Armenia; and Syria made a Roman Province by Pompey: here is his ruin; meant by his bodies burning by consuming War, vers. 11, than the Saints time came according to promise, v. 18.14.27. quickly was Christ born the spiritual King; but where's the temporal Kingdom? Or suppose, by four Beasts, the Roman Monarch were meant, and by ten Horns, the ten Kings (or many) in Rev. 17.12. (which arose out of the Roman Monatch) and suppose the Pope the little horn, typed by that in Dan 7. Well, the Beast (be it the remainder of the Roman Monarch in Turk, Pope, 
Read my Exposition Chap. 19 Revel.  etc.) and Kings of the earth (who adhered to him) are taken a live (as at last day) Rev. 19.19, 20. and cast into Hell fire (I believe): now after this, sure no Kingdom for Saints, but that above in glory. For though in Dan. 7. the apparition of God's judgement might not signify the day of judgement; but God's judgement on his then Churches enemies: yet in Revel. 19.19 20. all things being well considered, the last day is meant (after which no temporal Kingdom) for Antichrist and Beast shall (in some sort) continue to the last, as 2 Thes. 2.8. prove, and Rev. 19 20. Now whiles these reign, where's Saints temporal Kingdom?  
But it may be demanded, Why were the lives of the other Beasts prolonged, after their dominion was taken away, Dan. 7.12. if not, because Christ and Saints were temporally to reign over them? as ver. 13, 14.  
Answ. 'Tis already plain, that Christ took not on him a temporal Kingdom.  
2. The next Monarch prolonged the lives of the peoples (who once belonged to these beasts) to reign over them. Every Empire or Enemy, in their time, perished; but the people thereof continued in some low form or state, till brought under by the Romans. But Christ is not to temporally reign in earth: read John 14.2. I go to prepare a place for ye, (in heaven) that where I am, ye may be (not in earth). And 1 Thes. 4.16. We shall be caught up to Christ in the Air (when he comes to raise the Dead in Christ, who shall rise before the nest) and to we shall be ever with the Lord; to wit reigning in the heaven, not on earth. And Act. 3.21. Whom the heavens shall contain, till the time of the restitution of all things. Now, Heaven and Earth is to be restored (of which a word anon) but that will not be, till after Wickeds Resurrection, Rev. 20.12, 13. and Chap. 21.1, 2. compared. For if the Earth be restored before wicked's resurrection, shall it be digged up again, or he faced, to raise up wicked's bodies? Or must not their bodies be part of the glorified Earth? redime te captum.  
So Christ shall not come from heaven to reign before wickeds resurrection, which is against your tenet: but 1 Cor. 15. makes it plain, ver. 23, 24. That Christ comes to judgement at the end of all, then comes the end: therefore, no time of temporal reigning for Saints after his coming: only this Caveat I'll add, If Christ judge as man, than the day of the Lord may be as a 1000 years; all which time, the Saints shall judge the world with Christ: But what is this to a temporal reign? Besides, why should earth be preferred before heaven to reign in? And if those alive must eat and drink (as some exound, Esay 65. literally,) is not here E picurism? Sure the Kingdom of God consists not in these things, Rom. 14.17. You may oppose, Rev. 20. where Saints are said to reign a 1000 years: And 2 Pet. 3.13. we expect new Heavens, and new Earth, wherein dwells righteousness. Answ. 
