VINDICIAE FUNDAMENTI: Or a threefold defence of the DOCTRINE OF Original Sin: Together with some other fundamentals of Salvation  
The first against the exceptions of Mr. Robert Everard, in his book entitled, The Creation and the Fall of man.  
The second against the Examiner's of the late Assemblies Confession of Faith.  
The third against the Allegations of Dr. Jeremy Taylor, in his Unum Necessarium, and two lesser Treatises of his.  
By NATHANIEL STEPHEN'S Minister of Fenny-Drayton in Leicestershire.  
LONDON, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Edmund Paxton in Paul's Chain, right over against the Castle-Tavern, near Doctor's Commons. 1658.   

THE PREFACE TO THE Reader, Showing the Reasons of publishing the present Treatise in these times.  
ALthough we are fallen into an age, where books of all sorts do abound; yet in two cases (as long as the Lord hath a Church upon the earth,) there will be still need of writing more.  
The first, when many divine mysteries do remain still enclosed, and sealed up in the Scriptures, no man will doubt (upon such a supposal) but it is the duty of those that read (according to ability) to bring the truth to light. I did in order to this, publish a Tract concerning the Beast, his name, mark, and the number of his name, etc. Here if any will say, shall we be wiser than our forefathers, to endeavour the discovery of that, which they could never find out? The answer is clear, truth is the Daughter of Time: A Pigmy upon a Giant's shoulder, may see farther than the Giant himself: Even so we standing upon the shoulders, and enjoying the labours of those that have gone before, may see as fare as they did, and by wading into further depths, may go further than they. Upon this account it doth more peculiarly belong to us, to continue the 〈◊〉 where they left it, to add to the stock of knowledge, to be clear, where 〈◊〉 were confused, to turn into the way, where they went 〈◊〉, and to bring those things to light that have been, either totally, or in part obscured from them. Some are of the judgement that we are come to the very Zenith, and top of all kind of learning, and that we know already, all that we need know. But an hundred, and a thousand ensamples, may be showed to the contrary: We are dark in many of those things that are reserved for the industry and diligence of the latter times. If men would convert the course of their studies this way; as they would make a better return of their labours, so they would be less prejudicial to the writings of former times: At least all must acknowledge that there will be just occasion of printing 〈◊〉 books, as long as new matter remains to be published to the world.  
A second case of new writing, is; when the plain, fundamenal, & common truths of God, are made dark by the new fangled opinious, and brangling queres of each age; In such a case a necessity doth lie upon us; and woe is unto us, if we do not plead for the truth, when it is notably and eminently endangered by others. In the present case I have not to do so much with that which is dark, and abstruse in its own nature; but with that which is made so, by the devises and subtleties of men. The doctrine of original sin, and the natural servitude of the will (at least to any spiritual good) is plainly enough set forth in the Scriptures, yet there are more than too many in these times, who endeavour with all their might, to draw a cloud over this clearness. I cannot see but as a Minister is to preach, and to live according to the truth; so it is his office and duty also to clear the same truth, from the errors, and entanglements of his own age. As evil manners occasion good Laws, so evil opinions, and evil interpretations of Scripture, (specially) where gainsaying spirits do endeavour to puddle the stream) should make us more skilful in the mystery of salvation. Whatsoever the reason is, many of the friends and followers of the separation with us, do not rest satisfied with the denial of Infant Baptism, but they proceed also to deny all infants to be born in original sin: The confession of the faith of the thirty separate Congregations, hath not (as fare as I can perceive) any one word of the sin of the nature: Some do more apparently deny the thing, and others are more close in what they hold. But Master Everard in his Book entitled, the Creation and the fall of man, contains the substance of all their arguments. Which Tract of his, seeing it is spread fare and near, to the deceiving of many poor souls, and to the troubling of others. I have thought it necessary to examine all the material passages, and to detect the subtleties and fallacies thereof. The chief points he doth insist on, are these; whether had Adam the Spirit, or was he a spiritual man before his fall? Secondly, how fare do obedient actions proceed from the operation of the Spirit: and how fare are they a man's own act? Thirdly, he treats concerning the contrariety of the two wills, the secret, and the revealed will of God. Lastly, he cometh to the main point, to assert the innocency and the purity of the natural birth. And for this he seems to himself, and others of that way to have some colourable reassons.  
When I had done with him, there came to my hand the Examen of the late Assemblies Confession of Faith: I am uncertain whether one, or more are the Authors: Some circumstances do not obscurely insinuate it to be the act of more than one man, and therefore in the ensuing Discourse, I do speak of them in the plural number; Because in the points of free will and original sin, they do concord with Master Everard, and the Antipedobaptists of our Vicinity. I have taken them into the Company to which they do belong.  
Now this last year (considering the State of our Affairs) when certain friends of mine, Ministers as well as others, did desire me to publish what I had written: At the same time did Doctor Jeremy Taylor set forth his Vnum Necessarium. In that Book of his Chap. six, as also in two other small Treatises, the answer to the Bishop's letter, and The Further Explication, doth the Author fall upon our differences: alleging the same things, in effect, which our Antagonists for certain years past, have alleged against us. Only this difference is to be made, he doth ascribe much to the Testimonies of the Fathers, and other Ancient Authors; They do slight all such kinds of authority: He doth own (for aught as I could ever hear) the Baptism of infants: They more securely to deny infant Baptism, do seem also, upon the same reason, to deny all Infants to be borne in original sin. His Writings are like to have a free passage in all the parts of the Land: Theirs for aught as I can hear, are received more chief in their own society. His Writings, considering the greatness of his learning, the Elegancy of his stile, and the favour he bears to the Episcopal cause, are like to pass with those that are Friends of that way: They (whatsoever their interests) their Principles do not go in that stream. He in many cases, is too much for that which is old: and they contrarily, are too much for that which is new: What reasons did first move him to enterprise the business, he himself doth relate, in his own words. These things (saith he) have I chose to say and publish, because I find that the usual Doctrines, about original sin, are not only false, and presumed, without any competent proof, but because as they are commonly believed, they are no friends to Piety, but Patrons to idleness, and dishonourable to the reputation of God's goodness and justice, and more to that purpose he hath further explicated, page 502. Here I do willingly agree with him, that great circumspection ought to be used in the right handling of these things. But then on the otherside he hath special cause to beware that he do not turn to the more dangerous extreme.  
Original sin (in that sense as we define it) cannot be denied, but upon the denial many desperate absurdities will ensue. We had a conference with the Brethren of the separation at a Neighbour-Towne, Anno 1654. February the 22. Because they occasioned the dispute by disturbing the Minister of the place, and were so tenacious of the point; We did put it upon them to answer the question as followeth. If all infants be born free from original sin, when do they begin to be sinners, that we may call them so? They told us when they did act sin. We replied, then in all that space of time from the conception in the womb to their acting of sin they are all free? They answered; they are all free: we demanded, why is it then the peculiar prerogative of Christ, if infants in all the forementioned space do partake of the same privilege? To this they said, that infants are as free from all sin as Christ himself. We told them that we did much admire at the boldness of such an assertion: They answered, set his Godhead aside, they are as pure as Christ himself was pure. We rejoined, why was the Lord Christ conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary? To this, they made no great Answer: And the standers by did seem to look upon such a position with a kind of horror.  
But as strange as the Tenet is, I find that Doctor Jeremy Taylor, the Author above named, doth not shun to say the same thing in effect, at least he seems to go very near to that coast. For in his answer to the Bishop's letter, he bringeth the Bishop speaking after this manner. If there be no such thing as original sin transmitted from Adam to his posterity, than all that sixth Chapter is a strife about a shadow, a Non ens. Answ. It is true my Lord, (saith he,) The question, as it is usually handled, is so: For when the Franciscan and the Dominican do eternally dispute about the conception of the Blessed Virgin: whether it was with or without original sin, meaning by way of grace, and special exemption, this de non ente, for there was no need of any such exemption: And they supposing that commonly it was otherwise, troubled themselves about the exception of a rule, which in that sense, which they supposed was not true at all: she was borne as innocent from any impurity and formal guilt as Adam was created, and so was her Mother, and so was all her family. In which words of his, if he had said that his own answer to the Bishop's letter was a mere non ens, he had spoken more truly: for where there is no such thing as the Bishop of Rochester at all, what answer can be given to his letter? But whereas he stands upon it, that the impurity of the natural birth from Adam the root of corruption, is a mere non ens, what will you make of regeneration, and of Baptism the washing of regeneration? Where there is no sinfulness in the natural generation, what need of Baptism or regeneration at all? Besides, the Scriptures do speak abundantly of the putting off of the Old man, and of the mortification of the sin of the nature, if there be no such sin of the nature from Adam the root of corruption this whole work will be de non ente, for that which is not true in any sense, cannot be mortified at all. And whither will this conceit go at last? Further, the Saints have been deeply humbled for their birth sin. I was borne in iniquity, and in sin did my Mother conceive me: What is man that he should be clean, and he that is borne of a woman that he should be righteons, & c? If there be no such sin at all, these confessions and humiliations will be de non ente. The Saints shall be humbled for a sin, and yet no such sin is to be found. In former times there were Thanksgivings for victories over enemies, which indeed and in truth were de non ente. But here we have Confessions and Humiliations of the same kind, innumerable other absurdities will ensue upon the denial of such a truth, which as I may so say, is one of the first magnitude among the principles of the Faith. It were good that this learned man and others that are concerned in the point would timely think upon it, and be better advised before they go to fairy. Again, on the otherside, I do not deny, that the points of original sin, and freewill, have been so handled in some systems of Divinity, Commentaries, and Polemical Discourses, that maintains there hath been a want of consideration, sometimes a want of truth. What they bring out of the Scriptures (truly understood) to prove the substance of the Doctrine is sound and good, but what is alleged out of the Schoolmen to confirm the same, is not always authenick: Paul's words do bind the conscience always, and at all times, but not always as they are delivered in the notions, in the terms, and in the method of Aquinus. Suppose that Saint Paul was now alive upon the earth, and it were laid as a task upon him to read the whole body of the controversy, as it now lieth between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, the Jansenists and the Molinists; such a case being imagined, we may easily conceive what his judgement would be. As he would condemn one part for their dangerous setting up of freewill in derogation to the grace of God: so he would not altogether approve the other part for the mingling of spiritual truths with strange speculations of Philosophy, and with Metaphysical quiddities, notions, and conceptions of their own commenting. Doubtless he would find many things in them that would not hold weight with the shekel of the Sanctuary. Among ourselves also there are some passages that might have been uttered with greater caution. The Treatise of Luther de servo arbitrio is questionless in itself a worthy work, yet I think that Calvin in his answer to Albertus' Pighins did not speak amiss, This also is true, some things which Luther wrote in a Scholastical kind of way, and in a less popular style; Philip Melancthon by his prudent and dextrous bending it to the milder part, did more fitly apply to the ordinary capacity of men, and to the common use of life. Yet for all this in other places that great instrument of reformation doth so abundantly speak of the freeness of the grace of Christ, to every  sinner, that he doth satisfy all tender consciences, and leave a solid foundation for the endeavour of man. Now every one cannot do this, for they that follow the asperity and the rigour of Luther in some positions of his, cannot with the same spiritual evidence set forth the grace of the Gospel: And so it comes to pass that the harshness and the incongruity imputed to the doctrine, is indeed and in truth no other but the sole defect of the Teacher. By right spiritual truths should have spiritual Teachers, and spiritual hearers, and then a true judgement may be made of the real excellency and worth of them.  
These things considered, I do intent to observe these rules in the ensuing discourse.  
First, laying aside all nice and curious speculations, to retain so much of the terms of the Schoolmen, that will serve only to explain the doctrine of the Gospel, that spiritual things may be set forth in a spiritual manner.  
Secondly, my scope (the Lord enabling) shall be as to speak the pure truth, so likewise the whole truth of God. When I speak of the impurity of the natural birth, than I will take occasion to show also how this doth refer immediately to the grace that doth regenerate; and when I shall have occasion to speak of Adam as a root of corruption to all his branches, I shall as carefully remember that this is a counterpane to Christ, being a root of grace and spiritual life also to all his branches. When it shall come in my way to mention the imperfection of man, and the spirituality of the command, I shall be as careful to inculcate that which doth answer to it (viz.) that all help is to be had from the Word of promise. When I shall say that a man hath no freewill by nature to that which is spiritually good, I shall be as willing to recite the true cause where the freedom is to be had, to wit, from the Son of God, if the Son will make you free, you shall be free indeed: Further, where I shall speak of a certain number of elect which the Lord doth decree curtainly, and infallibly to bring to glory. I shall demonstrate also that this necessity of infallibility doth not, nor cannot (whatsoever men may think) overturn the liberty of the will: For those that the Lord hath certainly appointed to salvation, he will as certainly, first or last, sooner or later, draw their wills so effectually that they shall freely choose the way and means that lead to salvation as the end. Those and such liketruths that are usually misunderstood through inconsiderate handling, I shall endeavour to represent them in their true beauty: For as it is with the members of the body, so it is with these miseries of salvation; Being considered apart, they seem to be deformed, but being put together, there is an excellent correspondence and symmetry in the whole.  
Finally, according to our Saviour's rule I shall endeavour (I hope without detriment to either part) to give to grace that which doth belong to her, and to the will that which doth belong to her; I would not take the least dram from the true grace of God, so on the otherside I would have the will to work under the grace received. These are the reasons of publishing the treatise in these times.  
I rest thine in the Lord N. S.   

The Arguments of each Book.  

The first Book in Mr. Everards' Method.  
Chap. 1. WHat were the causes, that gave Adam his being?  
Chap. 2. Wherein Adam's abilities did consist?  
Chap. 3. Whether righteousness, and holiness be God's image?  
Chap. 4. Wherein that image did consist, that God did create Adam in?  
Chap. 5. Concerning the power that God gave Adam, and what is the definition thereof?  
Chap. 6. Adam's entertainment in the garden.  
Chap. 7.  in the nature thereof unfolded.  
Chap. 8. How far God assisted Adam, or assisteth other men, that they might be such free-willers, as hath been described?  
Chap. 9 Though God gives power, he gives not the actions of obedience.  
Chap. 10. Concerning divers questions, with their solutions.  
Chap. 11. Whether Adam's sin, or any other man's sin, doth produce death in a natural way?  
Chap. 12. What Adam retained of his forfeiture, till his death?  
Chap. 13. Whether Adam did die the same day that he eat of the forbidden fruit?  
Chap. 14. Whether Adam did die a spiritual death, yea or no?  
Chap. 15. Whether Adam's posterity were guilty of his transgression? This point is more fully debated.   

The Second Book in the method of the Examiner's.  
Sect. 1. WHat places of Scripture they bring to prove the purity of the natural birth?  
Sect. 2. What answer they endeavour to make to the texts alleged by us?   

The third Book in the method of Dr. Taylor.  
Sect. 1. OF Concupiscence, and Original sin, and whether or no, and how far we are bound to repent of it?  
Sect. 2. A consideration of objections, against the former doctrine.  
Sect. 3. How God punishes the father's sin upon the children?  
Sect. 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind.  
Sect. 5. Of the liberty of election, remaining after Adam's fall.    

The first Book containing the Answer to Master EVERARD concerning the Creation and fall of Man,  
SIR,  
OCcasion being given to me to read over your Treatise concerning the creation and the fall of Adam, I shall now endeavour to give you an account what I judge of your doctrine. I shall not stand upon every point, but only upon that which is of special moment. In the end of your Introduction you signify the cause of your undertaking, in these words, Whereby we may be the more enabled to vindicate the Righteous Creator from many misconstructions which have been for a long time nourished for want of due consideration. For the vindicating of the Righteous Creator I shall be no enemy to you, so fare as you go according to the rule of the Word and the analogy of faith. But I fear under the colour of this pretended Vindication you drive a design to put Christ out of place. Through the whole body of your Treatise you stand upon the purity of nature, the denial of Original sin, and the improvement of natural abilities. We will go in your method, and begin with your first Chapter.  

CHAP. I. What were the causes that gave Adam his being?  
HEre you debate the efficient, material, formal, and final causes of that being which he had in the beginning, and tell us that God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very good, Gen. 1.32. From whence you draw this Conclusion, doubtless these words were spoken to take off some future objections, or to prevent men's sayings, that Adam consisted in creation of two sorts of people, one being assigned for heaven, the other for hell. And lest we should judge that God made any part of him for damnation, at that time he assures us that he made all things very good. When I read this passage of yours, I do call to mind a kind of torment used in the Primitive times: when the persecutors would expose the bodies of Christians to wild beasts, they did sometimes cover and disguise them with the skins of other living creatures. So do you here, and in other parts of your book with the doctrine of God's free election. When you see that there is such a Majesty in the truth itself that you cannot well oppose it, you do draw an ugly visage and form over it, to the end that you may bait and encounter it more easily at your own pleasure. The Lords making all good in the beginning, doth not infringe the election of some, and the nonelection of others, if these things be rightly construed. And therefore whether you consider men in that first state made after the image of God, or in that state as fallen, in both these I conceive all mankind to be equal. The difference of elect or non-elect is immanent only in the Decree of God, and election doth only so fare forth begin to be manifest as men living under the means come to be called, justified, sanctified by the Spirit, Rom. 8.30. 2 Thess. 2.13. We have no other way to take notice of election but this only. For that saying of yours that Adam consisted of two sorts of people in creation, the one part being assigned for heaven, and the other for hell. We willingly acknowledge that the number of the elect were known to God before the foundation of the world, yet this difference between man and man in the Lords secret intention did make no difference between man and man in the creation or in the fall. The nature of all men, elect and others, was equally good before the fall, as it was equally corrupted and depraved after the fall. As in the like case, Jesse was the father of many sons, of which one was designed in the secret counsel of God to rule the Kingdom of Israel: As they were the sons of one parent they were all equal, made of one blood, partakers of the same education, though one was specially designed for the Kingdom. So in the present case, the nature of all men may be equally good before the fall, all may have one and the same image of God, all may fall in one and the same parent, yet God may in a special manner intent to bring some to salvation, and to leave others voluntarily to run their own ruin; he may have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he may have compassion on whom he will have compassion. You do then plainly impose upon us with your sophistry, when you fetch arguments from some temporal acts to overturn the Lords eternal Decrees. But this is a passage only by the way, we will go to the next Chapter.   

CHAP. II. Wherein adam's abilities did consist.  
HEre you define ability, that it is a fitness in the subject commanded every way answerable to perform any action that the Creator is pleased to call the creature to, pag. 5. In this I do agree, that originally God did proportion the abilities of Adam to the commands that he gave him. I do also willingly acknowledge with you, that he had first a capassity to receive intelligence; secondly, directions; thirdly, abilities in present possession; and fourthly, time. But whereas you say, p. 7. that our Lord the Creator afforded all these aforenamed accommodations as a sufficient means for every man to obey his commands. In this I believe you do not only equal, but go beyond Pelagius himself. For you say in effect that man hath as great abilities after the fall, as before. But lest that any may think that these are the consequences of mine own making, and that they are not the true result of your doctrine, let him go to the fourteenth chapter of your book, and there let him see how you do expedite the question. You propound the quere what Adam retained of his forfeiture after his death? and here you determine that his power was inwardly as great to keep the commands of God as before. You say if in that service of God which Adam had to do he was completely furnished by God, why should I judge that he would employ him in a more hard service and not aford him suitable accommodations? seeing God was as willing that his commands should be obeyed after as he was before the fall. For I judge the work that God set Adam about before the fall he had ability to do after the fall if God had given him a command to return into the garden, page 110. Let any man who readeth these words judge in his own heart whether Pelagius himself could have spoken more to the derogation of the free grace of God in Christ, than you have done. To this if we add the several passages in your Treatise concerning the improvement of nature, and the freedom of infants from original sin, and compare all together, we shall find the whole tenor of your doctrine to be manifestly destructive to the Covenant of Grace. We will therefore endeavour on the contrary to show the positive truth. And therefore, seeing God doth require obedience of man after the fall, I do freely assent that he doth give suitable accommodation. But how? the accommodation doth not consist in the presence of any natural ability, but in the promise since the fall there is an ability to obey the Lords commands, but that ability is out of man, in Christ only: To him they must go to supply all their wants, and he must help them to perform all the duties enjoined: If you stand upon the proportion of abilities to commands, then say that the ability is in Christ only to be had, and we shall easily agree. He of God is made to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30. In him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid, Col. 2.3. Of his fullness have we all received grace for grace, John 1.16. It shall never be denied by me, nay, I will maintain it, that now since the fall there is a proportion betwixt the ability and the command, but then the ability must be had from Christ only, and the immediate supply of his Spirit. In this sense Saint Paul had abilities in a meet temper and correspondence to his duties; for he saith, I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me, Phil. 4.11, 12, 13. And in another place, my grace shall be sufficient for thee, my strength shall be seen in thy weakness, 2 Cor. 12.7.8, 9, But the way to come by this ability is not in your method to set up nature, but to die to a man's self, and to be emptied of all natural abilities. Most gladly therefore will I glory in mine infirmities, that the power of Christ might rest upon me, 2 Cor. 12.9. The Authors of the Confession do seem to speak more fairly for the grace of God than you do. They do not shun to affirm that we have all from Christ, and that of ourselves we have not ability to think a good thought, and much to the same purpose. But by this affirmation of theirs how can they possibly agree with their own principles of the purity of nature? For where there is no depravation of the natural birth, what need or what use is there of the grace of regeneration? They conceal themselves, and you openly profess your judgement: they seem to speak more fairly, but you are more true to the principles and positions of the Separate Churches.   

CHAP. III. Whether righteousness and holiness be God's Image.  
HEre you endeavour to prove the Negative, to wit, that righteousness and holiness in man was not the image of God in the first creation. Because this is not your own single opinion, but also the doctrine of the thirty Congregations, who place the image of God only in dominion over the creature, we will debate the point more fully. And so much the rather, because you did urge me at Earle-Shilton in Leicestershire, Anno 1650. Decem. 26. before a multitude of people to answer this question, what place of Scripture have you to prove that Adam had the Spirit of God, or that he was a spiritual man before his fall? I did then cite three several texts, the natural sense and import of all which is to show that God made man after his own Image, and that this Image did principally consist in spiritual and inward holiness.  
For that place, Gen. 1.26. Come let us make man after our Image, in our own likeness. There is none doth doubt but this is the speech of the three persons in Trinity. Only the question is wherein did this Image principally consist. The separate congregations and you also affirm, that it did appear only in Dominion and Lordship over the creature; these words do immediately follow in the text, let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, and over the , and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. But herein both they and you are deceived, for primarily and properly the Image of God was resplendent in the conformity of the soul to the spiritual Law of God. Secondarily, the Image of God was resplendent in that external privilege of rule and dominion over the creature.  
Now that it may appear that the principal part of the Image of God is in inward holiness, and that the soul so inwardly and spiritually endowed, doth more lively express his similitude, for this, read that Scripture, Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him, Col. 3.10. Here note, what it is that the Apostle would have the Colossians to put on, Put on the new man. By this he doth mean the Christ-like and spiritual disposition, set in immediate opposition to the old carnal disposition of the flesh, which they had already in good measure begun to put off. Secondly, the word (renewed) doth note a repair or renovation of that which formerly was decayed. So the Psalmist prayeth, Create in me a clean heart, and renew within me a right spirit, Psal. 51.10. He doth pray for the return of the same spirit which formerly he had, but now seemingly had lost. So thy youth is renewed like the Eagles, Psal. 103.5. As much in sense as that he makes thee vigorous like an Eagle, who by casting her beak and feathers, renews her former agility. And so in the present case wherein it is said, Put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge, this noteth the repair and renovation of that spiritual disposition which Adam had, but lost it by his fall. Thirdly, for the matter of the renovation, venewed in knowledge, doth signify spiritual knowledge in the nature thereof, and that which comes from the Spirit of God as the cause. Fourthly, for the pattern of the renovation, it is expressly said, after the image of him that created him; Therefore the first man must be made in a state of spiritual knowledge and holiness. If this be not so, how could the believing Colossians be renewed after this example as the Prototype?  
Let us go to the next Scripture, that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness, Eph. 4.24. This Scripture also doth plainly show that Adam had the Spirit of God before his fall. For first, why is it said be renewed in the spirit of your mind? This implieth that we were sometimes such. Secondly, the expression of righteousness and true holiness is opposed to feigned, and hypocritical sanctity. Thirdly, the whole tenor of the speech is to this end, that the Ephesians should put off the old Adam-like disposition with all the deceitful lusts thereof; and that they should put on the Christ-like nature which is renewed after the similitude and pattern of the image of God in man before the fall. The argument is thus grounded upon the text. What the Saints are by renovation, such Adam was by creation; But by renovation the Saints are just and holy: From all which we do conclude that Adam was a spiritual man, and had the Spirit of God before his fall.  
Now to the Scriptures let us add a few reasons. First, it is a Maxim generally received, that the Law was made for man before his fall. Now how the first man could be conformable to so spiritual and divine a Law, and he himself be destitute of the Spirit, it is not within the compass of my understanding to discern. If we will argue a posteriori, from the event, we must necessarily conclude that he must not only be spiritual, but also have a great measure of spirit to keep such a divine and spiritual Law. Secondly, the Apostle saith, you hath he quickened that were dead in trespasses and sins, Ephes. 2.1, 2. If all be dead in trespasses and sins, this spiritual death must begin at the fall, and so by consequence the first man must have the spirit, and spiritual life before his fall. For what is spiritual death, but a privation of the life of the Spirit of God? These and many more reasons might be brought to prove Adam to be a spiritual man as long as he stood in that state in which God had placed him. Now let us hear your arguments to the contrary.  
You say that Adam's righteousness and holiness was not in believing a Saviour, because be was not in a lost condition, pag. 10 Suppose all this be granted, that Adam was not to believe a Saviour, because he was not in a lapsed or fallen condition; how doth this prove that he was absolutely carnal and destitute of the Spirit? He was to believe the Father as Lord Creator, he was bound to love him, to delight in him, and how could he possibly do all this but he must have some measure of Spirit? Therefore Adam had the Spirit, and was a spiritual man before his fall. You go on, and say, whatsoever qualifications the children of God have attained unto, in, and through Jesus Christ their Lord, by remission of sin, or the hope of a resurrection, and the attainment of a better life, Adam was not capable of. To this I answer, though the difference may be in circumstances, the substance is the same. For if you reckon all that Adam had in present possession, and all that he might have had if he had stood; if you compare his whole state with the state of the Saints, with that which they have, and that which they shall have, you shall find an excellent correspondence betwixt both. For what if Adam was not capable of remission of sin by Christ's blood, it is all one if he be made in a state free from sin? What if he was not capable of regeneration because he had no pollution of nature? yet he was created with a pure and spiritual nature in original righteousness. What if he was not capable of the resurrection from the dead, because he died not a natural death? yet he was capable to eat of the tree of life, to keep himself from death, and so to live for ever. Your whole way of reasoning is merely fallacious, because Adam had not spiritual life every way the same in circumstance, therefore he had not the spirit in the substance and being thereof. You go on and tell us, If men will hold this opinion, that righteousness and true holiness is the Image of God which the Lord created man in, and is not to be found there residing, than it is very requisite that this holiness and righteousness be released. But how do you prove that this holiness and righteousness did not reside in Adam? If you shall say, that he was not capable of such Evangelical holiness as is set forth in the second Covenant; what of all this, notwithstanding the difference in circumstance, he may have the same in substance. Saint Paul saith, I delight in the Law of the Lord after the inward man, Rom. 7.22. He had the same spiritual delight in the Law by Renovation, which Adam had before his fall by Creation; where then is the difference? Adam had no rebellion, no law of the flesh warring against the law of his mind, as Saint Paul had. There was the same spirit of love in both, but in the one it was with the love of the flesh, and with conflict with the love of the flesh: but the other was absolutely free: He did not know by experience what it was to have the flesh rebel against the spirit. Because the Law requires entire obedience of body and soul, inward and outward, throughout all the parts of our life; because it is spiritual itself, and requires that the thoughts, words and deeds be spiritual; we must necessarily conclude, that the first man must be spiritual in a large degree, seeing the Law was tempered and proportioned in the beginning to that ability he had.  
But you have another evasion, you say, that at the Creation Adam was not made conformable to the Image of the Son, seeing he had no such laws to be conformable to. Here you still harp upon the same string. Because Adam was not conformable in the same manner, therefore he had not the conformity to the Image of Christ in substance. I pray you tell me the meaning of this Scripture, Come let us make man after our own Image. Is not this the speech of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? You cannot deny it. No more can you deny that Adam was made after the Image of Christ as Lord Creator. In this point we must necessarily say that Adam had the same Image of God, and the same spirit in the general nature of it, as the Saints have in the state of Regeneration, only the difference lies in some circumstances. He might also have the same faith in the general nature of faith; though it was impossible for him in that state he stood to have justifying faith: Seeing he was absolutely without the guilt of all sin, he needed no pardon by Christ's blood. Suppose all this be granted, that Adam was not to believe in a Saviour, because he was not in a lapsed or fallen condition, yet all this doth not prove him to be a carnal man, or absolutely destitute of the Spirit before his fall. He might believe in God the Father, as Lord Creator, to prevent that misery which should ensue by the fall. And to such a kind of faith it is necessary, that he should have some measure of spirit Upon this ground also we may conclude him to be spiritual, and to have the Spirit before his fall.  
But whereas the Scripture saith, That God made man righteous, you put off all with this shift, That God made Adam without any stain or blemish in the beginning, page 13. This we willingly confess to be true, but it is not the whole, nor the principal part of truth. For uprightness in the Scripture-language, doth not only signify a freedom from evil, but also a positive habit of righteousness and holiness, and in this state did God make man in the beginning.  
But admit that be granted, What do you gather from hence? you say, If those that would have holiness and righteousness, to be entitled the Image of God, and shall mean by it a condition without sin, simply so considered, than the whole Creation of God might be said to bear the Image of God, page 13. Answ. Your consequence will not hold, That Adam was without sin at the time of his Creation, it was from hence, that God made him a holy creature after his own Image: That other creatures are without sin, is merely from incapacity, seeing they have neither an understanding to know the Law of God, nor a will to embrace good or evil, therefore they cannot sinne: For that speech of yours, page 14. It will appear that the Image which Adam did bear, wherein he represented God, lieth in some other place, where none of the creatures are in acapacity to come, it being beyond them all. Though in the general, I do acknowledge this to be a solid truth, yet you do not rightly apply it. What think you of that saying of our Saviour, There are some Eunuches that are so borne from their mother's womb, and there are some made Eunuches of men, and there are some that have made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19.12. Here are three sorts of Eunuches, but one sort only is so made by grace, and the mortifying work of the Spirit. So in the present case, the creatures were free from sin as well as Adam, but their freedom was merely from incapacity, because they were not able to receive a spiritual Law; And Adam's freedom was from the holiness of that state in which the Lord had made him. Therefore in the point of nontransgression, Adam was put into such a state as none of the creatures could come to.  
Next you inquire, Whether the Image of God did consist in light? These are your words, If the light that Adam had, was the Image, than it must be a light spiritual or natural, or both. Now that it was not the light of the Gospel that Adam had, is clear, there being neither malady nor remedy which were in being in the time of this light, page 15. Though there was neither malady nor remedy at that time, yet he might have spiritual light in the substance thereof, and the Image of God might principally consist in this. The Apostle speaking of the regenerate, hath this expression, renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him, Col. 3.10. This showeth plainly, that man in the beginning was created after the Image of God, and that Image did chief consist in the spiritual light that was in the understanding.  
But because there is a great controversy between the Arminians and us about the nature of this light, viz. Whether Adam had a power before his fall to believe in Christ? and because this is a point pertinent to our purpose, I will briefly recite three Arguments used by Corvinus, in his Answer to Du Moulin. First, saith he, Adam was not bound to believe in Christ, therefore he did not receive ability to believe in him: such an ability would be unnecessary and unprofitable, where there was no use of it at all. Chap. 11. sect. 4.5. page 156. Answ. The Argument doth not hold; God did not require Adam to believe the Stories written in the five Books of Moses, the Books of Josbua, Judges, Samuel, etc. But will any man be so void of reason to argue, that he had no power to believe these Stories, in case they had been revealed to him? so God did not require Abraham to believe in Christ, as he was revealed and exhibited in the last dispensation of the promise: shall we therefore argue that he had not ability to believe, or that he had not the same spirit in substance which the Saints now have? He that doth so judge, let him answer the meaning of this Scripture, We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken, we also believe, and therefore speak, 2 Cor. 4.13. It is clear from hence, that the Patriarches Prophets, and Apostles, had all of them the same spirit of faith in substance; yet all of them have not the same revelation of the promise, in the circumstances thereof.  
Secondly, Corvinus saith, that before the fall the Gospel was not credible, because in the Gospel a sinner is commanded to believe himself to be a sinner, and that by himself and his own works he cannot be saved, and that all salvation is placed in Christ the Mediator. And further he addeth. It was so far from man to be able to believe all these things, that he was then bound rather to believe the contrary, to wit, himself to be upright, and that he should be blessed if he did persist in his uprightness. p. 154, 162, 164, 165. Answ. To this we willingly agree, That the way to salvation, as now it is, doth differ very much from that state wherein Adam stood. But the question is not concerning the diversity or contrariety of the states; but concerning the power and ability that Adam had, whether it be one and the same in substance with that which the Saints now have. White and black are two contrary colours, yet the same eye doth see both. Heat and cold are two qualities in the extreme, yet they are tangible objects to one and the same sense of ceiling. So in the like case, though the Word of the Law, and the Word of the Gospel, are two contrary ways to salvation, yet there is nothing doth exclude, but they may be apprehended by one and the same spirit of faith. The Word may be one and the same in the general notion and nature of the Word, and it may be apprehended by one and the same spirit of faith, yet it may differ in circumstance. But because the force of the Argument doth lie in the contradictory nature of the two states, we will come to instance in a case or two. Adam before his fall could not show mercy, if we look to the outward act or the performance of the duty, for where there is no misery, what mercy can be showed? shall we therefore argue that he had no such affection in him as mercy? So in the like case, it is not compatible with the state of the blessed Angels to believe in a Christ to recover them out of their fall, for they that never fall, have no need of a recovery: what then shall we say that they have no ability to understand the Mystery of the Gospel? This cannot be, for so the Apostle reasoneth, By them which have preached the Gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, which things the Angels desire to look into, 1 Pet. 1.12. Though the blessed Angels have no need of salvation by grace held out in the Gospel, yet they have ability to understand it, they have a desire to pry and gaze into it. So in the like case, though Adam had no need of salvation before his fall by the Mediator, yet he might have ability to understand that way of salvation, in case it had been revealed.  
Thirdly, Corvinus saith, that greater abilities are required to faith in Christ, than that ability which Adam bade before his fall. Answ. I cannot see possibly how he can consist with his own principles. For seeing he doth stand upon it in his Treatises against Moulin, page 159.165. that God doth proportion abilities to commands; and seeing also he saith, that God did promise life to Adam, under the condition of most perfect and absolute obedience. By the position of these two, he must necessarily affirm Adam's abilities to be exceeding great before his fall. For seeing the work required was to yield such a perfect obedience, as none else can perform since the fall but Christ alone; it must necessarily follow that Adam must have a large portion of spirit fitted for such an employment. As in some Monuments of Antiquity, we do argue, how strong such a Prince was, that died many hundred years ago, from the greatness and weight of his sword: so from the spirituality of the Law given to Adam before his fall, we do infer his abilities to have been exceeding great. And thus much out of Corvinus his own principles. Now Mr. Everard, let us return back again to you. And here, to deal plainly with you and the Churches that do depend upon your Institution, I must tell you, that neither Arminius nor Corvinus, nor any other of that party, (to my knowledge) did ever spin such a course thread as you do. For though they stand upon it, that Adam had not abilities to believe in Christ, & to raise himself from his fall, yet none of them do utter such speeches as these, that Adam was altogether destitute of the Spirit of God, and that he was a mere carnal man before his fall. This to my understanding doth cast a blur upon the Creator himself. Now I would entreat you to show some further reason, wherefore the Image of God did not stand in spiritual light. You say, it remaineth yet to prove that Adam had a supernatural light, Which they will never be able to do, unless they will prove that he was set about some spiritual employments. For God giving light suitable to the employment he sets his creature about, so suitably God proportions his light, that it might be just suitable for his works and no more, page 16. And for the works wherein Adam was employed, you tell us what they were, p. 17. He was to look after the Garden, to dress and keep it, and to settle names and titles upon every creature, to eat and drink, with such like works, as also to bear rule and dominion over the creatures. But Sir, in this point you are wonderful fallacious. For first, what warrant have you to take the height, length and breadth of Adam's abilities from his present employments? There is many a true Christian man in these times, that doth believe some truths, who hath ability to receive more if it would please the Lord to reveal them. So we may say in the like case concerning Adam, he was able to receive more truths if they had been revealed, and to do more duties if he had been commanded. We are not absolutely to tie and confine men's abilities to their present employments. Further, what ground have you to affirm, that Adam's employment was only in those externals of keeping the Garden, and giving names to all , & c? Will you argue, because you read of no more, that therefore he had no more employment? Thirdly, suppose it should be granted to you, that Adam was wholly taken up in these outward actions, this doth not prove that he was destitute of spiritual abilities. When the Apostle speaks to servants, to obey their Masters according to the flesh, Eph. 6.5. There is no man doubts but he speaks of an outward work, but when he saith, that they should do it with singleness of heart, as unto the Lord Christ, and not unto men: Here is the performance of an outward service in a spiritual manner. Even so, Adam might be spiritually employed in those works of his, of dressing the Garden, and of giving names to all , etc.  
And thus we have tried your Reasons, how far you are able to prove that the Image of God in Adam did not consist in righteousness and true holiness, and that he was not a spiritual man before his fall. This also is the doctrine of the Thirty Separate Congregations, who place the Image of God only in Lordship and dominion over the creature.  
Next you come to inquire, Whether the Image of God in dam did consist in degrees of light? And here say you, if this be admitted, upon such a supposition, not one in all the world can tell what it is to bear the title; for how can they tell of what height, length and breadth this knowledge should be of? page 17.18. To ease you of all the pains of searching out the several degrees of longitude or latitude; I say, precisely at that time, when a man doth receive the true light of the Spirit, he doth resume more or less that Image of God which Adam lost. And look by how many degrees this light doth increase, by so many degrees proportionably this Image of God is renewed. The Apostle speaketh very properly to the purpose, We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same Image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord, 2 Cor. 3.19. Here these four things are to be noted. First, the pattern or the Idea, we are changed into the same Image, to wit, into the Image of the Lord Christ himself. Secondly, the degrees or the several stages: we are changed from glory to glory. Thirdly, the mean or the instrument of the change, we all with open face beholding as in a glass, the glory of Christ revealed in the Gospel, by prying into it, and gazing upon it we are altered and translated into the same image. Fourthly, the principal cause of the transmutation, even as by the Spirit of the Lord, by the inward work of the Spirit men come to be enlightened, and so more and more to put on the Image of God: From these several particulars it is clear, that the Regenerate are renewed after the Image of Christ, and the excel noy thereof doth stand in spiritual light. And this light in substance we say that Adam had before his fall. They are the words of the Apostle, as we have formerly said, renewed in knowledge, after the Image of him who created him.  
Further, you endeavour to show that the Image of God did not stand in holiness: You say, If it had lain in holiness never so Evangelical and spiritual, surely the woman that believed in the Lord Jesus would not have been deprived of that title, but the Apostle expostulateth the cause of the difference, 1 Cor. 11.7. where he clearly ascribeth that title. scil. the Image of God to reside only in pre-eminence, page 23. But this will not serve your turn neither, for when God created the woman in the beginning, she was not only created after his Image in righteousness and true holiness, but she was also created in a state to have Lordship over the creature. These are the words of the Text, So God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created be him, male and female created he them. And God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, Genes. 27.28. These words were not only spoken to the first man, but to the first woman also, and to all mankind whether male or female that should come of them, that they should people the world and bring it in subjection. If this be so, the man and the woman were both created in that state to have preeminence over the Creation. And for the words of the Apostle, they do not deny the woman to be made after the Image of God, though this Image was more immediately and fundamentally in man the head and lord of the Creation; If you look narrowly into the text, you shall find a reason wherefore man doth more immediately bear the Image of God, and is a more lively representative of his Majesty, because the woman was made for the man as an help meet for him. Now we proceed to the next Chapter.   

CHAP. IU. Wherein that Image did consist that God did create Adam in.  
IN this Chapter you endeavour to prove that the Image did consist in dominion and rule over the creature, page 24. In this I will be no adversary to you. But the question is, whether did that Image only or principally consist in the aforementioned dominion, as the Separate Congregations, and you in this Treatise do labour to prove. This I deny.  
For the words that follow, Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, they are spoken only to the vulgar capacity of the Reader. For in the ordinary way the Image of God is more visible and easy to be discerned in the external dominion over the creature, then in the spiritual and inward endowment of the soul.  
Further, whereas you say, That Magistrates in the Scripture are called gods, and that in respect of their dominion they do carry the Image of God, page 24, 25. From these words of yours you may be condemned, for it is too apparent in the next Chapter, that you vilify and slight all kind of Magistracy, and make it a matter of nothing. And for the proof out of Daniel and the Revelation, you do show your rudeness in that kind of learning. By the head of gold (say you) Daniel plainly showeth to the King, thou art the head of gold. This King was an image in reference to his pre-eminence, otherwise he had not differed from other men, page 26. That Nabuchadnezzar was a King, and a mighty King, and that in his Kingly power he did carry the Image of God, I do willingly confess. But I pray you tell me, whence is it that you call him an image? To say the truth, he is typed and set forth by some part of the image. By the same Law you may call the Counties of Devonshire and Cornwall a Map of all England: whereas these Countries are described as some parts in the Map. Further, if we should grant that the Babylonian Empire in Nabuchadnezzar, might be said to be the image by a Synecdoche, because it is some part of the image; what is this to the Image of God; and to the Creation of man after his Image? For the image spoken of in the text, it is only a type and a figure which the Lord did use to set forth the four Tyrannical Empires, which in their several successions one after another should afflict the Church. These four great Empires be doth set forth by so many beasts, chap. 7. as they are described by the four regions and parts of the image, chap. 2. But what reference hath this description to the Image of God in the Creation of man, I cannot discern: I think as good a resemblance may be found between a shepherd's dog, and the dog star, as between these two images which you parallel and compare together. But if to mend the matter you shall say, that Rulers are signified by the several parts and regions of the image; I will answer, in propriety of speech, the Lord by this figure doth represent so many successions of tyranny rather than of lawful dominion, and why he should do this by the four parts of the body of man is from his own institution.  
Neither is that other place more fitly alleged out of the book of the Revelation, for though it be true in the general, that Rulers in respect of their pre-eminence do carry the Image of God; yet how can you conclude anything from that text, The Dragon gave life to the image? Rev. 13.15. The scope of the Spirit in this Prophecy, is mainly concerning the sufferings of the Church under two forms of Roman dominion, under the tyranny of Rome Imperial, and Rome Papal, and so it was when the persecuting Empire was destroyed, there was a renovation and repair of that Majesty, and a reviving of it, as it were, from the dead. This the Spirit doth express, when he saith, that the beast had a wound in one of his heads: this wound was cured, and the second beast made an image to the beast that had received a wound in one of his heads. The scope of all is to show the repair of the Roman Tyranny in the Popes, that was formerly lost in the Caesar's. Now how do you gather from hence that Magistrates do carry the image of God, in respect of their authority? Indeed, in these words there is mention made of an image, but none of God's Image: of the image of the beast, which had received a wound in one of his heads. Again, here is mention made of a vicegerent, but none of God's Vice gerents upon the earth. The Dragon gave him his power, seat and great authority. Now Sir, I leave it to any ordinary understanding, to judge what woeful havoc is here made of the Word of God. I do the more willingly put you in mind of these things, because now a days so many bold and ignorant men intrude themselves into the place of the Ministry, and take so much upon them to expound the Revelation, Daniel, Canticles, and other hard Scriptures.   

CHAP. V Concerning the power that God gave Adam, and what is the definition thereof.  
TO the end that we may understand what power Adam lost, and what he retained, you do well in the beginning to define what his power was. You say, you do not take power for ability, or the use of ability, but for a word of command, issuing from the great Commander, with reference to man: or a lawful Commission given to men, whereby they are enabled to justify their actions, in case they neither add nor diminish. And then you conclude, so much command a man hath from God, so much power he hath of God, page 29, 30. Here you seem to me to affect a way by yourself. For though sometimes power is taken for authority, for that which a man may warrantably and lawfully do, yet I think in the present case, when you speak of the power which Adam had before his fall, it had been more proper to insist upon his ability, what he was able to act according to the Law that was given to him. Secondly, if we take power in the latter sense. Adam's freedom did not stand so much in what the Lord did positively command him, as in that which he did not precisely and strictly forbid him. And therefore you must needs err in the definition of that power that Adam had before his fall. But these improper speeches of yours might pass, if you did not turn them against the Civil power. These are your words, from Rom. 13.1. If the soul must be subject to such Powers as are the Ordinances of God, and there be no Powers but God's Ordinances, than God's Word or his Command are his Ordinances. And from hence you infer, if Rulers come as God's Ministers, they must produce his Word for the power of Ordinances, page 30. Here I would have you to assign the difference between the power appertaining to a Magistrate, and the power belonging to every private man; for if that be true, as you say, that Rulers are to be obeyed, so far forth only as they bring the Word; I pray you tell me, must not every man be obeyed upon the same terms? what do you make then of the power of the Magistrate? when Pilate boasted, Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee? The Lord made him this answer, Thou hast no power, but it is given thee from above, John 19 10 11. It is plain then, that Pilate as a Magistrate and a Judge had a power given him of God. Now then if that be true which you say, that the Magistrate hath no power but the Word itself, than it will follow that these are co-incident terms. For to speak properly, the power of the Magistrate and the Word are not one and the same, but the Authority of the Magistrate doth depend upon the Word, from whence it hath its Original and Institution. You go on, and argue, Are not all men Gods creatures, if so, how cometh it to pass that one should be in subjection to another's will, and that upon such sore punishment? page 30, 31. Here in these words you come very near the doctrine of the Levellers: Can you make no distinction between subjection to the lawful power, and man's illegal will? And then turning off from this digression, you conclude, that the Command of God is the Power, and therefore so far as the Lords Command did extend, so much power Adam had. But for this matter we are content to let you pass with your own peculiar way of expression. Let us now see how you describe Adam's entertainment in the Garden.   

CHAP. VI Adam's entertainment in the Garden.  
IN this Chapter you discourse how Adam was placed in the Garden, how Eve was made an helper meet for him, and how the Lord brought all the creatures to him, that he might give them their several names and titles. Because these are Plain Scripture-truths, I will not be an adversary to you here. But then two questions are to be demanded; First, whether was his chief employment in these externals? Secondly, whether he did act in them as a mere carnal man?  
For the first, if you shall say that Adam was only employed in these externals, then show why was the Law of God written in his heart? None can imagine but that it was engraven and written there, to that end, that he should yield proportionable obedience: he had spiritual abilities that he might be proportionable to a spiritual Law. If you shall deny this, you will unavoidably be cast upon that rock, that Adam had the Law put into his heart for no use or end at all.  
Secondly, though he was taken up in externals, in giving names to all creatures, and in tilling of the ground, yet in this you must look upon him as a man that was spiritual, able to do these things in a spiritual manner. These two points I thought good to remind you of, because you did a little before affirm that Adam was a mere carnal man before his fall, and that his occupation and employment was only in externals. Let us go to the next Chapter.   

