ANIMADVERSIONS upon a sheet of Mr baxter's ENTITLED An APPEAL to the LIGHT, Printed 1674.  
For the farther Caution of his Credulous Readers.  Mat. 10.26. 
There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed.  
OXFORD, Printed by H. HALL., 1675.   

I Do not remember I ever saw a Discourse more at variance with its Inscription, and so much its Confutation, as This. Let any indifferent Reader Judge what Light there is in it: not one Text of Scripture (the best and safest Light) little else but dark general and roving Reflections throughout, as we shall presently see.  
It seems He was accused for some Sermon He had Preached, and there we have his Lightsome vindication. He tells us first that after He had opened (no less then) 50. blessings or Privileges of Believers, He named 20 counterfeit Privileges asserted by the Libertines, called Antinomians, Corrupters of the Doctrine of Jesus. Now may we know who these Libertines, Antinomians, etc. be? For, if He mean only such as are usually distinguished by those infamous Names, where have They of late appeared? with what strength and numbers to require so brisk an alarm, as if they were still at our Gates, and ready to climb our walls? To what purpose is He in such haste, to abase his Pen by setting it to scratch in those Dunghills, where such names have lain buried and putrifying lo long? Sure there must be something in it of more Mystery then This. Let us try if we can find it out.  
First, it were worth our knowing, what Monsters they are who say (not who mean or spoke by consequence, but say downright) that Christ was not only an Ignorant, Infidel, 
Pag. 1.  Atheist, a Blasphemer, a murderer, an Adulterer, a Liar (I tremble to repeat the words) but the greatest Sinner in the world, as having the Sins of all the world or Elect made in THEMSELVES His VERY SINS: and this with great moderation He calls ill Language and no more. But 'twere fit we should know whose Language it is (Antinomians or others) that we may have them more in Execration, otherwise let any Body Judge at whose door all this Blasphemy must be laid, the very repetition of it in such odious particularities without their Author sounding little better than a Libel against that Holy ONE The son of God. we know very well who (besides Libertines, Antinomians, etc.) affirm truly that all the Sins of Believers are Christ's by Imputation, and that God caused to meet upon Him the Iniquities of us All, but not in the vile sense Mr B seems willing to have his Reader believe; we know none such, and if we did, should call it somewhat more than ill Language. Nor will it help him a jot to allege that such Blasphemies flow from His Libertines Principles, unless some Body would own Them: He is not to take up all the filth He can find in the channel, for any Consequence of His making, to be thrown against our blessed Lord; this is not Reverence. And 'tis as far from LIGHT; for which of his Ordinary Credulous Readers will understand Him otherwise, but that indeed there is a Generation in the world who tremble not to utter such names and characters of Christ, as He out of his Abundance has marshaled together for Them? and that His Libertine and Antinomian are but his stalking-Horses, not his Game, will be more and more discovered; and 'tis but fit; 'tis high time it should.  
Next, though He allows Christ to be a Mediator, yet He denies Him to be a FULL REPRESENTER of our Persons: 
Ibid.  and why so? Hear Himself speak (and they are no ordinary words) that is, saith He, His Person and the Person of each sinner were not the same indeed But first they were the same indeed, 
Ibid.  Legally and sensu forensi, though not naturally, But his plain meaning is (if his words have any sense at all) Christ and a Believer are not one and the same Individual natural Person, therefore He cannot be a FULL Representer. But I would fain know how He should be a Representer at all, if He were not another Person. Must He represent Himself be Servant, Agent, Delegate to Himself, (as He varies the Expression?) what ever Divinity this be, 'tis certainly new Law, and new Common sense too. For to Represent has ever been taken in the Judgement of Mankind as well as of the Law, Locum alterius. & numerum obtinere, to stand in another's stead, and not to be that other Person. But this is the effect of Hast, and wand'ring too far from Home. Mean while He very well knows (though his poor Ignorant Reader must not (that Christ's full Representation has other And much Greater Assertors than Libertines and Antinomians, who are no Corrupters of the Gospel of Jesus, but have done it far better Service than Himself, and no disparagement to Him.  