† Paraeus in ev. 20. Read y Exposition, ev. 20.  Here is nothing will prove your design, * Paraeus has answered every Objection, and cleared any difficulty about the thousand years, and first resurrection: briefly, Satan was bound up a thousand years, as not to hinder the propagation of the Gospel (though he raised persecution against the Professors thereof). The thousand years of Satan's binding, in probability, began about the ruin of the Jewish Temple, Anno Dom. 73. (for while that Temple stood, the Jews much withstood the preaching of thee Gospl; in which thousand years, multitudes of people believed, but were persetuted to death: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  these John sees living and reigning with Christ (in glory) those thousand years in which Satan was bound up; their conversion is called the first resurrection, being to grace (many being bodily raised in Old and New Testamen before) answerable to Fall of Soul first into sin. Now this was the first resurrection or conversion of souls to grace in the thousand years. Remember, John saw (visionally) the souls (not body) in heaven with Christ, (not in earth) reigning after Death: Read my Exposition of that Chapter at large. To that of Peter I answer; the words may be read thus: We, in whom dwells righteousness expect a new heaven, and a new earth. But a word of the renovation of the world; and of this new heaven, etc. and concerning the new Jerusalem: Of which, George Hammond pag. 151. speaks strangely: For he would have it to be a material City; but not made by man but God. I cannot believe it for what City in the Letter can have twelve Foundations, as this has? v. 14. Or Angels Porters, to a material City? as v. 12. 
Of the new Jerusalem.  How can gates be made of pearl; or how one pearl big enough to make a whole gate? and such like improbabilities. Neither do I think this new Jerusalem to be that once possessed by the Jews, and now newly re-edified. Against which George Hammond uses many Arguments. But as Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Forbes agree, 
On Rev. 22.  it may be spiritually taken for the state of the Church after the Jews conversion, and after the whore and beast, with false Prophet, and other enemies, are destroyed temporally, not damned. 1. Because the most precious things in Nature are too abject (rather than too high) to express the dispensation of grace (now at the highest.) 2. God is said to have his Tabernacle with men ch. 21.3. (not mwn with God) and Jerusalem is said to come down out of heaven, intimating it here below. 3. That here is nothing here so magnifiquely spoken, which the Prophets have not almost in the same terms uttered of the estate of the Church here in grace. Of which, read the Authors themselves on that place. Indeed, I believe a choice time, when the Jews shall be converted, called (Rom. 11) Life from the Dead: yet since the day of judgement seems passed before this City be seen; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as Chap. 20.12. and 21.2. and Whore and Antichrist damned, Ch. 19 who were to last till Christ's coming, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  2 Thes. 2.8.1 may believe with Paraeus, That this City represents the state of the Church in glory, because actualled adorned, and sitted for Christ the husband, too high for a stare of grace: especially considering all tears (and therefore enemies, nay and sin the cause of tears) shall be wiped away: yet when the Son of man comes, shall he find faith in earth? 
Adorned for Husband, and not for Spouse.  Jerusalem, in the Vision, might seem to John to come down, not locally, but in respect of her Original, which is from heaven. But enough: If we take jerusalem spiritually, as in earth, then by new Heaven, and new Earth, a new face of the Universe may be meant; (for Scripture, by new Heaven, and new Earth, is wont, says Mr. Roberts, to express great changes in the world. 
Esay 65.17.66, 22. ) Now when Whore, false Prophet, and Dragon are destroyed, here is a new world or new dweling, for the new Church. The bringing in the Eastern Kingdoms to the Faith, and destruction of all enemies of the Church, may well be called, A new Heaven, & new Earth. But, 
Read Engl. Annot. Diodat. Key of the Bible, on Rev. 21  if by New Jerusalem, we understand the state of glory; then by New Heaven etc. we understand Heaven and Earth, literally by fire to be renewed, according to Peter, and according to Rom. 8.21, 22. (the hardest text in Paul's Epistles says D. Hackwel in Ap.) the whole Creature groans; etc. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I expect Sun and Moons restoring to more light, Esay 30.26. for reward of their unwearied labour, (though you will have Earth dark hereafter, page 22.) And I believe Sea may be restored, (though not with raging waves, etc.) to stand as a Monument of God's wisdom, mercy, and power: And I believe the Sons of God, in glory, may visit these. But to expect restoring of each Tree, Leaf and Grass; nay, or beasts (in what sense you please) for which you argue p. 154. is too carnal and beastly, if well examined; they are not capable of glory: but, in their time, shall be freed from bondage; the Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, shall have that glory they are capable of; but I must be brief. Read my Expol. of Rev. Chap. 21. for further satisfaction. Thus I have done, Friend Hammond, as to the substance of your Book: I intended not to answer every trivial Objection, or to open each Text, impertinently quoted by whole Centuries; nay, forced together like Sampsons' Foxes: I have civilly given them quarter (being violently forced to take up arms against the Truth) to return to their proper place in the book of God, to assert that cause God at first commanded them. I will not instance in any, to show your ignorance, or discredit your knowledge; only that last text of Esay 11. The Lion shall eat with the Ox, you produce unadvisedly to prove, the restoration of Beasts (if I understand you) which is understood of the most peaceable government of the Lord Jesus, in changing our savage natures, and making us submit freely to his yoke. 