CHAP. VII. Free will in its nature unfolded.  
HEre in the beginning, you define freewill to be a cheerful putting forth of those abilities which the Lord hath given us to action. And this you prove by many Scripture-instances, to clear the nature of freedom. By this account it will follow, that a natural man, as such, without the help of the Spirit hath no freewill at all: he is so far from a free, voluntary, and cheerful putting forth of abilities, that in spiritual things he is utterly void and destitute of all ability. But as in the former Chapter you had your digression to turn out against the Magistrate, when you spoke of the power of Adam before the fall; so now speaking of his freewill you have your vagaries and excursions against the Ministry. These are your words, Paul preached the Gospel freely, he stood not upon such punctilios to have the tenth of the labours of the people, page 40. The Separate Congregations also agree with you here. For, say they, the maintenance of the Ministers which labour in the Word of God, aught to be the free and charitable benevolence, or the cheerful contribution of those that acknowledge themselves members of the same fellowship, page 22. And the ground they have to prove it is from that place of the Apostle, while by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men, 2 Cor. 9.13. It is clear that the Apostle in these words speaketh of the distributions, and the voluntary benevolences of the Churches to the necessities of the poor Saints at Jerusalem. But by what Logic the brethren of the Separation can apply this to the maintenance of the Ministry, in the time of the New Testament, for my part I cannot discern. Sure I am, when you and they shall go about to make the people free-willers, in so doing you will make a servile and a slavish Ministry. As for the due in the payment of the tenth, it doth as truly appertain to the Ministers, as any man's possession or inheritance doth belong to him. And therefore if either you or any man else shall endeavour to take away the tenth from the Ministry, it is all one as to endeavour to take away the propriety from other men. Having gone so far along with you in your digression, let us now come to that freedom of will which Adam had before his fall. And here I do agree with you, that he had liberty to put himself forth cheerfully and freely to action, by virtue of such abilities as he had received from God; yet when you come to the negative part, to pluck that down which is built by other men, you plainly show, that your definition is not proper to the case in hand. For thus you conclude, Now some have conceived that free will had been a man's being, left to his choice whether he would do the Will of God or no. But I know no such freedom given by God, that a man should have liberty to dispose of himself, unless you will call that freedom of will, which a man is prohibited from upon penalties of death; but God gives no man freedom to sin, but preventions; To this I answer, though the Lord gave Adam no freedom to sin, but rather tied up his liberty by a contrary command, yet it is a sure rule, that he made him in such a pendulous estate that he might stand or fall. And though in that state he had freedom and power to will that which was good, nay, cheerfully to put forth his ability to act, yet for all this, his condition was but mutable, he might fall if he would, as appeareth by the event. Now that the liberty of Adam did stand between these two, between the choosing of the good, and the refusing of the evil, it is clear from the signification of the two trees. The Tree of life signified what happiness he should enjoy if he stood; the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, what misery should attend him if he fell. Therefore the liberty of Adam stood betwixt choosing of the good, and refusing of the evil.  
For your definition of freewill, that it is a cheerful issuing forth to action by virtue of abilities received, this might in some sort be applied to the blessed Angels and Saints in the state of glory. For though they be established and confirmed in their holy and happy estate that they cannot fall, yet they do most freely, voluntarily and cheerfully put forth their abilities to the glory of God: but Adam's freedom was otherwise for the trial of his obedience. He was made in a mutable and changeable condition, in which he might stand or fall by his own free election, not only because the Lord would be obeyed by a free choice, but also that through his fall, a door mightbe opened to the sending of the Son, and that salvation might be had upon terms of grace only, to the fuller declaration of the glory of God.   

CHAP. VIII. How far God assisted Adam, or assisteth other men, that they might be such free-willers as hath been described.  
TO the performance of duty you tell us, that God doth give, first, a capacity to understand; secondly, ability to perform; thirdly, time; fourthly, he doth use exhortations and reproofs. And then you add, that he giveth these rich accommodations as a sufficient means, for all men to obey every one of his commands; and he goeth no further for effecting any man's actions in the world, 
☞  page 42, 43. In these words of yours you do plainly eliminate and extinguish Gods peculiar grace by and through which he doth infallibly and certainly carry on his own people to salvation. But that we may join issue with you, we do freely yield, that God giveth greater abilities and helps to men than they ordinarily make use of. Yet I know no reason in the world you have to confound the abilities that Adam had before the fall, with the abilities that every man now hath in the state of nature. Again, if you look upon all men as lapsed or fallen, how can you affirm that the abilities which the Lord giveth are equal to all. Is not this contrary both to Scripture and experience? you tell us how far God goeth with every man in the conferring and bestowing abilities upon him, and then peremptorily and magisterially determine, that he doth not go further to the effecting of any man's actions in the world. Thirdly, it is a point well worth the searching, what you mean by these abilities. Pelagius himself did stand much upon this, that he was a patron and a great friend to the grace of God. But how did he maintain it? he had a clancular and a reserved sense, he conceived the mind, will, and other natural abilities to be the gifts of God, and called them by the name of his free grace. This Augustine of old did acknowledge to be true in the general, but he did blame him for his obscuring and darkening the inward special grace of God, through which he doth effectually work upon the hearts of men. And I would we had not too much cause given to us to judge the same of you. For though you speak much of the ability which God doth give, yet when all is done, you go no further than the natural faculties. Let any man consider what you have written concerning this point, in the denial of Original sin, in the advancement of the purity of nature, in the improvement of natural abilities, in asserting that Adam's ability was as good after the fall as it was before. By the collation of all these, let any man judge whether you do not advance nature, and depress the grace of God; and whether in these assertions & affirmations of yours, you are not a downright Pelagian. You cite that place, Is. 5 Judge I pray you now betwixt me and my vineyard, what could I have done more to my Vineyard that I have not done? From whence you infer, Where are those disputers against God, that will say be made a man able to oppress and do unrighteously, and left him destitute of ability and power to do those things which he commanded. Because this text, as formerly, so now, is much alleged by the Patrons of freewill; I shall endeavour the more diligently to show the meaning thereof; I see no reason from the Lords peculiar bounty to the Jewish Church, that we should conclude so generally that he gives the same ability to every man, in the same degree and the same measure, and that in point of Conversion and turning to God. There is nothing in the parable, but (if the Scriptures rightly be compared) you shall find the truth of the thing will answer the emphasis of the words. For that expression, What could I have done more to my Vineyard that I have not done? the truth of this will appear, if you consider all along what God had done for them, in choosing them above all the people of the world, what he had done for them in Egypt, in the wilderness, in bringing them into the land of Canaan; how he had been present with them in all the times of the Judges and the Kings, how he had delivered them from great dangers, how he had taught them by afflictions, how he had raised up Prophets in several successions of time to turn them from the evil of their evil ways; and many such like passages of his grace and goodness to that people, which plainly seal the truth of that saying, What could I have done more to my Vineyard which I have not done? This is true in particular of the Jewish Church. set forth by the figure of the Vineyard: but how doth it prove the question that doth lie before us? your task is to show the general assistance that God giveth to every man to make him a free-willer, yet here I do in sense agree with Dr. Mayer and others upon the place, that at seasons the Lord by sending in of light doth so loosen the will that is bound, that then a man hath some power to will that which is good. And hereupon they infer, 
☜  that the fault is in man himself. For although by nature he be not able to will the good, yet when he hears outwardly, and the Spirit moves inwardly, he is able to go the next step, and his condemnation is in this, that he doth not act according to the ability administered. As for that saying of yours, that God giveth a man ability to oppress, but not to obey his Commands: This is none of our positions, but it is one of your calumnies. We hold that God hath put so much light into the heart of the Gentiles, to know that they must not steal, that they must not defraud or oppress: the Lord also doth give them power to act according to their light in these and such like outward moralities. This is clear from the first and second Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; and it is evident also by that Scripture, that God was indeed much dishonoured by their not emproving their abilities which he had bestowed upon them, to the bringing forth of such actions of obedience as he had required of them. He was angry with them because they did not walk after the light, because they held the truth in unrighteousness, because by oppression and other sins they did not answer the Law written in their heart. Though in these externals the Gentiles had abilities some way proportionable to the Commands, yet in the case of true repentance, and turning to God, the same Apostle doth drive the Gentiles from all confidence and dependence upon natural ability. The whole tenor of his speech is to show, that the proper use of the light which God giveth, is primarily and immediately to help a man to judge himself, and in judging, to see his own emptiness, that so in the sense of his own misery he may make out for mercy. The whole scope then of the Apostle is to show, that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, that they have no ability of their own: and the end is to drive them to a Christ to make up all.  
Next you go to the Parable of the Talents, Matth. 25. You reason, Our Saviour comes and bears witness to the world that he desires no more increase than the benefit of what he had first given means sufficient to bring forth, no more than was answerable to the seed he had first sown; if one Talon, than the increase of one, verse 18. The slothful man hides the Lords treasury, but verse 30, the Lord presents to us what course he will take with such servants who use such kind of sayings (as too many do in these days) that God would be gathering where he scattereth not: but that must needs be a lie, for what pleasure could the Lord himself take in any such increase where himself is not the planter? page 45. I have often found this Scripture cited by the Arminians, yet among them all I never met with any that made so corrupt a use of it as you do. Not many years since the learned Chamier, treating of the point of freewill, did endeavour to show the difference betwixt the Philosophers and the Jesuits; They (saith he, meaning the Jesuits) do admit some kind of grace, which never entered into the thought of Aristotle; they acknowledge the corruption of nature by sin, which the Philosophe's did never so much as dream of, Tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 2. sect 9 If this Author were now alive, I would gladly know what difference he would set betwixt the Philosophers and the Brethren of the Separation, who hold that infants are free from all natural corruption; what difference he would set betwixt Aristotle's Ethical Philosophy and your Moral Divinity, when you teach that Adam's abilities were as good after the fall as they were before. But now let us come to clear the Parable of the Talents. First, suppose by sufficient means you understand only the supply of the Spirit of Christ, how can you justify this to be a true interpretation, that Christ requires no more increase than the benefit of what he had first given sufficient means to bring forth? Will you say that it is absolutely necessary to have the ability in present possession before the command can be given? If this be your opinion, you must needs block up the right and the true way of bringing a soul to Christ. We preach the Law in the spiritual nature of it to a natural man, to what end is all this, but that by the sight of his own emptiness, by the convictions of the guilt of sin he may look after a Christ, first, to justify and to pardon; secondly, to sanctify and to cleanse the pollution of his nature? We do not preach the Law to him, supposing that he hath ability, but the immediate end of our preaching is by and through the inward working of the Spirit to empty him of all ability, that so he may look to the promise, where true ability is only to be had. For the words of the Parable, that he gave to every man according to his ability, ver. 15. We are not strictly to adhere to the letter, as though the Lord doth give his grace according to every man's natural ability, but it is spoken after the manner of men; he giveth his grace in a different measure, to some more, and to some less; yet all the ability is from Christ himself. And therefore when he that received one Talon accused the Lord for an hard man, for reaping there where he did not sow; the answer was, thou shouldest have given my money to the exchanger: that is, though thou hadst no ability of thine own, yet if thou hadst gone to the exchanger, to the Promiser, he was able to make profit of the money, he was able to help thee with foreign supply where thine own natural and domestical ability was wanting. Secondly, whereas you affirm, that there are many in these days that use such hard kind of say, that God would be gathering where he scattereth not, and that one day he will call such servants to account; I do acknowledge, as heretofore, so now, there are more than too many who do neglect their talon, and cast the blame upon God himself. But your aim is not so much at these, as against others who oppose freewill, and your way of setting up the natural ability of man. Though some passages in their writings are hard, yet if you would compare one thing with another, you should find that they do speak of abilities that do answer duties; of a word of promise that answereth the word of command; of the fullness of Christ set in opposition to the sinfulness and misery by Adam. Doctor Twisse disputing against the Arminians, lib. 3. errat. 9 pag. 211. doth of all others seem to tread something hard, yet he doth show many pithy reasons wherefore the Lord may give a command where there is a want of abiliy. First, saith he, men are too apt to trust in their own work to bring them to salvation; therefore that they may know the common contagion of Original sin, and thereupon the impotency and weakness that hath ensued to all good, the Lord taketh this course to show them their misery. Secondly he addeth these words, If by the grace of God we know ourselves to be no way fit or able to do those things which the Lord commandeth, yet by his just counsel he doth command us, and by his commands he doth show what we are indebted to him as Lord Creator, and that which we are not able to perform ourselves we may beg help of him that we may perform it. And from the words of Augustine he inferreth that therefore the Lord commandeth us that which is impossible, that we may know what to ask of him, for that which is impossible to be done by nature, is not impossible to be done by grace. And to come to you more particularly, he addeth, It is not necessary that we should have this grace before the Lord doth signify and make known to us by his commands what our duty is. And so in the close of all in the end of the Section he concludeth. And therefore though they could not (speaking of the Jewish Church compared to the Vineyard) rightly use those outward means by their natural abilities, yet they could by the helps of grace. So fare the Author aforenamed. I have stayed the longer upon this point, that you may see that they who have most strongly asserted the grace of God, are no enemies to the endeavour of man, and though they do teach every where that there is a want of ability to perform the commands, yet they show also where the true ability is to be had, to wit, in the Lord Christ, and in the freeness of his grace. And this is the true meaning of the parable of the Talents and of the use of them, and how in the case of non-ability we should go to the Lord Jesus Christ the great exchanger.   

CHAP. IX. Showing that though God afforded means whereby men have ability and power to do the things he requires, yet he gives them not the actions of obedience.  
IN this Chaptuer you dispute the point very largely that God giveth ability to act, but not the action. For the clearing of the matter, I will first state the question, and then I will try the strength of your reasons so fare forth as they are of force against us. For the state of the question, there are four principal opinions. The first is of them that stand upon the power of nature, as the Pelagians of old, and you now endeavour to prove that man's ability is as good since the fall, as it was before. The second is of them who do acknowledge the need of grace to heal the sinfulness of nature, but (as they define it) it is such a general, weak and common grace, that it is only made efficacious in and by the concurrence of the will. This doctrine is maintained by the Jesuits and Arminians. The third is of those who stand so much for the efficacy of grace, that they wholly take away the endeavour of man. The Enthusiasts in these days are so for the immediate workings of the Spirit, that they make us passive, as though we were mere blocks and stones in the work of our salvation. The fourth is of those who turn from these dangerous extremes, they hold a need of the grace to carry on the whole work to salvation, yet so, that man is a free agent, who works under the grace, or by the help of grace received. This is the doctrine of our Divines. And therefore when Bellarmine layeth it to our charge, as though we should teach that men are moved as mere inanimate and dead instruments. Doctor Ames maketh this answer, Bellarminus hic luctatur cum laruâ à seipso corsictâ, Bellarmine doth here fight with a man of straw of his own making, Ames. Tom. 4. cap. 3. Sect 4. And truly Sir, when you stand so much upon the point, that obedient actions are not the gift of God, if you think that we hold that men are not free agents under grace, in this you fight against your own shadow, and not against us. Your arguments, some of them, if they were rightly alleged, would be of good use against the Enthusiasts of these latter times. Let us now see how you do proceed.  

Reas. 1.  
First, say you, if God do engage himself to perform these actions, as certainly as he gives the means for that purpose, then where actions are wanting, and means in place, God may be said to fall short of finishing his own work. Then that reproach which befell the man which began to build, and finished not, will fall heavy upon the glory of God, page 46.   

Answ.  
This Argument is of force against them who hold that God doth work in us as inanimate creatures. For where actions are wanting, I cannot see but by the tenor of this doctrine the defect will lie upon God, and to this pass are more than too many brought in these days. For, do they not say, are not all the Promises of God our portion? what if we neglect such Ordinances, such means of salvation? are we not above all? Are not all the Promises of God ours, for keeping, guiding and preserving of us? We will not look to Paul, or Apollo, or the outward means, but to Christ himself to do all in us and for us. Thus men separate Gods Promises from his ways and prescriptions. But let this be observed, though God doth all by his Spirit, yet he doth it mediately by instruments, and our own endeavour is not to be excluded. For instance, to show the first work of grace upon the heart, let us consider that passage of the Apostle, and there we shall see the concurrence of God's grace, and man's endeavour. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will, 2 Tim. 2.25, 26. Though gainsayers are the furthest off from the Kingdom of Christ and of God: the Apostle would have a Minister of the Gospel to show all meekness and patience, and brotherly to exhort them? and here lays this for a ground of encouragement, Peradventure God will give them repentance to come to the acknowledging of the truth. The Minister of the Gospel must set forth the truth in evidence and demonstration, and leave it to the Lord to sanctify the work. Here then is an excellent agreement between the grace of God, and the endeavour of man. Further, after the feeling of the first grace man is not to lie idle; for, it is plainly expressed, after God hath given them repentance to come to the acknowledging of the truth, which is God's act, than these words immediately are added, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil. The word in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they may awake out of the snare of the devil. It is a metaphor drawn from men's awaking out of their drink: For as long as they are in their natural estate, and do oppose the truth, they do not know the peril of their condition; but when the Lord gives repentance, than they begin to recover themselves out of their former miserable condition, and look for further supply of grace. And so here also is an excellent concord betwixt God's grace, and the endeavour of man. But yet for further proof of this, let us consider that text, I am persuaded that he who hath begun a good work in you, will perform it to the day of Christ, Phil. 1.6. Here the Apostle speaks of a work that is spiritually and theologically good. Secondly, concerning the person that doth begin the work. Thirdly, the persons who they are in whom this good work is begun. Fourthly, the accomplishment and performance thereof, I am persuaded that he who hath begun a good work in you, will perform it unto the day of Christ. Here some may say, if the Apostle had that persuasion, that the work of grace would go on in the Philippians hearts, whether they did eat or drink, sleep or play, why did he not bid them be secure, and refer all to God? He had no such meaning, for when he saith, I am persuaded that he who hath begun a good work in you, will perform the same, he doth speak in relation to his own prayer, in the words immediately going before. Always in every prayer of mine for you all, making request with joy for your fellowship in the Gospel from the first day until now. In relation to this prayer, and their particular striving and looking after further degrees of grace, he was confident that the Lord who had begun the work, would bring the same to perfection. Let us consider the words in the following chapter, ver. 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Here the Apostle doth attribute the whole work of man's salvation, the will and the deed, to the powerful working of the Spirit of God. And that which is more, he doth ascribe it to his good pleasure to work when he will, how he will, and upon what terms he will. If any shall say, seeing God doth all, what is here left for man to do? doth not this utterly drown and extinguish endeavour? No: for upon this ground he exhorteth them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, seeing they have no natural ability and freewill of their own, but must merely depend upon the grace of God for the supply of his Spirit to carry on the work; therefore they must walk humbly with him, and take the season of grace as it is offered. Because the husbandman cannot make the Sun to shine, and the rain to fall at his own pleasure, therefore he doth wait upon God for the seasons. Even so because in the work of man's salvation, the will and the deed doth merely depend upon God's good pleasure, to work it when he will, and how he will, we are to apply ourselves to him only. When he administers the grace, we should be careful to make use of the season; seeing the matter is wholly in his hands we should walk humbly with him. And thus Mr. Everard, you see that though the action is man's, yet the ability to will and to do is only from God, and nothing from man. And so the natural ability which you endeavour to set up is nothing at all. Now let us see what you gather from the parable of the talents. I observe, say you, that Christ sets no man on work whom he hath not enabled to perform it: for he giveth out his work answerable to abilities, Matth. 25.25. Comparing himself to a Merchant he strait way went from home, as if he had said, I have so ordered my family, that I have seen my servants furnished: such a course have I taken to give every one employment not exceeding their abilities. And what could I have done more for them? do but name it. Is it not sufficient that I have made men and women fit for my work? I gave them light to direct them, and they wanted for no materials, for time they had enough. They had my commands and persuasions, and also threats in case they did neglect, page 48. These collections of yours from the parable of the Talents I might let pass, seeing I have some way hinted at these things before. But because the Pelagians, Arminians, and you of the Separation do so triumph in the words of this Scripture, I will take the more pains to clear the meaning of the text. And I will do it the rather because of one particular passage, which if it were clearly understood, would break the great design of all those who endeavour to set up the will of man: They would quickly perceive that they have no such colourable ground from the words of this Scripture. First, I do willingly agree that the command doth stand in proportion to abilities, but how? not in proportion to natural abilities, not in proportion to abilities of grace in present possession, but in proportion only to the supply of the Spirit, as it shall please the Lord to administer to them that shall work out their own salvation, and by the prayer of faith wait upon the Lord for the performance of the promise. Now whereas the slothful servant did complain against the Master for requiring more than he gave him ability to do, the Lord tells him plainly, though he had no ability of his own to husband the talon, yet he might have put the money to the exchanger. The force of which words is thus much, that though in these supernatural works which men have to do in and toward the working out of their salvation they have no ability of their own, they may go to the exchangers, to the word of promise, to the prayer of faith, and to the continual supply of the Spirit of Christ. As the ability did lie in Adam before the fall: so now all ability is to be had from Christ only. To him therefore all that are weary and heavy laden must go for help. And the Apostle when he had exhorted the believing Ephesians to the performance of many duties, for matter of ability he shutteth up all with this conclusion, Now unto him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think according to the power that worketh in us, Ephes. 3 20. Here it is plain, that Christ giveth forth work answerable to abilities, but these abilities are not inherent in men, or in the natural power of man's own will, but they are wholly to be had from the supply of the Spirit of Christ. They who pray, seek, and ask they only shall receive. We come now to your second reason.   

Reason 2.  
Secondly, say you, If God giveth us these good actions which we perform, by confequence this will make void all the commands of God, page 49.   

Answer.  
In this I am of your judgement, for if any shall say that the Lord doth all by the inward working of the Spirit, and doth not leave so much to man as to be a free agent by the power of grace received, to what purpose are counsels commands and direct one given to him who is to perform the work. This may properly be applied to the Enthusiasts, but it doth not any way extend to us. For though we wholly ascribe all to grace, 
☜  yet we acknowledge man to be a free agent, who worketh and acteth by the help of grace administered. Though God himself be almighty & often doth work so almightily, that none can or shall resist him, yet his way of working in the soul in the excitings and move of his grace are not always in that almighty way. Sometimes men do resist, nay the very elect themselves do oppose the workings of his Spirit, though they do not, nor cannot finally resist. We constantly affirm that the grace is Gods, and the act is man's. For proof of this let us consider the meaning of that expression, By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace in me was not in vain, but I laboured more than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me, 1 Cor. 15.10. Here he doth ascribe all to grace, when he saith, by the grace of God I am what I am. Though he doth attribute all to grace as to the Architectonical and principal cause, for all was done by the vigour and efficacy of that grace which was in him, yet for all this he doth not deny himself to be a free agent. He did instrumentally work by the power of that grace which was in him. Therefore in the work of his Ministry there is a truth that grace did all, and Paul did labour more than any of the Apostles: Grace did it principally, and Paul did it organically and ministerially. And thus you see though the action be man's, the vigour spirituality and efficacy is wholly from God, and nothing from man. This is the substance of our doctrine. Now let us see how you concord God's grace with man's endeavour. Without further controversy, say you, let it be confessed that the teachings of God come in to the sons and daughters of men as the tillings and manurings of God, to provoke them to produce obedient actions, page 50. This passage of yours we might let go for present, were it not for a Pelagian sense which it carries with it. For from what Scripture or experience have you this similitude, that man's nature is to be compared to a fruitful soil in such things as concern salvation? A fruitful soil though it do want due culture, hath a natural aptness to bring forth fruit: will you say that there is the same aptness in the nature of man to produce actions of obedience? doth not this go against the scope of Scripture? and do not the Saints for the production of obedient actions find need of a daily and continual supply of the Spirit of Christ? All shall turn to my salvation through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, Phil. 1.19. Though the Saints do bring forth fruit, and though it be the act of their own free obedience, yet it is not from nature as a fruitful soil, but from Christ the Vine, John 15.1, 2, etc. Our Saviour doth plainly show that every branch abiding in him, brings forth fruit. But if you will needs argue from hence the goodness and fertility of the branch in itself, he saith in express terms, without me ye can do nothing. Further you add, If this opinion should take place, that God giveth our actions, it would as well dismiss the office of the Spirit of God, and so destroy the internal means. The Spirit standeth at the door of the heart, and calleth, provoking us with a multiplicity of allurements, that we would put forth our abilities to a present performance of action, p. 51. Here, Sir, as I have formerly said, we have nothing to do with that idle opinion, that obedient actions are only the gift of God, we have nothing to do with them who demolish the endeavour of man; let them bear their own burden whosoever they be. But on the other side we must needs blame you for running into a contrary extreme, for whereas you say, that the Spirit standeth at the door of the heart, provoking us with a multiplicity of allurements to put forth our abilities to present performance; here I would entreat you to define what those abilities are which the Spirit doth provoke us to exert and put forth? If you mean our natural abilities (as you can mean no other, seeing they stand contradistinct to the allurements of the Spirit) than you will ascribe the chief work of salvation to man's nature, and the part of the Spirit shall be only to allure and persuade. By this account not only the action, but also the ability and the power to act will be from man.  
But because the Pelagians of old, the Arminians of late, and you now have such frequent recourse to this Scripture, Rev. 3. 17, 18, 19, 20. let us read the words. Because thou sayest I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art poor, miserable, blind, and naked: I counsel thee that thou buy of me gold tried in the fire that thou mayest be rich, and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed, that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see. As many as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and amend. Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in and sup with him. From the words these Corollaries may be deduced. First, not only the Church of Laodicea, but also all men else are spiritually dead and miserable, if we look upon them as considered in the state of nature. Secondly, men by their natural ability do not discern the misery of that condition. Thirdly, such as Christ doth intent to bring to salvation he will begin with them in the opening of the eye of their understanding to see that in themselves they are poor, miserable, blind and naked. Fourthly, by the conviction of his Spirit he will show them that he hath a supply for all their wants: for their blindness he hath eyesalve, for their nakedness he hath white raiment, for their poverty he hath gold tried in the fire, and for all their wants he hath a proportionable supply. Fifthly, the Lord Christ at sundry intervals of time doth stand at the door & show these things to the hearts of the sons men: if therefore they see them, receive them, and in the sense of their own emptiness go to him for all, they shall have more large and full communications of himself, he will come in and sup with them. This is the natural sense of the text, and what is here to set up the ability of man: The whole scope of the place is rather to pluck down his abilities that the Lord Christ may be all in all. But in case you stand upon these words, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, we grant that in the matter of salvation man is a free agent; when God sends the Spirit into his heart to reprove him of sin; he is then able to judge himself, when the Lord also discovers the love of Christ to the heart, by the teachings of the Word without, and the Spirit within, he is then able to believe. Further, when God giveth a Christ-like disposition, he is then able to show sonlike affections towards God, and make expression that the Law is written in his heart: In a word, he hath power so fare to open the door as he hath ability from Christ, he cannot go one step further. And therefore when the Spirit stands at the door and knocks, to speak properly, there is no natural ability in us, all ability is from grace; we must look to Christ only, and the more we look to him in the sense of our own weakness, the more we shall have. All that may truly be gathered from this Scripture is, that a man is a free agent in the work of his salvation, but the ability is only from Christ and not from us. Now we will consider the force of your third Reason.   

Reas. 3.  
If God, say you, giveth men actions of obedience, than were he to be obeyed by men not otherwise then the winds and seas obey him. In this case there can be no talon, no neglect of duty on man's part, no more than there is in the axe or saw in dividing of a piece of timber.   

Answer.  
This argument I confess is of force against them who give all to the Spirit, that they make man himself merely passive, as a stupid block. I am against them as well as you. But you do not only strike at these, but against them also who are for the Lords free election, and the special communication of his own grace infallibly to bring his people to salvation. And thereupon, say you, such an obedience may thus be compared, as if God should come and put a purse of gold into the hand of men and force it upon them, and call that their obedience; and to many other men give them not a pennyworth, and demand some of them, and because it was not there dispose of their persons to everlasting ruin, page 53. Here you endeavour to misrepresent the doctrine of the Lords free election, and make it odious to your own ends. But we will make it clear that man's obedience may well consist with the doctrine of election, and his disobedience also may consist with the doctrine of nonelection. 
☞   
For the first, let us consider the meaning of that place, I will make an everlasting covenant with them, I will never turn away from them to do them good, I will put my fear into their hearts, and they shall never departed from me, Jer. 32.40. That which is here spoken must needs be a promise to the elect, because it is expressly said, I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, I will never turn away from them. These words do note the communication of an infallible grace, but yet not so as any kind of way to diminish and impair the endeavour of man: for this is not wrought immediately by the Spirit alone, but mediately by the Spirit upon the heart of man. And therefore these words are immediately added, I will put my fear into their heart, and they shall never departed from me. Because the Lord had an intent to keep them from back-sliding, the did resolve to infuse a sonlike fear into their hearts to avoid all spiritual dangers, and to keep themselves from falling. And so we may see how the infallible administration of the grace may stand with the free act and endeavour of man. But let us go to another Scripture. I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh, I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements and do them. Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your do that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities, and for your abominations, Ezek. 36.25, 26, 27. Here in these words also there is a promise to the Lords peculiar people, that he will bestow his special grace upon them; in these words, a new heart will I give them, and they shall keep my commandments; I will wash them with clean water.  
Secondly, here is their particular act, by the power of grace received, they shall freely walk in the Lords statutes when he shall give them a new heart; they shall loathe their abominations when he shall wash them with clean water. The more subtle sort of Arminians in several Treatises do seem to ascribe much to grace, only they make the point of the question to stand in the modus rei, or the manner of the grace, that God doth not so infallibly work upon the heart ut eventus non possit non sequi, that the event cannot choose but follow. This is the stumbling stone and the rock of offence that they stumble at.  
Now let us consider what is allege in their Apology to the forementioned Scripture, First, say they, this promise is peculiar to the last times, therefore it cannot be applied to the conversion of the elect, which is one and the same in all times. Answ. Though the promise is specially to be applied to the call to the Jews, yet it doth strongly enforce the point. For the question being only de modo rei, concerning the manner of the thing this Scripture plainly showeth the certainty and infallibility of such a grace, by and through which the Jews shall be brought home in the last days. If we look to the dispersion of that Nation over all Countries of the world, we may conceive it a thing impossible to natural reason for them to be gathered together, yet God hath promised to gather them into one body, and that David shall be their King in the latter days. Even so, if we look to the enmity and perverseness of a people against the Gospel of Christ, there is no Nation under the whole heaven for these many hundred years that hath been such desperate adversaries as they have been. There are neither English, nor Spanish, nor French, nor Italian, no not Turks nor Tartars that are greater haters of the Gospel than this people have been, and yet are: Yet notwithstanding all this antipathy they shall be called, and through the call they shall be infallibly brought home in the latter times. Though according to natural reason this may seem very improbable, God will certainly perform his promise, and no obstacle or hindrance shall be able to obstruct the work. From hence then it is clear, if we go to the modus rei, or the manner of the thing, we may easily collect that the way of God in working the conversion of his people may be after a certain and infallible manner.  
Secondly, they argue, If God will do all by his power, why are men commanded to make themselves a new heart and a new spirit? This were irrational to do on man's part, seeing God hath already decreed and promised to do the work himself. 
☞  Answ. Though God doth resolve certainly to bring a thing to pass in his decrees and purposes, though he doth promise also that it shall be certainly done, yet this doth not hinder the endeavour of man, seeing it is his manner to bring things about by man's endeavour as the chief mean or instrument. As for example, when Saint Paul and his company were in danger of shipwreck, the Lord did tell him by night in a vision, that there should not be the loss of any man's life, but of the ship only, Acts 27.22. Here was a certain promise, and thereupon the Apostle did certainly conclude that they should all come safe to land. You will say then, did not the certainty of the promise, especially seeing God would perform it by power, hinder their endeavour? No: For when they came into a place where two seas did meet, and the ship did stick fast in the sand, every man did shift for his own life, some by swimming, and some upon broken pieces of the ship, God had promised that there should not be the loss of any man's life, 
☜  and this he did effect by making every one of them careful to preserve his own life. So in the case of those men which God doth intent to bring to eternal salvation, he will first or last, sooner or later, and that by his own power make them careful of their own salvation. As in the words of the text, he first promised to give a new heart, that is, the spirit of love into the heart, and when this is done, than they shall keep his commandments. So than it is clear that the infallibility of the decree of election, and the certainty of the promise of God do not make void the free obedience of that people which he doth intent to bring to salvation.  
But thirdly, they object, Though he doth give a new heart, it is not absolutely necessary that he should give it cum effectu, with the effect. He may give it with great efficacy, yet nevertheless the grace may be resisted by the malignity of the will of man. Answ. It is confessed that God may give grace, and men may resist, and by resisting may lose the grace that is offered. But the question is, whether the new heart or the new spirit may finally be resisted, ye or no? If any man believe that it may, let him answer the words of that promise, Jer. 31.31, 32. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, not according to the Covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which Covenant they broke. But this is the Covenant that I will make after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. In the present case then, the writing of the Law in the heart must be meant only of an effectual inscription; if this be not so, where will be the difference betwixt the old & the new Covenant, betwixt the Covenant that God made with the people when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt, and the Covenant that he will make in the latter days? For the covenant that he made with them at their coming out of Egypt they broke, but the new Covenant shall not be broken: when the Lord shall write his Law in their hearts, than all shall know him from the greatest to the least. Therefore, if we go to the manner of the thing, the work of conversion may be wrought with efficacy and infallibility on God's part, and yet there be no detriment or damage to man's obedience.  
Master Everard, I have stayed the longer upon this point, to to show you the inequality of your similitude, as though God did deal with his elect in forcing a purse of gold upon them, and then call that their obedience. We say the contrary, God may infallibly work upon the hearts of his people, and by his necessary and infallible workings bring them on to a free and a cheerful obedience. Their free endeavour must needs stand with a subordination under his decrees and workings.  
Now let us go to the harder case of the Non-elect; and here the decree of God, and the certainty thereof doth not any way free men from being the children of disobedience. Let us take a view of that Scripture, What if God willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? Rom. 9.22. From hence it is clear that there are none destroyed but such as are prepared and fitted for destruction; and for the preparation the Lord in the ordinary way doth endure men first with much long-suffering. For the clearing of this, let us consider that passage of the Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.19, 20. By which spirit also he went and preached to those spirits that are in prison, which sometimes were disobedient when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah. Therefore let the decree of nonelection be what it will be in the purpose of God, yet we are sure in the ordinary way it is not put in execution, 
☞  but the Lord doth endure men first with much long-suffering. We may proceed with this gradation, None are destroyed but those that are made fit for destruction: None are made fit for destruction but such as he hath endured with much patience; and there is none that he hath endured with much patience, but he hath striven with them from time to time with convictions of his Spirit, and they have showed many acts of disobedience against such inward motions and workings. Therefore the decree of nonelection, (as it is to be put in execution) may well stand and consist with the disobedience of man: so that he himself shall be the cause of his own condemnation. If this be so, I know no just cause you have to complain; for say you, I wonder how they can call it our duty, while they affirm that God never intended that we should do that work, and so never furnished us to that purpose, page. 55. If you apply these things to us and our doctrine, (as it is probable you do,) than I must tell you that you heap up calumnies; we do not maintain any such position, that the Lord doth not furnish the non-elect with abilities; there is none of them all but he hath more ability than he useth. And for the temporary believer, we hold that he hath very great qualifications, and is able to go very far. Here only lies the point of the difference, that the Lord doth not give him such abilities as will infallibly carry him on unto salvation. This is his peculiar dealing with the elect, as may be proved from divers Scriptures. 
☜  But here perhaps will lie a great question between the grace administered to the elect, and to the non-elect, where doth the way part, and how shall we distinguish them? In this case we may not look so nicely to every punctilio, there is a day appointed in which God will judge the world, yet for the particular time no man can tell when it shall be, that all may be prepared for it. So in the present case, it is confessed by all serious and sober-minded men, that God doth administer his grace to bring the sons of men to salvation, yet for the manner, why he should administer it to some this way, and to others that way; why he should continue it to some notwithstanding all resistings, and on the contrary take it from others when they have resisted such a certain time. For these various & several ways of administration, I think they are of set purpose kept secret in the will of God that men should work out their salvation with fear and trembling, that they should strive to enter in at the straight gate, that they should not neglect the day of their visitation. We now come to your fourth reason.   

Reas. 4.  
If God, say you, were so the giver of actions that our not performing of actions were for want of his gift, than our not acting could not be transgression, pag. 56.   

Answer.  
Let them consider this to whom it doth belong, it is none of our doctrine: but you are as faulty in the other extreme, when you say that God requireth action of none but those whom he hath furnished with present abilities. This (if my judgement be any thing) is the grand fallacy that hath not only imposed upon you, but also upon many others of your way. But seeing you will needs have it that God calleth men to act according to present abilities, I pray you tell me what present ability had Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt? what ships had he prepared to transport them over the red sea? show me also what provision he had laid up in store for forty years' march through the wilderness? what council of war had he to judge when it was fit for the campt to move. Nay through the whole story of the Bible make it appear what abilities any of the Saints had, 
☞  if you speak of their own abilities to do the greatest works of faith. In these cases I think rather that God's Word of command is given in mutual relation and correspondency to his Word of promise, and not to abilities which any man hath in present possession. If we attentively consider the meaning of the Scriptures we shall find when the Spies returned from searching the Land of Canaan, the great sin of the people of Israel was, that they measured all by present abilities. Because the sons of Anach were there, they did conclude it was a thing impossible to bring that Land into subjection, they never considered that it was the Land of promise, and that the Lord himself would do all by his own power, Num. 13.27, 28. Josh. 1.2, 3. Psal. 44.1, 2, 3. And for that speech of yours, that Christ never blamed the unprofitable servant for want of abilities; Though he did not blame him for that, yet he did condemn him for not putting his money to the exchanger. In this case though he had no ability of his own, yet he might have it from another, if he had looked after the grace and the power of God. And further, whereas you say that Christ calls for action of them only whom he hath already furnished; this is not so, he calleth for action of those whom he either hath furnished, or will furnish. The Martyrs have been called forth to great sufferings in times of persecution, yet the whole stock of abilities was not put into their hands at one time: they did believe what God did call them to, he would make them able to bear. And that which they had not for the present, they did believe they should have, seeing he was faithful that had promised. As for that instance which you allege, that Jethro, Moses his father in Law did blame him for doing of that which he was not able to do. Consider the case aright, Jethro did question whether the thing which Moses did, was commanded of God or no, and therefore he did debate the matter with him, why he did undertake a business beyond his strength. But it is not so in the matter that concerns our salvation; we are to do that which is commanded of God, and to look to him for supply of Spirit for the performance of his own work. But against this you let fall a desperate speech; Such a neglect of action (say you) will never deserve to be called sin, because it is a forced waiting and staying the Lords leisure. But where men are entitled offenders for not putting forth to action, is not because they stayed for Gods acting, but rather God for a long time waited for them, pag. 57 I answer, men are entitled offenders both ways; first, because they come not in to God when he calls them. Secondly, when they do not wait upon him for the performance of the promise. The Israelites in the Wilderness may be an example; they sinned in this, in that they came not in to God when he waited for them; and it is as true also that they sinned in not putting forth to action when they had so many promises of the presence and assistance of God to go along with them. The Psalmist did assign this as the chief cause of their grand rebellio, they always erred in their hearts, because they knew not his ways. They would have all in present possession, and God would have them also to live by faith in the promise.   

Reas. 5.  
We must (say you) take heed of harbouring such a doctrine, which in the very nature of it breedeth such conceits, that God is a respecter of persons, if he should give some men means to act and actions, and not give them unto all whom he bathe commanded to act, page 60.   

Answ.  
In this I do agree with you, that they do involve themselves in many difficulties whosoever they be that teach that obedient actions are so the gift of God, that man is merely passive without life or motion. There are more than too many in these days that are of this belief, and there are a multitude of abfurdities which follow that doctrine. But whereas you admonish us of harbouring such a tenant as in the very nature of it breedeth such conceits that God is a respecter of persons; this imputation, as of old, so now of late, in your apprehension doth seem to lie heavy upon them that maintain the doctrine of God's free election. But in this case the Apostle himself doth make a plain and an express answer, he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he hath compassion on whom he will have compassion, Rom. 9.11, 12, 13. The sense of the place is briefly this, If God choose Jacob, it is an act of his mere mercy, he is not bound to it by any rule of distributive justice: and if he hate Esau, that is, if he do not love him with that peculiar love infallibly to bring him to salvation, he hath no obligation upon him, he may do with his own as he pleaseth. His purpose is in the salvation of the elect to magnify the riches of his grace, as in the condemnation of the non-elect to set forth the glory of his justice. But let us more attentively consider the words of the Apostle, What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, Rom. 9.23. Camero upon the place hath this good observation: Which difference, saith he, the Apostle hath prudently noted, for when be doth discourse concerning them whom God hath called, he doth use these words, whom he hath before prepared to glory, to wit, that he may here decipher the effectual work of God. But when he doth speak of them whom he doth not call, he doth not say that they are such vessels which God hath before prepared, but simply vessels prepared and fitted, according to that saying, thy destruction is of thyself O Israel. Upon these grounds we do conclude, in matter of election and nonelection there can be no respect of persons with God: for the elect are saved merely by grace, and the non-elect are damned and cast away justly for their sins; nay, for the slighting, neglecting, and most wilful abusing of the patience and long-suffering of God, and the voluntary hardening themselves in sin.   

Reas. 6.  
Further you argue, If God were simply the worker of obedient actions in men, or for men, as be doth with other creatures, than there were no use for repentance: the ground of that work were wholly prevented. For should they repent because God hath not acted, it were all one as to repent because God hath made no more worlds, pag. 60.   