Again, when He would persuade us, p. 4. that He has only opened a weighty part of Christ's Gospel, which Babes should understand, and has only sought to keep us from such Corruptions as look too like another Gospel, and if prevalently practised would be men's utter Ruin, 'tis plain I think to any considering Man, that His eye is chief upon his Justification by works and the Points depending. This is one at least of his weighty Parts of Christ's Gospel, to deny which in the prevalent practice would be men's utter Ruin. And are none but Antinomians and Libertines concerned in This? what an odd thing is it for a Man when He winks to fancy no Body sees Him! But to be short, and to let all the world see I do Him no injury, may we believe Himself? then Hear Him in his Aphorisms (till his Retractations appear) Thes. 20. p. 111. To affirm, saith He, that our Evangelical or new Covenant Righteousness is in Christ and not in ourselves, or performed by Christ, and not by ourselves is such a MONSTROUS piece of ANTINOMIAN Doctrine, &. But that All our Justifying new Covenant Righteousness is extra Nos, in Christ not in ourselves, performed by Christ, not by ourselves, is the general Affirmation of the Reformed World, its Churches, and Doctors: Therefore These are amongst Mr baxter's Libertines, and Monstrous Antinomians, Corrupting the Gospel of Jesus. The like in a private Letter to his Friend (Mr Ant. Burgess I suppose) some two or three years after. I have not the Book by me, but this He knows to be the sense of his words, that if we grant not his Principles in the Doctrine of Justification, it would be no hard matter to maintain all the dotages of the Antinomians, or to that effect. So now at last I think we have brought Him to the LIGHT indeed. His Libertines, Antinomians, etc. are whosoever assert against Him the Justification of a Sinner by Faith, without works, such as the Church of England with the rest of the Reformed Churches. These must be driven by Him with the Herd of Libertines as Beasts to the Slaughter. Let any sober man Judge if I wrong Him in the least, nay I durst almost (did not the Thing seen too shameful to be confessed) appeal unto Himself. However if I am mistaken, I shall be hearty glad to know it; but then to convince me, He must bring some better Light than shines in His Appeal. Pag. 3. He has discovered a new and wonderful kind of Justification; we must be Justified, says He, by our Faith against the charge of Infidelity, and by our Repentance against the charge of Impaenitency, by our Love, Holiness and Sincerity against the charge if Final unholiness, rebellion and being Hypocrites. Is not this a pretty fort of Justification?  
1. Unknown to S. Paul, who alone of all the Inspired writers has ex professo and so largely tread of this Doctrine. He tells us of no Justification but by Faith without works, and from Mr Baxter we have a Particular-Justification for every particular Grace than can be named (for we must not suppose Him to exclude any, His reason being the same for all) The Apostle therefore by this Rare Divinity, might have said Being Justified by Patience, Chastity, Temperance, Frugality, etc. as well as being Justified by FAITH; nay, He ought to have said so, if He would be Faithful to his Trust, and to the Souls of men.  
2. This Justification gives no more to Faith then to any other Consequent Grace; point blank contrary to S. Paul, and to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, particularly that of the Church of England, as I have elsewhere prov'e as plain as words can do it.  
3. If we are Justified by Faith only from Infidelity, and from every other Sin respectively by its opposite Grace and virtue, how shall we understand Him who is THE TRUTH when He tells us so often to this effect, He that BELIEVETH shall be Saved▪ and what means S. Paul to assure us that being Justified by Fatih▪ we have peace with God? For if Faith Justify us only against the charge of Infidelity, and every other Grace be required to Justify us against its opposite Sin, than it cannot be true▪ at lest universally as the words are intended) that He who believeth shall be saved, and have peace with God, no more than that a Felon shall be acquitted at the Assizes and freed from fear, who is found not guilty of one Indictment, and has twenty more to plead to. We are sent to no garment to cover our Iniquities from the Eye of Divine Justice but the Robe of Christ's Righteousness put on by Faith alone, a Robe without seam or patch; no Linsy-wolsie stuff admitted there.  
But the Defence He makes for Himself against a City- Report is very considerable, and as clear as midnight. 
Pag. 5.  He tells us how it was reported; that He should saey the Difference between us and Papists was but in words. I hope He would not do so; but what says He to it, for now it concerns Him to speak? Why truly as to the Business against his Libertines, Antinomians, S. Paul, and the Reformed Churches in the point of Justification, wherein His Appeal seems chief if not solely concerned, I can find nothing but a general Compliment to his Reporters, an Information how dear He has bought his knowledge, a Prophecy that He may shortly Die, with an Information of Preferments offered. This in effect is All to the Defence He makes to a Charge of that moment. Let every one be satisfied by his own eyes.  