Several passages in several pages of Geo: Hammond's Book; briefly, answered.  To all the rest of your Book I shall speak but in few words: And first, to that place in p. 149. That as Adam had his Earthly Paradise; so shall Christ have his heavenly upon Earth, which is the new Jerusalem: To which I shall agree, if you understand the (even) glorious condition of the Church here below upon the Call of the Jews, by the new Jerusalem: or that glorified condition of the Church above, (for Adam's Paradise was to represent the Celestial, in which the Apostle was, 2 Cor. 12.4.) but a temporal Paradise I deny, as well as Christ's temporal reign. And when, p. 154. you talk of the whole Creations re-enjoying the condition that it was in once in Adam's Innocency, you speak without book; for, Rom. 8.21, 22. cannot hold it. I ask you, shall every Beast be so restored? The world is not able to contain them, no more than the Trees can hold every branch or leaf, or the fields every former grass. But shall only those Beasts have this privilege, who are alive at the last day? Pray, why should these have such a privilege above their fellow-Creatures and Partners in bondage? The World (Heaven and Earth) shall be restored to their primitive glory, and better: But doth God take care of Oxen? 1 Cor. 9.9. but in page 159. you affirm, that Man and Beast must have a more quiet and peaceable time: for this is a time of persecution.  
Answ. Man shall hereafter; hardly, here below: For Christ, Mark 10.30. tells us, Saints have all here (or Grace Faith etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which is, † instar omnium) with Persecution but hereafter Eternal Life, here's little peace; though towards the end, the Sea, figuratively, shall be no more; that is, troubles, as formerly, according to them, who (by Jerusalem's coming down from Heaven) hold the Ghurches even glorious and peaceable condition, after her enemy's destruction.  
To what you say in page 141. about the Saints possessing the riches of their Enemies (as true heirs to the riches of the world) I say this is a pleasant, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but false doctrine.  
For though Christ restored only the Elect to Celestial privileges, yet he restored all to Temporal. Hence he gave Mount Seir to Esau, as really as Canaan to Israel. And Luk: 16.25. the Glutton is said to receive his good things. And indeed why should they be barred from Temporals, who have no share in Eternals? p. 168. You say that Nationall Congregations are not called the Church of Christ; nor her Ministers, Christ's Ministers; and therefore you expect another kind of Preaching, to convert the Nations towards the end of the world.  
National Ministers, are called the Angels of the waters, as those waters are expounded, 
Read my Expos. of Rev. 16.  Rev. 16.5. and and 17.15. O profound Doctor!  
But did not Christ bid his Disciples, 
† 5. & 17.15. about Angels of waters.  discipulize all Nations, Matth, last. May there then not be a National Church, and National Ministers in a good sense? Pray, how came so many Nations converted, and by whom, if not by Nationall Ministers; Such Teachers as you, were not then in being; and 'tis well, if ye are not now born too soon. And thus, Friend Hammond, I take my leave of you, and your Book; which, like the Apples near the Asphaltite-Lake, 
Solnius ca 48.  seem choice and pleasant: but being handled, moulder to dust, or nothing.  
Febr. 6.1655.   
FINIS.