Answ.  
This argument of yours, if it were rightly applied, would be of good moment against that kind of men who are for enthusiasms. For if it be a good reason to affirm that there are no more worlds in being because God hath made no more; the reason must be one and the same, according to their doctrine, such and such a man doth not repent because God did not work repentance in him as an inanimate instrument. For our parts we plainly affirm, that though God doth work repentance in men, he doth it congruenter, as in rational and intellectual creatures. For we are to suppose that men have principles to act them, and therefore when the Lord doth enable them to repent, they have power to turn from their evil way. In this case as repentance is God's gift, so it is man's act; man doth freely repent by the power of grace received; Many also voluntarily do harden their own hearts in neglecting of that grace which should bring them to repentance. From all which we do conclude, that obedient actions do belong to men as the power, ability and grace is wholly from God.  
We will go on, & consider the Scriptures which you do pervert to a contrary sense. To begin therefore with that place of the Apostle, work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you the will and the deed. Here say you, If God doth work the will and the deed, what is here left for man to do? 
☞  Answ. Such a good proficient you are in your way of wrangling against the Priests (as you call them) that now at last you are come to except against the words of the Apostle. Doth he not say in plain and significant terms, that the Lord doth work in us the will and the deed? and doth he not upon this ground exhort men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling? But that we may clear the coherence and connexion of the text, we will note three things in special. First, we are to distinguish betwixt Gods dealing in the work of creation, and his dealing in the working of man's salvation. For his dealing in the work of creation, he made man in a moment of time; but for the work of salvation, he doth carry it on step by step. Again, in the work of creation the Lord did make man without any act of his own, he did not know when he was in making: but it is otherwise in the act of salvation, this work is carried on by men's own acts, and by the concurrence of their own endeavour. And hereupon though the Apostle doth affirm that God doth work the will and the deed, yet it is men's duty also to work out their own salvation. Secondly, we are to note that the act of man in working out his own salvation must be by a supernatural power; he may govern families, he may build Cities, he may learn arts and sciences without the communication of any special grace from God: but he cannot do so in the working out of his own salvation; God must first work the will and the deed, and then man will be able to work out his salvation, and not till then. Thirdly; these words are added, with fear and trembling, to show that man must do it humbly, carefully, and with dependence upon the grace of God, seeing he hath not the power of inspiration in his own hand. But more fully to set forth the meaning of the Apostle, we will cite another Scripture which is parallel to this. These are the words of the Lord to the children of Israel in the wilderness, Behold I send mine Angel before thee to keep thee in the way to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak, than I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary to thine adversaries, for my Angel shall go before thee and bring thee unto the Amorites, the Hittites and the Perizites, and I will cut them off. Exod. 23.21, 22, 23. Here, if you diligently observe the text, do lie first a promise, secondly a Precept. For the promise the Lord doth tell them, That he will send his Angel before them as a Convoy, to guide them in the way, and to plant them in the land of Canaan. And for the way, because they were to be in the Wilderness forty years, without fields, without clothing, without means to sustain the life of man, therefore they should be more immediately under the custody and tuition of the Angel. This Angel must needs be Christ, he was the pillar of cloud that went before them by day, and he was the pillar of fire that was their leader by night, he fed them with Manna, and supplied their want with water out of the rock. To this the Apostle seemeth to allude, they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. Further, after the forty years' pilgrimage were ended the Lord doth promise that their Convoy should not leave them, but that he should go before them and drive out the Canaanites, because it was not in their own power to bring the land into subjection. This is the Lords promise, and therefore in sense and substance the Angel must do the whole work. Secondly, let us consider what is the duty of the people, and that is contained in these words, Beware of him, obey his voice, provoke him not, etc. Because they did wholly depend upon him for all, therefore they should be careful to observe him and to follow him in his leadings. The force of the reason is the same in the words of the text, work out your salvation with fear and trembling, because God works in you the will and the deed; because his Spirit is all in all the cause of man's salvation to carry on the work; because his Spirit doth convince, reprove, teach, comfort, seal, and guide the Saints, therefore they should walk tenderly and carefully toward him; The Apostle saith, grieve not the Spirit of grace by which ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption, Ephes. 4.30. In case they do with him as disobedient children do with their parents, when they give them good counsel, the Spirit will neither comfort nor seal them any more, but will leave them to a state of darkness and discomfort. And this is the true meaning of the text. We may hereby understand how God doth carry on the whole work of salvation, and this doth no way impair or diminish the endeavour of man.  
In the close of all you tell us, Let us say with the Apostle, in our hearts, that we desire to strive with daily labourings, according to the mighty workings whereby he worketh in us, Col. 1.29. And do not say any more it is God that worketh our actions, but be thankful to him that giveth us sufficient means, Page 63. You have heard before that the Lord doth work in us the will and the deed, and therefore the spirituality of the action is wholly from God, though we are free workers by the help of his grace. But let us take your words in the fairest construction; If you will stand firmly to this principle, that God gives sufficient means by a power working in us, you need not fly to the purity of nature, to natural freewill, and to such like beggarly rudiments to salve the endeavour of man. In this place you seem to speak for grace, when elsewhere through your whole treatise you drive the bargain altogether for the natural abilities of the will. But seeing you have offered this text to our consideration, we will endeavour to draw from it the concord betwixt the grace of God, and the endeavour of man. The words are these, Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working which worketh in me mightily. The Apostle speaketh of the work of the Ministry, whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, whereunto I labour according to the mighty workings that he worketh in us. Here it is plain that the Apostle did work in teaching and instructing every one, and it was not so much his work as the work of the Spirit in him and by him. When he was at Athens his Spirit was stirred up in him, when he saw the City wholly given to Idolatry. Why are not the like excitations of spirit in men in there days who travel to Constantinople, to Ligorn, to Rome, seeing hose people are wholly given either to Mahometan superstition, or Popish Idolatry? The reason is manifest, the same spirit doth not work so mightily in the hearts of men as it did sometime in the heart of Paul; because he was filled with the Spirit he did show abundant sympathy and bowels of affection towards all the lost sons of men. But to come to instances in these last times, when the Gospel was plucked down, and the Mass was set up in Queen Mary's days, the Martyr being in a journey, declared his intention, that he would preach in his charge the next Lord's day; and when he that journeyed with him, told him, than he would certainly be cast into prison; his answer was, I am in prison, till I am in prison. He was bound in his spirit to preach the Gospel to the souls which he had taken charge of; he could have no peace otherwise then in the discharge of his duty. He did labour freely, yet so as his labour was by the inward moving of the Spirit. But of all other places that passage of our Saviour is most used by the Enthusiasts, Ye shall be brought before Kings and Princes for my sake, but when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given to you in that hour what you shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you, Mat. 10.18, 19, 20. Though this promise is made to the Martyrs and Confessors in times of persecution, yet it is not made to them in that manner as to extinguish and drown all endeavour of their own; as though God would do all, and they should be discharged of their duty. The promise is only made to such as should engage themselves for Christ, and should humbly in the use of the means depend upon him for the supply of his Spirit. And thus we see that the Spirit does all, and yet in the most spiritual actions man himself is a free-worker. It shall be given you in that hour what you shall speak. This expression, what you shall speak, showeth plainly that the Saints are free Agents.  
Let us now consider that place, Ephes. 2.8, 9 For by grace ye are saved through faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 
☜  Here you yield that salvation as purchased by Christ, is the gift of God, but you will not have faith itself to be the gift of God: you grant one part of the text to deny another. If you consider the words, you shall find that not only salvation, but also faith itself is God's free gift. If this be not so, how could the Ephesians come to believe? The Apostle saith, that they were dead in trespasses and sins, they walked according to the course of the world, they fulfilled the lusts of the flesh and of the mind. Therefore they could not come to believe by any natural ability, but merely by the quickening work of the Spirit. Further, this expression is added ver. 10. We are his work manship created of God unto good works. By nature they were dead in trespasses and sins, and if that now they could perform any spiritual act they were made able to do this by the new creation or workmanship of God. Further, if faith be not the Lords gift, the believing Ephesians must be supposed to have it from their own ability. If this be so, how shall we agree with the scope of the Apostle? who saith in express terms, You are saved by grace through faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Truly Sir, if your faith be not God's gift, it will be of yourself, and you will have cause of boasting, as though you did make yourself to differ from other men, and what is this else but to go point blank against the scope of the Scripture? And though I do plead this truth against you, in affirming faith to be the gift of God, yet I say also it is the act of man. God gives the grace, and man believes. These two are not so parted asunder, but that they may be joined together.  
For your third Scripture, concerning the striving for the faith given to the Saints which S. Judas speaks of, this is not meant of the grace or habit of faith in the heart, but of the doctrine of faith only: That men should strive to preserve the Gospel in its purity and integrity against the heresies of the times. But you go further to show the absurdities that will follow upon the holding of that position, that obedient actions are the gift of God you say, If God should give the actions as sure as he giveth means to act, than a man's conscience might and would as well accuse him for want of means to act, as for want of action. But I never heard (say you) that any man's conscience accused him for want of means to perform his actions, but because be made not use of the means. In this passage of yours as their ear some things which I allow as true and sound: so there are others which I do reject as false and unsound, For, as I have said before, they who deny a man to be a free Agent, I cannot see by the tenor of their doctrine how their conscience can accuse them for non-performance of action; seeing they hold that both the act & the means to act are only from God, and man is merely passive. So far you & I are agreed, but whereas you oppose the carrying on of the work of salvation by the power & the grace of God, in this you contradict the Scriptures, and by name that place of the Apostle We are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5. That the Saints do persevere, it is mainly from the power of God who carries on the work: But how? not without their own endeavour. Ye are kept by the power of God through faith. Men must apply the promise of God, and that will engage his power to carry them on to salvation. And yet further, God speaketh of his elect, I will put my Spirit in them, that they shall keep my Commandments and do them. But most plainly in that place, 2 Thes. 2.13. We are bound to give God thanks for you brethren, that he hath chosen you from the beginning to salvation, through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. In the Words going before, he doth speak of the great Apostasy that should be in all Antichristian times; that because men did not receive the truth in the love of it that they might he saved, therefore God should deliver them over to strong delusions to believe lies. By way of opposition to these Apostates, the Apostle comforts the believing Thessalonians with the infallibility and certainty of their salvation. But how would he bring them to salvation? through the sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth. These two means he doth name, to show that God will bring none to salvation as the end, but he will first justify and sanctify them in the use of the means. Though he will carry on the work by his own power infallibly and certainly in the hearts of his people, yet their act endeavour and obedience shall go along with the working of his grace. Many such like places might be brought to show that the infallible workings of God may stand with the endeavours of his own people. Secondly, whereas you affirm That you never heard any man's conscience accuse him for want of means, but for want of using the means: Oh Sir, in what corner of the world were you brought up, that the fame of this never came to your ears! I think it is a truth well known in the Church of God, that men's consciences do accuse them not only because they made no use of the means, but also because through their own default the means are not administered to them, or that they are taken from them. If it had been your lot to visit men in trouble of conscience, in agonies and gripes upon their sick-beds, there you should have heard such words as these, again and again repeated, Had I sought God, had I prayed in faith of his promise, had I walked humbly with him, had I fruitfully used the grace administered to me as a good and profitable Steward, I had never wanted the means to subdue the power and rage of such and such corruptions. It is merely from mine own defect that there is such a strangeness betwixt the Lord and me. These are the ordinary complaints of men who neglect the day of their salvation, and you tell us you never heard any man's conscience accuse him for the want of the means: when the talon was taken from the unprofitable servant he was deprived of the means: but was not that deprivation through his own fault? but you further add, If conscience be so well informed, that it must and will bear witness, then of whom shall it bear witness? against God? No marvel that there be so many corrupt say, if God had given me abilities, powers and actions, than I would have done it. Nay do not many say, I must be contented to stay God's time? Hath God commanded you before his time? Nay do not you discharge yourself of duties in saying it is not his time? page 72. Such a dextrous faculty you have in cavilling against the main truths of Christianity. But when I read this and such like passages through your whole Treatise, I cannot but compare the state of the Church in these times to the ship that carried Saint Paul to Rome, the forepart of it stuck in the sand, and the hinder part of it was broken with the waves. Into such desperate extremes are we now fallen. For if we speak of actions of obedience, if the power be not placed chief in the will of man, you and the whole nation of the Free-willers do tell us that we be discharged from duty, seeing we are cast upon a necessity of waiting when the matter is not in our own hand. On the other side there is sprung up a generation of fanatical men which are so opposite to the freedom of will, that they think the Spirit must do all: they will not give thanks at meat, nor pray in their families, nor hear the Word, nor perform any other spiritual duty, until they have a motion of the Spirit. Indeed the Waiters in this sense do come to your pitch, they think themselves to be discharged from duty till the coming of the Spirit. But is there no middle between these desperate extremes? Is there no discharge of duty in obedience to the Commands of God? There is no man that lives in the Kingdom of grace, but in some one thing or other he must be contented to stay the Lords time: what then, shall we say because he is necessitated to wait, he is therefore discharged of all duty? Not so: he is still to act in a lower sphere, and to wait for further communications as it shall please the Lord to impart them. These are the words of the Apostle, let us therefore as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, Phil. 3.15, 16. The meaning of the place is this; every man should walk according to his present attainments and abilities, 
☜  and in walking, doing and discharging his duty wait upon God for further discoveries. A natural man is furthest off from God: what then? is he absolutely discharged from duty? Is he not to come to Church, to hear the Gospel, and to wait upon the means? peradventure God may give him repentance to convince him of the evil of his ways. Though it is not in his own power to repent, yet thereby he is not acquitted and discharged from all performance of duty. And so in sundry cases, men are to discharge their duty according to present abilities, they are to walk in those paths that he hath appointed, and to wait upon him for the supply of spirit. It is the voice of the Church in her great tribulation, I will look unto the Lord, I will wait for the God of my salvation, Mic 7.7. Now tell me I pray you, seeing the Church was compelled to stay God's time, to wait as it were on a Watch Tower (for so the word in the Original doth signify) will you lay that in this whole interval she is discharged from all duty? This is not so; she did discharge her duty in praying, seeking and looking to God only, and in the performance of all these she waited upon him for comfort; she had none else in all the world, no father, no brother, no friend, no wisdom of the flesh, no other refuge but God only. When she had darkness and no light, she had a firm persuasion that at last he would plead her cause, execute judgement for her, that he would bring her forth to light, and she should see his righteousness. But you go on, do not other men say of God, that he so pitied the world, seeing their hard cold frozen hearts, therefore of his own goodness did he provide fuel enough to warm and melt them, but when that is done, withholds the right hand of his power from putting the fuel into a flaming fire to secure them in their distress, and then comes to them, and saith be warmed and comforted? likening God to that hard hearted man spoken of Jam. 2.15, 16. And more such like passages you have page 72. Who these other men are whom you here intent I cannot certainly tell; if you mean the friends and followers of this Church from whom you have departed, I must tell you, you do charge us with that which we do not maintain; It is not the result of our doctrine, to resemble God to that hard hearted man, Who bids them be warmed, and gives them not wherewithal? We say there are promises to give faith, as well as to faith given; to give love, as well as to love given; to put fear into the heart, as well as to fear which is put into the heart. There are sundry promises given to that end, that men may go cheerfully about the performance of action, that doing their duties they may feel the power and presence of the Spirit to go along with them. Therefore we do not say that God keeps the fuel in his own hand, and that men are frozen for want of heat. These are your calumnies, but not our doctrine. But to aggravate the matter, you further add, The Physician openeth the mouth of one in a hundred, and poureth it in by force, as for all the rest they are not allotted any share or part therein, and yet shall suffer deeply for not taking it, it being proffered, but not given them. page 73. How hard a thing is it for you to leave your old custom of corrupting our say before you do confute them? We hold that there is a peculiar number which God hath chosen from the beginning to salvation; these in time he effectually calleth, justifieth and sanctifieth; but we never teach that he poureth his grace into them by force. Again, for others, we hold there is a grace given to them: nay, temporary believers have very great degrees of grace which they fall from by their own desault. It is an Impudent calumny then to affirm of us that we should say there is no share or part allotted to them; that grace is proffered, and not given. For my part I do believe in the ordinary way God gives more abilities to men by the convictions of his Spirit than they do profitably use. All the difficulty of the point will come to this issue, touching the peculiarity of this grace which carries some infallibly and certainly to salvation, when others are left for their resisting of the Spirit. If then you list to go further, and ask after the reason why God doth deal so unequally with men; here the Scriptures do confine you to the Lords good pleasure. This I am sure they would not do if a substantial reason otherwise might be given from any thing in man himself. Why else should our Saviour say, Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, O Father, because it pleaseth thee. And yet further, 
☜  they who do with judgement maintain the doctrine of election, do not think that this mystery is to be propounded to all men, and at all times, as some unadvised and inconsiderate men have done. To let pass all that may be said, if you will go to the Doctrine of the Church of England in the seventeeths Article, you shall find that the main sense and import of the Article is this, that such persons only should have the consideration of their election in Christ propounded to them, who feel in themselves the Spirit mortifying the works of the flesh. As for curious and carnal persons it is more proper for them to look to the threats of God that they may be humbled; and for others also when they come to be humbled, it is not for them presently and immediately to meddle with election, but with God's promises in such wise only as they are generally set forth to them in holy Scriptures, and that will of God they are to follow which he hath expressly declared and revealed in his own Word. This is the substance of the Doctrine of our Church concerning election, and how by several stages and degrees we are to come to the assurance thereof.  
We will add a few words more to the clearing of the point, that we may see how the endeavour of man doth run parallel with the grace of God and doth work under the grace. To this end let us distinguish the two states of man; his state before conversion, and his state after. For the state of man before conversion, 
☞  though of himself he cannot think a good thought, yet by and through the convictions of the Spilt he may be helped to judge himself and to see the misery of his lost condition. Many solid and judicious Writers do acknowledge antecedaneous works before conversion. Secondly, after conversion, when a man is brought so fare as to apprehend the promise, and hath a real work wrought upon his heart in feeling the love of Christ to the lost sons of men: when he is come so fare the work is not at an end, for these two reasons. First, there are higher degrees of grace which a Christian is to follow after: for so saith the Apostle, not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after to apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark, for the price of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, Phil. 3.13, 14 Here these particulars are observable. First, what was the goal that the Apostle did drive at, it was for the price of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Secondly, with what affection did he follow after the mark of the price; he did forget the things that were behind, and did press forward to the things that were before. As poor people in a dear year do press forward, and reach over one another's heads to receive a dole of meat or money. Thirdly, what was that which moved him to be so vehement in his pursuit, it was not from any natural instinct, but from the drawing of the Spirit of Christ, which did whet on his desires. I follow on to apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ. Here is an excellent agreement betwixt the grace and the Spirit of Christ that did first apprehend Paul, and his endeavour that did follow on to apprehend. And thus we see from the beginning to the end, that the grace doth all, and the endeavour of man is never idle. I have been the more full in this Doctrine, because the Enthusiasts on the one side, and the Arminians on the other side lie in camp against the Church. On either side they have some colour of truth to usher in their damnable Positions, by and through which the simple are ensnared. And as many subtle Merchants, when they have bad corn to fell, put the best upon the top of the bag: even so do these seducers begin with very taking considerations, that by some preceding truths they may bring in their subsequent errors. The Enthusiast will speak against a notional faith, and against idle speculations of Christ without power; and stand strongly upon it that there must be a real and an inward work wrought upon the heart, or else all is nothing: and so fare he goes fair. But this is not enough with him, he is not contented only to condemn them that make an Idol of the means, but also he will slight all means whatsoever; all reading of Scriptures, all frequenting of Ordinances, all striving in prayer, all endeavour whatsoever with him are empty figures and bare externals. Now you on the other side turn unto another extreme, and in your way you have also the best corn upon the top of the bag. You stand strictly to maintain that a man is a free-worker in the matter of his salvation, otherwise exhortations and admonitions would be of no moment; and so fare you go very right. But this will not satisfy you unless you may set up the natural ability of man, maintain freewill, and other such like Pelagian positions. For these reasons I have taken the more pains rightly to define and to state the truth betwixt the grace of God and the endeavour of man, to avoid the detestable errors on both extremes. Now I will proceed to your next Chapter.    

CHAP. X. Containing divers questions with their solutions.  
HERE in the beginning you raise two questions concerning the ability which Adam had before the fall; and then propound a third, whether the fall was decreed by the secret will of God? For the ability which Adam had before his fall, I do willingly acknowledge that men may raise intricate and thorny questions about this, though to small purpose. But touching this point I do desire to lay down some necessary observations, because I will not stand upon every punctilio; And then I will come to the solution of your chief question.  
First, for the true cause of the fall, we do affirm that our first parents being seduced by the temptation of Satan, did voluntarily and freely eat the forbidden fruit. Their own defective will was the immediate cause of their fall. Secondly, God was pleased according to his wise and just Council to permit the fall, that thereby a door might be opened to the sending of Christ for the more full declaration of the glory of his grace in the salvation of man as fallen. Thirdly, for the power that Adam bade to stand or fall, as on the one side we must necessarily say that he was made in a state very good and free from all sin: so also it must needs be affirmed, that he was made in a mutable state, fare different from the state of the blessed Saints and Angels confirmed in grace, and farthest off from the immutability of the Creator himself. Fourthly, if the question be put, how fare did the Lord go in the fall of Adam? we must needs affirm that he created the first man in such a holy state that he might freely obey all his commands: only he did not sustain him with that special and infallible grace to preserve him from falling. These four observations, if they be rightly understood, will help to expedite and clear many hard questions that may be propounded concerning the ability of Adam before his fall. We come now to your chief question.  
Had not God appointed that Adam should fall by his secret will, before by his revealed will he commanded him to stand?  
Here you endeavour in the beginning to show that the revealed will of God before it was first communicated, was his secret will; and being once revealed, it loseth the title of a secret will to them to whom it is revealed. page 77. In this passage of yours there are some words of truth, though, after your manner, you make an ill use of them. I yield in the general, that the revealed will of God was sometimes his secret will before it was revealed. But the question in hand is this, when Adam knew his duty that he should not eat of the forbidden fruit, was not that part of the will of God concerning the permission of the fall, and sending of the Son, part of the secret will of God? and whether by right ought it not to be secret so long as he was upon the trial or his obedience? for the clearing of the point we will speak somewhat more largely concerning the secret will of God. There is one part of his secret will absolutely secret, that never shall be known either in this life or in that which is to come. The Apostle speaking of the casting away of the Jews, and their wonderful calling again, concludeth, O the depth of the riches, of the wisdom, and the knowledge of God Rom. 11.33. There is then a part of the secret will of God, especially in the reasons of his decrees, which none either can or shall know. Secondly, there is a part of his secret will which though it shall be revealed in the world to come, yet it must be concealed in this life. Now are we the sons of God, but it is not yet manifest what we shall be, 1 Joh. 3.1, 2. Though the Saints know much of the mind of Christ, and feel his love in their hearts by the teaching and demonstration of the Spirit, yet the excellency of their future glory is hidden from them. Thirdly, there is a part of the secret will of God which though it be hidden from some, yet it is revealed to others, even in this life. The Apostles did see those things which the Prophets and the righteous men could never see. The Lord shown Peter by what death he should glorify God, but he did not show this to other men, no not to John the beloved Disciple, Joh. 21.20, 21. Fourthly, to one and the same man that part of the will of God which was secret heretofore by the event or revelation may prove to be his revealed will; and so in the particular case of Adam, the permission of the fall and the promise of the sending of the Son were the concealed will of God for a season, and were afterward made known by the event. If this be granted, we have as much as we do desire. But you put the question, How God could decree by his secret will that Adam should fall before in his revealed will he commanded him to stand? As hard a case as you make it, I believe there is no man but will easily understand, that that which the Lord had decreed concerning the fall of Adam in his secret will from all eternity, must needs go before his temporal commands and injunctions. But that which offends you is the seeming contrariety of the two wills. You say, is it a small thing that the righteousness of God should be questioned upon such low terms, as to imagine that when, in his revealed will he shall say, eat not, in his secret will he shall say, thou shalt eat? This opinion that renders God to have two wills, renders them divided in their nature when they are but differing in terms. For the external will is not another will, but the same made manifest. page 79. That the will of God is one entire will in substance, we do affirm as well as you, yet we would have you to observe that one and the same will may be discriminated and distinguished by divers relations. As one and the same fire that hardens the clay may soften the wax: so one and the same will may be distinguished according to divers operations. Let us note the distinction betwixt God's will of decree and his will of command. That such a distinction must be made between these two wills is clear and manifest from many Scriptures: Joseph said to his brethren, Gen. 45.7, 8. Ye sent me not hither, but God. His sending into Egypt was by God's will of Decree, to save much people alive; yet none can say that joseph's brethren did the Lords will of command; they went against his command, when they sold their brother as a bondslave. So it is expressly said of the sons of Eli, that they would not hearken unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them, 1 Sam. 2.25. These disobedient children in not harkening to the voice of their Father did fulfil the Lords will of Decree, who had a purpose to judge the house of Eli for their sins. But we cannot say that they did obey the Lords will of command, unless such a command may be produced that children ought not to obey their parents. So in the case of crucifying the Lord Christ, the Apostle speaketh, they did whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Herod, Pilate, and the Nation of the Jews did perform the Lords will of Decree to crucify Christ, yet we cannot say they did perform his will of command. These and many other examples may be brought to prove the necessity of such a distinction. And though the Arminians (Corvinus by name) do cavil at words and expressions, yet they cannot rationally deny the substance of the thing. And therefore to the point in hand we say, it is true in a sense that God did not will the fall of Adam, that is, he did not approve that sin by his will of command; yet in a sense it is as true, that by his will of decree he did permit it. As in the like case the Apostle saith, There must be heresies amongst you, that they which are approved may be made manifest. 1 Cor. 11.19. if there must be heresies, this is spoken in relation to the will of God, not in relation to his will of command, for then God would have given men a command to raise heresies and damnable doctrines in his Church, which none will imagine. But there must be heresies, this is in relation to his will of Decree, to tolerate such things for the clearer trial of those that are sincere. So in the present case, God did will the fall of Adam, not by his will of command, for he gave him no command to eat of the forbidden fruit, but by his will of Decree he was pleased to permit the fall that it might be subservient and conducing to his more excellent end of sending the Son for the full declaration of the glory of his grace; which otherwise would not have been so conspicuous if the first man had not fallen. So then, to gather up all into one sum, you may easily understand, if you will, how God in his will of command may say eat not, and yet in his secret will permit him to eat. These two are not so put asunder, but they may well be joined together. But still you take offence at the contrariety of the two wills. You say There is an impossibility for Adam to serve two Masters, especially when one commands him to stand by a revealed will, and the other hath determined the fall by his secret will at the same time: unless he could serve the one in the forenoon, 
☞  the other in the afternoon. And yet further, to amplify the difficulty, you say, The secret will is the controller, for let the revealed will command any thing, we are to centre in the determination of the secret. And then you pathetically call upon man to bewail the time that ever be had a being in this world, because he is sure to come to ruin which will soever he obeys. If Adam did obey the secret will of God, than the penalties inflicted by the revealed will would fall upon him. And then you conclude in these words, Might we not say farewell all hopes of another life, and so hang down our heads, crying out, alas we are undone! our Leaders are not agreed? for what the one says do, the other determines that he shall not do. And much more you have to the same effect, page 80. But all may be answered in a few words. We plainly affirm, in matters of obedience men have nothing to do with the secret will of God, according to that determination, Secret things belong to God, but those things which are revealed belong to us, and to our children for ever, that we may do the words of this Law. Deut. 29.29. This also is the doctrine of the Church of England, That men should not meddle with predestination and election, but those only who have the fruits of election, who are called, justified and sanctified. For the ordinary sort of men, they only are to look at the general threats that they may be humbled, and to the general promises, that you may believe, Artic 17. And so in the particular case of Adam, we say that he had nothing to do with the secret will of God concerning the permission of the fall, his duty only was to look to the command. That was the Cynosure or only rule which he was to be guided by. And it is the duty of us all to do that which the Lord commandeth, and to rest upon him to make our Leaders to agree. It doth not appertain to you, nor me, nor any man living to make a reconciliation betwixt these two wills in their seeming differences, let us keep the ordinary path. But if you will say, that the secret will is that which doth prevail; though this doth prove true in the event, yet nevertheless the revealed will of God is the only rule or cannon which we must walk by; as for example, the Lord in his revealed will required Abraham to offer up his son Isaac in sacrifice, when in his secret will he had decreed that Isaac should not be sacrificed. If we go to the event, the secret will was the more preponderating and prevailing will of the twain. Though it was, yet the obedience of Abraham had its special testimony in this, that he had regard to the revealed will of God, Gen. 22.2, 12. So in the case of Hezekiah, the Prophet was sent with a message to him, set thy house in order, for thou shalt die and not live, Isa. 38.2. and yet we find that the Lord in his secret will had decreed that he should not die at that time: fifteen years more were added to the days of his life. In the present case then, though the secret will did carry the sway, yet the commendation of the obedience of Hezekiah did lie in giving assent to the threatening of God denounced by the mouth of the Prophet. Though the denunciation was merely conditional, spoken only in relation to second causes, thou shalt die of the present disease, unless thou humble thyself, and by fervent prayer seek the face of God. Though this declaration of the will of God did imply a condition, yet because it was the will declared and outwardly revealed to Hezekiah, he was to have respect to this only. He was not (whatsoever you suggest to the contrary) at a dilemma or strait, which of these two wills ought to be obeyed, he never lamented the day of his birth because his Leaders were not agreed. He never faulted the contrariety of the two wills, that the revealed will should say thou shalt die, and the secret will imply thou shalt live. What God had revealed concerning his present death he did believe the sentence outwardly made known to him; as for God's secret Decree, he had nothing to do with that, which did merely lie hid in God. We read indeed after his humiliation when the Lord had made known so much of his secret purpose that he would add fifteen years more to the days of his life, than he was bound to believe and to live in faith of that particular promise which was made. I might go further with the example of the Ninevites, the Lords revealed will or his sentence outwardly denounced, was, Yet forty days and Nineve shall be destroyed, Jonah 3.4. Now in his secret will or absolute Decree the Lord had not purposed that Nineveh should be destroyed, but that that people should escape by true repentance at that time. Though the secret will did prevail, or to use your language, was the will that did control, yet for the time being the Ninevites had nothing to do with the will of Decree, no further than this, Who can tell whether the Lord will return from his fierce anger? verse 9 The will which they were immediately to believe, was the sentence denounced by the mouth of the Prophet; they were bound to believe that their sins were so great that they did deserve destruction, and that the Lord would certainly destroy them within the space of forty days unless they did repent in that limited time. Their believing the revealed will of God, and their trembling at his Word was one principal mean to bring about his secret will, and what he had decreed in his secret will concerning their preservation. And though the denunciation by the Ministry of Jonah came not to pass, it was no false message, because it was reversible upon a  condition, which the Lord was pleased for a season to conceal from the Ninevites, to drive them more effectually out of their carnal security. I might add more examples to prove the vanity of your exceptions; but I will go nearer the matter, and that in a harder case than any propounded by you. We read touching the waist of the Church in the latter times, The outward Court cast it out and measure it not, for it shall be given to the Gentiles, and the holy City shall they tread under foot forty and two months, Rev. 11.2. Here it is plain that the Lord speaketh concerning the desolation of the Church that shall be in all Antichristian times. Now seeing the Lord hath revealed these things to his people, to the end that they should believe them and prepare themselves for the trial, upon the supposal of this what should a believer do living upon the borders of the Anti Christian desolation? should he build the Church according to God's general Command of preaching the Gospel, or should he believe that the Church should be destroyed according to the Prophecies. Here are two cross wills in appearance, yet it is certain that it is the duty of such a one to preach the Gospel according to the Commandment, and to leave the vicissitudes and changes of time unto the Lord himself. The Apostle saith, We are a sweet savour in them that are saved and in them that perish, 2 Cor. 2.15. And the Prophet Jeremy foreseeing the captivity of Babylon, that it should certainly come to pass, did himself believe it, and blame the people for their incredulity. Yet nevertheless in the ordinary way he did exhort them to repent, and to turn from their Idolatry and other sins that would be the cause of their captivity. By all that hath been spoken, I now leave to your own conscience to judge what cause you had to raise such tragical out-cries against the contrariety of the two wills, and the inevitable misery of man which will soever he obeyed. When wise men shall come to the hearing of the matter, I believe they will judge that it is rather a pang of your ignorant and blind zeal then of right knowledge. And such an horrid expression you have, That if a man should study many years for a destroying Principle to dishonour his Creator, he could not parallel this, which is the sharpest Sword that ever was drawn against the righteousness of God. pag. 80. Pray Sir, be pacified, there is no harm done. As I have told you before, so I say again, leave it to God to reconcile his own wills, and let us follow that which he hath revealed in his Word. But you say, The voice of this destroyeth all the testimonies which God giveth of himself. What shall we do with those Scriptures where he saith, he altars not, if there be a secret will of his that controls his revealed? page 81. In this also you may hold yourself content, for the Scriptures which say God altars not, are understood concerning his will of Decree, which for the most part is secret to us. But for his revealed will, in the declaration of mercies and judgements, he doth many times and upon sundry occasions alter his promises or threats. For these are not made according to his absolute and eternal Decrees, but are suspended upon outward conditions, as in the case of the Ninevites, & Hezekiah forealledged. In this case the outward revelations of the will of God are but subservient to his eternal Decree. And though they seem to our understanding to differ, yet they do excellently agree among themselves. Now last of all you come to your chiefest argument. You cannot see, say you, how such a will can agree with the death of Christ and the general tenders of grace. These are your words, I fear me too many have a hand in nourishing and maintaining this opinion, and then no marvel that so many cannot believe the record that God gave of his Son. So when God sweareth by himself, as he liveth, he desireth not the death of him that dyeth, and that he would have no man to perish, but that he gave his Son a light unto the world that all men through him might believe, for which purpose he tasted death for every man, and not for the Saints only, but also for the sins of the whole world. But these say are but the revealed will, and the same people that hold this revealed will to be a guide to themselves, do yet hold a contradiction in the wills of God, saying, it is true, God saith so, but his meaning is not so. Now this sort of people should not believe the revealed will at all if they hold his secret will to be the Superior, pag 81 82. I say the same as formerly, though the secret will of God be the Superior, yet we are to look to that which is revealed. As for those who affirm that the Lord hath chosen a peculiar number of people from the beginning to salvation, If you go to them man by man, I think you will scarce find any one of solid judgement that will tell you we must begin at the knowledge of the secret will of God. They all say, that you must begin first with the general threats and the general promises; and when men are once brought through the convictions of the spirit to see their miserable and lost condition, than they say they are sit auditors of the doctrine of the Gospel in the tenders and the offers of grace. When the promise is apprehended by a true and a lively faitht, he next work they say i, to attain the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full assurance of faith. And then last of all after many experiences cometh the assurance of election. In this method they proceed in the discovery of this mystery, and not otherwise. Though election be first in the Lord's intention, yet they hold that the assurance thereof is and aught to be the last in our feeling. And so they expound the words of the Apostle, give all diligence to make your calling and election su e, 2 Pet. 1.10. And further, though they maintain an assurance of election, yet they do not hold an absolute certainty, but such a one as is liable to many temptations, desertions, and eclipses. Neither do they hold such an immediate assurance as though the elect by intuition did look into the Decrees of God; only they stand for a mediate and discursive knowledge of the grace of election by the necessary effects and fruits thereof. As you know the rising of the Sun by the dawning of the day. What other knowledge is this of the secret will of God, but that which he himself hath first made discovery of by the fruits?  
As for the secret will of God in the Decree of nonelection, though they do believe according to the Scriptures that there are a great multitude of men that the Lord doth intent to pass by, yet if you come to singulars, neither you nor any man living can show who they are in special. If you shall say that such and such a one is a notorious evil doer, and therefore a reprobate. Ananias thought but little better of Paul, Lord I have heard of this man how much evil he bathe done. But the answer was, go thy way I have made him a chosen vessel unto me, Act. 9.14. If such a one hath continued many years under the means of grace, and doth yet stand out in impenitency and hardness of heart: this is no infallible argument of nonelection, for men may come into the Vineyard at all hours. So fare forth as men live wickedly we may preach hypothetically and conditionally, according to the revealed will of God, that their courses are damnable, and as long as they so continue they are in the way to damnation: yet we cannot absolutely pronounce concerning the persons themselves, it belongeth only to God to judge of their final and eternal condition And for that place which you allege that God sweareth that he desireth not the death of him that dyeth, I pray you now tell us the particular man in our method and way of teaching hat is not a capable hearer of this doctrine. Whatsoever God doth intent in his secret Decrees concerning the eternal state of men what is that to us? We must make the tenders, proposals and offers of grace according to the terms set down in the Gospel. Indeed, as men do submit to the promise and do take Christ for their Head, so God doth bring about that which he hath determined in his secret will. And therefore when you speak concerning this sort of people, That they should not believe his revealed will at all, if they hold his secret will to be the Superior; what good reason can you show for that? for though the secret will of God touching the salvation of his elect be the Superior, yet all the tenders of grace, all faith in the promises are but the ordinary way to bring us to salvation. Here is no contrariety of will against will, but an excellent subordination. Because the Lord had many people in the City of Corinth that did belong to him in the determination of his secret will, therefore the Apostle had a command to preach the Gospel in that City, and he did continue there the space of a year and six months, Acts 18. ver. 10, 11. But if it be further objected, how can you pray for the salvation of all, seeing that the Lord doth determine to pass by a great number of men? I answer, though it be so, we are to do the duty. Paul did know that a greater part of the Jews should be hardened, and that a remnant only should be saved; yet for all this he did preach the Gospel, and use all means that he might save some of them, Rom. 11.7, 8, 9, 10. Augustine, one of the greatest assertors of the prerogative of freegrace, in his book the correptione & gratiâ hath these words, We not knowing who belong to the number of the predestinate, and who not, ought so to be moved with the affection of charity that we should will all men to be saved. And so far as it doth appertain to us who are not able to distinguish the predestinate from them who are not predestinate, for this very thing because we ought to will all men to be saved, we must medicinally use sharp reproof to all men to save them from perishing. Dr. Twisse also hath these words, moreover of those who are now alive, though the greater part of them should be reprobated, seeing this is not known to us, there is nothing doth hinder but we may make supplications for all. Vindic. great. lib. 2. Crimin. 4. Sect. 9 Page 91. Many more testimonies I might bring of that kind of people as you call them who maintain the secret will of God to be the more prevailing, yet in order to our understanding they show that we are to look only unto that which is revealed. They do with one heart and with one mouth declare that you must begin at the lower end of the ladder before you can come to the top. As for the secret and the revealed will of God, though this seem to us to be contradictory, there is no contradiction. The river that in appearance seemeth to go another way, if you follow it by divers mazes & turn it will bring you to the Sea at last. But if you further urge, how can the sending of Christ into the world to die for the lost sons of men stand with the Decree of election, where some only are chosen to salvation? Answ. This point is solidly handled by Dr. Davenant, in his answer to that book that bears the title God's love to mankind; and in another Treatise of the death of Christ. The scope and tenor of the whole discourse is to show that the non-elect may be partakers of many fruits of the death of Christ, though they are not partakers of that grace which will certainly and infallibly bring them to salvation; 
☞  and so he doth concord the general atonement with the peculiar Decree of election. But because this point is exceedingly controverted in these times, and is as it were the very rock of offence, I will particularly show how fare I can go along with you. First, I do agree that by his death the Son hath removed the bar out of the way that hinders the salvation of man. For God having once made a Law, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death, according to the rigour of the Covenant of works and the strictness of divine justice there was no possibility for any man's salvation. But the Lord Christ having once satisfied the justice of God and removed the bar, there is now a possibility for all the lost sons of men to be saved, they are brought into a savable condition, notwithstanding all the strict demands of satisfaction according to the first Covenant. And this I take to be the natural sense of that place which you and others stand so much upon, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time, 1 Tim. 2.4, 5, 6. The scope of which words is briefly this, that seeing the Lord Jesus Christ did give himself as a ransom for all men, there is a possibility of salvation forall upon terms of repentance and faith. Secondly, I do agree with you, that by the death of Christ the Lord doth show patience and long-suffering to the rebellious to invite them to repentance, Rom. 2.4. And though since the fall of man the thoughts of his heart were evil from his childhood; yet respect being had to the Mediators blood, typed in the sacrifice of Noah, the promise to the whole world was that the Lord would no more curse the ground for man's sake, but seed time and harvest, winter and summer, day and night should continue to the world's end. Thirdly, I do also agree with you in this, that the Lord Jesus by the shedding of his blood hath not only procured a possibility for the lost sons of men, but also at seasons he doth give them some portions of spirit, enabling them to judge themselves. And for temporary believers they go so far in the participation of the fruits of the death of the Son as to taste the good Word of God and the powers of the life to come, Heb. 6.5. These are the general fruits of the death of Christ; and in this sense we may say, that he tasted death for every man. In what sense then doth Christ die for the elect only? He did shed his blood not only to obtain a possibility for them, but that they may be certainly and insallibly brought to glory. Hence is it that he speaketh concerning his sheep (for whom he died in a special manner) My Father that gave them me is greater than all, and none can take them out of my Father's hands, Joh. 10.29. And in another place, who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, Rom. 8 33, 34. The death of Christ for the elect is not only to obtain salvation upon terms of repentance and faith, or other general fruits of his death, but it is certainly and infallibly to bring them to salvation. In relation to this peculiar love the Apostle saith, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Rom. 8.35. And our Saviour, John 10.28. I will give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man be able to take them out of my hand. He speaketh these things of his sheep for whom he had laid down his life in that special sense mentioned before. Having thus cleared all your Objections in this Chapter, we proceed to the next.   

CHAP. XI. Whether Adam's sin, or any other man's sin doth produce death or condemnation in a natural way.  
TOuching the manner of the thing, how sin doth cause death, whether death be the natural fruit of sin, or whether it doth merely depend upon the will of him who hath threatened to punish sin with death, is much disputed. But, Mr. Everard, leaving that which may be supposed, it is too too plain in this Chapter that you mainly drive at this, to prove that sin is not the meritorious cause of death, and that Adam's sin was no cause of his condemnation. And then afterwards going to discover the causes of judgement; you tell us for the efficient cause, God is only the contriver who doth inflict punishments. For the material cause, the creatures are the only instruments. For the formal, it is the manner of judgement coming upon men, the fire by burning, the water by drowning. For the final, it is the declaration of the justice of God upon the contemners of his grace. And so you conclude, That sin sin is no cause of punishment neither efficient, material, formal, nor final, page 95. 96. And for the meritorious cause, You say also, that sin doth not merit death, but it doth only prepare, fit and qualify a man for death, as grace doth for eternal life. page 106, 107, 108. You do not shun to tell us in the last two lines of the Chapter, speaking of eternal life and eternal death, That God is as simply and entirely the Author of the one as of the other. Page 108. In opposition to all this, I do affirm that sin is the meritorious cause of death, and death is the fruit of sin. Let us consider the Scriptures and let us vindicate them from your cavils.  
First, it is said the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, Rom. 6.23. From hence it is plain that eternal life, sanctification of the Spirit, belief of the truth, and all other things that tend to salvation, are the mere gift of God, but the wages of sin is death. If death be the wages of sin, than sin must be the meritorious cause of death. But say you, Though death be the wages of sin, yet it is not the fruit thereof, page 91. Though in some cases we may call that the fruit which is not the wages, yet in the sense of the text, the wages and the fruit are all one. Read but the words going before, What fruit had you then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? the wages of sin is death. The fruit and the wages are all one, and the sense of the whole text is this, that sin is the meritorious cause of damnation. For the second Scripture, Rom. 8.6. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Here say you, If it be death itself, it cannot be the cause of death. But, Sir, you are to look to the sense, and not to the strictness of the letter. In strict terms you cannot say, that to be spiritually minded is life and peace. In this life many that are truly spiritual, that have the reality of grace in their heart, have not the peace of grace. The meaning of the text is briefly this, that as peace and life doth follow a spiritual mind, so death doth follow the carnal mind as the wages and fruit thereof. But here you show your skill at catch-ball. I confess, say you, that he who walketh carnally to his end shall receive eternal death; so he that lives a spiritual life, shall enjoy everlasting life: But neither the death nor the life were any branches produced by either, for they came both from God. And as God hath no desire that any man should sinne, so sin hath as little desire to receive punishment. pag. 92. Still you go on in the same way of sophistry. We willingly agree, that he who walketh spiritually to the end shall receive eternal life, because such walking is the way to eternal life. But the carnal walking is not only the way that leadeth to death; but (by a Metonymy, the effect being put for the cause) it is death itself; or, in the way of causality, a carnal mind is that which produceth death, and death is the fruit thereof. But whereas you affirm, that neither death nor life are branches produced either by carnal or spiritual walking; in this you err. For though a godly walking is not the meritorious cause of eternal life, yet a carnal and sinful walking is the meritorious cause of eternal death; Why else should it be said, The wages of sin is death? Master's use to pay their servants their wages at night in relation to that which they have deserved in the day; and for a weeks work, they pay them commonly at the end of the week. The payment of wages hath near relation to the labour of the hireling that hath deserved it. And therefore the Scriptures do use this expression, the wages of sin is death, showing that sin is the meritorious cause of death, and death is the desert of sin. And for that expression of yours, that death is no branch produced by sin, 
☞  but it cometh merely from God who inflicteth death; this I think no pious man can look upon but with a great deal of horror. What is this but to transfer the cause of death upon God only? But if to mend the matter you shall say that God doth inflict death as the just punishment of sin; in so saying you contradict yourself, and blow up your own position. For if God doth inflict death as the punishment of sin, than it will follow that sin is the meritorious cause of death; and death doth not only come from God, but also from the sinner who hath deserved it. And so you lose your cause.  
Thirdly, the Apostle saith, Lust when it hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death. Jam. 1.13, 14. To avoid the force of this Scripture you tell us, That sin doth not bring forth death as lust doth bring forth sin, sin is lusts natural seed, but death hath no conceptions by any seed of sin. page 94. But Sir, I would entreat you to leave all wind and shifts, deal plainly with the words of the text. The Apostle saith, sin when it is finished bringeth forth death. I do here put it upon you to give a downright answer, seeing the words of the Apostle are so plain. If sin doth any way bring forth death than we must needs conclude that sin is the cause of death; and this is the true meaning of the Apostle. But seeing you bind so much upon the Lord's institution, who hath threatened death to the sinner, let us come to the original text, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death. And here, setting the Lords prohibition aside, I do willingly yield that there was no evil in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if we go to evil in the  nature thereof; but the Lord having forbidden it, it was evil to go against his Command. In this sense I say, though death was threatened by God, yet Adam's own personal sin was the meritorious cause of death to himself and to all his posterity. And this is the ground of the Apostles speech, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and death hath passed over all men unto condemnation. You labour in many pages together to prove that Adam's sin was no cause of his condemnation; and when all comes to all, This is your chief ground, that the Lord in his institution did ordain to punish sin and sinners with death; and therefore sin is not the meritorious cause of death. Good Sir, may not both stand together as social causes? what do you think of the two Malefactors that were hanged upon the Cross, the one on the right hand, and the other on the left hand of our Saviour? Were they not both put to death by the sentence of the Law, yet for all this they were the cause of their own condemnation. The converted thief will tell you as much, Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly suffer, for we receive the due reward of our deeds. Luke 23.40, 41. In like manner I say, though death was inflicted upon Adam as the just judgement of God, yet Adam's sin was the cause of his own condemnation.  
Now whereas you call death a righteous branch. It is true if you look to the sentence of the just Judge, who hath appointed death as the punishment of sin; yet if you look unto the nature of death, he is an enemy: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 1 Cor. 15.26. Further, in the book of the Revelation, we read, that after the Beast, the false Prophet and the Dragon were cast into the lake of fire, than death itself was cast into the lake of fire. Rev. 20.14. What is the meaning of this, but that the Lord Christ is Head and King of the Church, and will tread down all his enemies in the several and respective times appointed for their destruction, and then last of all, death itself shall come to be destroyed? If death then be an enemy, the last enemy, and shall be destroyed as an enemy, how can you affirm that it is a righteous Branch? Further you argue, That death cannot be the fruit of sin, seeing God hath pleased to punish sin with death; sin, and punishment for sin agree no more than light and darkness, page 91. If this be your opinion, I pray you tell me what do you think of that case where God doth punish one sin with another? He gave up the Gentiles to vile affections, that they might receive in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Rom. 1.23 24. If one sin may be the punishment of another, why do you put such a difference betwixt sin and punishment as betwixt light and darkness? you have another evasion to help you our, you say, The very voice or death is enough to scare a sinner from his sins, therefore death is not the natural fruit of sin, page 95. Give me leave to observe the same way of reasoning. The Devil, if he should visibly appear, the very sight of him would be enough to scare a sinner from his sins: Therefore a wicked sinner when he doth commit sin, doth not fulfil the lusts of his father the Devil, which is to go point blank against the Scripture, John 8.44. After this you come to answer a weak and incongruous objection of your own making: you feign an adversary to reason in this wile, If there had been no sin, there had been no punishment, therefore pun shmext must be produced by sin, page 949. In this you deceive yourself, we do not argue so loosely, to make every antecedent a necessary cause of that which cometh after for then by the like reason you might argue as you do. If there had been no Law, there had been no transgression; therefore transgression is produced by the Law. We say, that sin doth not go before death as a meet antecedent or occasion only, but as the meritorious cause of death; the Apostle saith, sin bringeth forth death as the cause doth the effect, and the wages of sin is death: when the work is done, the wages is to be paid. Last of all you come to the particular examples of Corah, of Herod, of Ananias and Sapphira; and from thence you reason, If death be the natural fruit of sin, why are not all Rebels punished as Corah, all proud men as well as Herod, all guilty of the sin of equivocation as well as Ananias? This is the substance of your argument, page 99, 100 To all which I make this answer, unless they repent they shall meet with the same righteous judgement of God. The Lord is free in the execution of judgement as upon those eighteen on whom the Tower in Siloah fell; yet that it may appear to you that death is the natural fruit of sin, and that sin is the meritorious cause of death, our Saviour shuts up the matter with these words, unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish, Luke 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But you go on, and strike still upon the same string, If I should allow as much demerit in Adam's disobedience to bring death, as Christ had merit in his obedience both active and passive to bring life into the world, yet it would not amount to such a pitch to be the only cause. For though the obedience of Christ was the cause of the coming of life into the world, yet the appointment of God was as principal a cause as the obedience of Christ. And so, though sin had been ten thousand times more sinful, yet without an Ordinance from God death could never have seized upon the world, page 101. 102, 103. What is all this but a palpable and gross mistake of the question, or as Logicians call it, an ignorance of the elench? We do confess, as shrist brought life into the world he brought it in by the institution of his Father; so when sin brought death into the world, it was by the just appointment of God to punish sin with death. The question that is in debate betwixt us is, whether sin be the 〈◊〉 cause of death as the obedience of Christ active and passive is the meritorious cause of life! If you yield this, (as yield it you must we have as much as we do desire. Next, you inquire, how sin may be the cause of condemnation? supposing that it cannot be the principal cause, you demand whether it may be a cause in subordination? And here you tell us, that sin will not be found neither, seeing such causes are good in their own nature, Well then, what is the cause? you tell us, seeing sin is an invention of man and the Devil, a mere accident that cleaveth to the subject, man; we may call sin an accidental cause of condemnation seizing upon man found sinful. page 105. If this way of reasoning be good, why may not I proceed in the like manner? Heat is an accident in the subject, fire; therefore the heat of the fire is a mere accidental cause of the boiling of the water. The force of your reason is no better when you say sin is a mere accident in the subject, man; therefore it is only the accidental cause of condemnation. If you well observe the expression, you shall find it to be very absurd to call sin a mere accidental cause of condemnation. Condemnation is always set in relation to the guilt of some sin that doth deserve it, how then can you call sin an accidental cause of condemnation? The Scriptures say, that the Lord will render to every one according to his works, that they who commit such things are worthy of death; And many passages of the like kind. What will you say to all this? Here you have a pretty shift to help you out. Sin (say you) puts a man in a suitable disposition and qualification for death. page 106. Indeed our Divines when they speak of eternal life, that the Lord will render to every man according to his works, they take the word (worthy) only for a suitable qualification: According to that of the Apostle, he hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, Col. 1.12. Though this may be affirmed of the Saints, that they are made meet for eternal life, it were too short and too diminuent an expression to affirm that wicked men only are made suitable to receive vengeance, for then the wicked are no more worthy of eternal death than the Saints are worthy of eternal life; 
☞  which is plainly to cross the Apostle, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. I cannot then but mention your words with a kind of horror with which you close the Chapter: speaking of the wicked, they are, say you a suitable matter to receive vengeance, as God's people are suitable to receive all the joys of eternal life. Now the joys of eternal life are the free-gift of God. All qualifications, dispositions, frames of spirit, though never so evangelical in the abundance thereof, do not abate the worth of an hair of eternal life to be the free-gift of God. For there was not the least deserts in a holy life to the procuring of eternal salvation, but only it was the will of God to make eternal life as a Crown to put upon the head of those men that lived holy here, which were fit or suitable for the Crown of honour. So men that have lived never so notoriously wicked, rebeling and blaspheming against God day after day to their lives end, are not otherwise worthy than persons fitted as the true subjects suitable for wrath, and God is as simply and entirely the author of the one as the other. And so fare you. Now I leave it to all tender consciences to understand and to give sentence. We do willingly confess that we cannot merit any thing by our own works in the way to salvation, there being such a disproportion between them and the glory to come. But I do detest and abhor that speech of yours, when you say that the greatest sinner, who continues so all his life long is no otherwise worthy of death than a person fitted or a subject made suitable for wrath; and that God is as much the cause of the damnation of the one as the salvation of the other. If this doctrine of yours be sound and Orthodox, why may not the wicked in hell cast all upon God, as the sole Author of their misery, as well as the Saints in heaven ascribe all to the glory of his free grace? I will use your own words though to fare better purpose, If a man should study many years for a destroying Principle to dishonour his Creator, he could not parallel this, which is the sharpest Sword that was ever drawn against the righteousness of God.  
I have stayed the longer upon this point, because you have used so many arguments to prove sin to be no meritorious cause of condemnation, I have more carefully endeavoured to vindicate the truth because this is one of the first fundamentals that is put into the heart of the Gentiles: They knowing the judgement of God against them which do such things, that they are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them, Rom. 1.32. That sin is the meritorious cause of death, and that a sinner is worthy of death, is graven in the heart of every man alive: and God at seasons doth stir up the consideration of the guilt of sin in the conscience of the Gentiles, to look after pardon, and to make their peace with God. The first convictions of the Spirit do begin with considerations of the Godhead and the guilt of sin, that so men may be brought to see their misery. And yet you teach us here in this Chapter, that sin is not the meritorious cause of condemnation. Now we proceed to your next Chapter.   