Only He complains that some Distinctions and Instances of His were left out in the Report. Now observe how He Courts the LIGHT, to which He appeals. Let any man read the beginning of his 4th Section, where indeed He distinguishes between Popish Points, some of mere Interest, and some arising from the Difficulty of the matter and the weakness of human understanding: of the former He gives us also some Instances, as the Papal power, Indulgences, Purgatory, etc. Of the latter not one that is either usually or properly called Popish, but such as are canvased by the Remonstrants and their Antagonists, as well as the Jesuits; and so smooths off the business, and All is well. But not a word all this while of his Libertine- Points, Justification by Faith, etc. Not the least direction where we shall bestow these, whether amongst the Interest or the Difficulty-matters. No, no; There is a Time for All Things. This is Mr Baxters APPEAL to the LIGHT. And whereas He concludes with this bold Persuasion that few Ministers of Christ in England will prove so weak as to propagate what He condemns, and calls Errors, 'tis an immodest Bravado, highly injurious to the Virtues and Learning of the MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, as if They were generally in such a Readiness to forsake the Banner of their own Church, with All Her Renowned Captains, to fight under the Colours of a single Mr BAXTER.  
FINIS.   

Courteous Reader,  
By some unfortunate mistake in my Absence, my Answer to Mr baxter's Quotations for his new Original Sin, have wholly escaped the Press. It should have entered pag. 20. after lin. 14. which therefore I am necessitated to piece here at the end, and refer all to your favourable Construction.  
From pag. 12, to. 21. I find you very busy in smoothing your way (where none can easily stumble) to prove some Interest of children in their wicked Progenitors Sins: a thing never questioned by me, nor by any man else (I think) who owns the Authority of the second Commandment; so that I am not the man you combat (though your Credulous Readers must upon your word believe the contrary) All's but the shadow of your Fancy, and the Itch of your Pen to fall upon me. I charge you with a new Secondary Original Sin, whose pedigree is not from Adam: I engage not a syllable farther.  
And now let us advance to your Proofs, and observe the issue. Tertullian leads your Van; but neither He, nor any of the rest, strike one stroke in your Cause. 
Pag. 22.  I cannot in Reason expect that He should so much as use the word Original, when applied to Sin: for (If I mistake not) it came not in on that account till about Austin's time, in his famous wars with the Pelagian. However, if we can find the Thing, this Secundary Original Sin, all's well enough, I am for no mere Logomachies. All that can be forced from that Quotation, must lie in the single clause of [Quanquam si Evangelium veritatis accipias, etc.] which in English sounds thus; Although if you own the Truth of the Gospel, you will find to whom appertains the sentence of visiting the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the children, namely to Them who were to bring this Doom upon themselves; His blood be upon us, and upon our children.  
Now This is very far from curing any Admiration of mine (as you seem to promise me) save that of giving yourself the Trouble to quote Him so little to the purpose. 
Pag. 21.  For He proves nothing in contest between Us; no more than This, that God upon that execrable Imprecation most justly required the Sins of the Bloody Parents at the Hands also of their children, who have generally approved that wickedness unto this day. You will have a knotty piece of work to hue out another Original Sin from any such Testimonies as these. 
Pag. 23.  Next comes the Martyr Cyprian, who discoursing the mischief which children are subject to from ill education, and especially from the bad Example of their Parents, aggravates the matter in a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia, where He brings in the poor children with this sad complaint, we have found our Parents our Murderers; They have denied for Us the Church our Mother, and God our Father, etc. He speaks there of the Lapsi, who out of Fear offered unto Idols, and by their Example taught their Children to do the like, and so were instrumental to their Gild and calamity. It must be some Delian Diver can fetch out your new Original Sin from hence; for the old and only one came in at another door than that of Pelagian Example; and besides we should make as many Original Sins, yea as many Fathers, as we have prevailing Examples in the world, which I know you will not grant.  
Your whole Quotation out of Leo unto the bottom of p. 24. is the same verbatim with S. Augustine's, 
Pag. 23, 24.  where you quote His Enchiridion. But however that happened (both living in the same Century) 'tis not bar to Him as another witness, if He have any Evidence for You. The greatest force of that Consort-Testimony lies I think in the close, where it speaks thus, quia & in illo uno quod in ownes Homines pertransivit, etc. that is, because in that ONE Sin which passed upon All men, (and which was so great, that it changed the nature of man into a necessity of Dying) there are many Sins to be found, with other Sins of Parents, which though they cannot alter Nature, yet involve and bind the children in the Gild, unless the Free grace mercy of God relieve them. Those Holy Fathers are there interpreting that passage Psal. 51.4. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth. Which they think fit to render with the Vulgar, In iniquitatibus, in peccatis, and thence infer that David has respect unto some other Sins wherein Children may be involved besides that of the first and common Father.  