CHAP. XII. What Adam retained of his forfeiture till his death.  
HERE also you teach such things as do little less than strike at the foundation. You tell us, that Adam after the fall, for his body had all the parts and lineaments thereof: He had his senses, and retained his knowledge. And further you add, I make no question but God had so ordered the employments, that he had for Adam some of them to be more spiritual than ever he had to do before his fall; and than that he should utterly disable him from the performance thereof, will never be made good by any man under heaven, page 110. I do fully agree with you in this, that the employment which God had to do for Adam after the fall, was as spiritual as before. But then consider the ability does not lie in man, but only in the Lord Christ, and in the Word of promise. The true Church doth hold and ever hath held, that the employment which God hath now for every true believer, is a spiritual employment. Yet they hold it also as a truth of the foundation, that Adam lost all ability to spiritual good. But here you think you have an unanswerable argument, for say you, in that service which Adam bade to do, if he was completely furnished by God, why should I judge that he would employ him in a more hard service, and not afford him suitable accommodation? Had God no other way to give Adam and his posterity suitable accommodation to obey his commands, but there must be a necessity in it for him to retain the same abilities after, which he had before the fall? when you thus endeavour to proportion abilities to commands in a natural way you overthrow the scope of the Gospel and the main sense of the Scriptures, which show that all ability is to be had from Christ. God hath tempered salvation, and hath so put it into the hands of Christ that all that want abilities should go to him in the sense of their own misery. And to this end he hath suffered the first man to fall, and to lose all natural abilities, that supply and help may be had from Christ only in the Covenant of grace. This is the main scope of the Scriptures. And judge you now whether you do not go against the main foundation of the doctrine of Christ when you teach such things as these, The Examiner's of the late Synods confession of faith in the Chapter of freewill, Sect. 2. are (in a manner) as foul as you. For the Synod having laid down this truth concerning Adam in the state of innocency, that then he had a power and freedom to will that which was good and pleasing to God, but yet mutably; the Censors are not contented with this, but they seem to plead for the same liberty still in man after the fall. These are their words, That, man in the state of innocency had freedom and power to will and do that which was good, seems to us in some sort to hold true still of all men as they are now borne till they have personally and actually sinned. If this be so, what need is there of a Christ to sanctify and to regenerate, and to take away the sin of the nature? But now we will go along with you. You say, I judge the work that God set Adam about before the fall, he had an ability to do after the fall, if God had but given him a command to return into the garden again, page 110. By this account than he had an ability to keep the Covenant of works after his fall. The Covenant of works was that wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Will you say then that he had ability to keep this Covenant if God had given him liberty to return into the garden? Let us hear what ground you have for this God: (say you) knew well enough that Adam had not lost his understanding nor his memory, for he could tell the use of the tree and where it stood, that should have cured him of his deadly wound: otherwise, the Lord would not have made so strong provision to prevent him, page 111. True indeed, we read that the Lord placed at the East of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming Sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life. This Provision in the general showeth that Adam knew the particular place where the tree of life stood, and in general what was the use of the tree, yet for all this he might be bereft of his spititual knowledge. Natural men may altogether be destitute of the knowledge of the Spirit, yet judge of external objects represented to the senses. A Temporary believer who hath lost his feeling may tell the time when, the place where, and the instrument by whom he was first wrought upon. Therefore if we take it as granted that Adam knew the way to the tree of life, and the general use of the tree, this doth not prove him to retain the same spiritual and internal knowledge which he had before his fall.  
Let us hear the Inventory of Adam's losses as you make the account. You tell us that Adam forfeited his body and his limbs, and that God would bereave him of all after that nine hundred thirty years were expired. And you further add, that God cast him out of that pleasant place of accommodation, that neither he nor his posterity had power to do the will of God in the garden any longer, page 111, 112. This is the total which you bring in of his losses, and this is a very short reckoning. As for Adam's being cast out of the Garden, it was a part of his misery to be deprived of that earthly mansion, but it is the least part of his loss. The principal damage which he met withal was internal, in his soul, which was more than the loss of a thousand gardens. But we go to your next question.   

CHAP. XIII. Whether Adam did die in the same day that he did eat the forbidden fruit.  
TO the clearing of this point you begin with the divers acceptions of the word day. And then you come to eavil against the Lord's day, in these words. 
☜  This day some affirm that it was the first day of the week, but there is little to be shown for that. It is a very private Interpretation, because there is no public manifestation by the Word, but that men are willing to strengthen the opinion and practice of a first day's Sabbath with a reference to the changing of God's Commands, and setting up of their own thoughts, page 114, 115. By this it is clear what your judgement is concerning the Christian Sabbath, but we will briefly clear the point. First, it is of the Law of nature that a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God. Also the Lord in his Word by a positive and perpetual Command, binding all men in all times, hath appointed one day in seven to be kept wholly unto him, Exod. 20 8, 10, 11. Now this from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection, and so downward, it is changed into the first day. Upon these grounds, therefore if the question be put to us, wherefore do you keep one in seven? we plead the morality of the Command. And if it shall be further alleged, why keep ye the particular first day in memory of the resurrection of the Lord? Our ground is the perpetual use of the Church, founded upon express Apostolical practice, and implicit Apostolical precept, which we are sufficiently able to prove and evince by the collation of four Scriptures if we were put upon that argument. But this would be too large a digression from the matter in hand.  
Next, you come to show the sense of the commination. And here you tell us that Adam did not die the same day, if the day be taken for the space of twelve or twenty four hours. This is in plain terms to contradict the scope and sense of the text. For there it is expressly said in the very same moment and instant of time in which our first parents did eat the forbidden fruit their eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked, Gen. 3.7. If you take this for the eyes of their mind, it is most clear that their eyes were opened not only to see their inward nakedness in the loss of the image of God, but also to feel the guilt of sin as the just fruit of their disobedience. If the opening of the eyes be taken for the eyes of the body, than their eyes were opened to see that, which they did not, nor could see before. Their nakedness before was a nakedness of honour, innocency and righteousness, but their nakedness after was a nakedness of dishonour, of misery, of sin, of provocation to sin. And for the particular time it is expressed in the Comination, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death. And accordingly in the same instant of time when they had eaten the forbidden fruit, the eyes of them both were opened, & they knew that they were naked. Therefore death & misery did seize upon them the same day according to the Commination. But because you are so peremptory in it, that Adam did not die the same day if the day be taken for an ordinary day of twelve hours long: For the clearing of this I would entreat you to answer me this question, why did God appear to Adam in the evening in the cool of the day? If you shall say, it was to call the man and his wife to account for their disobedience; I grant this to be true, but it doth not satisfy the question, for the particular time. He might have called him to account at any other time; and what necessity was there that it should be left upon record that he came to judgement the very same day? The Lord had said, in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death, and the same day that the forbidden fruit was eaten at evening in the cool or wind of the day (as the Hebrew hath it) the Lord came to inquire after the fact to give sentence and to execute judgement. In Scripture where promises or threats are declared to be fulfilled in such a particular time there the Holy Ghost is punctual in the observation of the time. The children of Israel should be in bondage sour hundred years according to the promise, Gen 15.13, 14. And when that time was fulfilled the very same day they came out of the land of Egypt with their Armies, Exod. 12. 41, 42. So our Lord and Saviour did signify to his Disciples that he should be crucified and slain, and the third day rise again. Mat. 16.24. And how careful are all the Evangelists to repeat the time of the resurrection, that it was on the first day of the week, the third day after his passion? And so in the present case, when it is said in the day that thou eatest thereof shalt thou die the death, to the fulfilling of this the eyes of our first parents were opened the very first day: And the Lord came to execute judgement upon them for their disobedience the evening of the same day. After all this let us now hear what exposition you do give of the text. Though Adam (say you) did not die the same day as he did eat of the forbidden fruit, yet he forfeited his life to the Lord of the great Charter of the world, he was then in a capacity to die, he did then fall under the expectation of death. As in the English, such a man is a dead man because he is condemned by the sentence of the Law. That which you say is true, and it is in effect that which I teach: but according to your sense it is not the whole truth. For when the Lord saith in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death, he doth not speak this only of a capacity of dying but of an actual seizing of death: for he was struck with spiritual death the very same day he sinned. And for a temporal death likewise, though there was not a present dissolution of the soul from the body, yet presently he fell under the curse, to conflict with Armies of diseases which should never leave him till they had brought him to his grave. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread until thou return unto the ground, for out of it was thou taken, for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return. Chap. 3. ver. 19 But now you further add, If Adam had died the same day he could not have tilled the ground, he could not have lived so long as to see a son of his own. To all this I agree, if you take death in the most strict sense for the actual dissolution of the soul from the body, but what ground have we so to limit the words of the text? I have said before that God did smite him the same day with spiritual death, and for a temporal death he came under the dominion and reign of it. In that famous place when the Apostle saith, by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and death hath passed over all men to condemnation, Rom. 5.12. He doth here speak of the immediate reign of death. Death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, ver. 14. And in the close of all, as sin hath reigned to death, so might grace reign through righteousnesseunto eternal life, v. 21. Therefore the same day that Adam sinned, though he lived to till the ground, and to beget children after his own image, yet he and all his fell immediately under the reign of death: so that all who are now born into the world, infants as well as others, are under the reign of death by the disobedience of the first man. Having given the true sense of the Scripture, we will take a view of your interpretation. And here you say, 
☞  that Adam did die the same day, though he lived nine hundred thirty nine years after. And to make good this strange gloss of yours you tell us that God did not prescribe any quantity of hours, but hath declared that a thousand years are as one day in his account, page 118. I must indeed acknowledge, that a day is taken sometimes for a year, sometimes for a greater revolution of time, as may be seen in the Prophetical Scriptures. But the scope of the text is plainly to be taken for a literal ordinary day, as we have formerly proved. And strange it is that the Lord in the denunciation of judgement should go to the typical and parabolical expressions used in Daniel, and the Revelation, and Peter's Epistle.  
After this you come to inquire, whether Christ by his suffering did not prevent the falling of death upon Adam? And you resolve it in the negative. For say you, either Adam must suffer, or the Word of God, seeing God had once declared the sentence, thou shalt surely die. In case than he should give his Son to prevent the death of Adam, there had been a clear contradiction, page 119. In the commination there are some things which I do acknowledge to be infallible as the Laws of the Medes and Persians, which altar not; and therefore to make good the sentence, all that are now born into the world after the course of natural generation, are borne in the state of spiritual death, subject to the miseries of nature, and shall inevitably be brought to temporal death at last. All these things do hold by virtue of the first sentence: yet you must take heed that you go no further, because the second man hath all fullness of grace to repair the losses brought in by the first. By his intervening patience and long-suffering is extended to all the sons of men. And therefore whatsoever you suggest to the contrary, there is indeed and in truth no contradiction between the sentence in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death, and the delay thereof in a qualified sense. In some particulars long-suffering may be extended, and yet in others there may be a speedy execution of the sentence. But you go on, seeing God would not have Adam to come near the tree of life, therefore he would not have him to be free from death that way, page 119. Neither do we maintain that it was the purpose of God to free Adam in that manner that he should not taste of a temporal death. He came under the dominion of that death the same day he sinned, and the most holy Saints that are must all die before they can be raised again, to set forth the truth and certainty of the Lords commination. Yet for all this at present the stroke was stayed by the Mediators blood, and long-suffering was extended to men, that salvation might be had by the Covenant of grace. As for the tree of life, it is most true, that God did forbid Adam access to that tree, not absolutely because he would not have him to recover life, but because he had provided another way for the restoring of man by Christ the promised seed. He would not come to the most extreme and final execution of the sentence, because his purpose was to have a posterity upon the earth, and a seminary for the Church. Further, you argue, there was a necessity for Adam to die, otherwise Christ could not make him alive, page 119. Here you mistake the state of the question, we agree that Christ did not die simply to free man that he should not fall into the dust, but only to raise him from the dust again. It was necessary to fulfil the truth of the commination, that Adam should return to dust, but it was not necessary that he should return to dust the very same day. It was necessary that he should fall under the reign of death, and under a necessity of dying the same day he sinned, and this to continue to the resurrection of the just: Then this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption. 1 Cor. 15.53. The Apostle also saith, when he shall change these vile bodies that they may be made like his glorious body. Phil. 3.21. All the bodies of the Saints shall be made like the body of Christ as now it is in glory. But how did the bodies of the Saints begin to be vile bodies? By vile bodies he doth mean these corruptible tabernacles of the soul, liable to diseases and to all the miseries of nature. But when did this vileness and misery begin seeing they were not made vile by creation. They began to be vile bodies the same day that Adam did sin, they have been so ever since, and they must continue such unto the resurrection, and then the bodies of the Saints shall be made conformable to the body of Christ in glory, Philip. 3 Vlt.   

CHAP. XIV. Whether Adam did die a spiritual death yea or no?  
IN the discovery of this point you observe this method. First you show what spiritual life is. Secondly, you resolve upon the question. For your description of spiritual life, though you miserably confound the Scriptures, we will take it in the best sense, for such a life as hath the Spirit for the cause, Gal. 4.19. John 6.63. Col. 33. But you err in your application, when you use such an expression as this, that Adam had not such a cup of water in all his four Rivers. You say also, that he could not savour the voice of the resurrection from the dead: for the goodness of a Saviour must be resented by those that are lost, but Adam knew no such need. page 122. Your argument is fallacious, because Adam had not spiritual life in the same way as the Saints now have, therefore he had no spiritual life at all. He might have ability to love Christ as Lord Creator. Further you say that the voice of forgiveness of sin was a stranger to him. Well, let this be admitted, it doth not prove the point neither. Sickness itself was a stranger to Adam before his fall, will you infer then that there were no herbs for medicine, and that the Lord did not create the herb of the field with a medicinal virtue? So in the like case, what if remission of sin and the way of pardon of sin by Christ's blood was a thing hidden from Adam, as being not compatible with his condition; will you enforce from hence a want of capacity in him to understand the mystery of salvation by Christ? or will you affirm from hence, that he was a mere carnal man before his fall? Take heed that by these and such like positions you do not reflect upon God himself. The Apostle saith, the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be, Rom. 8. ver. 6, 7. If you go to the Original of this enmity or non-subjection, and say it did proceed from the fall of Adam, you do agree with us. But if you go higher, and stand upon it that Adam was a mere natural man by the condition of his creation, than you will lay the blame upon God that set him in such a state of enmity; and whither will you go in the issue if you maintain such positions as these?  
But to make good your assertion you argue, The first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. So though Adam was the first man, & a living man yet it was not a living soul that proveth that Adam had a quickened Spirit. page 12●. But in this you do miserably soobisticate. For though the Apostle doth draw a parallel between both the adam's; If you do well ponder the Scripture, you shall find that the parallel doth not stand so much between Adam before his fall as between the first Adam & the second after the fall. 2ly. upon good consideration you shall find that the Apostle in this Scripture doth not speak so much concerning the Spirit of God in the souls of the Saints as concerning the spirituality of their bodies that shall be at the resurrection. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption, it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory? it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is aspiritual body, 1 Cor. 15.43, 44. If then you will needs conclude Adam to be a carnal man before his fall, because his body was not made a spiritual body; by the same reason you must conclude all the Saints that have ever been since the creation of the world, to be carnal men, and absolutely destitute of the work of the Spirit. For the bodies of the Saints are yet carnal, and must abide in their incarnality till the resurrection of the dead. But whereas you build so strongly upon that expression, the first man Adam was made a living soul the last man Adam was made a quickening Spirit, verse 45. This doth not prove the first man to have been merely carnal or absolutely void of the Spirit before his fall. For it is not the scope of the Apostle in this Scripture to speak of the excellency of man made after the image of God, but only of the corruptible state of the body as it standeth in immediate relation to that immortal condition which it shall have at the resurrection of the dead. And whereas it is said the second man was a quickening Spirit, this is meant principally of the divinity of Christ, by and through which he will raise the dead. So then, if you will build upon this ground, and argue from hence, that the first man was a mere carnal man, because he was not a quickening Spirit, by the same principle you must conclude that all the Saints living are carnal men. For of what one of them may it be affirmed that he is a quickening Spirit, who by his power and divinity is able to raise the dead? But if you will make a right analogy, let us compare the things that ought to be compared. First, let us consider what the first man was before his fall, and what the Saints are as renewed by grace. Secondly, let us compare what the first man might have been if he had eaten of the tree of life, and what the Saints shall be at the resurrection of the dead. For the first of these, if you speak of the Saints as renewed by grace, though their bodies be natural, they are spiritual in respect of the inward man. The same may be said of Adam before his fall, though his body was made of the dust, yet by grace and special favour he did carry the image of God. For the second, if you shall affirm that all the bodies of the Saints shall be made immortal and spiritual at the resurrection, consider what the body of Adam might have been if he had continued in his obedience and eaten of the tree of life. If you would make a right collation between state and stat, ethe parallel should run in these terms. But because you stand so strongly upon this expression, that the first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven; seeing you will have all this to be applied to Adam before his fall, I pray you resolve me this question, seeing the Apostle saith, as we have born the image of the earthy so shall we bear the image of the heavenly, Who are they that bear the image of Adam before his fall? I think if you were put to it, you could not produce any one instance in all Europe, Asia, Africa, or America that ever stood up after this similitude. The scope of the text is only concerning man after the fall, and how the resurrection of the dead doth take away that death which is brought in by the fall. In the close of the Chapter you propound this question, whether was not Adam to have died an eternal death for eating of the forbidden fruit? For the clearing of the question let us distinctly set down how the three kinds of death did seize upon Adam, and how they come upon all his branches. First, for spiritual death, it is evident that he died this death as soon as he did eat of the forbidden fruit. For the temporal death, he fell under the reign of it the same day he sinned. And for eternal death, though according to the truth of the commination, Adam and his posterity should have died, the Lord Christ stepping in did set a stop to the sentence. And therefore for the cause of the condemnation of man, it is now principally and immediately for the neglect of the grace of God that should lead him to repentance. But you add further, I can safely say, that if Adam was to have died an eternal death, and that by the appointment of God, than Christ neither would nor could have stepped in; nay he could not have lifted up his little finger to have helped Adam or his posterity. page 125. I answer, If God had decreed in his secret purpose that Adam and all his posterity should have died the death, in such a case Christ neither would nor could have stepped in to cross the Decree of God; but Sir, who is the man that doth maintain that position? For my part, I take the Decree of God to be one thing, and the outward denunciation of judgement to be another. For the Decree, that cannot be changed, but the sentence may receive alteration according to divers outward circumstances and conditions that may occur. Besides, if you should build never so strongly upon the letter of the text, we can easily reconcile the truth of the commination, in saying that Adam might die the death the same day he sinned, 
☞  though the Lord was not pleased presently to inflict death in all its kinds. From all which we do conclude, if the Lord Christ came to free men from the reign of death, Heb. 2.14, 15. We may easily gather that Adam brought himself and all his posterity under the dominion of that syrant: and so he and all his should have died that kind of death if the Lord Christ had not stepped in. But you go about to deface this speech in the end of the Chapter, for if in case that Christ had not stepped in there had been no recovery, this were to exclude all other means, and to limit the holy One of Israel. page 126. Sir, I would entreat you not to make the doctrine of salvation odious by picking quarrels against words. For we do not peremptorily define that there was no other way possible to save man unless Christ had stepped in; we leave it only to the Lord himself to judge of the several possibilities of the salvation of man. This only we affirm, so far as it is revealed to us, the present is the most excellent way to satisfy the justice of God and to show abundant mercy. And though you now, as others before you, go about to cast an hatred upon the doctrine of the Church in the points of the fall of Adam, original sin, freewill, and the like; I must tell you, if you and they would not tear those things asunder which should be joined together, if you would compare one thing with another, you should find that there is nothing so deformed in the state of the first man, but there is that in the second which will answer all. But here is the misery, you look upon the mystery of salvation in some broken pieces and parts only, and do not consider the whole compages or sum of the truth in one body. We will now proceed to your next Chapter.   

CHAP. XV. Whether Adam's posterity were guilty of his transgression,  
IN this Chapter you endeavour to make good the purity of nature, and the freedom of all infants from original sin; you do not, as the Jesuits and Arminians, extenuate the matter, but after the manner of the ancient Pelagians you deny the sin of the nature. And here you do not go alone. The Confession of faith, lately set forth by the thirty separate Congregations, doth not speak one word of this sin of the nature. If we go to the beginning of their book, (where all other Chatechismes do show the misery of man by nature) they are altogether silent in the point of original sin. In the middle where they speak of the grace of Christ there is not one syllable concerning the grace that doth regenerate or purge out the sin of the nature. In the third and last part of the book when they come to duties after regeneration they speak nothing of the great work of the mortification of the Old man and the putting on of the New man, but only of dipping, and baptising Disciples, and of the manner of living in their way of Church-membership. And thus one great error at the foundation doth in a manner overthrow the whole building of the Christian faith. And this is the woeful state of the separate Congregations with us. Neither are these Churches in so bad a condition, but the Examinors and Censors of the late Confession of faith set forth by the Assembly of Divines, these clancular Authors (whosoever they be) have further swarved from the truth. 
☜  For they in their late Examen do not only maintain the purity of the natural birth, but also have many other positions and damnable tenants. I will therefore take the liberty to join all together. And therefore, Mr. Everard, where you and they do agree one answer shall serve both, and where they have any thing which you have not touched I shall begin with them as assoon as I have ended with you.  
Before I come to answer your arguments, let me put both you and them in mind of your sophystical dealing. 
☞  For neither you in your treatise, nor they in their Examen do mention our chiefest argument drawn from Job. 3. These are the words of our Saviour to Nicodemus, Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him; how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be borne? Jesus answered verily, verily, I say unto thee except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee you must be borne again, verse 3.4, 5, 6, 7. These words are most plain and significant to prove the impurity of the natural birth, and the necessity of the new birth, as every one that readeth may easily understand. I do marvel then that you should overpasse this place in silence.  
But let us now come to the meaning of the text; to prove the necessity of Regeneration our Saviour doth use this medium, that which is borne of flesh is flesh. Because man is polluted in his natural birth, therefore he needs have a new birth. By flesh we do not understand that mass and lump of the body which we carry about us, for in it there is neither good nor evil; but our Lord Christ doth here intent the corruption of nature as it is opposed to the sanctifying work of the Spirit: for so flesh and Spirit are commonly opposed in Scripture. This may more particularly be seen in Rom. 8. in the beginning of the Chapter. Therefore our Saviour's argument is much in effect, because the nature of man is defiled with original sin from the very birth the remedy must be proportionable to the disease, 
☞  it is necessary that every one that shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven must be new born. There be divers cause? that do bring men to a habit of sin, and there are divers means to be used to break of such habits. First, men are brought to a custom in sinning by example; and therefore the Word commands that we should turn away from such evil communications as will corrupt good manners. Secondly, men are brought to a habit in sin by long custom, which is as it were a second nature: and therefore the Scripture speaks that we should break off such kind of customs by a kind of violence. Thirdly, men come to a practice of sin by temptation, as Achan saw the wedge of gold and the babylonish garment and coveted it: and therefore the Scriptures do every where say that we should resist the temptations of the world, the allurements of the flesh, and to pray unto the Lord that he would not lead us into temptation. These are in part the causes of the habit and practice of sin, but they are not the original & the principal cause; that lies higher, in the natural birth: There is a necessity of Regeneration by the Spirit because all that are borne in the natural way are defiled with sin. They then who maintain the purity of the natural birth as the Examiner's, Mr. Everard, and the separate Churches do, overthrew the doctrine of the foundation of Christ. Now, Mr. Everard, 
☞  let us come to your arguments.  
First, you say, we could not sin in Adam, our souls and bodies were not together in him, and how we could commit sin you know not, therefore believe not. page 127. But Sir, if you would seriously consider the words of the Apostle, Rom. 5.12. by one man sin entered into the world, etc. You should find that all than were in one public man, and sinned in him; and this is the reason which the Apostle giveth why death passed universally upon all men, because in one all have sinned; his one act was the act of all. But for more abundant confirmation let us consider the scope of the text. The drift of the Apostle is to draw a parallel between both the adam's, Frist in those points wherein they do agree. Secondly, in those wherein they do disagree. For the points of agreement, the most remarkable to the purpose in hand are these. First, the two adam's are described as two persons which are the roots to their several and respective posterities. The first Adam is a root to all his branches, and the second Adam is a root to all branches. I marvel then what delusion hath seized upon the Examiner's, who do positively maintain, that the first Adam is not here intended as he was the Father of us all. Secondly, they are described by the plurality of branches, as the first Adam had a multiplicity of branches out of him, so the second Adam had a plurality of branches out of him. And therefore the Apostle doth elegantly proceed in the collation: as by the offence of one, many be dead; so the gift of grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many. As by one man's offence death reigned by one: much more they which receive abundance of grace shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And so the Apostle doth compare one Adam to one Christ; Adam the root of all his branches, Christ the root of all his branches. Thirdly, they are set forth by the passage of the common sap out of each root into its branches, respectively. And therefore the Apostle speaketh concerning the first Adam, by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and death passed over all men. The common sap then that passed out of the first man into all his branches, is first sin, and then death by sin. By sin is here principally meant original sin and all other sins that flow from this as the fountain. But if further enquiry be made concerning the passage of sin & death into all the branches that come of Adam, the passage is not all at one and the same instant. It is now five thousand six hundred years since the fall of Adam, and in all this time original sin hath been in continual flux and succession. As in several generations men come to be born, so they actually participate of the sap that comes from the first root. The like may be said of the second Adam and of his branches. They which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. ver. 17. The sap then that cometh from Christ as the common root, is grace and spiritual life; this doth flow out of him into all his branches. And for the passage thereof, it is not all at one time, but as men come to receive the gift of righteousness and to be born anew they come to the actual fruition thereof. For, let the death of Christ be never so largely tendered to the lost sons of men, there is no actual participation of him till he be received by faith. The words of the text are most emphatical and significant, They which receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life. As who would say in plainer terms, they only shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ who do particularly receive the gift of righteousness which is generally offered. This is the undoubted meaning of the text. And therefore for you to say that we could not sin in Adam, our souls and bodies not being in him, how do you answer the scope of the text? by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, by one man sin entered into the world. Adam, is here set forth as the root of all his branches, and all the branches were in him as the first public man. What can you or the Examiner's say to this?  
2ly. you say that we had no Law in Adam. Now where there is no Law, there is no transgression; & if we had received any Law, it must have been made known to us, but there was none made known to us, and therefore there was not Law. page 127. To this I rejoin, 
☜  if there was no Law given to us in Adam, how come we to be guilty of his transgression? how come we to bear the burden of his sin? why doth the Apostle speak so plainly, by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners? We must then necessarily come to affirm this for a truth, that the Law was given to Adam as a public man, and in him to all his posterity. And, whereas you say, that there was no Law made known to us at that time, therefore we had no interest in the Law: why do not you infer by the like reason, when the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered death upon the Cross, because at that very time the merit of his death was not made known, you had no part or portion in that death which was one thousand six hundred years before you were born. If you will be loath to stand to the latter, to lose your privilege by the second Adam, I pray you give us leave to maintain the damage that was brought in by the first Adam. And yet further; to take away all scruples from tender consciences, if it might seem harsh for all the sons of men to perish by the disobedience of one man, especially when the Law was not made known to them in their own individual persons, but in the common root of all mankind, let us consider how the second man came as a remedy to free the same miserable sons of men from the state of sin and death, especially when they neither thought nor knew any thing concerning the means of their salvation. The greatness of our misery by Adam, doth amplify and set forth the merit of Christ in the fullness thereof. Now then when the Examiner's and you both go about to extenuate the misery of the fall, you do rob Christ of the glory of his grace.  
You say, The branch hath not any thing, but what it hath by dependence upon the tree. Now it is not so with us; for that which we call the Principal part of man, his soul or spirit was not dependant upon Adam, but had his dependency from the very same fountain from whence Adam received his, even from God himself. p. 128. Here I confess there is a great question concerning the manner of the propagation of Original sin, and men do weary themselves very much to find out, whether the soul be by infusion or by traduction? But I see no cause why we should entangle ourselves in that difficulty. 
☞  For, whether the soul be infused, or whether it be traduced, or which way soever it be conveyed, we must necessarily affirm in the continual flux of original sin from father to child, each father doth propagate it to his child, as Adam did to the whole posterity. If this be not a real truth, what shall we make of the speech of our Saviour, that which is born of the flesh is flesh? Joh. 3.6. The Father than doth propagate the corruption of nature to his child as he himself did first receive it by propagation. We must needs then yield the truth of the thing, though there be some difficulty in the discovery of the manner. But that which doth very much satisfy me in this point is the consideration of that speech to Adam, and in him to all mankind; be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, Gen. 1.28. From whence I gather, that the propagation of mankind doth chief depend upon this promise established in the beginning. And therefore suppose that be true which you say, that the soul doth come immediately from God, the question is whether in matter of generation, in matter of union of the soul with the body, in matter of propagation of the kind, the child doth not depend upon the father as the branch doth upon the root. And doth not the Lord continue still to perform that promise that he made in the beginning? Surely, by what power the earth doth continue to bring forth herbs, and every thing doth fructify according to its kind; by the same ordinance, blessing and promise of God doth the father beget the child, to continue a posterity upon the earth. To the right solution of the question then, we must give a double answer. For if it be demanded in the first place, why a man doth generate a man? It is from the Ordinance and blessing of God, and from that fundamental Law, increase and multiply. But if it be further inquired, why a sinful father doth continue to beget a sinful child? the traduction of original sin is from Adam, the common root of the corruption of nature ever since the fall. For the fountain being corrupted the corruption doth go down the stream, and is in perpetual flux and succession from the Spring head. But to make the matter good, you go on, If the souls and spirits of all that stock that came from Adam should have been lineally derived, than they must have returned again to him, page 228. This doth not follow for by the like reason, why do you not argue concerning the branches and leaves of all the trees and forests in the world, because they have their derivation from the root therefore they must return into the root again; But you add further, admit (say you) we had such a being in Adam as the branches had in the tree, and produce actions in a natural way, being prone thereunto, yet that which is to be expected must have been such fruits as were natural to the tree and no other; but sin was no natural fruit, but an accident, page 129. Indeed if you take nature in its first essence and institution, it is good, and all sin is unnatural and accidental; but if you take nature in its vicious qualities, as it is since the fall, than it is depraved in Adam, and our immediate parents are so many conduit-pipes of the corruption of nature. If this be not so, what can be the meaning of our Saviour's words, that which is born of flesh is flesh? This showeth plainly that Adam is not only the root of nature, but also since the fall a root of the corruption of nature; and upon this ground lies a necessity of regeneration, or having a new nature from Christ the second Adam.  
Thirdly, you say, If we must own all Adam's actions sinful, as our acts, then pray give me leave to appropriate as large a portion in all his good actions. For why should I not plead for as much propriety in all his good actions, as some will persuade me I have in all his evil actions, seeing I was as much in him before the fall, as since? And then I might say as well, that I walked in the Garden, and dressed it, and gave names to all creatures, page 129. If this will give you content, I know nothing to the contrary but we may affirm, that all mankind were in Adam when he walked in the Garden, and gave names to all cattles. And without question you should have had as great a part in his good actions if he had stood, as now you have a share in the evil of that action, by which he fell. To make this appear, in that state as we are now restored by Christ, Man hath Lordship and Dominion over the creature. If you will fetch this dominion from that great Charter, Let them have dominion over the fish of the Sea, the fowl of the air, etc. Gen. 1.26. Then you must needs conclude, that the privilege which was given to Adam, was given to all his posterity. Yea, in that particular case, when the Lord brought all creatures to Adam to see what names he would give them, he did bring the creatures to him, as to the head of all mankind; and he not only in his own private, but in their public right did give names to all cattles. The like may be said of the institution of marriage in the beginning, & of a man's leaving his father and mother, and cleaving to his wife: This did not so immediately concern Adam in his own person, as all mankind that should come of him in succeeding generations, Mat. 19.4.  
Fourthly, you say, If all men did sin in Adam when he did eat the forbidden fruit, why might it not as well be said, when Adam believed, I believed; when Adam repent, I repent? page 130. I answer, the case is not equal, for when Adam did eat the forbidden fruit, he did this as a public person, as the root of all mankind: but when he did believe, he did that as a particular member of Christ. I may say on the other side, when Christ suffered upon the Cross to satisfy the justice of God, this was all one as if Adam and Paul themselves had satisfied the justice of God. What Christ did, he did for them, and when he did it, they did it in him and by him. The like answer may be given to that question, why do not the regenerate propagate grace as well as original sin? The answer is plain, piety is not hereditary, as original sin is, neither doth holiness come into us by nature, but by grace; not generation but regeneration doth entitle us to salvation. And therefore in the aforementioned case, when Adam did beget Cain in his own likeness, he did not beget him as the son of his faith, but the son of his corrupt nature. The same may be said of the natural Progeny of all believers, they are born in original sin as well as the children of Infidels. The Jew that was circumcised himself, begat one that was uncircumcised. It is therefore a poor and a weak shift of the Examiner's, (who, to illude the force of that Scripture, I was conceived in sin and born in iniquity,) do not shun to tell us that David's father was a pious man in Israel, and his mother was a godly. Matron, and being both of them well grown in grace before they begat this their youngest son, they were more like to convey grace and holiness (if that be communicable) than sin unto him. Be like then, these new Divines think the grace of God runs in a blood, at least wise, that it is a more probable truth than to believe the propagation of the sin of the nature.  
Now you come to open the text, and here say you, If we had all committed sin in Adam, then of what use were these words (by the offence of one?) I do not find such a saying parallelled, viz that one man's offence can be called all men's act that followed him, and that without their knowledge and consent. page 131. If in this point you would seriously ponder the Scripture, you will have your doubts resolved. The words of the Apostle are plain, by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners. How came they to be sinners, to have the guilt of sin imputed, and original sin derived with all the effects and fruits thereof, but by the disobedience of one man? If that be true which is affirmed by you, that one man's disobedience cannot be called all men's act, by the strictness and rigour of such a position, you will take away the very ground and strength of the Apostles argument, and destroy the parallel which he doth draw between Adam and Christ. The whole tenor of his discourse is turned upon this hang, as the disobedience of one man is the act of all the posterity that came after him: so the obedience of one man is the act of all the posterity that believe in him. And whereas you say, you cannot find such a passage as this parallelled in Scripture; I would entreat you to consider the temporal judgements of God as they have been poured upon several families. The house of Eli were to suffer for many generations, when all that came of that lineage did not know what Eli did, neither did they give consent to the sins of Hophni and Phinehas; yet for all this it is clear that the sin did redound to the posterity. 1 Sam. 2.32.  
Now you come to acquaint us with some of your observations, and you tell us, I have heard say, and true it is, that what being we had in Adam, we had it assoon as himself, and so, if we had done the same actions, he had done nothing before us, page 131. In this I do agree with you, that it is true that the whole nature of man, as it hath in time subsisted in thousands and millions, did originally subsist in Adam as in the common root. I do agree also that what Adam did as the first public man, he did it in our stead, yet, if you will go to moments and scruples of time, we must say also that in order of existence, Adam had a being before us; we must say that Adam's personal sin was before the pollution of nature, but our nature is first polluted in the corrupted mass before we come to commit sin in person, nay before we come personally to exist.  
You have a second answer to the words of the text, you say, If we had all committed that sin in Adam, that he was called to account for, than we should have sinned after the same similitude: but we sinned not after the same similitude; and so we committed not the same sin. And here also I yield, according to the strictness of terms, that we could not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression: for Adam sinned by a deliberate will and by a free choice, so could not we. Yet nevertheless, though we could not sin after the same similitude, we might sinne in him as the first public man. For proof of this, read but the words of the text, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even ever them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, verse 14. The Apostle speaketh of Infants for two thousand five hundred years, from the fall of Adam to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai. Here I demand, how could death reign over the Infant's aforesaid? No Law was then publicly given upon Mount Sinai, and the Infants had no understanding, neither could they give any consent of will: How then could death justly reign over them, seeing they never committed any sin in their own persons? Though they did not, yet they sinned in the first man, and by the reign of death universally over all men, over Infants as well as others, the Apostle proveth this assertion. How weakly then do the Examiner's of the late Confession argue, when they say, surely, If the Apostle had believed any such thing as the reigning of death over all men by the first man's sin, he would not have omitted that, and only mentioned from Adam to Moses? page 81. Though he doth mention the reign of death from Adam to Moses; this doth not imply any thing to the contrary, but that death hath reigned ever since. The words are plain, death hath passed over all men to condemnation. But there was less reason for it, that death should reign from Adam to Moses, when the Law was not publicly delivered, especially over Infants, that never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. But seeing experience hath plainly showed in this whole interval of time that death hath reigned over Infants; by this medium the Apostle proveth them to have been guilty of sin. How guilty of sin? Not in their own persons, for they never committed any; but only in Adam the common root of all mankind. And so that universal affirmation is made good, by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and death hath passed over all men to condemnation. The universality of death doth prove the universality of sin in the first man. But you further stand upon a privilege to interpret the words of the text, why in such a case as this (say you) may not I have the same privilege to give an exposition of these words (in whom all have sinned,) seeing no sound Scripture can be given to evince the conscience of any certainty of committing sin in Adam? page 133. For that freedom of expounding one Scripture by the accounts of another, 
☜  by my consent you shall have it; for I think the strongest Demonstration in divine matters is drawn from the harmony of Scripture. And upon these grounds we do proceed, because the whole Gospel in a manner is concerning the regenerating work of the Spirit. Hence we do argue that the nature is defiled. And because the promise is to believers and their seed in the last dispensation, we do hereupon conclude the right to the seal: as I have already proved against you in my Treatise of Infant Baptism. But seeing you are so confident in it, that no sound Scripture can be given to evince the conscience of any certainty of our committing sin in Adam; I pray you deal ingenuously, and according to your own principles, do you not believe that Infants do bear he punishment of Adam's sin? How could they justly bear the punishment, and be no way guilty of the transgression? The scope of the Apostle is plainly to the contrary, because death reigneth over all, over Infants as well as others, from hence he concludeth, that in one all have sinned. If you do well consider (by denying original sin, and by taking away the corruption of nature as derived from the first man.) you do in effect call in question whether there be any regenerating grace to be had from the second man. And so when you tell us that no sound Scripture can be given to prove the certainty of our committing sin in Adam, you do as good as say, no sound Scripture can be given to evince the certainty of satisfaction made to the justice of God by the suffering of Christ. In this matter the Apostle showeth, that the first man is the figure of him that is to come. If that be true than which you and the Examiner's teach, that the guilt of the first man's sin doth not redound to his posterity, you must say also that the obedience of the second man, and the free guilt do not redound to those that appertain to him. And this is point blank to go against the scope of Scripture.  
Now let us hear what your interpretation is, and what account you do give of the Apostles meaning. I will repeat your own expressions more largely, that the world may both read and give sentence. These are your words, I shall take some pains in opening that place, 2 Cor. 5.21. He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. By this means we may more fully understand in what sense we were made sinners in Adam, and knew no sin. Wherein it will appear that we were as guiltless of that act, with reference to the fact committed by us, as Christ was guiltless in committing the sins of the world. Therefore take notice that Christ was said to be made sin for us, in no other sense but this, viz. He hath laid upon him that punishment which was due for sin; he was wounded for our transgressions, he was reckoned amongst transgressors. But for any man so to affirm it, would be as large an untruth as men and Devils could devise. For it is one thing to be made sin, and another thing to act sin. Now Christ was said to be made sin as one that had taken upon him such losses as did accompany sin. So those damages that were to befall the world for Adam's sin, Christ is said to bear them, not in their essence or being, but in the demerit of them. As he was made sin, not knowing a deceiving heart in himself, so we were made sinners by Adam, who knew no such sin. And many such passages you have to the same purpose, page. 133, 134. Now I leave it to the Reader to judge to what pass you are come. And here so fare as you affirm that Christ himself was free from sin when he did bear the penalties of our sins, we do agree with you. And we further also assent, that all the Children of Adam do bear the punishment of his disobedience. But whereas you say, that we are only made sin in Adam after the same manner as Christ was made sin for us, I do here admire at your boldness in many respects: First, when Christ was made sin for us, by his own voluntary undertaking he was made a surety and a propitiation for to satisfy the justice of God for our sins. Will you say the like of all the Infants that come of Adam, that by the merit of their sufferings they should propitiate his transgression? Secondly, when Christ was made sin for us he knew no sin, he never committed sin, he had no natural pollution from the birth. Now it is not so with us, we bear the guilt of Adam's sin as copartners with him in the common pollution of nature. Thirdly, when the Apostle saith, he made him sin for us that knew no sin; here you must necessarily understand that he speaks of the peculiar prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ, that he did bear the burden of sin when he knew no sin in himself. Now then, if that be true which the Examiner's and you do affirm, that Infants are free from the natural pollution, and you here mainly stand upon it that they only bear the burden of Adam's sin when they knew no such sin; I would entreat you to judge in your own conscience, whether by such a position of the purity of the natural birth you do not make all Infants equal with Christ, and if it be true, as you affirm, that they bear the burden of Adam's sin when they knew no sin, why doth the Apostle speak so peculiarly, so emphatically, so singularly of Christ above all other men, that he was made sin for us when he knew no sin? By this error you do entrench upon the sovereign prerogative of the Lord Jesus, and I fear, (unless you and the Examiner's repent) you may one day dearly answer for it. But you have an evasion, for say you, we are as guiltless of that act with reference unto the fact committed by us as Christ was guiltless in committing the sins of the world: But this restriction (as the act committed by us) will not mollify the matter. For though the sin of Adam was not committed by any act or will of ours immediately in our own person, 
☞  yet it was mediately committed by the free act of our first parent. In this case, according to Scripture, the will of the first man doth pass for the will of the whole nature, and of all that do partake of the nature. And this is the meaning of the Apostle, by one man sinne-entred into the world. By sin he meaneth original sin, or the sin of the nature, and this saith he entered into the world; but how? not by the proper private and particular will of every individual man, but by the common parent of all mankind. And for that expression of yours, that we are as guiltless of Adam's sin, as Christ is guiltless of the sins of the world; I do admire that you did not tremble when you wrote such things as these. 
☞  For we can plainly prove from the scope of the Scripture, that Adam by his disobedience did not only fasten guilt upon his posterity, but by that act of his he did taint and defile the whole nature of mankind. Will you say the like of Christ, that he did not only bear the guilt of the sins of the world, but that his nature was also defiled with the lusts of the world. This were (to use your own language) as large an untruth as men or Devils could devise.  
Now let us make enquiry into the true original of your mistake, you think the words by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, Rom. 5. Do allude to that other passage, He made him sin for us who knew no sin, 2 Cor. 5. And from the collation of both you conclude, as Christ was made sin for us who knew no deceiving heart in himself: so we were made sinners by Adam who knew no such sin. But here you are grossly mistaken, when you take these two for parallel Scriptures which are not parallel. The text in the Corinthians is meantionely of the punishment of sin, that Christ did bear the burden of our iniquities. But the text in the Romans is not only meant of the punishment and the guilt of sin, but also of the depravation of the nature of man. The scope of the place is plainly to show that by the disobedience of one, many were constituted sinners or sinful men. And the word in the original is ordinarily taken for men who have the habit and the nature of sin in them. Peter said departed from me I am a sinful man, Luke 5.8. And our Saviour in another place, whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, Mark 8.38. And the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans, that sin by the Commandment might appear exceeding sinful. Chap 6. verse 13. In these and such like places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for such a one as is a sinner by intrinsecal denomination. And therefore in the present case when the Apostle saith by the disobedience of one many were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinners, as our translation hath it, his meaning is, they were made sinful men, that is, they had the nature and the habit of sin derived to them from the disobedience of the first man. And thus you may plainly see that the two texts which you put for like are very unlike; and this is one chief ground of your error.  
Again, your deductions are every was as unsound, for say you, at Christ was made sin for us when he knew no sin: so we are made sinners for Adam when we knew no such sin. And to confirm this, you further tell us, it is one thing to be made sin so as to bear the burden of Adam's sin, and another thing to act sin. But whereas you speak of two things only, you should have mentioned three. It is one thing to be made sin, and another thing to be made sinful, and a third to act sin. If you speak of being made sin, so Christ only was made a sacrifice for sin, to satisfy the justice of God. But if you speak of being made sinful, so is the whole race of mankind, by the disobedience of the first man. And in the third place, if you speak of committing the act of sin, this only men can do when they have the use of reason and understanding. From all which we conclude, though Infants cannot be said to act sin, yet nevertheless through the disobedience of the first man they may have the pollution of nature. Further, you say, as we are made sinners by Adam, so we are made righteous by Christ, and yet had no hand in those astions that made us righteous; In the like case, we were made sinners by Adam's disobedience, and yet had no hand in his so acting. To say the truth, if you go to the personal act particularly and individually, we had no hand either in the obedience of the one, or the disobedience of the other; yet in a general sense the acts of the two adam's are the act of the whole posterity that come of them. As for example, the first man by his disobedience did defile the whole nature without the knowledge, will, motion, or act of any of the persons that were to come of him; yet so really and effectually, that none can come by propagation from him, but they partake of the guilt of his sin, and the pollution of his nature, ver. 12.14, 17. So in the like case, the second man did satisfy the justice of God, and sanctify our nature without any personal knowledge, will, motion or act of ours; yet so really and effectually, that none of us can truly believe but we must some way come to partake of that nature. To as many as received him hath he given this power to be called the sons of God, to them that do believe on his name: being born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, but of God, Joh. 1.12, 13.  
Further, you say, we had as little capacity to act in Adam, as we had to act in Christ. For this must be granted, that when God makes the creature capable to act, he makes him as capable to act for himself as for the Devil; Else he had better provided for his enemies than for himself, page 137. These also are the whimsies of the Examiner's of the late Confession. For they (speaking of the indifferency of the will) tell us in plain terms, that as Adam's will before his fall did hang in an aequilibrium to good or bad, and inclined more to that which was good than that which was evil: so they hold the same of the will of all men else before their personal fall. To all which I answer, that these are dangerous speeches, which derogate much from the grace of God in Christ. For whosoever they be that do either lessen the misery of nature, and cry up the natural ability of the will, they do in sense take that away from Christ, which they give to men. As for that objection of yours, that God should better provide for his enemies than for himself, hold yourself contented, God is able to secure his own glory, though all men are born in original sin; and the Apostle doth plainly give the reason, the Lord doth quicken us when we are dead in trespasses and sins, when we walk according to the course of this world, when we serve divers lusts and pleasures, when we are by nature the children of wrath as well as others. He doth quicken us when we are in this estate, that in the ages to come he may show the exceeding riches of his grace towards us in Jesus Christ, Ephes. 2. ver. 1.2, 3, etc. Therefore the declaration of the glory of Christ in giving spiritual life to them that are dead, must necessarily suppose men to be by nature dead in the passes and sins, that they may be the greater objects of mercy. If you go in this method, though all Infants are involved in original sin, though all are miserable by nature, yet God hath better provided for himself than for his enemies; when his grand design is through the misery of man to show the riches of his grace.  
We will now proceed to Psal. 51. ver. 5. And here let us see how many shifts you have to elude the force and manifest sense of this Scripture. In the beginning you agree that we bear the punishment of another man's sin. But say you, that children have any spawn of sin cleaving to them, as seed to hatch and gender in, and by any thing received from Adam as we sprang from his loins, this I deny, page 136. This also is the judgement of the Examiner's in many pages together. Now if this be so, that infants have no such spawn of original sin in them, why do the Scriptures speak so largely of the pollution of nature? why is it said of man in general that the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart are only evil from his childhood? Why doth the Lord Christ so earnestly press a necessity of regeneration? Why doth he urge it upon such a ground as this, that which is born of the flesh is flesh! There is nothing more clear than that the nature of man is wholly defiled from the very birth. And for the Psalmist in his particular, though it be true that he did bear the burden of Adam's sin, yet it is not the whole, nor the full truth. The full truth is this, that he was conceived in sin, that in the conception his nature was defiled, and the natural defilement was the cause of the two great sins of murder and adultery. And hereupon in relation to his natural pollution he doth pray unto the Lord to give him a new heart, he went to the true root and cause of all the evil. I must needs acknowledge that the Authors of the Examen when they speak of fallen man, they render true causes of his not willing of good. First, the ignorance of that which is good; the second, a depraved judgement; the third, a want of due remembrance; the fourth, the power of temptation; the fifth, the habit and custom of sin, page 132. These are indeed true causes, but they are too short and too narrow in their determination, they do not come to the root of the evil, to the inherent perverseness of the will itself, and the pollution of the natural birth. When the bottom of a wound is not searched such Mountebanks must needs make a palliate cure.  
Next you say, If you will take from David's particular example the general condition of all infants, why do not you take the text concerning John his being sanctified from his mother's womb, and argue that all the children of the world are sanctified in that sense as John was sanctified? And if this were so, there would not be so many lazy Priests and others in the world as there be, page 135. For the parallel between David and John, there is no equality betwixt them in the present collation. For whereas it is said of John, that he was sanctified from his mother's womb, this was by a peculiar privilege granted to him; And whereas David saith, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, he doth not speak this as a King, or a Saint, or an Israelite, but in the most general relation as one of the lost sons of men fallen in Adam and born in the corrupted mass; and this is the reason why from the particular example of David we draw a general conclusion of the pollution and the defilement of nature in all. But the Authors of the Examen do stiffly maintain, that the nature conveyed from Adam to all his posterity in the way of ordinary generation is not defiled with sin. For, say they, some are sanctified from the womb, as Jeremiah and John the Baptist were, and the Virgin Mary might possibly be, page 65. Though this may be admitted, that some of the Saints may be sanctified sooner than others, and the work of sanctification may begin in them from their childhood; yet what is all this to the purpose? It must necessarily be supposed that corruption will have a being in certain moments of time before the grace of God can have its being. Jeremiah was sanctified from his mother's womb, yet he did curse the day of his birth, he did resolve to speak no more to the people in the name of the Lord, he did show many fruits of the flesh as well as he did manifest many fruits of the Spirit. And therefore to the particular case, as he did consist of flesh and spirit, in him the flesh & the Old man had its being before the Spirit and the new man. This I believe none can rationally deny, though they will acknowledge also that he was sanctified from his mother's womb. But, Mr. Everard, to return to you again. For the trouble you have with the lazy Priests, I fear Sir, the more godly, the more conscientious, the more laborious any Minister is, the worse he is in your opinion, and in the opinion of such as you are: if he oppose the innovations and errors of the times. But I pray God give you repentance, else you will have an heavy account to make one day for all your hard speeches against the godly Ministry.  
For the text, Mat. 18.3. Except ye be converted and become as little children ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Here say you, If infants be so filthy, why doth our Saviour set such a pattern before us? And the Authors of the Examen also, page 70, speak much to the same effect? doth not our Saviour (say they) declare the state of children both to be innocent and blessed, when first he makes it terminus ad quem, the mark unto which in our conversion and regeneration we must return? And then tells us, that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such, and is replenished with such? I answer, in parables and similitudes we are to look only to the scope. Our Saviour speaketh of the unjust Steward of putting the talon to the exchanger, of his own coming like a thief in the night. What then, is it his intent to approve of the evil of these ways? No: he doth only point to something wherein the force of the similitude doth stand? And so in the present case, when he speaketh of humbling ourselves, and becoming like little children, it is not his purpose to ascribe such perfection to them, as though all infants were free from original sin, or that their innocency were the terminus ad quem, the term to which our conversion and regeneration must return. These are very strange deductions. The words of our Saviour are therefore to be taken only in a restrained sense, that in affectation of worldly glory we should be like little children. There is no such distance between the children of Princes, and the children of beggars, but all are one. The mind of the Lord is only this, that we should come to act the same things by the power of grace, as little children do through the weakness and infirmity of age. We should not look upon Lords and Ladies, upon learning or parts, or upon any other external excellency in comparison of the grace of God. Commonly men that have these things are very proud of them, and do look upon them too much; and to these the exhortation is given in special, that they should be humbled, and become as little children. There lieth then a palpable and gross fallacy in your whole discourse, when you take the words absolutely that all infants are free from sin, when our Saviour speaketh in a particular sense only of the act and execution of this or that particular evil.  
Now you proceed, and tell us, it was never heard that children had any sin by way of act; and by way of omission, you cannot make it good that they ever received a command or were capable of any command from God, page 138. Answ. What we have learned we are willing to acknowledge, and though we never heard that infants had any sin in them by any act of their own, yet we have learned from Scriptures, yea from the very first principles of the faith, that they have it by contagion, and the disobedience of the first man▪ The words of our Saviour are plain, Joh. 3.8. That which is born of the flesh is flesh: And that of the Apostle, Rom. 5.12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. And many such places there are to prove infants to be guilty of sin by the disobedience of the first man, and to be involved in the pollution of nature by hereditary contagion. But because you and the Examiner's are so strict upon the point, I pray you resolve me in this one case. When the promise was made, the seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head, was not this the promise of Christ to Adam after his fall? If infants therefore are absolutely acquitted from the guilt of Adam's sin, as being another man's act; if they be free from the pollution of nature, to what end was the promise of Christ? How did he come in the nature of a Physician to cure when there was no disease? Where there is no malady, there needs no remedy. And whereas you go about to free infants from the sin of omission, because they are not capable of a command, I pray you show the reason why the Lord was so strict in his command to the Jewish infant that he should be circumcised upon the eighth day? and that the uncircumcised manchild should be cut off from his people? Gen. 17.11.12, etc. For my part I know no reason of the strictness of this Law, but that the Lord would signify to believers under this dispensation that there infants were born in original sin, and that it was not safe to omit the remedy for that disease. And though in strictness of terms we will yield so fare to Corvinus and to Julian the Pelagian, that there is no particular command that forbids an infant to be born in original sin; yet for all this they must needs allow, that the Law was given to reveal, to convince, and to discover the sin of the nature, and by the discovery thereof to drive a man to Christ, to look to him only for sanctifying and regenerating glrace, S. Paul saith, the Law is spiritual, and I am carnal, sold under sin. And in the same text, I had not known sin, except the Law had said, thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7.  
You go on, for this sin called original, if infants had committed it, God would have called them to repentance for it, when they had come to years at least wise; but I can safely say, that there is no man living that to this day ever made it appear to be the mind of God for any man to repent of that sin. Truly Sir your confidence is very great, and you have more boldness than truth on your side. For we may believe that you never heard of the promises nor the commands mentioned in Scripture when you dare affirm such things as these. When the Lord promiseth in the new Covenant, I will take out of their bowels a heart of stone, and will give them a heart of flesh, Ezek. 36. By the heart of stone he means a hard heart, and a sinful nature that every infant did bring into the world; he doth promise to take away the corruption of nature, and that he will sanctify his people by his Spirit. So for the commands of God, we read every where that men are exhorted to put off the Old Adam-like disposition. That ye put off concerning the former conversation the Old man, which is corrupt according to the deceivable lusts, Ephes. 4.22. By the Old man he doth mean the carnal disposition which we have from Adam by natural generation. This corrupted disposition of the flesh he would have the believing Ephesians, and in them, all others, to subdue and mortify. And further, if you look to the right use of Baptism now, as of circumcision of old, you shall find that the institution of these things doth primarily intent the doing away of the sin of the nature, as I have already showed in my Treatise of Infant Baptism. Therefore I cannot but admire at your boldness, when you stand so much upon it that you can safely say, that God never called men to repentance for original sin. I am so fare from your judgement, that I think the greatest part of repentance lies in the mortification of the sin of the nature. But you have an evasion, this sin called original sin, if infants had committed it, God would have called them to repentance. Here you put that upon us which we do not speak, and I know no solid Writer in the world that doth use such an expression of committing original sin. It is proper only to men of ripe years to commit sin. For original sin, we say that is only by propagation, through the disobedience of the first man, and when men come to be sanctified by the Spirit of God they are qualified with inward principles to purge out the sin of the nature.  
Neither doth your argument drawn from the example of Christ any whit promote your cause. You say, If this principle should find a being in the world, that every infant was born in sin, because lineally derived from Adam, then where will you get water to wash your hands of that grand absurdity, to wit, that Jesus Christ was not free from original sin? for than he must have a share because he came from the loins of a woman the Daughter of Adam, page 139. To this I answer, if you will make Christ and all Infants to run parallel in the purity of their natural birth, then why did Christ die for them? why did he sanctify their nature? There is no need of salvation by the merit of Chri, saint where there is no guilt of sin. There needs no sanctification of the Spirit, where there is no pollution of nature. Why do not you exclude all Infants from these as you do from the water of baptism? For your Argument drawn from the example of Christ. If you build so much upon that, I would entreat you to consider two things; First, why he did assume our nature? Secondly, assuming our nature, how came he to be exempt from original sin? For the first, he did assume our nature with all the miseries thereof, sin only excepted, that he might make expiation of sin in that nature that had sinned. He did not take the nature of Adam before his fall nor that humane nature which the Saints shall have in the state of glory, but merely the nature of man clothed with all the infirmities thereof, to sanctify that nature, and to satisfy divine justice. To this purpose the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 8.3. What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent his Son in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh. In these words we may note, that because Christ came in the similitude of sinful flesh, all flesh besides his, of infants as well as others was sinful flesh; only Christ came in the similitude of sinful flesh. He had the reality of our nature with all the miseries thereof, only he was born in the similitude of our sinfulness, that he might satisfy the justice of God. And for the second point, how he came to be free from original sin, this is plainly expressed in the articles of the Creed; He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. For his conception, that part of the Virgin's flesh was so sanctified, by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, that it might be free from the natural contagion, and that the nature of God and the nature of man together might make one person. And that which may further amplify the truth of this, Christ was not born by virtue of that promise, increase and multiply; for this since the fall hath filled the world with sinners: but he was born by virtue of the special promise, the seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head. And this is the true reason, for though Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, a Daughter of Adam, though he had the common nature of all mankind for truth and substance, yet he was made free from original sin by the mean of a wonderful generation. And in this matter by way of retortion we may turn your own weapons upon yourself, and upon the Examiner's. For if that be true, that all infants are free from natural pollution, what need was there that the Son of God should be conceived by the Holy Ghost, and be born of the Virgin Mary? His conception needed not to have been by the Holy Ghost in case the natural generation did not necessarily enforce the propagation of original sin. These extraordinary means would have been superfluous in case he might have been exempt from all sin in the ordinary way.  
The arguments which you further allege are as invalid as the former. You say, If we were in the transgression assoon as Adam himself, how come we to derive it from him? page 139. To the satisfying of this doubt, I would entreat you to distinguish between the things that are attributed to Adam as a public man, and the things that are ascribed to him as a particular person. If you speak of his public relations as the root and head of all his posterity; It is true, what he did, we did in him, we were in the transgression assoon as himself was, his sin was not so much his own as the sin of the humane nature. But if you speak of him as a particular person, according to the order of existence he is the first of the race, and so in succession of generations all that were in the corrupted mass, as they come to be born severally and individually, to derive from him. In a sense therefore it is true that we were in the transgression assoon as himself was. It is the Apostles own expression in whom all have sinned. Yet in flux and succession of generations it is as true that he did go before, and all others did follow after in their respective times.  
Next you argue, If we sinned in him, why might not we have sinned without him? how came we all to be of one mind? page 139. You may I confess make such a supposition, and a thousand more of the like kind, and there will be no end of your cavilling. But the Scriptures tell us plainly that one man was made in the beginning, he was the root of all mankind, and by this one man sin entered into the world: If this seem harsh to you, to the Examiner's, and to others, that all should be brought under a necessity of sinning and perishing by the disobedience of one man, this should pacify your minds, that all are brought under a possibility of salvation by the obedience of the second man. This is the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles. Take heed then, lest by diminishing the sin of the first man you do not take away from the grace and the blessing brought in by the second. If your nature was never defiled, what need have you of a Christ? What need of a new nature? What need of regeneration of the Spirit. I hope the Examiner's and you will not say that these are only for the purging out of actual sin, or the habit of sin got by imitation. Let us now come to hear your admirations.  
I strange (say you) at your hard thoughts of Adam that he had more proneness to sin after the fall than before. If you can bring no proof for what you say for this, or for the like case, than you must excuse my infidelity in the point. You proceed after that manner as your brethren do, they desire to have their infidelity excused, because they do not read in so many letters and syllables of the Baptism of infants in the new Testament. And so here, you do not read of such and such particular sins which Adam did commit after his fall, and therefore you desire to be excused for your unbeleef in that point. But Sir, If you would look to the harmony of Scripture you should find that this testimony is not only given of Adam, but also of all his posterity. God saw the wickedness of man that it was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil from his childhood, Gen. 6.5. If every imagination of his heart was evil from his childhood, than there must be some particular time assigned where this universal corruption and depravation of nature did begin. If it did begin at the fall (as there begin it must) than you must also necessarily conclude that Adam had a greater proneness to sin after the fall than he had before. But say you, If it could be proved that Adam sinned ten thousand times afterward, must we therefore set all his sins upon the first sin's score, page 142? As difficult a point as you make of it, the Apostle doth set all upon the disobedience of the first man, as he doth put all upon the obedience of the second man. As by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, many were made righteous, Rom. 5.19. The comparison would be of no value at all if that which is peculiarly spoken to Adam, might be applied to any other parent whatsoever in respect of his posterity. And of the sins which Adam did commit, we are not to admire why all are set upon the score of the first sin. When he received original righteousness in the beginning, he received it not only for himself, but also for his whole posterity. And therefore if he had stood, he had conveyed it to all his branches; but falling, he lost it from himself and all his offspring. And this is the reason why all is charged upon the first sin, because that was the sin of a fiduciary or trustee. The parent was entrusted with the whole stock, which was not only his own peculiar, but also the public loss of all his posterity. If we might suppose that Adam did commit ten thousand sins afterward, the hurt could not redound to any other but to himself only. For how could he bring damage to small or great by any disobedient act, seeing he was trusted no more? You now come to declare your judgement, why (say you) might we not have thought it more safe, that that which gave the first occasion to sins being, was yet the original cause of all other sins committed by him? What need we yet to say that sin had any other father or mother than its first parents viz, the Devil and temptation, Joh. 8.44. Answ. I do not deny but in a sense the Devil and temptation may be called the parents of sin, because wicked men are led by the temptations of Satan, and do imitate his example. But strange it is that you would have no other parents but the Devil and temptation. This is in plain terms to excuse men, and to make them without blame, when any sin is committed. The Apostle doth otherwise state the true cause of sin, every man is drawn away with his own lust, and enticed, and lust when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, Jam. 1.13. The sinful will of man and the lust of his heart, may be a cause that doth procreate sin as well as the Devil and temptation. And more specially to speak in the case we are now upon, concerning the sin of the first man; and the traducing of original sin to all posterity, I do not doubt but the Devil and temptation had a great stroke in the fall of man, but we must go to other causes as well as to them; Adam's own defective will was a chief cause: And therefore we read of the great judgements that were inflicted upon him for his disobedience to the command. And for that place of Scripture which you allege, Joh. 8.44. He that committeth sin, is of the Devil; it is most true that men commit sin by the temptation of the Devil, but how doth this prove the point which you undertake, that the Devil is the only parent of sin, and that we need go to no other but to him only? Besides, in the case of original sin, as the corruption of nature doth pass by propagation, the Apostle saith we must go to one man as the fountain; by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, etc. And therefore if to salve your Tenet, you shall allege that speech, you are of your Father the Devil, & the lusts of your father will you do: By this I do confess that the Devil is proved the first parent of sin by infusion and suggestion; but he is not the father by generation. And therefore when the Apostle saith, put off, as concerning the former conversation, the Old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts: Ephes. 4.22. Here, by the Old man we are to understand the Old Adam like disposition, as it hath passed from Adam to all his posterity. This old disposition the Saints are to put off, and they are to endeavour to put on the Christ-like nature. So then, if you will say that the Devil was the first father of sin by temptation and seduction, we will not gainsay it. Only we do entreat you to remember that Adam is the cause of the conveying of original sin to all his posterity by generation and traduction.  
You have yet more evasions if it might be possible to illude the truth. If Adam (say you) had sinned afterwards, how can we say that he had a way to communicate it to all his posterity? It is more than the Devil can do to infuse sin into any man without a man's consent, page 142. This is true if you speak in the case of actual sin only, but for the derivation of original sin, the case is otherwise. The corruption of nature is derived from the disobedience of the first man. His personal disobedience was sufficient to deprave and vitiate the whole nature. 
☞  This may be proved by the harmony of Scripture, and there is no harshness in the point so long as there is such an effectual remedy prepared by the second man for the lost sons of men. And yet further, though the first man by his fall did vitiate the nature without any individual or personal consent of ours, yet the lying and living in the sinfulness of nature is not without our deliberate and free consent. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness more than light, Joh. 3.18, 19, 20. God doth at sundry seasons open the eyes of men that they may see their natural pollution; but they have not a desire to see that which they may see. Further, you add, some say the want of pure nature is the cause of our sin, but it is plain that the purity of nature exempts not a man from sin, for if it had, than Adam had not sinned, page 142. We would not have you to mistake our meaning, we do not stand so much upon the want of the purity of nature, as upon the pollution and depravation of nature. And this since the fall is no only the cause of sinning, but also is the true cause why we can do nothing else but sin. And this gins to appear to those who are sanctified by the Spirit, and therefore the Apostle saith, in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For other kind of men they do not feel the burden of a carnal mind. As a bucket of water weighs nothing in the Well, but when it is removed from its proper element, than the weight thereof is discerned. Pride of heart, and other secret lusts, are not burdensome to a carnal man who is in his proper element, but a spiritual man feels the enmity of these against the command of God, and sees by experience that according to the flesh he can do nothing else but sin. Further, you allege, that it is like that Adam would not have sinned again because he sped so ill, page 142. I believe it was with him after his fall as it was with David after his two sins of murder and adultery; David when he had committed those sins did look to the fountain of his misery as it did lie in the pollution of the natural birth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Hereupon he did pray unto the Lord that he would create in him a new heart. Even so, Adam after his fall was able to see his misery when his eyes were opened; but he was not, as you suggest, like a burned child, able of himself to take heed of the fire. All the ability that he had, was by looking to the promise, and the same ability we now have to help us out of our natural corruption. Our Saviour told the Jews, if the Son will make you free, ye shall be free indeed, Joh. 8.36. By freedom we are to understand not such a civil immunity as Emperors and Kings do give, but a freedom from the bondage and vassalage of corruption. And therefore when the Jews made him this answer, that they were Abraham's children, and never in bondage to any man, his reply was, he that committeth sin, is the servant of sin, v. 33, 34. The slavery of sin is the bondage that is here meant, and there is no other way to be freed but by Christ only. Further, you say, we cannot prove that Adam did subject himself to any temptation after the fall, pag. 143. What if we do not read in so many letters and syllables that he did subject himself to temptation? can you therefore probably collect that he was free from all sin, and that he did resist all temptations? Again, suppose that after his fall he did resist many temptations, yet as the strongest Christian may fall when God doth leave him, and the weakest may stand when the Lord will uphold him with his supporting grace; Even so, Adam being without all original sin, being left to himself to try what freewill could do, might fall in a state of natural purity. And being supported by the Spirit, to show what grace could do, might be able to stand in a state of natural corruption. Therefore all that you have said doth not any way enforce an equality of the states, or that a man's ability was as great after as it was before the fall.  
Now let us go to the third Scripture, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others, Ephes. 2 3. Here, to support the purity of nature and to avoid the force of this text, you have many evasions and shifts; let us hear them as they come in their order. There are (say you) natural men that discern not the things of God, neither can do; for a man cannot go East and West at one and the same time, neither serve two Masters to be true to them both, page 145. I confess it is true that a man cannot go East and West at one and the same time, but our question is, whether any natural man, merely as natural, without the inspiration of the Spirit can go any other way but that which is merely enmity against God? The Apostle saith, the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him, neither can he perceive them, because they are spiritually to be discerned, 1 Cor. 2.14. He speaketh this of the Philosophers and other Grecians who had improved nature to the highest: To these the preaching of the Cross was foolishness. They could discern the wisdom of Plato, and the depth of Aristotle, but the wisdom of Christ they were not able to discern. Hereupon in the three first Chapters of the Epistle the Apostle doth largely dispute that the knowledge of these things doth merely come by the inward teaching and revelation of the Spirit. And then he shutteth up the dispute with this coronis, If any man seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. A fool is one that hath no wit, he is not able to speak for himself, or to help himself. The way then to know Christ is not by the advancement of natural abilities, but rather by the true sight of inability and the lost condition we are fallen into, Aristotle was a Philosopher of great name amongst the Grecians, yet of all the books that he wrote, of all the speeches that he spoke in none of them all he came nearer to God than in that speech which he is reported for to speak, O ens entium miserere mei, O thou being of beings, have mercy upon me. The first step to salvation doth begin with the sight of misery, and the next is to look after the free grace and mercy of God.  
But you go on, and tell us, nature, simply so considered as it is created of God, cannot oppose any spiritual light, but comply with those things which God holds forth unto it, page 146. Here we desire you to keep to the state of the question, we are not upon the debate of nature in its purity, but of nature as it is since the fall. If you speak of nature created in the beginning, nature is good; nature cannot oppose any spiritual light, and it is serviceable to those ends for which God made it. But as strictly as both you and the Examiner's stand for such a natural purity, I would entreat you to show the man in all Asia, Africa, Europe, or America that hath this purity, this integrity of nature. But if you speak of nature vitiated and corrupted, the Scriptures do every where make mention of such a nature that it is enmity against God, that it is not subject to the Law of God, nor can be. And therefore when the Examiner's in the Chapter of free will do plead so strongly that there are some good things in natural men, as in Herod and Balaam, and that all natural men are not equally corrupt; what of all this? this doth not prove the goodness of nature. For that some natural men have some inward workings in them, it is from the convictions of the Spirit, and that some are less evil than others; it is from the bar of restraining grace. Otherwise, take a natural man as merely natural, he is not subject to the Law of God, nor can be, Rom. 8.7. As it may be seen in this familiar instance. When men are enemies to the State, and will not have them to reign over them, all the money, horses, armour, Cities, Castles that they can get into their power, are employed to set up another Law, and to supplant the power that is over them. So all the endeavours of a natural man, all his principles and his reasonings are to pluck down Christ, and to set up his own excellency. And therefore the natural mind is enmity against God.  
Next you cite two Scriptures concerning sins against nature Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, Covenant-breakers, without natural affection, Rom. 1.30, 31. 2 Tim. 3.3. From hence you draw this conclusion, to be natural (say you) were to have acted such actions as might have testified to the world that they had been lovers of God, because those actions were wanting, they are said to be unnatural. So it may appear that nature was not improved to those ends to which God assigned it, page 146. It is true that in these Scriptures the word nature is taken in the better sense, yet not in such a sense as will furnish your intention. First, I do acknowledge that God hath left relics or remainders of his Law in the hearts of the Gentiles. This is commonly called the Law of nature, and by this men know that God ought to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, and that every man is to have his own, etc. Secondly, I yield also that they who go against this Law may rightly be called unnatural, because they go against the dictates or principles of of nature. Thirdly, they who do thus deviate from natural principles do not improve nature to those ends which God hath made it. All these things I do allow, & so far I will go along with you; But how do you prove from hence the purity of nature, and that a mere natural man, as such, is able to understand the things of the Spirit of God? You do in the next page distinguish natural men into two kinds, these are your words. Who requireth no other way to be glorified but by those principles that he had furnished them withal. And because they opposed their own nature, resusing the counsel of God, they are called unnatural, because they employed their nature wholly to satisfy their lusts. Such natural men perceive not the things of God. The same matter in substance is spoken by the Examiner's in the Chapter of free will, for the Synod having rightly determined according to the Scriptures that a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, he is not able by his own strength to convert himself or prepare himself thereunto. Against this passage the men take great offence, and, as their manner is, accuse the Synod for their defects and falsehoods. For their defects, they blame them because they do not distinguish the several kinds of natural men; and for their falsehoods they accuse them for saying that the fallen man hath lost all ability to spiritual good. They distinguish also several kinds of will, and tell us in the third place, as the will of our first parents, so of all men else doth stand in a kind of aequilibrium pag. 128.129, 130.  
Now to take off these several Objections, I would entreat both you and them to consider these two points. First, if you look to the better sort of natural men, to those who are no Backbiters, no Covenant-breakers, etc. Whether may not many of these in the most essential, vital and spiritual parts of the Law, be great enemies against God, and be lovers of themselves more than lovers of God? If the most refined natural men may be secret enemies, why do you and they speak of pure nature, and of the improvement of natural abilities when it is certain that men can do no good without the help of the Spirit? Natural men may be distinguished into a thousand kinds according to the different circumstances of time and place, yet all of them do agree in this, that they are natural, and without the help of the Spirit they are not able to judge of the things of God. Secondly, when the Apostle speaketh of the Gentiles, who having no Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, their thoughts in the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, Romans 2.14. When the Gentiles do make use of the Law written in their heart (as they do at certain seasons) to judge themselves, doth not this proceed from the general convictions and workings of the Spirit? If the act of self-judging be from the conviction of the Spirit, this is no praise to natural abilities, but the glory belongs to the grace of God. And the words of the Confession are very sound, that a natural man cannot convert himself, or prepare himself thereunto. In which words they do distinguish between conversion itself, and the antecedaneous works before conversion. In neither of these they say that a natural man is able to do any thing of himself, but all his ability is from the help of the Spirit. I wonder then what reason the Examiner's had given them to cavil at such an innocent expression. But if you shall stand upon the letter of the text, that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law. Here you may observe that the Apostle doth only oppose the natural Law to the Law written in tables of stone and communicated to the Church by revelation. He never meant that any of the Gentiles merely by their own strength were able to keep that Law which was made known to them. Only at seasons the Spirit did excite and stir up strong convictions in their consciences, to apply those principles and dictates which they had by the light of nature. The most common and universal maxim of all men in the world, is this, that there is a God: Why then doth the consideration of the Godhead so forcibly and powerfully awake at some intervals of time more than at others? We can give no other reason but this, that the truth in the hearts of the Gentiles is like a cinder in the Smith's forge, which by the operations and stir of the Spirit is enlivened, and being once enlivened, men have more power to judge themselves, and to look after God in those seasons than at others.  
And from hence also we might take occasion to answer that great difficulty in the Epistle to the Romans. The Apostle in the first Chapter speaking of the knowledge of the Gentiles, and how naturally they hold the truth in unrighteousness, and that for this cause the Lord doth give them up to a reprobate sense; yet in the next Chapter he doth show that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law, and do show 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the work of the Law written in their hearts when their thoughts do at sundry times accuse or excuse one another. To the resolution of the difficulty we say, that the Gentiles so fare forth as they are principled by the corruption of nature are prone to no other but to imprison the light; but as they are under and do submit unto the convictions of the Spirit, they are helped sometimes to go so fare as to judge themselves, and to cry out in their misery, O being of beings, have mercy upon us. The main drift of the Apostle, is to show that Jews and Gentiles are both under sin, and how by the sight of the misery of nature such of them as are saved come to be saved only by looking after the grace and the free-mercy of God. If this be the meaning of the Spirit what shall we think of pure nature, or the emproving of nature to those ends to which God had assigned it? These are the Chimeras and fictions of men's own devising. For if we will go to the utmost that a natural man can do, at seasons he hath ability to judge himself, this is not from himself, but from the convictions of the Spirit. And it is never better with him in the way to attain salvation than when he is beaten off from all his own abilities; when in the sight of his own misery and emptiness he doth rely upon the mercy of God.  
Now we will go on to the meaning of that expression, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. Here you distinguish betwixt that wrath which is due by the appointment of God for Adam's sin, and the wrath which is due for despising the riches of grace. Concerning this text (say you) we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others; if it be universal, it must be meant of the first condemnation which came by Adam. But if it be meant of the second wrath, than it belongs to such persons only as are dead in trespasses and sins; that is, such as have been in actual defiance, which walked after the course of the world, after the Prince of the power of the air in opposition to the Spirit of truth, page 150. Here I do agree with you, that distinction is to be made between the wrath due for the sin of Adam, and the wrath due for the actual refusal of Christ in the tender of grace. Though this distinction be admitted, yet it doth not disannul that truth we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. For infants, so fare forth as they come out of Adam's loins in that precise and single consideration they may be the children of wrath by nature, though the cause why wrath doth not seize upon them, is from the shedding of the blood of Christ. Secondly, let us take this expression, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others, that it is meant only of those who have been in actual defiance, this will avail nothing so long as it is clear from the text that men by nature can do no other than live in actual defiance against God. Neither do the Examiner's mend the matter by their Interpretation, when they say, it is one thing to be sinners from our first nativity, and another in time to become the children of wrath by our personal fall and actual disobedience, which also coming to pass in our natural man, and by his default we may truly be said to be by nature the children of wrath, especially when sin by custom becomes a second nature to us, page 78. Here we will be no adversaries to them so fare as they say that men become the children of wrath by their own personal falls and actual disobedience. But the question is, whether this disobedience doth not radically and originally proceed from the default of the nature. They seem to say so much in sense when they do oppose it. Secondly, though it be true which they say, that the evil doth come upon men through heir personal fall, yet the Apostle doth especially look unto the sin of the nature: And therefore doth amplify the grace of God in quickening and enlivening again when he saith you hath he quickened that were dead in trespasses and sins. They were not only truly dead in sin through custom and sinful conversation, but also through the state and condition of their natural birth, they were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. Upon these grounds he tells them that God who was rich in mercy did quicken them, when they were dead in trespasses and sins.  
Next, you come to open the meaning of the expression, dead in trespasses and sins. You say, a spiritual death must be meant of a declining from spiritual things, which is a resistance of the spirit, or a dying, that is a forsaking the truth of God made manifest in them. Now such a death as this cannot befall any who never had that spiritual life; for it is the loss of life that must prove a death, or otherwise we may say that all other creatures besides man are spiritually dead, page 151. In this point you and I do agree that the loss of life must prove a death; and this to me is the great reason why not only the Ephesians, but also all mankind had sometimes spiritual life before they became to be dead in trespasses and sins. It is plain from the scope of Scripture and the Analogy of faith, as I have proved before, that this death came in by the fall of Adam, therefore he had spiritual life before his fall. And for that expression of yours, otherwise we may say as well that all other creatures are spiritually dead; I answer, not so neither: other creatures can not properly be said to be spiritually dead because they never had a capacity of spiritual life. And though men are dead in trespasses and sins, they are not dead as stocks and stones and other senseless creatures, but they are dead as they who sometime had spiritual life, and may have the return of the same life again in and through Christ the way, the truth, and the life. So also the Examiner's in the Chapter of free will, page 130. do but calumniate, when they say that we teach, that a man is a mere passive block or a dead trunk without a willing or a nilling faculty. This is an odious imputation of their own devising; we hold that man is a rational creature, and he hath those natural and essential properties of the soul, though in spiritual things he be altogether dead. And for spiritual things also he may be said to have a remote capacity when blindness shall be taken away from his understanding, and perverseness from his will. It is an excellent speech of Augustine, posse credere naturae est hominum, to have a remote ability to believe, is of the nature of men, for stocks and stones have no such capacity. And in opposition to natural men, he saith, velle credere gratiae est fidelium, to have a will to believe, is of the grace given to believers: showing that no natural man hath an immediate power to believe till he come inwardly to be enlivened by the Spirit.  
Let us hear then what you can say; how the sons of men may be said to be dead in trespasses and sins. If you shall mean that every man, or all mankind in that sense is dead before the light or the life of the Gospel is made known to them, than I shall grant it. But I shall deny that such a death is any sin: For, where no Law is made manifest, there is no transgression. But all children, if you mean infants, have no Law, or Law made known, page 152. This is true in the case of actual sin, that there must be a Law, and a Law made known, or else there can be no actual transgression. And for this reason we say that all Infants are exempt from the guilt of actual sin, because they are not capable of the knowledge of a Law. But this is not our question, the point in hand is concerning the guilt of original sin. Suppose there were no Law given personally and individually to infants, yet the Law once given to Adam, is sufficient to involve all his children in the sin of the nature till they come to be freed by Christ. Therefore in sense we affirm that not only the Ephesians, but also all others are dead in trespasses and sins. But let us further inquire into the meaning of the words, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. Doth not the Apostle go here to the corruption of nature as to the Fountain? and whereas you say, that the Ephesians by the course of their lives living in rebellion against God, were naturally the children of wrath; Do not you by this affirmation yield the cause? For admit that the Ephesians did by their own free act live in disobedience against God, yet all comes to one issue, when they did it by a natural propension received from Adam, the common root of the corruption of nature. But you further say, It cannot be expected that those who never committed any actions of disobedience should have this text applied to them; but infants neither did nor could commit any acts of rebellion; Therefore this will not prove that infants were so the children of wrath by nature, page 152. This expression, that infants were not so the children of wrath by nature, is, as Logicians call it, an ignorance of the elench. For we do not say that Infants in every respect are so the children of wrath as those Ephesians who lived in wilful disobedience. It is enough for us to affirm that they are any way the children of wrath, so fare at least as they do partake of the corruption of the nature. For the clearing of the point, let us distinguish three sorts of men that are liable to wrath.  
The first are such as reject Christ in the public tenders of the Gospel. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they should have had no sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin, Joh. 12.48. In this sense we say that not only Infants, but also the natural Ephesians themselves were free from the guilt of sin. For if infants (as you affirm) cannot sinne, nor men neither, if they can truly maintain that they rceived no Law; In this sense the Ephesians themselves, who served divers lusts and pleasures could not sin, because the Gospel was not preached, and Christ was not tendered to them. The Apostle saith they were at that time strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel, and aliens from the Covenant of promise. Secondly, they are liable to wrath, who, though they never had the Gospel preached, yet do wilfully hold the truth in unrighteousness, Rom. 1.19.20, 21. In this sense the Ephesians before their conversion did serve divers lusts, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. The sins of their lives, though they were their own voluntary acts, yet they were the proper and genuine fruit of their sinful and depraved nature. In this as in the former sense, I do willingly yield, that infants cannot sinne as those that disobey the Gospel, because they have no discoveries of Christ in the public Ministry of the Word. Neither can they sinne as did the Gentiles, which went against the general convictions of the Godhead in the conscience, and wilfully held the truth in unrighteousness. Thirdly, they are liable to wrath, who, though they never committed actual sin, yet do partake of the sin of the nature, and of the guilt of that sin. If this be not so, what is the meaning of the words, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others? In a sense than it is true, that so fare as men are by nature, so far they are the children of wrath.  
Here then two objections come to be answered, the one in respect of infants, the other in respect of them who live out of the bounds of the visible Church. First, in the case of infants, some may say, they must unavoidably lie under wrath, if this once be admitted, that by nature they are the children of wrath. I answer, the consequences is not good, for though by nature they are liable to wrath, yet they do not unavoidably lie under a necessity of perishing. As for example, David by his murder and adultery, Peter by the denial of his Master, and Paul by persecuting of the Church, did fall under wrath, yet wrath did not seize upon them. So infants, though by nature they are the children of wrath, yet that wrath due unto the sin of the nature doth not lay hold upon them because Christ hath satisfied the justice of God.  
Secondly, if it be further alleged, that they which live out of the bosom of the visible Church must lie under a necessity of perishing, not only because by nature they are the children of wrath, but because they want the Gospel; the means of their salvation. Here I answer, though they want the most effectual outward means, yet they do not simply want all the means. Nay, I may affirm there is no man whose eyes are truly opened through the conviction of the Spirit to see his lost condition who is under an absolute necessity of perishing. For God who is a God of grace and mercy, is ready to help them that come to him in a sense of their misery. We have a proof for this in the words of Hanain the Prophet, to Asah the King, the eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the whole earth to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him, 1 Chr. 16.9.  
He doth not speak in the case of Asah, or of the family of David alone; but the words are more general; the eyes of the Lord go through the whole earth, to help all those whosoever they be, that have perfect hearts toward him. From whence I gather, that men are not left under an unavoidable necessity of perishing.  
Thus I have gone through all the arguments, brought by Mr. Everard, to prove the purity of the natural birth; and where the Examiner's have pitched upon the same reasons, I have taken them in for company. What is proper and peculiar to them alone, shall be handled in the ensuing discourse.    

The second Book containeth the Answer, to the Examiner's of the late Assemblies Confession.  

SECT. 1.  
IN the Chapter concerning Original sin they do first endeavour to bring such Scriptures as seem to make for their own purpose. And here they pitch upon that image of God, that man is said to retain since his fall, Gen. 9 Our answer is, though men may be said to have that image, and may carry the resemblance thereof, yet this doth not disprove their being born in original sin. Notwithstanding such a polluted birth they may have the remainders of that image which was by creation, and a possibility of the recovery of the same image by Christ. That this truth may more clearly appear, we will distinguish betwixt the image of God which is external, and the image which is internal. For the image that is external and stands in Lordship and dominion over the creature, man hath not this image by natural generation, but by covenant promise, and the Mediators blood. And therefore we read, that the Lord after the flood did revive the great Charter once given to man before the fall. Be fruitful and replenish the earth, and the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the Sea: into your hand are they delivered, Gen. 9.2. The same privilege is here granted to Noah and his sons, which was given to Adam before his fall. But how did Noah, his sons, and in them all mankind come to partake of it? Not by generation, but by the promise and Covenant. In the former Chapter we read that Noah offered up a Sacrifice, and the Lord smelled a savour of rest in and through the Mediators blood. Hereupon he made a solemn promise that he would no more curse the ground for man's sake, though the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart were evil from his childhood. By virtue of the promise doth man come to be re-invested with that part of the Image of God which stands in Lordship over the creature, and he hath not this privilege in respect of his natural birth. Secondly, if we look to that part of the Image of God which is internal in the soul, in this sense, though man be born in original sin, and though he hath lost the spiritual knowledge, righteousness and holiness wherein he was most like his Creator and doth now carry the image of Satan, yet nevertheless he hath still some remainders and relics of the former Image, he hath an immortal soul, an understanding, will and other natural powers, and in and through Christ he hath a capacity to receive that spiritual part of the Image of God which was lost. According to the tenor of this doctrine we may expound the precept that doth inhibit the shedding of man's blood, whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the Image of God made he man. The same answer may be given to that text which they allege in the twelfth and last place, therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God, Jam. 3 9 Here we say the same in substance, that though men are born in original sin, yet they have some relics and remainders of the former Image that was lost, and a possibility by Christ to come to the fullness of that glory.  
The second Scripture to be considered, is that place, Deut. 32.4, 5. Where, say they, we have two argnments more to prove Israel, and consequently all men to be still created innocent. The first is from the perfection of all God's works, ver. 4. He is the rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgement, a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. How then can he, who is holy, righteous, and pure, create any thing that is unrighteous, unclean or impure? The second is taken from God's complaint there against men's personal fall and corrupting themselves, whom God had not brought forth with any such spots, ver. 5. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children, they are a perverse and crooked generation, page 67. But neither of these two arguments will prove the purity and the innocency of man's natural birth. For though all infants through the fall of Adam are born in original sin, this is no impeachment to God, he both is, and ever was righteous in all his works. Though all mankind hath fallen through the disobedience of the first man, yet he was pure, righteous, and holy in the work of creation. And though the greater part of the Israelites did rebel in the Wilderness, this did not diminish the goodness of God to that people in bringing them out of Egypt. Secondly, whereas it is said that they did corrupt themselves by their own personal disobedience, this must needs be so, because they were a rebellious generation. Moses speaketh remarkably to this purpose in the latter end of the former Chapter. I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you, ver. 29. When he saith I know that ye will utterly corrupt yourselves; shall we argue from hence that they were free from all corruption for the present, and that the corrupting of themselves should merely be their own personal act for the future? This cannot be the force of the argument. For Moses did conclude that they would show the fruits of their corruption after his death, because he did perceive such a rebellious and corrupted nature in them for the present. Behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord: How much more after my death? And for that expression, their spot, is not the spot of his children, it is true indeed, God's children have many stains and spots, as Noah, David, Peter: But because they have a living fountain of grace within, they do daily purge out the sin and corruption of nature, 2 Cor. 7.1. Now it is not so with others, or with those Apostates, to whom Moses spoke, because they had no living principle within; they would totally fall from that good which they seemed to have. This is the sense of the text, and how doth this prove the purity of the natural birth?  
A third place they bring to assert the innocency of man, is the eighth Psalm, where ver. 4.5, 6. the Psalmist speaks thus of all mankind, what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him? for thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Say they, the Psalmist shows that man is still set in honour by his first state of production, though he doth not long retain the same, but falls therefrom. But if a man had been created so corrupt as you speak, he had not only been lower than the Angels, but below all ereatures here, page 67. For the general sense of this Scripture, we do agree that man hath still dominion, Lordship, & pre-eminence over the creature, & in this dignity & honour, he doth carry the lively effigies, resemblance and Image of God, as he is his vicegerent upon the earth. There is none who doubts of the truth of this in general, but the main question is about the ground of the vicegerency, whether it be from the state of man in his natural production, as these Censors do affirm. This we deny, for according to the course of natural generation, as it is since the fall, manhath lost the image of God in dominion and Lordship over the creature; the earth is accursed, & the creature made subject to vanity. You will say how then doth he enjoy this privilege still? I answer, by Christ the second Adam, and therefore it is observable that the Apostle doth apply the passages of the Psalmist more immediately to Christ, thou madest him a little lower than the Angels, thou crownest him with glory and honour; and didst set him over the work of thy hands, thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet, Heb. 2.7, 8 9 The whole creation then immediately is put under Christ, and in and through him all men now come to have dominion and Lordship over the creature. And therefore though all are fallen in Adam, and have lost this privilege in their natural birth, yet it is repaired and renewed by Christ.  
A fourth place which they bring to evict man's uprightness by the creation, is that of the wise man, God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions, Eccles. 7.29. Here they insist especially upon two particulars. First, that this is spoken of all mankind. Secondly, that every man's fall is by his own personal and individual act. These are their words, he ascribes it not to their first fathers alone, but to the individuals of their posterity likewise, saying, but they have sought cut many inventions, page 68 Neither do we affirm, that the blame is only to be laid on Adam, for others also, born in original sin, and having the corruption of nature within them, do personally and individually show the fruits of their own corruption in seeking out many inventions. The Israelites, as we have formerly heard, did corrupt themselves, yet this was from their own natural corruption as the fountain. Secondly, when God made Adam in the beginning, he made him, and all mankind in him, upright; but they have sought out many inventions. For what the first man did, all his posterity did in him and by him. Neither is it improper to ascribe the particle [they] to the relations, actions and conditions of the first man. As for example, when the Lord said let us make man in our own image, and let them have dominion over the fish of the Sea, and the fowl of the air, Gen. 1.26. These words are more immediately spoken to Adam, and mediately to all his posterity, to the whole species of men, Let them have dominion over the fish of the Sea. So in the present case, it may be said of Adam primarily, that God made man upright, but he and all mankind in him have sought out many inventions. The deed of the first man, is the deed of the species or whole kind. As in a parallel case, the act of the first woman and the promise made to her are ascribed to the whole sex: she shall be saved by childbearing, if they continue in the faith, 1 Tim. 2.15. Thirdly, that no blame may be cast upon God, we may say since the fall also, though men are born in original sin, God doth from time to time send inward convictions into their hearts to enable them to distinguish betwixt good and evil. If therefore they will not see what they may see, but will fallaciously endeavour to find out many inventions, the fault is merely their own. All these passages are true, and being put together they show the scope of the text, but they do not prove the purity of the natural birth.  
For the sixth, seventh and eighth places which the Examiner's do bring out of the Prophets, Isa. 1.21.22. Jer. 2.21. Isa. 5.1, 2, 3. Jer. 8.4, 5. I do not see how these or such like do any way make to the purpose. For we will easily grant that Jerusalem was a faithful City in the beginning, and that the faithful City did become an Harlot. We will grant also that the Jewish Church was the Lord's Vineyard, planted with the choicest Vine, and through her own default she turned into the degenerate plant of a wild Vine, and brought forth wild grapes. These and many more texts may be alleged to prove the privileges of that Church in her first institution; but how doth this prove the purity of the natural birth, seeing that Nation had all these privileges merely by promise and Covenant? If they stand upon Analogy, and say that it is rational for God to do with all men as with that people. To this we answer though all are born in original sin and in the corruption of nature, yet they are not left in a helpless or hopeless condition; Through Christ men have a possibility of salvation though through their own default they neglect this great salvation (as the people of Israel did,) and are justly liable to the same reproof.  
Ninthly, they go to that famous place in Hosea, thy destruction is of thyself, O Israel, but in me is thy help, Hos. 13.9. Here say they the Lord lays Israel's destruction upon herself, and not upon her first parents, page 70. Neither doth this any whit promote their cause, for if we do read the stories of the Judges and of the Kings, all along for the space of nine hundred years, we shall find that the Church and state of Israel were liable to a total & final destruction, for theird jolatry & other great sins; In this respect therefore the Prophet saith thy destruction is of thyself, O Israel. And when they were at the brink of destruction many times, and under the power of the enemy than the Lord did wonderfully come in to help them. And this is the meaning of the Prophet's words, but in me is thy help. Through their own sin many times they were at the brink of ruin, but the Lord of his great mercy did deliver them. We may apply the case more generally, though Adam did fall and all mankind by his personal disobedience, the destruction is of themselves, yet in and through Christ it may be said in me is thy help. Secondly, this speech is to be applied to Israel, a people in covenant with God, that they are the causes of their own destruction, but their help is immediately from him. So we, by our personal disobedience do many times what lies in us, procure our own destruction, but our help is merely from his grace. This is the full meaning of the place, and how doth this prove the purity of the natural birth? Fathers and children and all are the meritorious cause of their own destruction, if they be considered in immediate opposition to the goodness of God, the cause of their deliverance.  
We will go on, and see whether they be more happy in the places which they cite out of the new Testament: For the tenth place, which they cite out of Mat. 18.3. Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God; Because we have examined this text already, and the Censors say no more but that which Mr. Everard hath in substance spoken before, we are content to let them pass in this matter.  
From the eleventh place they do conclude absolutely, that infants are free from all kind of sin. These are their words, doth not the Apostle remove, not only from children, malice, but also all evil of iniquity, when he would have the Corinthians in that behalf conformed to them, 1 Cor. 14.20. saying, Brethren be not children in understanding, howbeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in malice or iniquity be children, page 70. Here, as I have formerly touched is a palpable sophism a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, as Logicians term it. For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the general notion thereof may signify all evil of iniquity, yet in the sense of the text it noteth the particular evil of malice only: and therefore he saith in malice be ye children. Neither is it his purpose to acquit children from all kind of malice or envy, for they have seminally and virtually the seed of all this in their hearts. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, the spirit that is in us lusteth unto envy? Jam. 4.5. We see by experience that this is no fable, that envy is naturally seated in the heart of man; one child many times doth envy another for a little coat. And though God doth give to the Regenerate more grace to purge out the sin of the nature, as it is afterward expressed in the next verse, but he giveth more grace, wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble. Notwithstanding all this the nature of man doth lust to envy, and it is virtually and, eminally in infants. You will say then, why doth the Apostle exhort, in malice be ye children? His meaning is this, that they should do as children, who are apt to forget the wrongs and injuries that are done to them, and to lookupon them as though they had never been. And therefore the Apostle saith, be angry but sin not, let not the Sun go down upon your wrath, Ephes. 4.26. This is all one, with that expression, in malice be ye children; that is, do not retain heart-burnings and hatred one against another, but forget the wrongs and injuries that are done to you as children do. It is but a comparative speech.  
These are all the places of Scripture which are alleged by these Censors to prove the purity of the natural birth, and how well they have done it, we leave to any indifferent understanding to judge: and yet how do they glory when they utter such words as these, page 71? Thus we have proved that neither the guilt of our first parent's sin was imputed, nor their spiritual death in sin and corrupted nature was conveyed to all their posterity, or to any one of them by ordinary generation. And directing their speech to the Assembly after this manner, do thus insult, though this your doctrine (say they) hath gone from hand to hand a long time by tradition, yet neither did the Scribes and Pharisees, nor yet the disciples of Christ, and much less Christ himself, hold forth any such doctrine, nor were any of them leavened with this opinion of yours, and your long mistaken Predecessors. For the Pharisees with the Jews being highly displeased with him, who was borne blind, and whose eyes Christ had opened, for defending his Saviour and blessed Oculist, said thus unto him, John 9 34. Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us? Whence it is evident that they did neither conceive all men in general, nor yet themselves to be by propagation conceived and born in sin, page 71. What apprehensions and conceptions soever the Pharisees and other Jews had, I will not dispute. Sure I am, they who do rightly understand the doctrine of the Jewish Church, could not well be ignorant of the sin of the nature. For when our Saviour did discourse of the necessity of regeneration, and Nicodemus did admire at the strangeness of that doctrine, our Saviour made him this answer, Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things? John 3.7. In which words it is plain that the pollution of the natural birth, and the necessity of regeneration, were then points easy to be known; and a wonder it was to our Saviour that any could be ignorant of such fundamentals. And I cannot but admire that these men, Mr. Everard, and the thirty separate Congregations, should profess themselves to be members of the Christian Church, and be ignorant of these things. But our Examiner's build upon our Saviour's words, neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Where according to your doctrine (say they) our Saviour should have answered positively, that both he and his parents with all his progenetors, even as fare as Adam, had sinned. What need was there at all, that our Saviour should speak of the common cause of the misery of all mankind, seeing the Disciples question was more immediately touching the particular blindness of this man? They were not ignorant that original sin was the common cause of all diseases; only they did put the question, what was the proper cause of the blindness of this individual man, whether it did lie in himself or in his parents, that he was born blind? In relation to this particular question, for any eminency or singularity of sin above other men the answer is plain, that neither he nor his parents have sin'ned. This was the presumption and singular opinion of the Pharisees, as it appeareth in the aforementioned words, Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us? The whole Process of this argument is a mere fallacy, à dicto secundum quid addictum simplicietr. They go on, and from the Lords appointing the Cities of refuge for the Man slayer to flee unto, when he had killed his Neighbour unawares, they reason, The Lord commanded by Moses that Cities of refuge should be set apart in all the coasts and habitations of Israel for such to flee to; and will he pursue the innocent seed of Adam, and hold them guilty for their father's sin, perpetrated ere they were born? Yea, will he himself be the avenger of the blood against these innocents'? page 70. In answer to this, I say, did these men seriously consider the whole truth, they would not raise such tragical cries against this doctrine. The Cities of refuge anciently appointed for the , were types and figures of Christ to come: To him only the soul is to fly, when she is pursued by the curse of the Law, as by an avenger of blood. So then, if all the children of Adam were liable to the guilt of his sin perpetrated, before they were born, there is no harshness in the saying, if we believe that the fall of Adam doth open a door, to the grace that comes by Christ, and that the grace of Christ is a City of refuge, for the lost sinner to fly to; And for infants, though we hold them guilty of sin by the disobedience of the first man, what detriment or damage is this to them, as long as mercy is extended through the obedience of the second man. By all that I can understand, these men are afraid of nothing more than that Christ should have too much honour given to him in relieving the miserable lost sons of men, otherwise they would never stand so much as they do upon the purity of the natural birth.   