But besides that They suggest an Answer to the Inference, when they tell us of many Sins in that ONE Original; it appears they either had not consulted, or were not skilled in the Hebrew (which S. Austin somewhere confesses of Himself, nor was the want of that convenience any way scandalous in that Age, though Jeroms industry had rescued Him from it) For in the Original, all runs in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that nothing can be concluded thence, But take what those Pious Fathers say De bene esse, and as we find it, they will do you no service, seeing all their Evidence amounts to no more than This generally Confessed Truth, that God if He pleases may reckon with wicked children for their wicked Parents (as well as their own Personal) Sins. This will not rise up to a new Original Sin, which those venerable Doctors sufficiently distinguish from the Sins of nearer Progenitors, when of these they tell you, non possunt mutare naturam, i. e. they can work no change upon Nature, as the true and only Original Sin has done to such a sad degree. And whereas you tax Bellarmine's accommodation for a shift and a mere violence, when He interprets them to mean of the punishment, and not of the fault, 
Pag. 27.  upon this ground that there can be no punishment without a Fault, I wish you had considered it better. For allowing your Proposition in Se., that Punishment supposes a fault, it follows not that the contagion of the Parents Personal Faults are derived unto their children, seeing they have Sin enough of their own for which at any time they are responsible to the Sovereign Justice of God. And when that Justice is pleased to visit the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children, 'tis indeed the wicked Father's deserved punishment, but not their Posterities (eatenus, and upon that account) save only when they tread in the same forbidden Paths Themselves, and then every one will pronounce them inexcusable.  
After Leo comes Gregory the Great, who indeed seems at first view to favour you more than any of the Rest, 
Pag. 25.  especially in that one clause, dum pro culpa parentis Ex originali Peccato anima polluitur Prolis, i. e. for the fault of the Parent the Soul of his Child is polluted by Original Sin. But 1. here is no mention of any Original Sin but one, no Secondary Originals.  
2. He says not, the soul of the child is polluted by any personal actual in of the Parent, but ex Originali peccato, from Original Sin, from that one (in the singular number) we All derive from Adam: I can make no more of it, and that's nothing to your purpose; for ex culpâ Parentis is there interpreted to be Original Sin, of which every Father as well as Adam is guilty, and so derives His own Original Sin as well as Adam's to his Children; Here is nothing of any personal actual Sin to be rationally inferred, as you would have it.  
For S. Austin (whom you place after Gregory; 
Pag. 25.  though almost 200 years before Him) you told me in another place I knew not He was of your Judgement. No more I do to this day: He has nothing of your new Original Sin; of any more Originals in specie then one. Only He moves a quaestion, whether Children be not guilty of all their progenitors both Actual and Individual Original Sins transmitted successively from Adam: and in the upshot: leaves it undetermined, with a non immeritò disceptari potest, (it may justly be disputed) & temere affirmare non audeo (I dare not, says He, affirm any thing) Call you this his Judgement for you, where He pronounces nothing, and tells you He dares not define? A pregnant evidence indeed, that speaks not one positive syllable in your Cause! But this is to be in Hast.  
You tell us you would trouble yourself and the Reader with more of the Ancients words, if you thought it worth the Cost. 
Pag. 27.  But truly I think you have given sufficient trouble to both already, and aught upon that account to pay both Costs and Damages to your Reader.  
Now for your Gul. Parisiensis, 
Pag. 27.  whom Trithemius I grant adorns with the Title of Eruditus in Scriptaris, a man well versed in the Scriptures (let every one believe of that as much aa He pleases) what shall we say to Him, who tells us in one chapter that Original Sin is a Pest, & Scaturigo vitiorum, 
De vit. & Pecc. c. 6.  & Seminarium, the source and seminary of all vices; and in the very next denies it to be either culpa, or aliquid culpabile i. e. to be a fault, or to have any thing faulty in it? an absurdity, which Bellarmine Himselse has sufficiently refuted, De statu Pecc. L. 4. c. 3. 'tis plain however from the front of his 5. ch. ibid. that his concern there is only in the Cause of Original Sin, and how it is transmitted, where He appeals to Galen and his Disciples, and determines it to be conveyed by a Seminal infection, with which neither you nor I have any thing to do, as to our present particular contest. For let it be conveyed this way or the t'other, I am not now concerned, 'tis still Original Sin, and still but one, and so this Quotation is of no weight at all. Let the soul of man if you please be ex traduce, by generation as well as his Body (for which you so earnestly contend) it will never contribute any thing to your new Original Sin, except you can show us some either habitual or Actual Vices, which are not rooted in the OLD; and when you have done that, we will add it to the wonders of the world. Your own Parisiensis with his Scaturigo & seminarium, will never allow of This.  