SECT. 2.  
NOW let us hear what answers they return to our arguments. And here I say they are extremely fallacious; for as they do not produce some of our arguments, which have most cogent proof, so they do mention others, which are of small moment, which is scarce honest dealing. But for the places which they do allege, there are four in number, which do carry some weight with them.  
First, from that place Gen. 8.21. for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, they gather thus much, Even as Esau or Edom, though he had a birthright, yet sold it in his youth to satisfy some strong desires kindled in him: so men, though created innocent, do in the time of temptation and trial too often, and too soon, yield unto the temptation, and sell or forfeit that their innocency and birthright, and so their imaginations become evil from their youth, but are not so from their birth, unless you here understand a spiritual conception or birth in sin by our personal fall, page 71. In this I do agree with them, that men in time of their tempration too often and too easily fall from God through their own actual disobedience. This is a part, but it is not the whole truth, for if they had compared the text as they should have done with Gen. 6. ver. 3.4, 5. they would find that both Scriptures speak of the sin of the nature. First, the Lord saith, my Spirit shall not always strive with man for that he also is flesh, ver. 3. As who would say in plainer times, because his nature is defiled I will destroy him from the earth. Secondly, the whole nature must needs be depraved, because the principles and lively fountains are corrupt, every imagination of the thoughts of his heart are evil. Thirdly, the universality of the depravation, it is not spoken of this or that particular imagination, but every imagination of his heart is evil, and that which is more, it is only evil, without the combination, connexion and commixture of any good. Fourthly, the perpetuity of the time, in the one text it is said the thoughts of his heart are only evil continually, and in the other the imagination of man's heart is evil from his childhood; If we put altogether, we may plainly see that there is a depravation of nature, that this depravation is generally in all parts, and in all times from the very birth and conception. And for that example of Esau which they allege, that he sold his birthright, that primogeniture was a special privilege in the family of the Patriarches, but what is this to every man's natural birthright? can he forfeit that natural innocency which he never had? Again, Esau did sell his birthright at a certain time of his age, by a deliberate and a free choice, when Jacob and he were come near to man's estate, and therefore the Apostle saith, Let there be no profane person among you as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth right, Heb. 12.16. Now it is otherwise with the the words of the text, there, it is expressed that the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart are evil from his childhood. As much in sense as that the whole nature is depraved, and that depravation doth begin from the very birth.  
Secondly, for the texts cited out of Job, I do agree with the Examiner's in the general, that those wise men speaking of the purity of God in relation to the imperfection of the creature, do oftentimes use an hyperbolical way of expression. As in that passage of Eliphaz, behold he putteth no trust in his Saints, yea the heavens are not clear in his sight, Job. 15.15. I do agree also that men do voluntarily corrupt themselves; how much more abominable and filthy is man who drinketh iniquity like water? ver. 16. Though these things be true, yet they do not contain the whole truth nor the Emphasis of that Scripture, for the words immediately going before, are concerning the natural generation of man, what is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous? ver. 14. The same in substance is spoken by Job himself touching the natural birth, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Chap. 14 4. Both Scriptures do plainly show that the nature is defiled, because it doth proceed from so unclean a fountain. And this doth agree with the doctrine of our Saviour, when he presseth a necessity of regeneration, that which is born of flesh is flesh, therefore there is a necessity that man should be born again. The whole force of the argument is thus much in effect, from the greater to the less; If the heavens and the Saints which are the more perfect creatures, are not pure in the sight of God, what righteousness is in man, who is defiled with original sin even from the very birth? This is the natural sense of the words of Eliphas.  
Thirdly, to that place, Psal. 51.5. behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me, they answer, We would (say they) First, gladly know of you, whether it be not David's scope in this confession to aggravate his sin. But if he here pleadeth the inevitable corruption of nature, which you hold forth, his words will be found a mere extenuation of his offences, if not a throwing off all or most of the blame upon God, who had brought him forth so corrupt and averse to all good, and so propense to all evil, and that without hope of an absolute cure while he was in this world, page 75. Where is the honesty and conscience of these men when they patch that upon others, which is none of their doctrine? For where can they show that either the Assembly of Divines, or any other serious Authors, did ever teach that the nature of man is corrupt and propense to evil, without any hope of cure while he is in this world, and that in this case man doth lie under an inevitable necessity? Do not the Assembly of Divines, and all other Authors almost speak of the Covenant of grace, after they have showed the misery of nature? For though the nature of man is wholly defiled, yet from Christ there is hope to have the nature cleansed. Though David was born in original sin, yet he was not destitute of a remedy, he believed the grace of God made known in the promise, and therefore prayeth, create in me a clean heart, renew in me a right spirit. He did desire that his defilement by natural generation might be done away by the work of the new creation. And whereas these confident men would desire to know whether it be not David's scope in his confession to aggravate his sin, I answer, it is, and therefore he doth cry out against the sin of the nature, he doth use the same expression in effect as Paul doth, Rom. 7. I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing, ver. 18. And O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? ver. 24. Where we may observe these three points. First, they who are inwardly and truly enlightened, do feel the burden of a carnal mind, which they have by natural generation, whereas other men account the liberty of lust their greatest freedom. Secondly, they feeling the propension of their nature wholly to sin, do hereupon aggravate the sinfulness of their nature. Thirdly, by this means they do more highly prise the grace of Christ, and that freedom which he doth bring to set them at liberty from the bondage of corruption, and the reign of their lusts, Joh. 8.31 32, 33. Isa. 61.1, 2, 3. Mat. 12.20. The promise of Christ is, that a bruised reed he will not break, and the smoking flax he will not quench until he have brought forth judgement unto victory. By judgement is here meant deliverance from under the tyranny and reign of original sin, when men serve divers lusts and pleasures. The deliverance from the power of corruption is the judgement meant in the text. This deliverance is not wrought in an instant, but by degrees, and our Saviour is ready to help the weakest that fly to him in a sense of their own misery. There is nothing more weak than a bruised reed, and the least degree of fire will make flax to smoke. Even so, if there be the least grace to feel the bondage of corruption, the Lord Christ is ready to cherish it, and never to leave till he have brought forth judgement unto victory, to make men conquerors of their lusts. But the ground of all this, is, to feel the burden of a carnal mind, which it is most probable, these Censors are strangers to, or else they would not so extenuate the sin of the nature, as they do.  
Now let us hear what interpretation they give of the Psalmists words. It was, say they, the lie, or lying promises of Satan, with the folly therein contained by which he was shapen in iniquity, or conceived in sin. pag. 74. And they ground themselves upon that passage, that the devil is the father of sin. These are their words, besides our natural parents, we have spiritual fathers and mothers, whether for our begetting in evil and iniquity, or for our regeneration in grace and goodness. Concerning our procreation in sin, our Saviour speaks thus unto the Jews, Joh. 8.44. Ye are of your father the Devil, and his lusts will ye do. Now this father makes use of a twofold mother to beget men in wickedness, besides their own lust, which when it is enticed and drawn away by temptation, conceiveth and bringeth forth sin. Jam. 1.14, 15. And here first they reckon the lying word or promise by which Satan deceiveth men; and secondly the false Synagogue which through Satan's helps begets men in a false faith, Page. 75. 76. But this gloss will not serve their turn neither, for though the Devil be the father of sin, he is so only by temptation and suggestion; but the Psalmist speaketh of sin by derivation and propagation: I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. And for that which they allege out of the Epistle of St. James, he doth only speak of the order of generation of sin in the heart, every man is drawn away of his own lust and enticed, and lust when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin. But what is this to the purpose of the Psalmist, he doth not speak of the generation of lust or of sin in his heart, but he doth speak of his own generation. This is evident from the words themselves, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Secondly, it is manifest from the words that follow, because he was defiled with the pollution of the natural birth, by way of opposition he prayeth unto the Lord to create in him a clean heart; because his old was defiled, therefore he did beg a new nature.  
Fourthly, to that place. Eph. 2.3. And were by nature the children of wrath as well as others, they answer by a distinction, It is one thing, say they, to be sinners from our first nativity, and another thing in time to become the children of wrath by our personal fall and actual disobedience, which also coming to pass in our natural man, and by his default, we may truly be said by nature to be the children of wrath, when sin by custom becomes a second nature to us, Page. 78. Here I yield, that the Ephesians before their conversion, and all other natural men do through their own actual disobedience serve divers lusts and pleasures. This is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. If they were only defiled by custom, which in a sense may be called a second nature, by good custom than they need only a remedy of the evil of their nature; and we need not the knowledge of Divinity, but only of Moral Philosophy toward the recovery out of our misery. For that which is now the judgement of these Censors, was sometimes the opinion of Aristotle: He did believe that man in his birth was like a white sheet of paper, and that thereupon the habit of virtue was attainable by many acts. But the Apostle doth not deal upon such weak beggarly and Ethical grounds, because the Ephesians were not only sinners by conversation, but by nature also were the children of wrath, hereupon in relation to their natural corruption, he saith, you hath he quickened which were dead in trespasses and sins. Their quickening by the spirit a posteriori doth show the pollution of their natures a priori. But if they were the children of wrath only by custom a second nature, by breaking off old customs they might reduce themselves to their ancient purity of nature. And this is the Moral Philosophy of these Censors and the separate Churches of this way.  
Fifthly, for that place of the Romans, by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, Chap. 5. v. 12. That we may more orderly proceed, let us consider how they plant their own interpretation, and then how they oppugn ours. This one man say they by whom sin entered into the world is not our first parent Adam, but our own earthly or natural man, which is called Adam and Edom from the earth of his foundation, pag. 78. Here I do plainly and openly confess I do not know what they mean by this Adam, neither can I see how possibly they can apply such a sense to this Scripture. First, seeing they will not have the nature of man to be defiled in Adam, how is this common nature called by the title of one man, seeing it containeth such an infinite number of men? Secondly, how did sin by this one man enter into the world? For this common nature of one man must either be nature pure, or nature impure. If they will have this to be meant of nature pure, than this necessarily must be the meaning of the text, by one common pure natural man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, etc. As this is a strange and wild interpretation in itself, so it doth cast the blame only upon God for making such a nature that by it generally death should pass upon all men to condemnation. But if to amend the matter they shall say that he made the nature of Adam in creation, and the nature of every man pure in natural generation, but it is their own fault that they corrupt themselves. Here the plaster is not wide enough for the sore, for the Apostle gives the reason why death passeth upon all men, because in one all have sinned. But now if it be true, as these Censors say, that in one common nature all have not sinned, but those only that fall through their personal disobedience. Here I would have them to show why doth death pass upon all men, and how will this satisfy the sense of the Apostle? By their account then only they should be liable to death who were guilty of disobedience in their pure nature. But let us suppose that they say by one common nature impure sin entered into the world, and then this will be a gross tautology. Besides, if the whole nature of man be impure, there must be some cause of the general depravation of nature, which will bring us to the disobedience of the first man, and so they will lose their cause. Further, I demand, if by one man they understand the common nature of all, how will they preserve the Emphasis of the Apostle in opposing one man to all men? He plainly saith that death hath passed upon all men, but how? through the means of one man. Again, how will they make it good, that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, in case they take one man for the common nature of men. The acts of obedience or disobedience are usually attributed to particular persons that live under some Law. But they have a better faculty to cavil at the truth than positively to maintain their own heterogeneal doctrines.  
Let us hear then what cavils they have against the true interpretation of the words. First, say they, this one by whom sin entered into the world, is not meant by our first parent Adam, for the Apostle shows that he was not the original or first sinner, 1 Tim. 2.14. For Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression. According to your doctrine then, the Apostle should have said, by one woman sin entered into the world, page 78. Indeed the scope of his doctrine, in that text is to show that the woman was more immediately tempted by Satan, and she was first in the transgression; yet in the matter of propagating original sin, it is as true also, that by one man sin entered into the world. For Adam and Eve make but one root in the propagation of the kind: and therefore in the institution of marriage it is said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, Gen. 2, 24. In the case then of Propagation, Adam and Eve go but for one, and Adam is here immediately opposed to Christ, so fare forth as he is the root of all his posterity.  
Secondly, say they, these words, And death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are thus to be rendered, in as much or so fare forth as all have sinned, page 78. Well, let the words be rendered, which way they will, the scope of the text, and the connexive particle, for, do plainly show that they contain the reason of the general passage of death upon every individual man. And therefore we must necessarily and unavoidably come to the disobedience of the first man, in whom, as in the common root all have sinned.  
Thirdly, they thus except, If the Apostle had believed any such thing, as the reigning of death upon all men by the first man's sin, he would not have omitted that, and only mentioned from Adam to Moses, page 81. Though he doth speak of the reign of death from Adam to Moses, he doth not hereby restrain it to that particular time only. For he plainly saith, that death passed upon all men, absolutely and universally in all times, but he doth mention the time from Adam to Moses in special, because than it seemed to be more rational and congruous, that sin should not be imputed, because no Law was then publicly delivered; yet in this time he affirmeth, that all universally were under the reign of death: not only Cain, the bvilders of Babel, the people of the old world, and the Cities of Sodom, all which were destroyed for their personal sins; but he plainly affirmeth, that death reigned over infants in all that interval of time, though they never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. If infants be under the reign of death, we must necessarily suppose, that sin must be the cause thereof, but infants cannot commit any sin personally. Therefore they must be supposed to be guilty of sin through the disobedience of Adam. And this makes good the main argument of the Apostle, by one man sin entered into the world, he doth argue from the effect to the cause; because death hath universally passed upon all, by the disobedience of one, therefore all were involved in the guilt of that disobedience.  
Fourthly, say they, the nineteenth verse is more plain against universal corruption by the first man's disobedience, for there the Apostle useth the word (many,) and saith, by one man's disobedience many (not all) were made sinners; therefore all did not fall in the first individual Adam, page 82. Though the word (many) be equivocal, yet in the sense of the text it must necessarily be meant of every individual man, because death hath absolutely passed upon every man, no one excepted, therefore it necessarily followeth that this passage, by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, must be meant of every individual man. But here they have a cavil, the word [many] in the latter part of the verse must have the same latitude allowed, for the Apostle setteth down a full comparison of equals in that verse. Here the verse must be thus interpreted, that as by one man's disobedience, all were made sinners, so by one man's obedience, all were made righteous, page 82. Neither will this help the matter, for it is not necessary that there should be the same latitude in the collation betwixt the first and the second man; only this is sufficient that the first man is the root of all his branches, and all that come of him were made sinners by him; and the second man is the root of all his branches, and all that are ingraffed into him, are made righteous by him. Secondly, some of them that stand for the universal redemption do not plead an absolute or universal justification of all men by the obedience of the first man; but only plead for a general impretation or possibility of salvation, which then only comes to be applied when men believe and receive the promise by a lively faith.  
Thus, we have passed through all the arguments of the Examiner's, and we have seen their cavils against the several Scriptures alleged by us. As for those similitudes, of punishing the posterity of Traitors, for the treason of their parents, and the kill of the young vipers with the old, by reason of their poisonous nature, etc. forasmuch as these are only illustrations of the truth, so all the pains which they take here is only to cavil at illustrations. Other passages they have of lesser moment, which we have answered before, only they have one argument in the Chapter of free will from that place, Isaiah 7.14. Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings. Here they would have us observe two points, First, that though this place be commonly understood of our Saviour, yet it is meant of the common state of man. Secondly, this child from his infancy, according to the common state of mankind; should have the knowledge and ability to refuse the evil and choose the good. From hence they do infer, that a natural man can both will and act according to his first integrity, until he disables and corrupts himself. Further, they stand upon it, that a man hath a power to choose the good, and to that purpose they cite the words of Moses, Deuteronomie 30.19. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, page 126, 127, 128. If they did well understand the meaning of these Scriptures, they would not pervert them to so strange a sense. For the Text in Isaiah, we do acknowledge, that the children in an ordinary way have a power to choose the good, and to refuse the evil, when they come to years of discretion. But what kind of good is here meant? not that good which is spiritual or divine; for this they cannot choose without an inward work of the Spirit; but that good only which is moral and civil, and this at years of discretion men are able to make choice of. And for the words of Moses, I have set before you blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, etc. To the clearing of this, Let us distinguish; First what he speaks of, and Secondly, the persons to whom he speaks. First, if by choosing the good, be meant the true God in opposition to all the Heathen gods of the Gentiles, here Moses speaks to the Israelites, as to a people that had clear evidences and convictions, that there was no other God in all the world but theirs only. And therefore he doth exhort them to choose the true God for their God. Secondly, if by choosing the good be meant the loving of the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, as it is employed, verse 10. then this word of command is given only in relation to the word of promise, verse 6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul that thou mayest live. In immediate relation to this promise, Moses saith, I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways and to keep his commandments that thou mayest live, verse 16. So then we do conclude that the ability to choose the good, is not from any natural power, but from the grace of God, and the word of promise.  
Thus I have gone through all the reasons which are alleged either by Mr. Everard, or the Examiner's, the late Patroness of the purity of natural birth. If they have any thing more to say for this, my desire is that they would show their strength, or else confess their wicked errors, and submit to the clear evidence of truth. Now let us consider the several and respective arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor, and what hath been lately said by him concerning the same subject.    

The third Book containeth the Answer to several Arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Vnum Necessarium and two smaller Treatises of his.  
Forasmuch as this Learned man doth tread in the footsteps of our Antagonists and doth plead the same things against the Doctrine of original sin, as they have pleaded against us for certain years last passed. And seeing also, that many are like to be taken with the purity and elegancy of his Style, that probably are not able to judge of the foulness and impurity of his Doctrine; We have thought it worth our labour, to provide an antidote to secure the souls of men, and if it may be possible in a peaceable and brotherly manner to reduce him from the evil of his opinions. And so we come to the several Sections of the sixth Chapter in the treatise aforesaid.  

SECT. 1. Of Concupiscence and original sin and whither or no, and how far we are bound to repent of it.  
ORIGINal sin is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively, meaning the sin of Adam, which was committed in the original of mankind by our first parent.  
Answ. We deny not, but the sin of Adam may be called the original, or the first sin, because it was the first that was committed. But then we must take heed, that with our Author we do not deny also the pollution and the corruption of the natural birth. In so doing we must needs destroy regeneration or the new birth; we must needs also evacuate the Baptism of the Spirit, so fare as it doth seal regeneration: humiliation for the birth, sin will be a mere non ens and the mortification of the sin of the nature will be a nullity. In a word, one of the chief ends of the Christian faith (which is to put on the Christ-like disposition) will be frustrated and greatly impaired. For what need I to put on the new disposition, as it is from Christ the root of all grace and spiritual life; if there be no pravity and sinfulness of nature, from Adam the root of corruption? In Scripture the one is set forth as the immediate opposite to the other. But he further showeth.  
This sin brought upon Adam all that God threatened, but no more, a certainty of dying, together with the proper effects, and affections of mortality.  
Answ. Besides the affections of mortality, and the certainty of dying, this sin also brought upon Adam, the depravation of original righteousness; and the depravation of his nature, as afterwards shall be showed. Next he seemeth to speak more fairly.  
Man being left in the state of pure naturals, could not by his own strength, arrive to a supernatural end, for eternal life being an end above our natural proportion, cannot be acquired by any natural means.  
Answ. In this, and such like passages of his, he doth seem to me, to cross his whole undertaking. One chief end of entitling his book (as may appear by the preface; The Doctrine and Practice of repentance, rescued from popular errors; is the scandal & offence that he seems to take at our Doctrine of original sin. For thinks he, if the nature be depraved, a necessity of sinning will be introduced, and the natural liberty of the Will, will be taken away: and therefore in much compassion and tenderness, he seemeth (to himself at least) to vindicate the truth, to make Religion more reasonable, and intelligible: and to rescue the Schools, and Pulpits, from the rigour, and austerity of the doctrines of such a nature. But when all is done, he speaks the same in effect, that we do. For if man being in his natural condition, by his own strength, cannot arrive to a supernatural end, but needs the help of the Spirit: This being supposed, I will put it upon him, seriously to consider, whether the same Spirit that helps a man out of this imaginary deficiency, privation, and imperfection, is not as able also, to rescue him from that inherent defilement, pravity, and corruption of the natural birth? The Spirit can do as much in the one, as in the other. And exhortations will be as useful in the one case, as in the other. What need then hath our Author to raise up all this dust? But he further addeth.  
What gifts and graces or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of innocency we know not, God hath no where told us.  
Answ. Though he hath no where told us in so many letters, yet by collation of circumstances, we may gather that Adam had the Spirit, and was a spiritual man before his fall. In the creation it is expressly said, come, let us make man after our own image, Gen. 1. The Apostle doth declare wherein this image doth consist, That concerning the former conversation, ye put off the Old man, which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts, and that ye be renewed in the Spirit of the mind, and that ye put on the New man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness, Ephes. 4.22 23, 24. In these words there are four particulars that seem to speak fair for Adam, that he had the Spirit, and was a spiritual man before his fall. First, it is said that they should put off the Old man, corrupt according to deceitful lusts; Corruption is of a different nature according to the condition of the subject-matter; there is a corruption of seeds, of grains, of metals, of the members of a man's body, but here the Apostle must needs speak of the corruption of that which is spiritual. From whence we collect that the Old man, or the disposition of the flesh, is but the corruption of that holy and spiritual state n which Adam was made.  
Secondly, it is said, be ye renewed in the spirit of your minds; The word renewed doth import the restoring of a thing to that perfection, which sometime it had in its first institution. An house is renewed, not when it is built new from the ground, but when it is amended. When an infant is born into the world, it is not proper to say that he is renewed, but a man doth renew his strength, when he doth recover it by degrees after a long sickness. So in the present case, when the Apostle saith, be renewed in the spirit of your mind, he speaketh of the renovation of that knowledge, holiness and righteousness that Adam sometimes had, but lost it by his fall.  
Thirdly, it is said, after the image of him that created him. Though this is specially meant of the new creature, yet it is with respect also to that passage in the old creation, let us make man after our own image. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum Deum, according to God, is as much in effect, as after the likeness, similitude and image of God who upon this account must needs be the pattern in both creatio'ns'.  
Fourthly, to put all out of question it is expressly said, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. What difference soever there may be between Adam in innocency, and the Saints in the state of regeneration, certain it is, that holiness and righteousness must needs be the morality of the Law, and none can rationally deny, but that Adam was endued and invested with these two before his fall. By his righteousness he was enabled to deal justly with man, and by his holiness he was carried out to know God, to love him, to delight in him, to fear him, and to take him as his chiefest good. All these particulars (expressing the spirituality and purity of the Law) do signify to us that Adam had the Spirit, and was a spiritual man before his fall. Now let us go on.  
Receiving more by the second Adam, than we lost by the first, the sons of God are now spiritual, which he never was that we can find.  
Answ. That which he writes here, doth manifestly contradict what he speaks elsewhere, for page 383. He plainly showeth that original righteousness in Adam and habitual righteousness in the Saints; are all one. These are his own words, if one sin (saith he) could naturally, and by a physical causalty destroy original righteousness, than every one's sin in the regenerate, can as well destroy habitual righteousness, because that, and this differ not, but in their principle, not in their nature and constitution. And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace, and lose his habits, as Adam did? naturally it is all one, so fare he. To which we answer, Adam fell from original righteousness, because he stood only by the covenant of works, the Saints do not fall from habitual righteousness, because they have their standing by the covenant of grace. But as to the point in hand, original righteousness in Adam, and habitual righteousness in the Saints, he tells us, that both are one, and the same in essence and constitution and then again, he tells us, the sons of God are spiritual, which Adam never was that he could find. So great a faculty he hath to blow hot and cold in the same breath.  
Now he comes to explicate that Scripture, by one man sin entered into the world, Rom. 5. etc.  
That sin, saith he, entered into the world by Adam, is therefore certain, because he was the first man. It must needs enter in him, because it first comes in by the first.  
Answ. It is true that sin entered into the world by Adam, as the first man, but it is not the whole truth, for in such a sense (as he understands it) the old Pelagians may make good that position of theirs, that original sin is by imitation they that come after, do only imitate the ensample of him that went before. Of the entrance of death by sin he speaketh as followeth.  
Death by sin, that is death, which at the first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account, just as it was with the Scrpent to creep upon his belly, and the woman to be subject to her husband.  
Answ. In these words of his, he doth distinguish between death as a mere condition of nature, and death as a punishment. The former he will have to be in the state of innocency, latter only to be introduced by the fall. But against this I have many things to allege.  
First, if Adam should have died in innocency, and that merely by the condition of his nature, what can we possibly make of the sense of that commination, in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death? what propable interpretation can we give of those Scriptures, by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin. The wages of sin is death, Rom. 6. Vlt? Surely all this plainly showeth, that death came into the world, merely by the sin of man, and if he had not sinned he had not died. Further, the Apostle said, the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, 1 Cor. 15.16. The question is, when did death begin to be an enemy, and from what time are we to fetch the date thereof? If Adam should have died in innocency, than the enmity of death must begin in Paradise, we must fetch the date of it from the creation and not from the fall. And so consequently death will be rather the work of God, than the fruit of sin. But let it be supposed in this low and dimunitive sense, that death came into the world as a punishment and began to be penal at the fall only. If we take the matter in this sense it will not serve his turn neither, nor will other passages of his doctrine, abide the rigour of this interpretation. For how often doth he plead after this manner? In other cases, saith he; Laws be not given to Idiots, infants, and persons uncapable: why should they be given here? In all cases of the world, it is unjust to lay the sin of the father upon the children, and is it otherwise in this case only? And if the answer may be admitted, any man may suffer for the sin of any father, because it may be said here as well as there, that although the innocent must not perish for another's fault, yet the son is not innocent as being in the father's loins when the fault was committed, and the Law calls him and makes him guilty? Many such Aphorisms he hath, where he showeth or at least endeavours to show how contrary it is to the justice and mercy of God, any way to burden the posterity of Adam with the guilt of his sin. And yet here he confesses plainly and openly, that death quatenus, a punishment in the penalty of it, came into the world by the disobedience of the first man: How he can make one part of his doctrine to agree with the other, it passeth all understanding of mine to discern? In his answer to the Bishop's letter he seemeth to me to let fall a strange contradiction: I have (saith he,) the plain words of Saint Paul, death passed upon all men, forasmuch as all have sinned, all men, that is, the generality of mankind, all that lived till they could sinne; Others that died before, died in their nature, not in their sin, neither adam's, nor their own, save only that Adam brought it upon them, or rather left it to them, himself being disrobed of all that could hinder it. Answ. let page 49. Here in the former part of his words, he saith, that infants die in their nature, not in their sin, neither adam's nor their own; and yet he tells us again, that Adam brought in death upon them, and through his disobedience they were disrobed of all that could hinder it: If he did bring in death upon them, than they did not die purely in their own nature; they must some way die in or by his sin. Again, if they died purely in their own nature, and not at all in his sin, how can he be said to bring in death? Can he bring in death, and can he not bring in death? and all this upon one sort of people, at one and the same time? Neither can I see, how he will acquit himself, if it should be put upon him to show the true reason why infants are liable to burning fevers, convulsion fits, and pass through the pangs of death at last: Are these the infelicities of nature? Then God hath made them in this state, and their misery will be purely the work of his own hands. Are these the punishment of Adam's sin? then the innocent child will bear the burden of his father's iniquity, in such a case where it is not possible for the son to follow the father's ensample, which is plainly to give up the cause. Now let us consider what he saith of the quality of the persons upon whom there hath been such a passage of death.  
Death (saith he) passed upon all men, that is, upon all the old world, who were drowned in the flood of divine vengeance, and who did sin after the similitude of Adam, and therefore the Apostle St. Paul adds that for a reason, inasmuch as all men have sinned.  
Ans. Though the word all in itself hath an ambiguity in it, yet the scope of the text, & the condition of the subject, doth plainly demonstrate that the passage of death from Adam as a common root must be absolutely upon all men, as men so fare forth as they are his sons, and not upon all to the flood only. But concerning this matter we have his meaning more fully in the next passage.  
If all men (saith he,) have sinned upon their own account, as it is certain they have, than these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned, and all his sons and daughters sinned after him: and so died in their own sin by a death, which at the first, and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural, and a death which their own sin deserved, but yet was hastened and ascertained upon them for the sin of their Progenitor.  
Answ. In these words of his, as plausibly as he seems to speak of the cause of death, he puts that for the cause which is not the cause, and where he speaks of the true cause, it doth not answer the sense of the text.  
First, he puts that for the cause, that is not the cause. For, from what Scripture, or from what consequence of Scripture doth he prove it, that Adam and his sons in the whole constitution of affiaires should have died a death that is natural; The Scripture doth every where make death to be the fruit of sin, as we have formerly proved. Again, it is most true, that men die, because by their own sin they deserve death, but the scope of the Apostle is here only concerning the disobedience of the first man, and the passage of death upon all by the account of his sin. That which is the principal cause of death, at least to the purpose in hand, he looks upon it as a business by the by; In the next words he cometh to deliver himself more clearly for speaking of the fall of Adam he addeth.  
Sin propagated upon that root and vicious ensample, or rather from that beginning, not from that cause, but dum ita peccant, & similiter moriuntur. If they sin so, then so shall they die, so Saint Hierom.  
Answ. This passage, though it be clothed with the words of Hierom, it hath the sense of the Pelagians: For observe what he saith sin is propagated from that vicious ensample, it doth descend from Adam not so much as a cause, but as a beginning, and so far as men tread in his steps they are liable to the same punishment. In his answer to the Bishop's letter, he brings in an ensample to confirm this way of exposition, these are his own words: To this purpose we have an ensample of Gods transmitting the curse from one to the other. Both were sinners, but one was the Original of the curse or punishment. So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 14.16. He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin and made Israel to sin. Joroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse: here it was also, that I may use the words of the Apostle, that by the sin of one man, Jeroboam, sin went into all Israel, and the curse, captivity or death by sin, and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as all men of Israel have sinned. So far he, page 32. By this instance of his it is clear, that Original sin must pass into the world, not so much by propagation as by imitation. The Kings of Israel did walk in the ways of Jeroboam that made Israel to sin, and thereupon the curse, captivity and death came upon all the whole succession, and upon all Israel so far forth as they did walk in his ways and did follow his ensample. If this be a parallel case we must say, sin, the guilt of sin, and the curse for sin came into the world only by the institution and command of the first man, and all his posterity are so far forth involved in his sin, as they walk after such an injunction, and imitate that ensample. Now if this be so, I will leave it to any man to judge whither this gloss will go at last. The Apostle saith that the first man is the figure of him that is to come. If therefore we are implicated in the sin of Adam no otherwise, but by obeying his command, and following his ensample. Our salvation by Christ will chief consist in our imitating of him, and in obedience to his commands. As for the merit of his blood, the worth of his passion, the imputation of his righteousness, all this must be set apart as a matter of little use and small profit. Having done with his own he cometh to paraphrase upon the exposition given by us.  
They think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— forasmuch as all have sinned, aught to be expounded thus; death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, meaning that in Adam we really sinned, and God doth truly and justly impute his sin to us, to make us as guilty, as he that did it, and as much punished and liable to eternal damnation: and all the force of this great fancy, relies upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify in him.  
Answ. We do in substance own the interpretation to be ours, but that all the force of it doth depend upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify in him, this we plainly deny. Our interpretation is grounded upon the scope of the text. For let us suppose the words to be construed in his sense. Forasmuch as all have sinned, when he hath done all that he can, he must come to the interpretation given by us. For the drift of the Apostle in the former words, is not only to show that sin hath passed upon all men, and death by sin; but he speaks of such a passage of sin and death upon all men out of one man; If therefore, there be such a general passage of sin and death upon all out of one man, then virtually, and interpretatively all must sin in one man. Again, in the subsequent verses the Apostle saith, that the first Adam is the figure of him that is to come, If you ask how and wherein, we must needs say from the whole series of the text, that they are two public persons, and two representatives of the kind. By this account then the disobedience of the first man, must be virtually the act of all, and what he did they did in him, and by him: So than our interpretation is founded upon the whole scope of the context. As for his Criticisms we will leave them to such who have more leisure to busy themselves about words, we will follow him as he goes on in expounding the sense of the Apostle.  
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that bade not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that is to come: By which discourse it appears that St. Paul doth not speak of all mankind, as if the evil occasion by Adam's sin did descend for ever upon that account, but it had a limited effect and reached only to those that were in the interval between Adam and Moses.  
Answ. But if the matter be well considered there is no such collection to be made from the discourse of the Apostle. Indeed he speaketh of the reign of death over those that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses; but shall we argue from thence that the evil occasioned by the fall did descend to them only, and go no further? This cannot be, for afterwards the Apostle drawing a parallel between both adam's, hath these words: If through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God; and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many. Now than if we shall say, by the offence of one, many be dead, and understand this many, or multitude in a limited sense; namely, of such only that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses, by this account, such a number alone will stand opposite to the many that have life and grace by Christ. Nay, that which is more, the  number might in their time only look to one man the Lord Jesus for recovery out of sin and death, and so the Gospel will be delivered to the consolation of such only that lived in the forementioned interval between Adam and Moses; And so we that live in the latter ages of the world, shall have nothing to do with the Gospel, nor the Gospel with us. But of this I have formerly spoken in my answer to Mr. Everard and the Examiner's: There I have showed the reason why the Apostle doth mention the reign of death in the interval between Adam and Moses. He goes on.  
This death (saith he) was brought upon them by Adam, that is, death which was threatened to Adam only, went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners, but not after the similitude of Adam's transgression, that is, who sinned not so capitally as be did.  
Answ. This expression death threatened only to Adam, hath some ambiguity in it: If he speaks of Adam as a particnliar person, death was not only threatened to him, for in the present case he is to be looked upon as the common root of the nature, when he fell, all mankind fell in him, from him death passed upon all, not only as sinners in their own person, but in that formality as made sinners, or sinful by his disobedience. Of infants it is true as well as others, in Adam all dye, and so death passeth upon all. Next he telleth us what it is to sin like Adam.  
To sin like Adam (saith he) is used as a tragical and high expression: so it is in the Prophet, they like men have transgressed: so we read it, but in the Hebrew it is, they like Adam have transgressed, and yet death passed upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam.  
Answ. For the text in Hosea, our English translation may well pass by an Enallage of the number. They like man, that is, like fickle and inconstant men have transgressed my Covenant. Or, if this will not satisfy, that of Tremellius may obtain Tanquam hominis transgressi sunt faedus; They have played fast and lose with me, as if it were no other but a mere Covenant of man. But let us take the words in the sense that is most propitious to him, viz. that the Prophet here looks to Adam as the head of all Apostates, and that the Israelites had sinned in as tragical a manner as Adam did: what doth he infer from hence? he tells us, that death reigned from Adam to Moses over those that had not so tragically sinned as Adam had done. Truly the old world that was drowned in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, that were burnt with fire, the bvilders of Babel, whose language was confounded; these, and such like sinners (though they lived in the interval between Adam and Moses) were none of the least. But let us take it in his own sense, that death reigned over Abel, Seth, Noah, and others that did not sin so capitally as Adam did. If this be well considered, it doth make more for our purpose, than it doth for his: For these holy men that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses were under the reign of death. Here I demand how came they to be under this reign? If he will say their own sin was the principal cause, how will he answer the words of the Apostle, who expressly tells us, by one man's offence, death reigned over all, ver. 17. Again, if he shall say they came under this power by the sin of Adam, than he makes good the interpretation given by us, that by the sin of Adam infants as well as others, in all that interval between Adam and Moses came under the power and sovereignty of death. He further addeth.  
God (saith he) was so exasperated with mankind, that being angry, would still continue that punishment, even to less sins and sinners, which he only had first threatened to Adam, and so Adam brought it upon them. They indeed in rigour, did themselves deserve it, but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam, they who sinned not so bad, and had not been so severely and expressly threatened, had not suffered so severely.  
Answ. By the tenor of the Doctrine we may understand, that men by their own sins do deserve death; as for the sin of Adam, by this account it is only an aggravating circumstance, and a cause merely of the severity of the sentence. Now if this be so, how shall we expound the meaning of the Apostle? By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and death passed upon all men. He speaketh of the entrance of sin, of the entrance of death, of the entrance of sin and death, upon all by the sin and disobedience of one man. Is all this only to make Adam's sin a mere accessary, or aggravating circumstance? away with such a conceit. The text doth pitch upon it as the principal and general cause of death. Again the Apostle saith, by the offence of one, death reigned by one: If all men fall under the reign of death by the offence of one, then certainly his offence is not the cause alone why they are more severely dealt with: but it is the very cause why they fall under the power and dominion of death itself. Shall we make a circumstance of that which is the principal cause: Further, what is the reason that infants die, seeing personally and individually they are guilty of no sin of their own to deserve death? in his answer to the Bishop's letter he doth not shun to affirm, that death comes upon infants merely by right of dominion. But then (saith he) the evil of punishment may pass further than the action. If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them, but an evil inflicted by right of dominion, yet by reason of the relation of the offlicted to him that sinned, to him it is a punishment. But if it passeth upon others that are not innocent, than it is a punishment to both, to the first principally to the descendants or relatives for the others sake his sin being impured so far: and more he hath to the same purpose, pag. 43. Here he plainly delivers his opinion that death is inflicted upon others, because they do partake with Adam in his sin, but it descends and comes upon infants merely by way of prerogative and absolute dominion. And if their death be a punishment it is so only to Adam in as much as they stand related to him as being his descendants and relatives. Against this I have some things to oppose. First, in his Vnum necessarium, pag. 403. He layeth down this as a sure axiom. When Godnsing the power and the dominion of a Lord, and the severity of a Judge doth punish posterity, it must be so long as the Parents may live, and see it, and so out of chrysostom he doth expound it to be to the third and fourth generation and no longer. Now here I argue, if God punisheth Adam in his infant children, this is not to the third and fourth, but to the hundreth generation. Again, why should he be punished in his infant-childrens when he hath been dead many hundred, nay certain thousand years ago! shall he only be punished and never survive or live so long, as to see the punishment? again, the words of the Apostle are clear: as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation, ver. the 18. If it came upon all men? it came upon infants as well as others, and if it came upon all to condemnation, than infants bear the guilt of sin, the infelicities, miseries and pains of death, not by way of sovereignty, but as a punishment and judgement laid upon them for their sin and disobedience of the first man. But to colour the matter, he hath a restriction in his answer to the Bishop's letter. Now than your Lordship (saith he) sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit, and is indeed true enough, and agreeable to the scope of the Apostle, and very much in justification of what I taught. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin, and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes. I easily subscribe to it: but then take in the words of St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin, or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men to condemnation; that is the curse descended from Adam; for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation, viz. when they should sin, for though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or curse of death was threatened only to Adam, yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend: and if men did sin as Adam, or if they sin at all, though less than Adam, yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatened to them should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him, that is, it should actually bring them under the reign of death, pag. 45, 46. By these words of his it is clear that the curse doth descend upon infants, not when they are borne in sin, for he doth own no such sin of the nature, but it descends only to their real condemnation when they come to act sin. Here I would entreat him to consider the words of the Apostle, so by the righteousness of one man the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. If it came upon all men, it came upon infants & if the blessing of Christ doth come upon infants, surely the curse also must descend upon them. For we cannot imagine any to be made partakers of the blessing, benefit, grace, and life by the second man, but he must be some way involved in the guilt, misery, death, and condemnation, brought in by the first. On the contrary if he will say that the curse doth not descend upon infants, by the rule of proportion it will follow that infants shall have no part in the comforts, privileges, and blessings that come by the Gospel. And truly this must be the upshot of this dismal doctrine. Now let us consider what exposition he giveth of those words, by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners.  
But that (saith he) which I dwell and rely upon, is this: sin is often used in Scripture for the punishment of sin, and they that suffer are called sinners, though they be innocent; so it is in this case, by Adam's disobedience, many were sinners, that is, the sin of Adam passed upon them, and sat upon them with evil effect.  
Answ. We do not deny but the word sin may be taken for the punishment of sin, and to that purpose what he speaketh of Bathsheba, I and my son Solomon shall be sinners, but more especially that of our Saviour, he made him sin for us, that knew no sin: These, and such like passages which he hath, page 368, etc. We do not deny the truth of them in the general: Only this we say, that we are not only made sinners by imputation, but also we derive a sinful nature from Adam by propagation, and by contagion. For First: If there were only an imputation of guilt, and no inherent corruption, men would bear the burden and punishment of sin without cause, and God would punish sin where none is. Our Saviour indeed was made sin, who knew no sin, because he came in the nature of a Surety: But the sons of Adam are no sureties, they must be some way sinners themselves, if they will righteously bear the burden of Adam's sin. Again, the words of the Apostle are most emphatical, by the disobedience of one, many were made sinful, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth note, one that hath the habit of sin, that is, a sinful man as I have proved in the former part of the Treatise, from whence we collect, that the sons of Adam are not only made sinners by imputation, but sinful also by hereditary contagion. Further, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are constituted sinners, or sinful. This expression, if it be seriously considered, is set in immediate opposition to the constitution of things in the creation. If a reason be demanded concerning the Sun, Moon, and Stars, of the ebbing and the flowing of the Sea, of the vicissitude of Winter and Summer; The answer is easy, all these things have their being, because God made them and constituted them so in the beginning. But if a reason be demanded, how all men came to be sinners by imputation, and sinful by propagation? the answer is as easy: They are made and constituted, as by the disobedience of the first man, so by the just judgement of God upon that disobedience. If the sinfulness of nature be not by the fall, it must come by creation, or some other reason must necessarily be assigned to make all men so unanimous and universal in matter of sinning. Lastly, the Apostle draweth a parallel between both the adam's, as by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. Now it is evident none are made righteous by imputation in the ordinary way, but they do in some measure or other partake of the life and spiritual nature of Christ, as the seccond Adam. Therefore we say on the contrary part, there are none that have the guilt of the sin of Adam imputed to them but they must also derive the pollution of nature from him as the root of corruption. But to this he hath a solution, (as he pretends at least) in his answer to the Bishop's letter. This is sufficient (saith he) for the Apostles argument, and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners any more than by imputation: for we are by Christ made just no other wise than by imputation, page 38, etc. To which we reply, the question is not about the formal reason of our justification, which we acknowledge to be by the alone imputation of the righteousness of Christ: But the point in hand is, whether any be justified by the blood which are not sanctified by the Spirit. So in the present case, we say none have the guilt of Adam's sin, but such only that partake of his nature; For in the next Chapter, when the Apostle cometh to speak of sanctification, he hath these words, know ye not that our Old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, Rom. 6.6. By the old man, he means the sinful disposition of the flesh derived from Adam the root of corruption. So then the Scripture plainly doth show that the opposition between both the adam's, doth not only stand in imputation of guilt, but also in the propagation of the nature. And it is a great wonder that any exception can be made against so plain a truth. Thus, I have passed through all the material objections, and we have seen all of moment that can be said, if it might be possible to take this Scripture out of our hands. Now he comes to form the state of the question, to show how fare he allows original sin, and where he differs from us? Because this is the foot of the work, let him deliver himself in his own words. Adam's sin (saith he) was punished by an expulsion out of Paradise, in which was a tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and the conservatory of life. There was no more told as done, but this and its proper consequents. He came into a land less blessed, a land which bore thistles and briars, etc. And then he addeth thus, death came in not by any new sentence or change of nature: for man was created mortal, and if Adam had not sinned, he should have been immortal by grace, that is, by the use of the tree of life; and now being driven from the place where the tree grew, was left in his own natural constitution, that is, to be sick and die without that remedy. And he further explaineth himself, pag. 372. This evil which is the condition of all our natures, viz. to die, was to some a punishment, to others not so. It was a punishment to all that sinned both before Moses and since, upon the first it fell as a consequent of God's anger upon Adam, upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger threatened in Moses his law. But to those that sinned, not at all as infants and innocents', it was merely a condition of their nature, and no more a punishment than to be a child is. It was a punishment of Adam's sin, because by his sin humane nature came to be disrobed of their preternatural immortality, and therefore upon that account they die. But as it is related to the persons, it was not a punishment, not an evil inflicted for their sake, or any guiltiness of their own properly so called. And then going on, he saith, we find nothing else in Scripture expressed to be the effect of Adam's sin, and beyond this without authority we must not go. Turning his style against us, he addeth, other things are said, but I find no warrant for them in that sense as they are usually supposed, and some of them in no sense at all. Then he cometh to particularise, The particulars (saith he) commonly reckoned, are that from Adam, we derive an original ignorance, a proneness to sin, a foams or nest of sin imprinted and placed in our souls, a loss of our wills, liberty, and nothing else left, but a liberty to sin; which liberty upon the sum of affairs is expounded a necessity to sin, and the effect of all is, we are borne heirs of damnation. These are the particulars which he excepts against, and these he endeavours with all his might to oppugn: we will go in the same method as he doth; beginning with original ignorance, he thus speaketh.  
It is true (saith he) that we derive it from our Parents, I mean, we are borne with it, but I do not know that any man thinks, that if Adam had not sinned that sin, Cain should have been wise as soon as his navel had been cut.  
Answ. We cannot so precisely determine what Adam's children should have been in innocency, because he did not continue so long to beget a child in that pure estate, yet I think none may doubt, had he begotten children in that estate, he had conveied the same image of God, the same knowledge (respecting the kind of it) that himself was created in. And though in respect of actual knowledge, Cain should not have been wise as soon as his navel was cut, yet in respect of potential knowledge he should have been borne in a capacity, and by degrees should have attained the same knowledge as Adam himself was created in. But he further argues.  
If he had so great knowledge (saith he) it is likely that he would not so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge.  
Answ. The Apostle St. Judas tells us. The Angels that left their first habitation, are kept in chains of darkness to the judgement of the great day, v. 6. Shall we say then, because they did so cheaply leave their first habitation, was there no such dignity or excellency in it? The way of reasoning is one and the same in substance. He goeth on.  
The state of ignorance we do derive from Adam as we do our nature, which is a state of ignorance, and all manner of imperfection, but whether it was not imperfect, and apt to fall into forbidden instances, we may best guess it by the event.  
Answ. We may guess by the event, that he was made in a state from which he might fall, but this doth no way hinder his being a spiritual man, or that endowment of spiritual knowledge which he had before his fall. First, by his fall he did lose in his judgement, he and all mankind did fall from faith to unbelief; and hence it is, that ever since for happiness all men rely upon their own wit, learning, beauty, strength, friends, riches, nobility, etc. This plainly showeth, that Adam at the first was made in a state of dependence upon the true God, which could not be, but he must be endued with a great measure of spiritual knowledge, and in his judgement at least he must discern that excellency that is in God. Further, the Apostle speaketh, ye have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him, Col. 3.10. By knowledge he doth not point so much to that which is literal, hystorical, and textual, but to that which is spiritual, by which the Saints come to be clothed with a new nature. Secondly, (he saith) is renewed, which importeth the restitution of that knowledge that man once had, but had lost by his fall. In a sense therefore we may say, that the knowledge of the Saint is a kind of remembrance, and that saying of Plato is not to much out of the way. Thirdly, is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. This plainly showeth, that in the old and the new creation a man is made after the image of God, and this image doth principally stand in the divineness of the light. Some differences there are between the knowledge which Adam had before his fall, and the knowledge that is renewed in the Saints, Adam had it by creation, they have it by inspiration: Adam could propagate it to his posterity, they cannot propagate it to posterity: Adam's knowledge was without the sight of his misery, their knowledge when they do begin to know as they ought to know, doth begin with the sight of their misery: Lastly, Adam's knowledge was not so perfect, but the Saints knowledge shall be most perfect in degree, when they come to live in the state of glory. These circumstances considered respecting the manner, there is some difference to be made; yet in substance both kinds of knowledge is one and the same. For though it did not belong to Adam to know his misery, and to believe in a Christ, yet the righteousness of the moral law did appertain to him. It did belong to him to love God, to fear him, to trust in him, to obey him, etc. Now how could all this possibly be done, but he must know him, and believe him, therefore his knowledge must needs be spiritual before his fall.  
We come now to the next point, he endeavours to prove that infants by the sin of Adam are not heirs of damnation. We need not in this matter be careful to give him an answer.  
If it be a question de jure, we say the sin of Adam is such, and Original sin in its own nature is such, that it doth deserve damnation: But if it be a question de facto, there is no such need that we should positively affirm the actual damnation of infants. They that be saved, we may safely affirm are saved by the mercy of God; and they that are damned, God can clear his justice in their condemnation: though in all things the reason of his proceeding is not so intelligible to us. And our Author himself, I believe, when he hath well pondered the business, will find it to be more safe to rest in such a determination. But as for his arguments, they are fallacious in many particulars: For most of them I have answered in the former part of the treatise; And for the residue I shall have occasion to speak of them afterwards. Here only four things are to be noted in the general.  
First, by the same reasons as he doth overturn damnation by the sin of Adam, any Jew or Turk may overthrow salvation by the merit of Christ. For why may not such a one argue the death of Christ was an act of his, and none of ours, he suffered many hundred years ago? What he did, we cannot be said to do, either virtually, or interpretively, in him or by him, we had no being at all, that our wills should be contained in his.  
His sufferings were without any knowledge, and consent of ours, and wherefore should any benefit arise to us? If there be any such thing, why should it so many ages together be concealed from the greatest part of mankind? Most of his arguments do go after this way, and by the same reasons that he takes away the guilt of sin by the disobedience of the first man, by the same he doth destroy all possibility of salvation by the second.  
Secondly, other of his reasons do go too far in questioning the absolute power, justice, and sovereignty of God. As he would have men to be temperate in such speeches that seem to condemn infants to hell for the fault of another, so he also should be more moderate in those say, that question the power and the justice of God. What is, or what shall be the whole course of the Lords proceeding against infants that die in original sin, is variously disputed: some speak of a Limbus infantum, whither those infants go that dye without baptism: Others speak of the penalty of loss, without a penalty of sense: A third sort dream of I know not what common receptacle, where infants as well as the souls of others do still remain in expectation of the resurrection. But sure I am, none do speak more dangerously and desperately, than they that except against the justice and the mercy of God, now in this our Author is too bold.  
Thirdly, in all his reasons, he goes against that which he teacheth elsewhere. For in sundry places he showeth, that without the infusion of supernatural grace, no man, neither infant nor other, can enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Again (he saith) that by the fall of Adam mankind came to be divested and disrobed of those supernatural excellencies that formerly he had. Now by the position of these two, I leave it to any man to judge, infants, as now borne in their natural condition, whether are they capable of salvation? whatsoever he may say in words, he and we as to this point may agree in the same principles. But in his answer to the Bishop's letter, he seems to be of opinion, that infants went neither to heaven nor hell, at least such a collection may be drawn from his words. Just so it is (saith he) in infants: Hell was not made for man, but for devils, and therefore it must be something besides mere nature that must bear any man thither: mere nature neither goes to heaven nor hell, pag. 17. In which words of his we acknowledge it to be true in a sense, that mere nature doth not carry a man to heaven or hell, for that which is not true at all, cannot carry a man any whither. The Sophisters do indeed speak of the creation of man, in puris naturalibus, in his pure naturals, but I no where find that God did ever make, or did intent to make any man in such estate that was neither good nor evil, I know no such mere nature to be found in any part of the habitable earth; and therefore it is some way a truth (in this abstract consideration) that a pure nature carries a man no whether. But he hath another meaning in which he is greatly mistaken, for under that notion and consideration, as infants are now borne, this nature depraved carrieth only to hell. We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others, Eph. 2.2, 3. But here perhaps he will except by such a tenet as this, all infants will be necessitated to damnation. Not so neither: they will be borne only in a nature liable to damnation. But by our doctrine, we do not say that they must be all damned. I see nothing to the contrary, but Christ is as well able to save them from the pollution and corruption of the natural birth, as well as if they were all reduced to that imaginary state that he speaks of. Concerning this matter, he delivers his judgement in his answer to the Bishop's letter. When I affirm that infants, being by Adam reduced and left to their mere natural estate, fall short of heaven, I do not say they cannot go to heaven at all, but they cannot go thither by their natural powers, they cannot without a new grace and favour go to heaven: But than it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to hell, but this aught to be inferred, which indeed was the real consequent of it, therefore it is necessary that God's grace should supply this defect if God intends heaven to them at all, and because nature cannot, God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected: so far he, pag. 15. Now I leave it to any man to judge, whither the same mutatis mutandis may not be said of our opinion, though infants are borne in Original sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, yet they may be saved by grace. By all this it is evident, that we are as fair for the salvation of infants as he is, and by the same door as he goes out, we will go out at the same.  
And for the say of our writers, I have three things to answer.  
First, some speak more mildly in the point, rather inclining to the salvation, than the damnation of infants. Junius in his collation de naturâ & gratiâ, hath these words: Nemo nostrum ita fuerit aut furere compertus est, etc. There is none of ours that is so mad, or was ever found so void of reason, who would simply affirm infants to be damned. They which teach otherwise, let themselves look to it by what right they moy do it, and by what authority it may be done. For although in respect of their own selves, and that common nature of ours, they may be in a state liable to damnation; it follows not that we should pass the sentence of damnation upon them, etc. In the process of his discourse he giveth sundry reasons: First, the promise of God to believers, and their natural seed. Secondly, his mercy to thousands, and that through many descents, where the Ancestors have sometimes belonged to the Covenant. Thirdly, The judgement of charity, seeing it is the Lords pleasure to take them away in their infancy, we may presume that by that fatherly act of his he intends to receive them to mercy. Other testimonies may be brought of such that have gone in the milder way, but these shall suffice.  
A second sort of our Expositiors there are that do pitch more hard. They say that some infants may go to hell, yet they moderate their sentence, as Chamier. Non abhorret a verisimilitudine paenas eorum esse mitissimas, It is very probable their punishments are most mild.  
A third sort leave the matter wholly in suspense; they think it sufficient to believe that all infants are borne in a state liable to damnation; they have in them the seeds of all evil, yet for all this they conceive that God may show mercy in and through Christ, specially to the infants of such that do belong to the Covenant, specially where conscience is made to enter them into the outward visible Church by baptism. And this is all that we will say of this question.  
Leaving this business of the state of infants, and reserving to God the secrets of election or nonelection, we will come to the point that is more useful and more easy to be understood. And here he questions, whether Adam did debauch our nature, and corrupt our will and manner by his fall? And if he did it, he further inquires after the manner how it was done? First, whether it was done by a natural or physical efficiency of sin itself? Secondly, whether was it because we are all in the loins of Adam? or, Thirdly, whether was the sentence and the decree of God the cause thereof? he hath four arguments against a physical efficiency, which we have in part handled already, and shall have occasion to speak afterwards. And therefore to avoid repetition we will come to the second branch, whether Adam did debauch our nature, because we are all in his loins. Against this he hath sundry reasons that follow in order.  
By the same reason (saith he) we are guilty of all the sins that he committed while we were in his loins, there being no imaginable reason why the first should be propagated, and not the rest.  
Answ. As I have formerly showed, so I declare again, the pollution of nature can only be propagated from the first sin, because in that only Adam did act as a public man, in which sense the Apostle calls him, the figure of him that is to come. But of this I have spoken already.  
Secondly, upon this account (saith he) all the sins of all our progenitors will be imputed to us, because we were in their loins when they sinned them.  
Answ. Not so neither, for though we were in their loins when they sinned, yet in a strict sense they are only vehicula, so many conduit pipes of the conveyances of the nature from the first root. To speak properly, there are only two roots of the nature: Adam the root of corruption to all his branches, Christ the root of grace and spiritual life to all his branches. If any question be made of the truth of this, there is every where in the doctrine of St. Paul, an antithesis between the flesh and the spirit, between the old man and the new, betwixt generation and regeneration, betwixt Adam and Christ. Between these two there is a plain opposition in three things in point of justification. Secondly, in point of sanctification. Thirdly, in point of the resurrection from the dead. And therefore, whereas the first man by his act brings us under the guilt of sin, the second washes away the guilt of sin by his blood: and whereas the first man pollutes our nature, and is the root of the corruption of nature; the second man sanctifies our nature, and is the root of a new nature to all his branches: And whereas the first man did bring in death, and all the miseries of nature upon our bodies that lead to death, the second man frees us from all these by the resurrection from the dead. But he further allegeth.  
Thirdly, Sin (saith he) is seated, in the will it is an action, and so transient, and when it dwells or abides, it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love, to which is naturally consequent a readiness in the inferior faculties to obey and act accordingly, and therefore sin doth not infect our mere natural faculties, but the will only, and not that in the natural capacity, but in its moral only.  
Answ. Though it be true that sin is principally seated in the will, yet we shall find all along, that the Scriptures do lay great weight upon the blindness and the perversity of the judgement; and as in the old creation, so it is in the new. The first work that is done is the creation of light: Besides the Christ-like disposition is begun and carried on by degrees, and all this by the renovation of light. The understanding is first enlightened, and then the will comes to choose the things of God. Further, let it be supposed, that sin is only seated in the will. Great difference is to be made between the will of other sinners, and the will of the first man. The will of other sinners doth only redundare in personam, it doth increase the habit of sin in their own persons alone: the will of the first man did redundare in naturam, it did vitiate and deprave the whole nature as we have formerly showed. And yet thirdly, whereas he saith, that sin doth infect the will, not in its natural capacity, but in its moral only. This expression of his must (under favour) be taken with a grain of salt. We do willingly yield, that the will is morally, or rather spiritually corrupt because she wents that holiness, that purity and righteousness which the law requires; yet if we look to the reasons of things, the corruption was brought into the will by the fall of Adam. They then do not speak improperly, that call the corruption of the will pravitatem physicomoralem. It is a moral depravation, because it is against the rectitude of the moral law: it is a natural depravation, because it flows from the first man as the root of corruption. For the proof of the latter, let us have recourse to that place of the Apostle, ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man. In these words of his, there is a direct opposition between the old man and the new. By the old man he meaneth the pravity and corruption of nature, which though it hath had its being in hundreds, thousands, and millions of men, yet originally all comes out of one root. In this regard the whole nature is called by the title of the old man. So proportionably the Christ-like disposition, though it hath been diffused into infinite persons, who have lived in several ages of the Church, yet the whole nature doth originally proceed out of one root, and therefore in this regard is elegantly called by the title of the new man. Secondly, the opposition is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their being unclothed, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their being clothed upon. By this way of expression the Apostle doth insinuate, the corrupt disposition of the flesh is that which the soul is clothed upon, which clothing she had from Adam the root of corruption. Now the believing Colossians, because they had a living principal within, and had begun to put off, and did so continue in putting off the old man, he speaks of it as a work already done, ye have put off the old man with his deeds. So likewise the new nature, or the Christ-like disposition is here resembled to a garment, with which they were clothed upon, because they had begun and did so continue to put it on by degrees, he doth speak of it as a matter already effected, ye have put on the new man. From all which we gather the pravity of the will, though it be in its own nature a moral, or rather spiritual obliquity. Yet respecting the cause, it proceeds from Adam the root of corruption. If this truth be not admitted, we shall cross and hinder the very chief design of the Gospel: For the corruption of nature being laid in the first Adam, it doth cast us all upon the seeking, longing, desiring the new nature that is to be had from the second.  
Fourthly, (saith he) to him that considers it, it will seem strange and monstrous, that a moral obliquity in a single instance, should make an universal change in a natural suscipient, and in a natural capacity.  
Answ. This is no more strange than true: we say that Adam's disobedience was a moral obliquity, and he by that single act of his, did cause an universal change in the whole nature of man: By it the souls of men come to be clothed upon with the habit of sin, and their bodies with corruption. And if he or any man else shall marvel at this, they must upon this account wonder at the chief foundations of the Gospel. For we will not doubt to say in the parallel case, as the Lord Christ did humble himself to the death of the cross, it was in genere moris, a moral obedience, he did obey the command of his Father. Yet by this one act of his, he did make a change, not only in a moral, but also in a natural suscipient he did a thing by, and through which the souls of the Saints may be freed from inward pravity, and corruption, and their bodies raised from the dead at the last day, Phil. 3. ult.  
Fifthly, He reasons, no man can transmit a good habit, a grace, or a virtue. By natural generation, as a great Scholars son cannot be borne with learning, etc. and how can it be, that a naughty quality should be more apt to be disseminated than a good one, when it is not in the goodness, or badness of the quality that hinders his dissemination, but its being an acquired, and superinduced quality that makes it cannot naturally descend?  
Answ. We willingly yield, that a good quality is as apt to be disseminated as a bad: and therefore had Adam stood, he had disseminated the image of God, to the posterity that did come of him. But seeing that he fell by his fall, he doth now disseminate Original corruption to all his branches. Further, though Adam doth disseminate corruption by natural generation, mankind is not left under an absolute necessity of perishing, as long as a second Adam is prepared to disseminate grace and spiritual life by regeneration, Excellent is that speech of Hillary upon the forty eighth Psalm. Quoniam animarum medicus non venit vocare justos, etc. Because the Physician of souls came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance: therefore he ordained, that whatsoever was worst in every company, should be soon called. Of all men living upon the earth, the heathen were the worst, yet they were the soon called. Further, whereas our Author saith, that a great Scholar's son cannot be borne with learning, and the child of a Judge cannot upon his birthday give wise sentences; the reason is plain, personal privileges and acquired habits do not naturally descend. But with the two adam's the case is far otherwise, for they have a nature to communicate to all their branches. The first doth communicate it by generation, the second by regeneration, as we have formerly proved. And whereas he argues.  
How can a quality morally bad, be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good, and since that, neither God that is the Maker of all, doth amiss, and the Father that begets, sins not, and the child that is begotten cannot sin, by what conveyance can any positive evil be derived to posterity?  
To this we say that the body and the soul are both the workmanship of God, yet both may be made the subject, and the seat of sin, through the temptation of Satan, and a vicious propagation. Neither is the evil any way to be ascribed to the Creator, but to the temptation of Satan, and the disobedience of the first man. Augustine speaks to good purpose, Sic ego tibi rectissime dico malum cum quo nascitur homo, etc. Thus I do most rightly say to thee, that the evil with which a man is borne, is not of the fruits, bodies, sexes, conjunctions, of which goods the Lord is the Author, but of the first sin which is to be ascribed to the devil. Here he doth distinguish between the work of creation, and so God is the Author of all that good that was made in the beginning: and the sinfulness of nature; that he will have to spring only from the devil's temptation, and the disobedience of the first man.  
Sixthly, how can it be (saith he) that the Father that contributes nothing to the production of the soul, should contribute to her pollution, and he that did not transmit life, how should he transmit his sin.  
Answ. Though the Father doth not contribute to the soul in her production, yet he doth contribute to the soul in her union with the body: So by this account, the action of God is terminated in the simple being of the soul: The action of the Parent is her being in the body, that is, in her union with the body. But if it be here alleged, that a man is principally a man in respect of his soul, and therefore if the Parent doth not contribute to the soul, he doth not contribute to the being of a man: the answer is plain. A man is not a man, neither by the soul apart, nor by the body apart, but by the whole humane nature which doth consist in the union of both: we see in ordinary experience, as children derive their inheritances, privileges, nobility, and such like from their Parents, so also their Parents miseries, infelicities, poverty, and ignobility do naturally descend. In the present case I demand, how do they descend? will any man be so curious to hold a dispute, whether they do descend from the body, or the soul of the Parent? Or whether is the soul the first seat, or receptacle of nobility, or ignobility? or doth the right to the father's inheritance descend from the father's body or the soul? In the affairs of this life, it is not usual with men to spin out themselves with such philosophical niceties. The skilful in the laws, conceive it is enough in the general to say, that such a Son did come out of the loins of such a Father. Why then should the learned man, with whom we have to do, be more curious in the conveyance of original sin? why should it not be enough for us to say, that that which is borne of flesh, is flesh, Joh. 3.6. Suppose, for the manner of the thing we are not able to satisfy the doubt, shall we deny the thing, because we are not able to explain every punctilio? why, by the same reason doth not he himself deny the motion of the Sun, the ebbing and the flowing of the sea, the organizing of the infant in the mother's womb? in these and a thousand more the thing is clear, when the manner doth lie in the dark.  
Seventhly, saith he, If in him we sinned, than it were just that in him we should be punished, for as the sin is, so ought the punishment to be.  
Answ. If he will stand to this rule, he both doth, and will make good that which is asserted by us. The disobedience of the first man must be imputed to all his posterity, because he is the head, the root and the representative of the whole nature. But if he thinks this to be a mere nonens, then let him say, that the obedience of the second man as the head-root, and the representative of the whole nature, is a nonens and a nullity also, and so he will raise the Gospel to the foundation thereof.  
Now we come to the third question to inquire, whether Adam did debauch our nature by the sentence and the just judgement of God, and here he layeth down this for a sure ground.  
He and all his posterity were left in the mere natural estate, that is, in a state of imperfection, in a state that was not sufficiently instructed and furnished with ability in order to a supernatural end, whether God had secretly designed mankind.  
Answ. In this expression of his, we know no such state of mere imperfection, which is not also a state of corruption. Again, in this expression he seemeth to me, to pluck down that natural ability of the will which he endeavours to set up. For if a man since the fall is not instructed and furnished with abilities in order to a supernatural end, he must come to Christ only for the supply of all. Why then doth he raise all this dust against the rigour and severity of our doctrine, when he himself doth here plainly teach, that the will can do nothing without the help of the Spirit? He goeth on.  
It cannot be supposed, (saith he) that God did inflict any necessity of sinning upon Adam or his posterity, because from that time, even unto this day, he by new laws had required innocency of life, or repentance and holiness.  
Answ. The consequence is not good, for now since the fall, the Lord doth not give laws in proportion to natural ability, but in relation to his own word of promise, and his free mercy in the Covenant of grace. So far then it is a testimony of divine favour that God will employ us, and require more service of us, that where we have no strength of our own, we may in the sense of our own natural weakness go to him for help. And whereas he bringeth us speaking in this wise: that it is just with God to exact the law of man, even where he is unable to keep it, because God once made him able, but he disabled himself: True indeed, this is an answer given by us, but it is not the whole, nor the principal part of that answer which may be given. For secondly, where God doth require subjection to his law, man being not able to perform it, his demand is not irrational; For though man is not subject, nor in himself can be subject to the law, Rom. 8.7. This non-subjection doth not so much arise from the want of judgement, will, or any other natural faculty, as from a perverse sinful habit that doth reside in the faculty. That a drunkard cannot stand, walk, nor perform acts of reason, as an other man is not simply for want of ability, as from an evil distemper that doth suspend the operations of the faculties, so it is in the present case, men need no new faculties, but they need new habits to set the faculty aright. But our third answer is, though a man naturally cannot be subject to the law, (respecting the evil habit that disorders the faculty) yet if he go to Christ in the sense of his own misery, all ability is to be had from him: God is so infinitely gracious, that he is ready to help all that come to him. A bruised reed he will not break, Mat. 12.20. Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, Mat. 11.28. Will not your heavenly Father give his Spirit to them that ask it? Luk. 11.13. and many more places of the like nature: This is the whole answer which our Divines do commonly give, when they speak of the necessity of sinning, and of the inability which is brought upon man by the fall of Adam. In this case they do not simply and absolutely deny all ability, for then of what use would exhortations, reproofs, and commands be? Only they deny a natural ability, and such an ability which our Author seems to plead for. Next he tells us.  
It is all one with the case of voluntary and affected ignorance. He that refuseth knowledge, lest he should understand his duty, and he that disables himself that he may not do it may be punished, not only for not doing it, but for making it impossible to be done. But that was not Adam's case so far as we know, & it is certain that it was not ours in the matter of his sin.  
Answ. We confess, that we did neither personally nor individually disable ourselves in the matter of his sin, but he that stood in our stead, did voluntarily disable himself and us too. And therefore his will doth interpretively, virtually, and potentially go for the will of the whole nature, as we have formerly proved. Perhaps he will say, how can we be justly punished, if we are disabled by the act of another? This would have some colour, provided, that there were no Christ, no grace, no mercy to be had. Our great fault is, that we do not seek for help, where help is to be found.  
But (saith he) If a man commits a fault, that doth accidentally disable him, as if he eat too much, and be sick the next day, and fall into a fever, he may indeed, and is justly punished for his gluttony, but he is not punishable for omitting that which in his present weakness he can no way perform.  
Answ. Here he speaks, as if we did leave men to strive with an unavoidable necessity, whereas the necessity of sinning is not absolute, for that which is unavoidable by nature, may be avoidable by grace. And to the particular case, suppose a centinal drink too much, and through his default a great party of the Army come to have their throats cut, will he say that he is only to be punished for his drunkenness, but is not punishable for the omitting of that which in his present weakness, he was not able to perform. By the laws of the land he should only pay five shillings, Next he saith,  
In laws to be imposed afterwards, the case is otherwise because the persons are not capable of any such law, and God knowing they cannot perform, cannot intent they should, and therefore cannot justly punish them for not doing, which himself did never hearty intent they should do, because he knew they could not.  
Ans. If this be so, let him give a reason why the old world was drowned in the waters of the flood. All flesh had corrupted their way, and if he himself may believed, the reason was not so much from the corruption of nature, but because God's laws did command such things which were a restraint to the indifferent, and otherwise lawful inclinations of nature. Besides he tells us that they had no spiritual promises in those times. The commands were heightened above all natural abilities, spiritual promises were denied; God never intended (if he speak true) that his Laws should be obeyed; he knew they could not. Let him fairly tell us the reason then why the old world was drowned? Now on the contrary, we say, no such thing, the commandment was given to Adam in proportion to the abilities he had in possession, he falling, all ability is to be had from Christ in the covenant of grace. And there was a covenant of grace suitable to the times that were before the flood, Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same for ever, Heb. 13.8.  
But now in the close of this Section, we will speak a little practically to the purpose in hand. You will say, why doth God give commands above natural ability? It is to this end, that in the sense of their own emptiness men should go to Christ, when they so come, they shall be graciously received. You will say, how doth that appear? I answer. As by the general tenders of the Word, so specially by that place, Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye buy and eat, yea, come by wine and milk without money and without price, Isaiah 55.1. Here many things are to be observed; First, by wine and milk are understood the spiritual comforts and excellencies of the Gospel, for as wine and milk are truly refreshing to the bodies of men; So are these really sweet to their spiritual taste. Secondly, by buying of wine and milk, is meant, the earnest seeking after these things in all those ways that the Lord hath sanctified, and in all those means where they may be found. Thirdly, without money or price. It would be thought a solecism in merchandizing, to buy a Cow and Horse, and a parcel of Sheep, and give no money for them. Usually men buy, when they give an equivolent price. But in matter of salvation, we have no ability of our own, all ability is to be had from the freeness and fullness of the promise. Fourthly, the persons invited. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come to the waters, etc. In matters of the world, men may have a great desire after riches, long life, honours, favour of Princes, popular applause, and yet they may never attain what they desire, nay, the thing desired (as their own shadow) may flee from them. But in matters of salvation, the case is otherwise. If men truly desire, and continue desiring, praying, longing, waiting, they cannot miss what they desire. The greatest part of the work is done already, and all the residue doth remain upon the fidelity, and the truth of the Promiser to make good. Lastly, it is spoken to every one that thirsteth. There are divers degrees and kinds of spiritual thirsting, some that are scorched with the feeling of the wrath of God, earnestly desire salvation and remission of sin by Christ's blood, and these commonly are the first desires of those that are babes in Christ. Others, feeling the bondage of corruption, do as earnestly long for that spiritual freedom that is to be had from the Son. A third sort go higher, they desire the excellency of Christ purely, for that excellency that is in himself; they do not love him so much for his portion, as for his person. I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, Phil. 3.8. A fourth sort go to the highest point. They love the appearing of the Lord Jesus, which others do tremble at, and the Spirit and the Bride say, come, and let him that heareth say, come, and let him that is athirst come, Revel. 22 17. etc. All these desires are the fruit of the Spirit. He that comes to the first, doth not come to the second, at least not to the third or fourth degree. However the whole course of Christianity is unum continuum sitis, one continual succession of spiritual desires. And in immediate opposition, there is unum continuum auxilii, an interchangable supply of auxiliary grace, this latter answering the former, as the one part of the deed doth answer the other. So then, though the Saints have no ability in themselves to supernatural duties, yet they may have it from Christ and the freeness of the promise. These things I have drawn out more at large, because I see, as formerly, it hath done to others; So our doctrine doth seem to give great offence to our Author. It seemeth strange to him that we should exhort men to spiritual duties, and yet teach that all mankind through the condition of the natural birth, lie under a necessity of sinning. Whereas, if he did well understand the grand design of the Gospel, he should find that all ability to do these things, is to be had from Christ alone, and that upon terms of believing, desiring, longing, and waiting for them. The Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and other holy men, have in their several times done their duties, and served their generation. But how? not by any ability of their own, but by the continual supply of the Spirit of Christ, as the Scriptures and all experience do abundantly testify.  
Now we come to the next Section.   

SECT. 2. Consideration of the objections against the former Doctrine.  
THE first Scripture which he insists upon, is, Gen 6. Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart are only evil continually. Here he doth end avour to frame sundry answers,  
First, it is true (saith he) they were so, but it was their own fault, not adam's; for so it is said expressly. All flesh had corrupted their way upon earth, and the earth was filled with violence.  
Repl. It was their own fault, and adam's too. It was their own, as they corrupted their own ways, it was adam's as they were flesh, for he brought them into that sinful condition by his fall. So then the force of our argument stands thus. First, the thoughts of man were evil. Secondly, they were all evil. Thirdly, they were only evil. Fourthly, they were continually evil. Fifthly, they were evil from his childhood. Now such an universal effect cannot be without some universal cause from whence all this evil must necessarily spring. And where shall we look for the cause, but in the text itself; My Spirit shall not always strive with man, because he is but flesh. Because he is but flesh, and borne in the sin of the nature, therefore the thoughts of his heart are evil from his childhood.  
Secondly, (saith he) if this corruption had been natural and unavoidable, why did God punish all the world for it, except eight persons? Why did he punish those that could not help it? and why did others escape that were equally guilty?  
Repl. That which God did punish in the old world in ordinary men, was the violence of their hands, and in his own people was the breach of covenant. Though these two did naturally flow from original corruption, as all other evils do, yet we cannot say, that they are absolutely unavoidable; for the act of violence and of marriage with the daughter of a strange god, men have a liberty to forbear the outward execution of these evils. And for the lust of the heart, though it is unavoidable by nature, yet it is not simply unavoidable, for God is so full of mercy, that he is ready to help all those that flee to him, in the sense of their own misery. He hath declared himself to be a Physician, ready to cure all  sinners. The men of Nineveh, did turn from the violence of their hands, and how ready was he to forgive them. The people in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah did repent of their Idolatrous marriages, and how did he pass by their iniquity? Of all the Authors that ever I met with, Luther in his Tract deservo arbitrio, is most severe against the liberty of the will; yet in the end of the treatise, he bringeth in Erasmus thus speaking. Why doth he command us any duty, seeing all things are done by necessity? His answer is, he doth command that he may admonish and instruct us what we ought to do, that being humbled in the sense and feeling of our own evil, we may repair to his grace for help, as we have abundantly spoken. And as for the Lords punishing of those that could not help it. We say in public, solemn and exemplary judgements he hath always reserved a liberty for the exemple of others, and the declaration of his justice and mercy. It is true also that they that were equally guilty did not perish in the waters of the flood. What of all this? though they did escape that judgement, they were liable to the judgement of God.  
Thirdly, (saith he) God might have as well punished all the world for sleeping once in a day, or for being hungry, as for sinning, if so to do, be natural and unavoidable.  
Repl. The cases are not equal, mankind cannot live without meat and drink, sleep and such other refections of nature, when they were made in the beginning, they were made in such an estate, that they had need of these things, I trow they had no need of sin? Again, for sinful acts, though they come from the corruption of the flesh, as the sparks do out of the Chimney, yet in externals, man hath a liberty to commit or not commit such an evil. Also for the lust of the heart, that which is unavoidable by nature, is avoidable by grace. The guilt of sin may be taken away by the blood of Christ, the power of it by the Spirit of Christ; and the very being of it, when the Saints shall be made partakers of the adoption or the redemption of their bodies.  
Fourthly, if God in these words complained of their natural and original corruption, why did he but then as if it were, a new thing, complain of it, and repent that he made man since he proved so bad?  
Repl. God did then complain of original corruption, because in a most eminent degree it did put forth itself in oppression, breach of covenant, and other evils. He did complain in those times, because iniquity was then come to a ripeness, and the years of his patience was almost run out.  
Fifthly, (saith he) this malice and corruption was such, that God did send Noah a Preacher of righteousness, to draw the world from it. But no man supposes that it was fit to send a Preacher to dehort them from being guilty of original sin.  
Repl. So fare as we may gather, Noah's message to the old world was the same in effect, as that of Jonah's to Nineveh, he was to exhort them to turn from the violence of their hands, as being one fruit of original sin. Moreover, he was sent to admonish the people of God in those days of their sinful confederacies and marriages with Idolaters; and whereas he saith, no man supposeth it fit to send a Preacher to dehort men from being guilty of original sin. Though the best as long as they live here, are subject to that sin, yet I hope he will allow that a Preacher may be sent to exhort men to mortify the lusts of their nature, and to fly to the mercy of God for the pardon and forgiveness of that sin, as well as others. What the Economy or dispensation of grace was in those times. I will not take upon me to define, sure I am the Lord himself saith, My Spirit shall not always strive with man. The best Scholars, according to the original, have it, My Spirit shall not always dispute reason, or plead with man. It argues then that as the Spirit was in the Ministry of Noah, so it was some way operative in the consciences of the people of those times to bring them to repentance. Compare with this, 1 Pet. 3.19, & 20. Now he comes to lay the blame of all upon evil-custome, which is the very height of Pelagianisme. Blame not nature, (saith he) but thy own evil customs; for the neglect of thy fields will make fern, and thistles to grow. It is not only because the ground is accursed, but because it is neglected it bears thorns. Thou art deceived if thou thinkest that vices are born with us. No, they are super-induced, and come upon us afterward. To which we reply, These strange expressions he hath not from any of the Prophets or Apostles, but from Horace and Seneca. As these things are scarcely tolerable in them, so they are not to be born with in our Author, and others which have had their being and education in the Church of God. Because in these days, there are more than too many which cannot distinguish between Ethics and Divinity, between that which is moral, and that which is spiritual; we will insist upon this point a little more largely.  
The chief principals and foundation of moral Philosophy, are such as these. First, that nature is pure. Secondly, that nature hath the seed of all virtue. Thirdly, there is a natural freedom of the will. Fourthly, by the repartition of many virtuous acts men come to the habit of virtue; These and many such like rules there are in the treatises of the learned Grecians and Romans. And according to this sense the aforementioned say of Horace and Seneca are to be understood. We deny not but toward the attaining of a Philosophical good, a man hath some power (by general assistance) he may do some duties of the first and second table. He may contain his hands from the outward acts of murder, adultery, theft, and the like.  
But for the spiritual and theological good, to love God above all, to delight in him, to believe in him, to trust in him. In order to these, plain experience showeth that he hath no ability, nay, the contrary is evident, that he hath a downright enmity. The wisdom of his flesh is always prone to rear up some earthly excellency or other, and to set it in the place of the true God. Therefore these are the true principles of Theology. First, the nature of man is depraved from the pollution of the natural birth. Secondly, that he hath no freedom to spiritual good. Thirdly, in this miserable estate, the first step to his recovery, is by the reproving work of the Spirit, whose office it is to convince the conscience of the guilt of sin, and of the bondage of corruption. Fourthly, the conscience being so convinced, it is prepared and fitted for the grace of the Gospel, and the freeness of the promise, that he which hath no help in himself, may have it from Christ. Fifthly, When he is come to Christ, and united to him by faith, he hath ability from him, as a root of all grace, life, heating spiritual nature, and in a word, all that we have lost in the first man, is to be recovered in him. This is the very scope the Gospel. By these things it is evident, that the endeavour of man is not destroyed by the principles of Theology; Only he is more sound directed to the attaining of that good which is spiritual. There be many passages in moral Philosophy concerning the liberty of the will, which we may well admit of; and again, others there are which will scarce hold water. As in the young man in the Gospel, our Saviour did not disallow his outward moralities, only he convinced him that he fell short of the holiness, purity and spirituality of the Law. When he was put upon it to love God above all, to leave all for him, by this he was brought to understand his own imperfection, and that he had need of some power from above.  
But that this matter may be the more fully understood, we will refer ourselves to that place of Scripture, which is commonly called Saint Peter's Ethics. There we may distinguish between the Ethics (as I may so say) of the Apostles, and those of the ordinary moral Philosophers. These are his words, According as his divine power hath given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, by the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these we may be made partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the pollution of the world through lust. And besides this, giving all diligence, add to our saith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, etc. 2 Peter Chap. 1. ver. 3, 4, 5.  
As in our ordinary books of moral Philosophy, so these words of the Apostle may conveniently be divided into two parts; into that which treateth of the divine nature and virtue in general, and into that which speaketh of particular virtues: For the divine nature, these particulars are to be observed. First, the Apostle calls it a nature, as there is a nature of Birds, Beasts, and Fishes; so there is a nature peculiar to the Saints, which they have, and none else. Secondly, it is called the divine nature, though in a more peculiar sense; Father Son and holy Ghost are said to have the divine nature, yet in a more general acception, the new creature is said to have the divine nature, because he comes in the nearest similitude to the nature, purity, and holiness of God, because he derives it from Christ as the root of the nature. The Apostle hath a like expression that ye may be filled with the fullness of God, that is, with the fullness of the grace, and the love of God, Eph. 3.16, 17, 18, 19 But the chief thing in the Apostles words, is, concerning the means how we may come to this nature. As in moral Philosophy, great regard is had to the natural liberty of the will, to the towardliness of the disposition, and too much exercise, by and through which men think to come to the habit of virtue: So on the contrary part, let us see what principles the Apostle doth lay down for the attaining of the divine nature, and let us compare them with those which our Author brings out of Horace and Seneca.  
First, the Apostle points to the promises, there are given to us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye may be made partakers of the divine nature. What these promises are, we find mentioned in the Scripture. I will put my law in their heart, and write it in their inward part, Jer. 31.33. A new heart, and a new spirit I will give them, I will take out of their bowels the heart of stone, and will give them a heart of flesh, Ezek. 36.26. These are called exceeding great promises, because they contain the greatest things, for what greater thing is there than to change the nature of a man. It is as great a work, as to bring Israel out of Egypt, to divide the sea, and to make the sun stand still. They are called also honourable, or precious promises, to a spiritual understanding they are of an higher value than the greatest treasures of the earth.  
Secondly, the way to come to the divine nature, is not by the promises alone, but by faith in the promises. The Apostle doth direct his speech, to such that had obtained like precious faith with us, verse the first. And again, his divine power hath given us all things pertaining to life and godliness. But how? not absolutely, but through the knowledge of him, that is, through faith in him that hath called us to glory and virtue. And, as it is in another place, we are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, 1 Peter 1.5. We are kept by the power of God to salvation, but through faith.  
Thirdly, the way to come to the divine nature, is by the power of God; there can be no coming to the divine nature, but by the divine power: his divine power doth give us all things that doth pertain to life and godliness. So then the inward work doth proceed after this method. First, the promise is freely made. Secondly, faith apprehendeth the promise. Thirdly, the promise being apprehended by saith, doth engage the power of God to perform that which is promised, and so the Saints come to be partakers of the divine nature.  
Lastly, the increase of the nature is by mortification of lusts, having escaped the pollution of the world through lust. If we speak properly, it is neither profit, pleasure, honour, or any thing else that can corrupt the soul, were it that she were free in herself. These are the particulars that concern the divine nature, or the nature of virtue in general. The Apostle after this, speaks of particular virtues, add to your faith, virtue, and to virtue, knowledge. By all these particulars we may discern for the cherishing of endeavour, what little need we have to fly to the rudiments of heathen Philosophy, to the purity of the natural birth, and to such like dictates of Seneca, and Horace. These are the things which the Apostle doth admonish us. Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, Col. 2.8. They that do this, do not hold Christ for a head, but do go directly against the principles of baptism and circumcision, as all do that deny original sin, and plead the purity of the natural birth, having gone so far, we will return to our Author again, as he expounds the words of the text.  
By this (saith he) we may the better understand the following words, I will not again curse the ground for man's sake, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his childhood, Gen. 8.21. Concerning which, note, that these words are not two sentences. For this is not the reason wherefore God gave over smiting, for if it had been the reason, it would have come to pass, that the same cause that would have moved God to smite, would also move him to forbear, which were a strange Oeconomy.  
Reply There is no such strange Oeconomy in the words, if the scope of both texts be diligently considered. In the sixth of Genesis the Lord saith, that he would destroy the world, because the thoughts of the imagination of man's heart are evil continually. Here we have a plain reason given, why the world is destroyed, all flesh had corrupted their ways, and this corruption did arise from the common pravity of nature from the first root. But in the eighth of Genesis the matter is otherwise. The Lord did not look so much to that which man had deserved, as to the merit of the blood of Christ, figured in the sacrifice of Noah. And therefore the words do best go after this tenor, I will not curse the ground any more, although the thoughts of man's heart are evil from his childhood. And therefore we agree with our Author, that these words are an aggravation of the kindness and mercy of God, as if he had said, though men be continually evil, yet I will not for all that drown the world for man's being so evil. The former text doth show what God might do, respect being had to his justice: The latter doth show what he will do with reference to the merit of his Son, and his own mercy. These things are no way contrary to our assertion. We come to the second Scripture.  