But now we come out of the thick darkness of Parisiensis his Age into the light of the Reformed writers. Of whom good P. Martyr makes the Foreman of the Jury. And what says that worthy Person? why, 
Pag. 28.  the utmost I can find is this, that Sin pollutes both Soul and Body, and that some infection of the Soul may be derived from the seminal contagion of the Body; whereupon He advises the Parents to a Holy life, ne & animos suos & corpora polluant etc. lest they pollute both their Souls and Bodies, and consequently infect both in their children; which at the highest He never understood but of bad seminal Dispositions which every one knows can necessarily effect nothing, and so He tells you a little after, notandum hee esse contingens, non necessarium. But good Sr you might have minded that in your very Quotation, He denies all Sins of nearer Progenitors to be of the same kind and nature with Original Sin, and proves it too, and consequently is point blank against you; 
Pag. 29, 30.  which if you heeded no better, looks like an Oversight, and if you knew it, you deal not fairly with your English Reader, by hiding it from Him.  
You injure Walaus (and so abuse your Reader) when you make Him reprove Corvinus, 
Pag. 31.  without taking notice of any of his explanations, for asserting with the Pelagians that the Imputation of Adam's Sin and that of our nearer Progenitors is alîus planè rationis, of no kindred or likeness at all. Whence you would infer the parity or resemblance (at least) of your new Original Sin with the Old one, as if the difference were little or none. But pray Sir tell me, did you transscribe from others, or read it yourself in Walaus, what you quote out of his 9 chapped. p. 263, 264? Did you read both those Pages (not to mention the 268th)? If you did not, we have no cause to commend your diligence; if you did, we wish better proofs of your sincerity. For there He interprets his meaning (of no alliance with yours) in as plain words as a Scholar would desire. Corvinus denies the Imputation of Adam's Sin to be true and Real and asserts it to be only dispensative (as He tells you there) to make way for the Covenant of Grace, 
Wal. p. 264.  as if God were not angry in earnest with mankind for that Original Sin etc. but grants the Imputation of nearer Progenitors Sins to be indeed true and proper. Waleus blames Him justly for the former, in making no Body knows what of the Imputation of Adam's Sin (which is no part of our present controversy) so that in effect He speaks in all your Quotation no more than This, that the Sin of Adam was really and properly imputed to his Posterity, not only by Corvinus his imaginary Dispensation. Whereas you no doubt would have your Reader believe, that Walaus holds the Imputation of Adam's Sin and our nearer Parents to be in the main ejusdem rationis, of the same kind and Genius, which as to the Reality of Imputation we grant they are, but not as to any thing else you aim at: so that I suppose you have enough of your Walaeus.  
Neither does Vrsin speak a word for you, but in the close of that Quotation, 
Pag. 31.  against you (so far as I have any thing to do with you) He tells us indeed that non foret absurdum etc. There would be no absurdity, if God for the multiplied Sins of Progenitors should make the burden of Them heavier upon their children, and that's All; and who ever quaestiond this? no more is to be fished out of Mr Gatakers words, nothing to a new Original Sin.  
Nay me thinks you have something like a forced offer to a Recantation, p. 33. where telling us of your abundance of Protestant Writers on your side, and generally all the Expositors on the second Commandment, all I can find you would make of them is (in your own words) that Temporal Judgements and some spiritual are oft inflicted by God on children for their Father's Sins. And have you not now brought all to a doughty conclusion, in which you have none to oppose you? may not you sit down and plume yourself over your incomparable performance, and the rout you have given me?  
But however all this shall not hinder me from an Act of Charity to you. For seeing you seem not at all to understand your own Quaestion, nor to know well how to set about your work, give me leave (though unworthy) to hint you a few directions how to manage this unwieldy business you have undertaken. You may use or reject them as you please, 'tis at worst but a little good Counsel lost.  
Sir, if you are for a new Secondary Original Sin, I conceive (with your pardon) you have these three great works to do.  
1. To prove (what you have asserted) that this Novel Original Sin is not derived from our Original Father, no line of Communication between them; a Sin besides that which is derived from Adam, as you plainly and positively affirm. For if indeed it derive in a direct Line from the first Transgression, and have its whole Root fastened there, to talk of a new Secondary Original Sin, is not in my Judgement the best sense that may be spoken.  
2. To make good against Austin (
* Pag. 25.  in your own Quotation) that your new Original does mutare naturam, change the Nature of Man, as the Old one does to our Cost and sorrow.  
3. You have also to prove against Peter Martyr (and in the words you have 
* Pag. 30.  cited too) that the derivation of Progenitors Sins (be what they will) to their children is constant and necessary, not uncertain, or Contingent. When you have proved the first, and baffled your own witnesses in the other two, I care not if I promise you to be your Proselyte: but till then I much fear that all you can say will be but Trifling and Impertinence.  
The words that should have followed are these, p. 20. I have now done with that part of your Preface, etc.