I was borne in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,  Psalm 51.5. 
To this, he doth endeavour, to frame sundry answers.  
First, (saith he) These words are an Hebraisme, and signify nothing, but an aggrandation of his sinfulness, and are intended for an high expression, meaning that I am wholly, and entirely wicked.  
Rely There are (I confess) as in other Authors; so in the Scriptures, some such forms, and ways of expression which are true in the figure, but false in the letter. But whether this expression is of that nature, we cannot easily admit: For he prayeth that God would create in him a clean heart. This plainly showeth, that the evil was in his heart from the very beginning. Besides, other Scriptures do abundantly confirm the literal interpretation of the words. That which is borne of flesh is flesh, Joh. 3.6. Borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, Joh. 1.13. were by nature the children of wrath, as well as others, Eph. 2.3. All these plainly express the impurity of the natural birth, and that the words of the Psalmist are to be taken according to the letter. And that Scripture (which he seemeth to build so much upon) if it be well considered, doth not make for his purpose one jot. The like (saith he) is that saying of the Pharisees. Thou wert altogether borne in sin, and dost thou teach us, Joh. 9.35? Which phrase and manner of speaking, being plainly a reproach of the poor blind man, and a disparagement of him, did mean only to call him a very wicked person: but not that he had derived his sin originally, and from his birth, for that had been their own case, as much as his. To all which we reply, the Pharisees might think him or his Parents to be some great sinners, because he was borne blind, for the disciples themselves did put such a kind of question, to our Saviour himself, did this man, or his parent's sin, that he was borne blind? verse the second. Further, suppose that the Pharisees had been of the judgement, that it had been this man's peculiar infelicity; and that it was not the common misery of man to be borne in original sin, must their error be a prejudice to the truth? Nicodemus himself was dark in the point of regeneration, must his ignorance be a rule to us?  
Secondly, (saith he) if David had meant it literally, it had not signified that himself was borne in original sin, but his Father, and his Mother sinned when they begot him.  
Reply It's very rational to conceive, that his Father, that went for an old man in the days of Saul, and his Mother that bore him (specially he being the youngest) were both dead, at the time of the making of the Psalm. To what purpose should he confess the sin of the dead, and pray for the dead? But suppose he did confess the sin of his Parents, he must needs look upon them as the conduit-pipes, and the conveyances of the corruption of the nature from the first root. This doth strengthen the truth of our interpretation; and therefore he doth devoutly, and pathetically pray, Create in me a clean heart, renew within me a right spirit: wash me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.  
Thirdly, (saith he) if it did relate to his own person, he might mean that he was begotten with that sanguine disposition, and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery; and then, though David said this truly of himself, it is not true of all, nor of those whose temper is phlegmatic, and unactive.  
Reply By this rule we may gather, that the phlegmatic, and unactive (whatsoever the sanguine be) are free from original sin; and that it doth not belong so much to Divines, as to Physicians to judge of the sin of the nature. But in this, he is greatly deceived. David doth not confess the sin of adultery alone, but the sin of murder; deliver me from blood-guiltiness, thou God of my righteousness, verse the sixteenth. Nay, that which did principally affect him, was his unbelief, unthankfulness, neglect, and contempt of the goodness and mercy of God; and his making the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. And therefore he saith, Against thee, thee only have I sinned, verse the sixth. Though he had sinned against Vriah, against himself, and against the Church: yet the most aggravating circumstance was, that he had sinned against God. This we may see in the parable of Nathan, who thereupon did argue with him, upon the considerations of mercies received: so then when the Psalmist saith, I was borne in iniquity, he hath not respect only to the libidinous temper, but also to a sinful temper, of a more general nature.  
Fourthly, (saith he) if David had meant this of himself, and that in regard of original sin, this had been so far from being a penitential expression, or a confessing of his sin, that it had been a plain accusation of God, and an excusing of himself. As if he had said, O Lord, I confess I have sinned, in this horrible murder, and adultery; but thou O Lord knowest, how it comes to pass, even by that fatal punishment; which thou didst, for the sin of Adam, inflict on me and all mankind, above three thousand years before I was borne. Thereby making me, to fall into so horrible corruption of nature, that unless thou didst unresistibly force me from it, I cannot abstain from my sin, being most naturally inclined to evil.  
Reply To all which we rejoin, though there was a necessity laid upon David, as upon other men, to be borne in original sin, and this three thousand years before he was borne; yet nevertheless it will be no plea to excuse his murder, and adultery: For howsoever he was borne in sin, his murder, and adultery were his own voluntary acts. Ordinary experience shewetn (by the common assistance of God) that men have a power to avoid many outward evils, to which their natures are inclined. Further, for the inward lust, though it was inflicted as a punishment upon him, as upon all mankind, this can be no charge upon God, seeing he hath provided a remedy, to help men out of their misery. David had rather cause to accuse himself, for fulfilling the lusts of his nature, and for the neglecting of that grace that was promised to him, and to other believers in the Jewish Church, to cleanse out the sin of the nature; I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou mightest love the Lord thy God, Deut. 30.6. So then, though David was born in original sin, the fruits of that sin, were his own voluntary acts, and the living in that sin also, was his own free choice. Bernard in his Homily 81. on the Canticles, hath an excellent passage to this purpose, Homo interveniente peccato, patitur quandam vincet ipse, etc. Man by the intervening of sin, he himself doth suffer a kind of necessity from his will, not from nature, that so truly he may not be deprived of his inbred liberty: For that the soul cannot rise of herself, the will is the cause, who languishing, and laying prostrate with the vitiated, and vicious love of a corrupted body, doth not withal admit the love of righteousness. It is so I know not by what wounderful means, the will being made worse, she herself, doth make a necessity to herself; That the necessity while its voluntary, may not be able to excuse the will: Neither the will while 'tis drawn, may have power to shake off the necessity: for truly after a sort, this is a voluntary necessity. In these words of his, he doth elegantly set forth the truth of the thing, and therein he doth liken the soul to a man grovelling upon the earth, he cannot rise because he will not; He will not rise because his nature doth incline him to lie down under the power of his lusts. And this was David's very case, he was born in iniquity, and he did freely and voluntarily bring forth the fruits, that were the very product, and result of a sinful nature; he did too much neglect the grace by which he might be cured, and though his necessity was natural, respecting the inclinations that came from his birth, yet also it was a voluntary necessity; All natural men do account the liberty of lusts, to be the greatest freedom, and therefore they be not captives so much against, as with their wills. The first step therefore to salvation is, as to understand the guilt of sin, so also the spiritual captivity, and bondage of the soul, under the tyranny of a carnal mind.  
Sixthly, He addeth, that David thought nothing of this, or any thing like it, we may understand by the preceding words, which are a preface to these in the objection, against thee only have I sinned.  
Reply. We willingly yield, that it was the purpose of David to clear the justice of God, but here is no need to call his justice in question, for though David was borne in sin, the act of murder and adultery were the deeds of his own will, besides, the lust of his heart might have been cured by the grace of God.  
Seaventhly, (saith he) if this had been natural and unavoidable, God, who knew perfectly well, would have expected nothing else of him. For he will not require of a stone to speak, nor a fire to be cold, unless himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so.  
Repl. The case is not all one. It is not in the nature of stones to speak, but men may avoid many outward acts of sin, and the evil of their natural disposition may be mortified by the Spirit. The Apostle speaking of certain, that had eyes full of adulery, that cannot cease from sin, 2 Pet. 2.14. Our Author in his answer to the Bishop's letter doth expound, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eyes full of the adulteress, therefore they cannot cease from sin. This showeth how hard it is to escape adultery, when men have received the beauty of the adulteress into their eye. Why then are Laws made against this sin? It is in their power outwardly to fly such occasions that lead thereto. The wise man saith, remove thy way fare from her, and come not near the door of her house. Is not this too precise and strict a point? No, some men's natures, are like tinder to the fire; they must not only fly sins, but all occasions that lead thereto. Now it is plain, that in these things, men have a power to forbear the evil; and therefore the wise man accordingly doth temper his exhortation. And for the lust of the heart, though a man cannot flee from it, yet God is able to give more grace, which he is always ready to do to those, who in the sense of their own emptiness do flee to him for help. Where is the man that did ever truly desire, and continue desiring helps against his infirmities, that God did ever neglect? If this could be proved, than something may be said to the purpose. Now we go to the next Scripture.   

Among whom we in all times past had our conversation in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, as well as others.  
He hath many observations upon the words of this text.  
This therefoore (saith he) as appears by the discourse of the Apostle, relates not to riginal sin, but to actual.  
Repl. It relates to both, as the Ephesians had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh, and did fulfil the lusts of the flesh and mind, so it doth relate to actual sin: But as they were by nature the children of wrath, this is with reference to original, sin. And whereas he doth bring in Justin Martyr arguing upon this ground, that therefore it cannot be extended to Christ, we willingly yield that Christ is an exempt person, by reason of his extraordinary birth, and conception, but then in Justines' sense, all else, infants as well as others, will partake of the sin of the nature. But he further adds.  
Heirs of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment, heirs of death. It is an usual expression among the Hebrews; So sons of death in the holy Scripture, are those that deserve death, or are condemned to die.  
Repl. It is true that the Hebrews call a man the son of death, that hath deserved death, specially when he is condemned to die. Though all this be granted, it doth not void the force of our reason, for we do not argue so much from the Apostles words, that the Ephesians before conversion, were the children of wrath, but from those words, [were by nature the children of wrath,] The scope of all which is to show, that they were not only subjected to wrath, through a sinful conversation, but through an evil nature, the root of that evil conversation. If therefore, our Author, or any man else, will make use of the Hebrew Idiotism, the words will go fairly in this sense, that the believing Ephesians, both by the condition of the natural birth, and the whole course of their conversation, as they did serve divers lusts, and pleasures, were liable to wrath, and the only mean by which they did escape, was the quickening, and enlivening work of the Spirit, by and through which they were brought out of that estate, in which they were born. But he hath another evasion.  
By nature is here most likely to be meant, that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customs, and evil habits.  
Repl. If we would apply ourselves to authors, and to the ordinary speech of men: custom, and nature, are usually opposed, each to other. In some cases a man may be said to have a thing both by nature, and custom, very rarely or never, we say that custom is nature. Sometimes men speak in a more general sense, that custom is as it were a second nature; But because he stands upon it, that it is most likely that the words of the Apostle, are meant only of custom, and acquired nature (for so he desires to speak) then by this rule we must say, that the believing Ephesians, before conversion, were by ill custom only, the children of wrath. If this be so, why doth the Apostle say, you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins: What need of the infusion of a new life to bring them off off an ill custom? In such a case it were only requisite, to reduce nature to her original purity; and to amend that by good usuages, which ill customs had marred. Besides, seeing several Nations have their customs, was it a peculiar custom to the Ephesians? Or was it common to all Nations to be the children of wrath? It was peculiar to the Ephesians, than they only had need of the infusion of a new life. If it was common to all Nations: How did they all generally agree in such a custom? And what was the cause of the agreement? Besides, seeing there are some in their tender years, of whom we may presume, that they are neither quickened by grace, nor hardened by ill custom, whether such may be saved without the infusion of a new life, yea or no? If they may be saved without the infusion of a new life, this will be against the scope of the Apostle, who tells us they were saved from wrath, by the inward quickening. But if he will say, that such cannot be saved without the infusion of a new life, then 'tis plain that by nature must be meant more than acquired nature. Infants are born in a sinful nature and do need the sanctification of the Spirit. But he hath a passage out of Suidas, when the Apostle saith, you were by nature the children of wrath, he means not that which is the usual signification of nature, for than it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such. To which we rejoin, In men of ripe years, it is both their fault, that they do abide in the sin of the nature, and it is also the fault of Adam, that did vitiate and deprave the nature, at his fall. That men do fulfil the lusts of the flesh and mind, is their own voluntary act. And though indeed and in truth, it is not their personal fault, that men are born in original sin, yet it is their fault that they fulfil the lusts of their nature; and continue in that state, at least that they do not use, and hearken to those precursory motions, and previous workings of the Spirit, which the Lord doth administer to them, at some seasons at least; The end of all which is to bring them out of the evil of that state. The first works of the Spirit are to reprove, to convince, to accuse, to terrify men, to humble them for their evil deeds, that so they may come to Christ for pardon of their sin, and for the healing of their nature. But here they wilfully shut out the light, will not see what they may, and this will be the great condemnation, Joh. 3.18, 19, and 20 verses. He goes on,  
By nature the Apostle (saith he) means not by birth, natural extraction, or any other original derivation from Adam.  
Rep. By the same reason he might argue, that the Ephesians, when they were quickened, had not a new life by regeneration, or spiritual extraction, out of the second Adam, which is immediately opposed to the other, as the counterpane or the other part of a deed. In seeking to deny the misery by the first, he must take away the happiness, grace, and life that comes in by the second man. But he gives his reason, The Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else, and no more before their conversion than after. We say the same in effect, and it is the force of our argument, because all need a new life, a new birth, a new extraction out of the second Adam, as well as the Ephesians, therefore all are equally by nature the children of wrath, and do partake of the sin of the nature as well as they. But whereas he adds, that the Ephesians were no more guilty of this sin before conversion than they were after, in this he is monstrous absurd: For after conversion, the guilt of that sin was done away, and the power of it was broken by the inward work of the Spirit; now he cannot say that this was done before their conversion. He further addeth.  
By nature the children of wrath, must be expounded, as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, really, and truly, the children of wrath, it is agreeable to the usuage, of the same phrase, Galatians 4.8. Ye did service to them, that by nature were no gods, that is, which really are none.  
Repl. We may understand the meaning of the Apostle, in this Scripture, by comparing it with others, God that made the world and all that is therein, dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, Acts 17.24. The invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, even his eternal power and Godhead, Rom 1.20. So in the present case, when the Galatians did service to those that by nature were not gods, his meaning is no other but this, they did service to them that had not the essence, and the being of the Godhead. As in a little case, the nature of Birds, Beasts, and Fishes, is taken for the essence, and the being itself. As in the expression of Saint James, every kind of Birds, that is, every nature of Birds, Beasts, and Fishes is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind, or according to the original by the nature of man. So in the present case, when the Apostle saith that the Ephesians were by nature the children of wrath, he doth not say only that they were really, and truly, the children of wrath. For so they might be by ill-custome, when their nature was good, as the water is really and truly hot, though it be not naturally hot: But his meaning is this, that their very essence, and being was sinful, and that their corruption was in the very nature itself, as they did derive out of Adam a common root. The scope of the text, doth plainly show that this is the meaning: the sinfulness of nature, immediately opposed to that life, spiritualness, and new nature they had from the second Adam. And whereas he saith, as these Ephesians were before their conversion, so were the Israclites in the days of their rebellion, a wicked stubborn people, insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression, a seed of falsehood. All this doth confirm the truth of our interpretation he calleth them a seed of evil doers, meaning that they were not only sinners by custom, and evil ensample, but by propagation of the kind. Let him grant this in the case of the Ephesians, and the question is at an end.  
This is all that he hath in his Vnum Necessarium. Now let us consider what further he saith, to this Scripture, in his answer to the Bishop's letter,  
Here he tells us, that these words do not at all relate to the matter of original, but to the state of Heathens sins, habitual Idolatries, and impurities; in which the world was dead, before the great Reformation by Christ page 74.  
Repl. By this account when the Ephesians had a new life infused, this was only to cure them of their heathenish Idolatries, and superstitions: In which sense the Jews (free from such Idolatries) needed no new life at all Besides, how is it possible that the words are to be understood, only of heathenish Idolatries and impurities, when the Apostle himself expressly saith, among whom we all had our conversation. Did he live in heathenish Idolatries before his conversion, or was he an Idolater before his calling? But seeing our Author tells us, how the Bishop did admonish him to remember how often the Apostle calleth concupiscence, sin; we will urge the text a little more closely, and consider what is the value of his answers. To ground the business, we argue thus. If the Ephesians were accounted the children of wrath, because they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh; by this reason then, the flesh must needs be evil, because it was evil, to converse in those lusts. Further, to come to the point, If the lusts of the flesh be evil, it must be true in a sense, that the flesh itself must be more evil, because it is the very fountain from which the lusts do stream. When he hath said all that he can, when he hath accused the Ephesians of an evil conversation, of evil customs, of evil acts, of evil desires, he must come to an evil nature, that lies at the bottom, and that which is worst of all, he will find it to be the very root, and cause of the the mischief. The Apostle doth very elegantly call all lusts, the works and effects of the flesh, because they are the effects, that the flesh doth produce, in opposition to the effects and fruits of the Spirit, Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. This ground being laid, let us come to his exceptions as they follow in their order.  
First, (saith he) I know Saint Paul reckons concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh, and consequently such as excludes from heaven, Col. 3.5. [Evil concupiscence] concupiscence with something superadded, but certainly, that is nothing that is natural: for God made nothing that is evil; and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified.  
Repl. That which is natural and necessary by creation, we confess cannot, nor ought not to be mortified. Of this kind is the lust after meat, drink, sleep, etc. but that which is natural, and necessary by corruption, ought chief to be mortified; nay, it is the prime work of Christianity, to put off the Adam-like, and by degrees to put on the Christ-like disposition, Gal. 5.24. He proceedeth.  
I come (saith he) to consider that by concupiscence either must be meant the first inclinations to their object, or the proper acts of Election, which are the second acts of concupiscence. If the first inclinations be meant, then certainly that cannot be a sin, which is natural, and necessary?  
Repl. We do willingly admit such a distinction, concupiscence is sometime taken for the habit, or the root itself, and sometimes for those second acts that do flow from the root. Now in such a case it is to me a great wonder that any should own the second acts of concupiscence to be sin, and yet own no sinfulness in the concupiscence, that is more radical and fundamental. Acts do flow from the nature, and therefore where acts be bad, the nature cannot be good. It is our Saviour's own argument, Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. And whereas he stands upon this subtlety, that the first inclinations are unavoidable, therefore they are not sinful. If he means that they are absolutely unavoidable, this we deny. For that which is unavoidable by nature, may be avoided by grace. The guilt of concupiscence may be taken away that it be not imputed, the power of it may be broken by the Spirit, and the remainders of it may be clean extinguished in the life of glory. Now he proceedeth.  
To desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin, than to desire to be happy is a sin. Desire is no more a sin, than joy or sorrow is.  
Repl. If he speak of the natural tendency of desire, as it is by creation; We willingly subscribe, and so it is no sin to desire to eat, drink, or to long after an happy estate. But if he speak of natural desires, as they are now since the fall; The desires of the flesh do wholly rend to evil. The flesh lusteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against the Spirit, and the works of the flesh are manifest, adultery, fornication, etc. Gal. 5.18, etc. He further argues.  
Then there can be no reason told, why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it: and how doth that which is moral, differ from that which is natural? For the understanding is first, and primely moved by his object.  
Rep. The Scripture doth testify of the blindness of the mind, and the perversity of the judgement, as well as of the pravity of the will. Not to go far for an instance, the words of the text are plain. The Ephesians are said to be the children of wrath, under this title, and formality, because they did fulfil the lusts of their mind; or according to the original, the wills of their cogitations, and their reasonings. They are termed the wills of the cogitation, because the choice of the will, and the disorder of that choice, doth arise commonly from the blindness of judgement. As for his question, how doth that which is natural, differ from that which is moral: We need not trouble ourselves in the business. For the blindness of the judgement, and the perversity of the will, are natural and moral both. They are natural, so far forth as they come by propagation from the first root: they are moral, in respect of the anomy, and irregularity, as being contrary to the spiritual, holy, and pure law of God. He goeth on.  
I cannot but wonder saith he, why men are pleased wherever they find the word concupiscence in the new Testament, presently to dream of original sin, and make that to be the sum total of it: whereas concupiscence, if it were the product of Adam's fall, is but one small part of it.  
Rep. There is a double reason may be given (as I conceive) where men find mention made of concupiscence, they do thereby understand original sin; First, because that sin is commonly called by the title of concupiscence. Secondly, Those derivative concupiscences (as I may so say) which are by choice and election, do all flow from the mother concupiscence, and do exceedingly symbolise with her. As in that famous passage of the Apostle. Every man is drawn away with his own lust, and enticed, and lust, when it hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death, Jam. 1.14, 15. By sin he must needs mean, the open act of sin, as it is in the public view of man. After this he speaks of finishing of sin, when men have filled the measure of their iniquity, than death comes at last, as the wages of sin. Though this be so in the end, yet at the first, all sin is brooded in the lust of the heart. All secondary acts of concupiscence do spring from the original concupiscence, which is the cause of all. Upon these grounds. The sinful disposition of the nature may well pass under the name, and notion of concupiscence; because the operations within, do chief consist in lusting, and all the acts of sin do flow from the lust of the heart within.  
Concupiscence (saith he) is but one of the passions, and in the utmost extension of the word, it can be taken but for one half of the passions, for not only all the passions of the concupiscible faculty can be a principle of sin, but the irascible doth more hurt in the world: that is more sensual, this more devilish, pag. 94.  
Rep. It is true in moral Philosophy, the usual distinction is into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the irascible and concupiscible faculty, but what need is there of such a difference in the case that we now speak? for the Apostle reckons up the lusts of the flesh, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, hatred, variance, emulation, etc. Gal. 5.19. There is no man will doubt, but in this list or catalogue, he hath respect as well to things that belong to the irascible, as to the concupiscible faculty; yet all is contained under the notion, and name of concupiscence. For in the verses immediately going before, he exhorteth, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. According to the original, it is, ye shall not accomplish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the concupiscence of the flesh. In the present case then when the Galathians did live in malice, envy, hateful, and hating one another, they did fulfil the concupiscence of the flesh. And so by this account the lusts, both of the concupiscible, and the irascible faculty are comprehended (more generally) under one name and title of concupiscence. And all his contrary reasoning is just nothing at all. Now let us come to his last Scripture.   

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him,  1 Cor. 2.14. 
Here he bestows much pains, to weaken the force of the text.  
An animal man (saith he) that is a Philosopher, or a rational man, such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers, upon the stock and account of the learning of all the Schools, could not discern the excellency of the Gospel-mysteries as of God, incarnate, Christ dying, the resurrection of the body, and the like.  
Rep. It's true, that the Philosophers aforementioned, were such natural, or animal men, but it is not the whole truth; For they that come to Church, and publicly profess, may be animal men also, and in their animality may be far from receiving the things of the Spirit. A schoolboy, that is able some way to make a Grammatical construction of the Greek of Euclid, and Ptolemy, is not presently capable, of the mysteries of Geometry, and Astronomy. That requireth the skill of an Artist, as well as of a Grammarian. And, if the laws of the land were translated into English. I think we should not be all Lawyers out of hand. So in the present case, though all may outwardly own, and some may preach the Doctrine, and mysteries of salvation, this doth not presently entitle them, to that kind of learning that comes only by the teaching of the Spirit. Many may speak much of the love of Christ, that never had the feeling of it in their hearts. Moses tells the people in his time, ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes, yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear unto this day, Deut. 29.24. They did see, and they did not see, they did outwardly see the works, but they did not inwardly believe the truth, wisdom, goodness, and power of God. For had they seen these things, as they ought, they could not but have loved the Lord their God, and have lived in obedience to his laws. So then, not only the Greek Philosophers; but many Christians also, may be called natural, or animal men. He further showeth what animality is.  
Animality, which is a reliance upon natural principles, without revelation is a state privatively opposed to the Spirit, and a man in that state cannot be saved, because he wants a vital part, he wants the Spirit.  
Rep. What he saith here, and in the words immediately following is the same in substance, that we speak, and is extremely contrary to the design that he derives at. For if in the state of animality, a man cannot be saved, because he wants the Spirit, the chief vital of salvation; Why doth he (to make religion intelligible) deny original sin, plead for the freedom of the will, and establish the purity of the natural birth. We say, because a man is borne in original sin, and dead in trespasses and sins, therefore he cannot be saved, without the infusion of a new life. He saith that a man in his animality cannot go to heaven, without the Spirit, the chief vital of salvation. Let a wise man now, judge where we and he do differ. But to blind the business, he hath a subtle distinction between carnality and animality.  
Carnality, (saith he) or the state of being in the flesh, is not only privatively opposed, but contrarily also to the spiritual staee of grace.  
Rep. This expression of his, might pass well enough, were it not for that which followeth. First, speaking of the state of animality, and then of carnality afterwards, he hath these words. The first is only an imperfection, and a want of supernatural aides, the other is indeed, a direct state of sin, and hated by God, but superinduced by choice, and not descending naturally.  
Rep. In this expression of his there are two things, that need a better enquiry. First, how doth he prove that the state of animality is only a state of mere imperfection, and no more? St. James tells us, the wisdom from beneath, is earthly, sensual, devilish; or according to the original, earthly, animal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 devilish. I think none will say, that the animality of this wisdom, is a bare imperfection, and no more. It's positively opposed to the wisdom that is above, and can there be a greater enemy, to the wisdom above, then that which is beneath? The Apostle St. Judas also saith, that Mockers should come walking after their ungodly lusts. These are they that separate themselves, sensual, not having the Spirit. ver. 18, 19 the word is, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, animal, not having the Spirit. Now in this case will any man be so void of understanding, to affirm that these in their animality, were merely defective, and that they were not in a direct state of enmity against God? I think none will easily assert it. Sure I am many ensamples may be brought, to prove the distinction between animality and carnality to be a mere nonens, or nullity. Secondly, we agree that the state of carnality, is a state of sin, and hated of God; but whereas he saith that it is only superinduced by choice, as also that it doth not naturally descend. Herein we crave liberty to departed from him. The Scriptures all along (specially the writings of St. Paul) speak of the flesh, in opposition to the Spirit. Now will he, or any man else, assert that this is a state merely superinduced, and that men come to be flesh, purely by the choice of their own will? If this be so, how do all come to agree in one and the same choice? All do not agree to be Soldiers, to be Scholars, to be Merchants, to be Mariners, yet all are flesh, before they come to be sanctified by the Spirit. Seeing he will not have this state naturally to descend, let him assign some general cause, how all do agree to be carnal. Necessarily some general cause must lie at the bottom; but he further saith.  
Adam did leave us all in an animal state, but this is not a state of anmity, of direct opposition to God, but a state insufficient, and imperfect.  
Rep. This state of mere imperfection, which he speaks so much of, both here and elsewhere, is only a notion of his own commenting. For when God made man in the beginning, he made him in a state very good, but when he fell, he left all his posterity, not only in an imperfect, but in a sinful condition. As for that middle state of deficiency, which he imagines, I know not where it is to be found, unless it be in the Atlantis of Plate. Besides, if animality be only a state of deficiency, why doth the Apostle so plainly tell us, that the animal man receives not the things of the Spirit, they are foolishness unto him. This cannot be a state of mere imperfection, but a state of direct opposition, the principles of animality diametrally opposite to the things of the Spirit, Michal scoffed at David's dancing before the Ark. Lot seemed to his sons-in-law to be as one that mocked, when he told them of the destruction of the City; the preaching of the cross seemed to be very mean matter to the Philosophers, and learned Grecians. Now shall we say that all these were only in a state of animality or imperfection, and no more? I think none will easily believe it. But in the close of all he hath these words.  
In the state of animality (saith he) a man cannot go to heaven, but neither will that alone carry them to hell, and therefore God doth not let a man alone in that state, for either God suggests to him that which is spiritual, or if he doth not, it is because himself hath superinduced something that is carnal.  
Rep. We are told here of a state, that carries neither to heaven nor to hell: and I believe if we go to men of ripe years, there is no man lives in this estate in all Asia, Africa, Europe, and America. Why then doth he trouble us with that which is not? Further, we do agree, that the Lord doth (at seasons) suggest something that is spiritual to animal men; by this they are enabled to see their own misery, and to judge themselves. Now this doth rather strengthen the force of the argument, for if an animal man could purely of himself, perceive the things of the Spirit, what need had he of the suggestion of the Spirit? But for that which he addeth, that the animal man doth superinduce something that is carnal, I think this cannot reasonably be denied, and therefore I do not see, but the state of animality and carnality both are equal estates of enmity against God. Thus have I been more large in clearing those Scriptures which concern the main of the question: in others of less moment I will be more brief.    

SECT. 3. How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the children.  
THe end wherefore he is so willing to dispute this point, he himself doth express, pag. 40●. Upon this account alone (saith he) it must be impossible to be consented unto, that God should still under the Gospel, after so many generations of vengeance, and taking punishment for the sin, after the publication of so many mercies and so infinite a graciousness, that is revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ, after so great provisions against sin, even the horrible threaten of damnation still to persevere to punish Adam, in his posterity and the posterity for that he never did.  
Rep. In this passage of his, he doth show how much he doth mistake the scope of Scripture, for it is the chief design of the holy Ghost, to amplify the sin of Adam, and all the evil that comes thereby, to the end that all might be humbled, and that they might come to Christ as to a Sovereign remedy to help them in their misery. And in very deed, whatsoever he thinks to the contrary, the Doctrine of the Gospel cannot be so clearly preached, without the knowledge of that misery that came by the fall. The knowledge of the one, doth as it were open a door to the knowledge of the other.  
Again, in the whole process of the discourse he is very faliacious. Suppose ordinarily God doth not now punish the father's sin upon the children, is this a good argument to prove that the sin of Adam is not rightly imputed to posterity? Other Parents (comparatively) are but private persons, and their sins are but the sins of private men, but Adam was the root of the nature, and his sin was the sin of the whole kind. As on the other side, the suffering of Christ upon the cross, was not the suffering of a private person, but the suffering of the whole humane nature. By this the lost sons of men have a door of grace opened, the tender of grace is made to all, and the great condemnation is for unbelief. Now we will consider what the rules are which he doth lay down.  
First, (saith he) God may and doth very often bless children, to reward the Father's piety, as it is notorious in the famous descent of Abraham's family. But the same is not the reason of favours and punishments.  
Answ. Here we would entreat him to observe that it is true, that for a long descent, God did show kindness to the family of Abraham: but if he well observe the matter, this kindness was extended, not so much for Abraham's piety, as for the Lords own promise, and for his truth in keeping the promise. Again, whereas he saith, There is not the same reason of favours, and punishments: let him show why the Jews are cast away, why they have been little better than outcasts of the Covenant, now above one thousand five hundred years? Questionless, as God will magnify his mercy in their call: so for many ages together, they have stood and do yet stand under the burden of that heavy curse, which they did wish upon themselves, his blood be upon us and our children, etc.  
Secondly, (saith he) God never imputes the sin to the son, or relative formally making him guilty, or being angry with the innocent eternally.  
Answ. Though we should say, the sin of Adam is imputed to all his relatives, and that also to their eternal damnation; this in the whole were no hard assertion: as long as we teach, that a second man is provided for eternal salvation. We willingly yield, as the case now standeth, the great condemnation is for the neglect, and the contempt of that salvation, mercy, and grace that is to be had by Christ. If men run out the years of the patience, and long-suffering of God; if they continue in unbelife, and hardness of heart; if they resist the convictions, and operations of the Spirit, as they are administered in their respective seasons. I think it is but just, that they should fall, not only under the guilt of their own actual sins: but under the eternal damnation also, that was brought upon them by the sin of Adam, the root of the nature. All the hurt of such a position (if it be a hurt) is more vigorously to drive men to Christ. As for infants, though they are fallen into all kinds of misery, temporal, and eternal by Adam's sin: what harm, as long as so fair a probability may be extended to them in Christ: God is a gracious God, and he is able to show mercy where the sin was the act, and deed of another. Of believers infants, we have a more special ground of hope. So then the matter will come to this issue; Though infants may be miserable by Adam, nay may be made eternally miserable through him: yet here is the comfort, that mercy may be extended to them in Christ. He further addeth.  
Thirdly, when God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for the father's sin, he doth it as a Judge to the father, but as a Lord only to the son.  
Answ. Suppose this were granted, it makes nothing to the purpose; all other Parents in comparison, are but private men: but Adam as a public person, did represent the whole nature. That may be asserted of him, which cannot be of any other: The Apostle expressly saith, by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners. If they were made sinners only by the imputation of Adam's sin, this is enough to put a difference between him and other progenitors. Again, in the fame place it is expressly said, by one man's offence, judgement came upon all men to condemnation. If it came upon all men to condemnation, all are under the sentence of the Judge, for the sin of one man. And whereas he saith. If God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for the father's sin, he doth it not as a Judge, but as a Lord only to the son. Upon this account I demand, the Lord inflicting evil upon the sons of Adam for his sin, doth he only inflict it in a prerogative way to the son? then it will follow, that Christ must die, and by shedding of his blood, he must take away such evils (from infants at least) that are brought upon them in the way of prerogative. This would be a strange sound, to such ears that have always heard, and believed that we come to be sinners in Adam, and Christ came to take away the guilt of that sin.  
Fourthly, God using (saith he) the power, and dominion of a Lord, and the severity of a Judge, did punish posterity, it was but so long as the Parents might live, and see it, as chrysostom saith, to the third and fourth generation, and no longer.  
Answ. If this be so, why do the Jews at this day bear the burden of that sin, committed many hundred years ago? why did God inflict judgements upon the house of Ely, of Saul, of Ahab, of Jehu, and of others, when the Parents were dead? Besides, if God should have such a purpose to punish the Parents in the children, that thereby the Parents themselves might be brought to repentance; this is not a parallel case, to that which we are upon. God suffered Adam to fall, and in falling, to involve himself, and his posterity under all miseries, temporal, and eternal; that so a door might be opened, for the grace that comes by Christ. In this regard the Apostle expressly tells us, that the first man is the figure of him that is to come. This must not, nor cannot be said of our immediate Parents.  
Fifthly, he addeth, this power and dominion, which God useth, was not in ordinary cases, but in the biggest crimes only.  
Answ. Let this be admitted, it doth abundantly confirm the truth of our assertion. For the case of Adam was more than ordinary, there is no such ensample like his, from the beginning of the world. He stood as a public man, as a root of the nature, the whole stock was put into his hand, he had but one only way by which he might fall; and therefore he falling, it is no such irrational thing to conceive, that all his posterity should fall with him.  
Sixthly, (saith he) Although God threatened this, and hath a right and a power to do this; yet he doth not often use this right, but only in such notable ensamples, as were sufficient to all ages, to consign, and testify his great indignation against those things, for the punishment of which he was pleased to use his right or rights of dominion.  
Answ. True, there are some special ensamples of the Lords judgement upon whole families, for their father's sin; this may be seen in the cases of Corah, Achan, Saul, Jeroboam, Ahab, and others. Neither do we doubt, but the Lords end was to testify to all ages, his indignation against sin, by such like instances of his severity. But what is this to the purpose in hand? the end wherefore the Lord did lay such an heavy burden upon the sons of Adam, was not so much that the children should take heed, by the ensample of their father, for there were some particulars that the children could not possibly imitate the father; but a prime end of the misery of the sons of men, by the fall of Adam, is to open a door, for the grace that comes by Christ. The knowledge of the one contrary doth exceedingly conduce to the knowledge of the other.  
Seaventhly, (saith he) his goodness, and graciousness grew quickly weary of this way of proceeding. They were the terrors of the Law, and God did not delight in them. Therefore in the time of Ezekiel the Prophet, he declared against them.  
Answ. This passage of Ezekiel the Prophet, doth of all others singularly make for our purpose. For though Adam did eat of the forbidden fruit, and all his posterity did, and do bear the burden of his sin: yet they are not left, in that state irrecoverably, without all kind of help. A door of grace is opened for the lost sons of men, by the coming of Christ; upon this ground, the truth of Ezekiel's speech is founded, the soul that sinneth, that soul shall die. His meaning is, the soul that sinneth and continueth in his sin, through impenitency and unbelief, that soul shall die.  
Eighthly, (saith he) something extraordinary, was then needful to be done, to so vile a people, to restrain their sinfulness; but when the Gospel was published, and hellfire threatened to persovering, and greater sinners, the former way of punishment was quite left off. And in all the Gospel, there is not one word of threatening passing beyond the person offending.  
Answ. I marvel how it cometh to pass then, that the Jews do bear the burden of their Ancestors sin, as we have formerlysaid. Besides, if we diligently look to the scope of the Gospel, we shall find that the Lord doth punish the posterity for the sin of Adam, that so thereby a way may be prepared for the grace that comes by Christ These things are not opposite, or contrary, but subordinate and subalternate, the miseries by the fall do prepare the way for the grace that comes by Christ. But he further addeth.  
Either this evil (saith he) that falls upon us for Adam's sin, is inflicted upon us by way of proper punishment, or by right of dominion, if by proper punishment to us, than we understand not the justice of it, because we were not personally guilty.  
Answ. If we cannot understand the justice of it, because we were not personally guilty, why by the same reason doth he not wholly exclude us from having any part of share in the benefit of the death of Christ. For what personal act or concurrence have we to the suffering of that death. And whereas he allegeth the ensamples of Pausanias the Grecian General, Avidius Cassius, and others, that would not punish the children for the father's offence: We acknowledge the rationality and the equity of such proceed, but what is this to the case in hand? The Law was so given to Adam, that was never given to any else but to Christ alone. It was given to him as the Headman, and the root of the nature. If he fell, all must fall with him Neither is there any hardness or harshness in this doctrine as long as the misery by one doth open a door for the grace by the other. He goes on.  
If God (saith he) inflicts this evil upon Adam's posterity by using his own right of power, and dominion, which he hath over his creatures; than it is a strange anger which God had against Adam that he still retains so fierce an indignation as not to take off his hand from striking after five thousand six hundred years; and striking him for that of which he repent him, and which in all reason we believe he then pardoned or resolved to pardon when he promised the Messiah to him.  
Answ. If he would but remember himself what he speaks elsewhere, he shall find that he saith the same in effect as we do. For though in his further explication, page 453. He affirmeth that Adam was made mortal, and proves it by his eating, and drinking, his sleep, and recreation, by ingestion, and egestion by breathing, generating, and the like, which immortal substances never do. Though by these and such like mediums, he endeavours to prove the mortality of the state in which he was made, yet in the same and other places he doth acknowledge that the untimelinesse and infelicity of death, came in by the fall. By the fall he tells us that Adam was cast into a place of labour and uneasiness of briars and thorns, ill air, and violent chances. The woman was condemned to hard labour and travel, and that which troubled her most, obedience to her husband, etc. Now let us take the misery brought in by the fall in such a low and diminutive sense that he would take it. It is now above five thousand six hundred years that mankind hath been under the miseries and infelicities of death, all this while they have continued in a place of labour and uneasiness of ill air, and hard chances, the woman also besides the pains and peril of childbirth hath been subject to her husband for five thousand six hundred years, and yet she knows no end of her apprenticeship. As strange as the anger is against Adam and his posterity, he must needs say the same in effect as we do. But to give a positive answer. These miseries brought in by the fall of Adam have continued, and must continue to the end of the world. Neither is it a strange thing that the Lord should continue his anger, seeing by the continuation thereof he doth continue to drive men to Christ. If he pleased he could immediately take away all these miseries brought in by the fall. But for most excellent ends to humble men to pluck down their pride, to beat them out of their carnal security, he doth rather suffer them to abide. And for the case of the woman. The Apostle doth not deny her pains and peril of childbirth to come in by the fall, but then he addeth, they shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in the faith, 1 Tim. 2. last. Notable to this purpose is that speech of Augustine to Julian the Pelagian, est enim aliquid in ●bdito & alto ejus consilio, etc. There is therefore a reason in his hidden and deep counsel, why so long as we live in this mortal flesh, there is something in us against which our mind may conflict, there is something that we may say forgive us our trespasses. And a little after therefore it is done in the place of our infirmity, that we should not live proudly, but should live under a daily need of remission of sins. Much more to the same purpose. What he adds is monstrous false.  
It is not easily (saith he) to be imagined, how Christ reconciled the world unto his Father, if after the death of Christ, God is so angry with mankind, so unappeased, that the most innocent part of mankind may perish for Adam's sin; and the other are perpetually punished with a corrupted nature, a proneness to sin, a servile will, a filthy concupiscence, and an impossibility of being innocent; that no faith, no Sacrament, no prayers, no industry, can obtain pardon from this punishment.  
Answ. It were a very happy thing, if this learned man would once think that there were a ninth commandment, and that he would make conscience of bearing false-witness against his neighbour. We say, as the case now standeth, men are pestered with a corrupted nature, with a proneness to sin, with a servile will, but that there is no remedy to bring us out of this evil, this was never affirmed by us. There is in the blood of Christ that which will take away the guilt of sin, in the Spirit of Christ to free us from the bondage of corruption, and also in his power to raise our bodies at the last. Only it is the good will and pleasure of God in the whole Oeconomy of the salvation of man, that we should wait till all these things be fulfilled. That is a most sweet passage of Bede taken from some ancienter Author. No man (saith he) taketh away sin, which the Law, although holy, and just, and good, could not take away; but he in whom there was no sin. Now he taketh away sins by pardoning those that are done, and by assisting us that they may not be done, and by bringing of us to the life where they cannot at all be done, and so we are come to an end of this Section.   

SECT. 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind.  
In the beginning he doth take upon him to propound an objection. If there were not some common principle of evil introduced by the sin of our parents upon all his posterity, how should all men be so naturally inclined to be vicious. To this he endeavours to frame many answers.  
First (saith he) if we will suppose that there must be a cause in our nature determining us to sin, by an unresistible necessity, I desire to know why such a principle should be more necessary to us, than it was to Adam?  
Repl. As I have said before, Adam had only a possibility to sin, he did sin so, that he had liberty, and freedom not to sin; But as the case now standeth, we can do nothing else but sin. It is true in the particular, every man is free in the committing of this, or that particular sin, though it be true in the General, an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. It is possible that an healthy man, by disorder, may fall into great sicknesses, but a man of frail, and infirm constitution, is wholly inclined to sicknesses and diseases. As great, nay, a fare greater difference, was between that liberty that Adam had before his fall, and what we now have. He had a freedom to choose the good, and to refuse the evil; so have not we now. But to take away the force of this answer, he further argueth.  
That we can choose the good, and as naturally love good as evil, and in some instances more. A man cannot naturally hate God, if he knows any thing of him; a man naturally loves his parents, he naturally hateth some sorts of uncleanness.  
Repl. We do not deny, but (by the general concurrence and assistance of God) man since the fall, hath some ability to choose, and love the good: But what kind of good? that which is ethical and moral, but not that which is spiritual. In the very best actions that a natural man doth, when he gives alms, when he observes promises, when he doth perform any good, he sins in the manner; because his actions do not proceed from sincere love, neither are they directed to a right end. The end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, 1 Tim. 1.5.  
Because a natural man wants these principles, his best actions are stained with sin. As strange as this doctrine seems to be, there is none of us all, but may find a truth of it in our own experience. For let us hear, read, pray, meditate, give alms, dispute for the truth, reform errors and abuses, and do much good for the Church; yet we can have no comfort if our conscience once tell us, that we do not these things for God, but for ourselves. This is the very case of every natural man besides the sinisterity of ends, his actions do not proceed from right principles. And whereas he argueth, that a man cannot naturally hate God if he knows any thing of him. If he speak of the excellency of God, and his holiness? In such a sense if men did know him they could not hate him. For that they love him, fear him, obey him, trust in him, do all for him, leave all for his sake, this is grounded upon the right knowledge of that excellency, and goodness that is in himself. And therefore since the fall, the blindness of mind is the cause of a great part of the mischief. The will is perverse in her choice; the affections are out of order, because the judgement is not rightly informed. In a lower sense we do acknowledge, that men may know some things of God, and their knowledge may be the ground of their hatred of God. It may be with some wicked men, as with the Devils, they believe there is one God, and tremble. But as to the choice of spiritual good, he further saith.  
Neither was Adam's case better than ours in this particular. For that his nature could not carry him to heaven, or indeed to please God in order to it seems to be confessed by them who have therefore affirmed him to have a supernatural righteousness.  
Repl. If the collation be between state and state Adam had a power to understand that good which is spiritual, tolove & choose it more than we now have since the fall. The wise man saith, God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions, Eccles. 7. ult. He must needs speak of a spiritual uprightness contrary to the deceits that are to be found amongst thousands of men and women. And whereas he saith that Adam's nature could not carry him to heaven. If this be so, God provided worse for him than for the rest of the creatures. The rest of the creatures were made with such nature's suitable to their ends. If therefore God did not make Adam in a state someway fit for heaven, why did he create him with an immortal soul? This state plainly showeth that had he stood or eaten of the tree of life, he should have lived for ever. But falling, he did run the hazard of the loss of that life that might have been had. Lastly, if Adam coald not have gone to heaven in that nature that God had made him, the falling short of eternal life could not have been any fault of his own; and the blame would have laid on the creation. Were it rational for God to require Adam to go to heaven, and yet no way to make him suitable or fit for such a condition. This were to require the whole tale of bricks, and to give no straw. And for that Tenet of the Romish Doctors, I wonder that he should stand upon it that Adam was endued with supernatural righteousness in that sense, at least, as they understand it, for look what righteousness Adam had, it was by creation. The had stood he had propagated it to posterity. The relics of the image of God do plainly show in what state he was made in the beginning. In the creation of man it is said, he made all things very good, Herbs, Trees, Birds, Beasts, Fishes, all these may be good in their kind, though they were not made in a state fit to go to heaven. But it is impossible that Adam could be made in a state very good, but he must be some way fit for union with God, in which all spiritual and eternal good doth consist.  
Now he comes to the main objection, and here he tells us that it is certain there is not only one, but many common principles from which sin derives itself into the manners of all men. This he undertakes to prove in opposition to our assertion, who hold that the pravity and corruption of nature doth flow from the disobedience of the first man. But let us hear him speak in his own words.  
The first great cause (saith he) of an universal implety, is, that at first God had made no promises of heaven, he had not propounded any glorious rewards to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior, that is, to make the will to choose the best & to leave the worst, and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction, And going on, he further addeth this to be the reason of the general corruption of the old world; Because (saith he) there was no such thing in that period of the world, therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves, excepting Abel, Seth, Enos, and Enoch, we find not one good man from Adam to Noah; and therefore the Apostle calls that world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the world of the ungodly. It was not so much wonder, that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence, he should strive to make his conditions by the Devil's Promises.  
Reply It is true the Apostle calleth the old world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the world of ungodly, but that there were no spiritual promises in those times, this we utterly deny.  
What shall we make of that promise, the seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head? What shall we make of the sacrifices? were they not all figures of the blood of Christ to come? Saint Peter also plainly tells us, That the spirits of the fathers were disobedient in the times of the old world. In what sense then doth he call them disobedient? Their disobedience must be expounded in reference to the teachings, convictions that they had by and through the Spirit of Christ, whether in Noah's Ministry or otherwise. Many more reasons might be alleged to prove that the fathers were not altogether destitute of spiritual promises. If our Author will prove it, let him show how they were too blame for their disobedience.  
But he is as strange in assigning that which he terms the second cause of the general impiety.  
A second cause (saith he) of the general iniquity of the world is, because our nature is so hard put to it in many instances. Not because nature is originally corrupted, but because God's laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent, and otherwise lawful inclinations of nature. And then going on, he doth in the same page explain himself more fully. Our unwillingness and averseness came by occasion of the Law coming cross upon our nature: not because our nature is contrary unto God, but because God was pleased to super-induce some commandments contrary to our nature For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats and to drink the richest wines as long as they could please us, and were to be had, I suppose it will not be thought that original sin would hinder us from obedience. But because we are forbidden to do somethings which naturally we desire to do, and love, therefore our nature is hard put to it, and this is the cause of the difficulty. So fare he, page 413. 414, 415, 416.  
Reply. From these and such like speeches of his, I would entreat him (that is so apt to condemn others) to observe the rigour and the severity of his own principles.  
First, he tells us that there was no proposal of spiritual promises to the old world, and then Secondly, God laid such commands upon them, that were altogether above their natural abilities, and from the position of these two, he showeth us that the world did so generally overflow with all kind of wickedness. These things are so extreme hard, that I do not find their parallel in any of our writers. They do indeed say that God giveth commands fare above natural abilities, but not fare above that natural ability that Adam was furnished withal in the beginning, neither above that gracious ability which God hath engaged himself to bestow in the Word of promise. But to amplify commands upon feeble flesh, and to make no spiritual promises answerable to the command, is plainly to make the Lord himself extremely severe to the sons of men. None of our Authors ever would allow such a severity.  
Of all the Ancients, Augustine is the Author that seems to be most rigorous in the points of original sin, and the natural servitude of the will, yet if we consider the whole scope of his doctrine, he doth not come near to the severity of the position above mentioned; when some did reason with him, If there be no freewill, to what purpose exhortations and commands? I answer, this, he purposely wrote his book the correptione & gratia, the effect of which is to this purpose, In commands know what thou oughtest to do, in reproof know what thou hast not done through thine own default, in prayer know whence thou mayst receive what thou wouldst have. And when the Pelagians did vehemently inculcate that which our Author doth so much stand upon; Peccatum voluntatis an necessitatis est? si necessitatis est peccatum non est: si voluntatis vitari potest. Sin (say they) is either of the will, or of necessity,) If it be of necessity, it is no sin, if it be of the will, it may be avoided. To this he hath a double answer. First, (saith he)  sanemur, in uccamus eum cui dicitur in Psalmo de necessitatibus educ me. That we may be healed, we call upon him to whom it is said in the Psalm, bring me out of my necessities. His second answer is, vitari posse peccatum si natura vitiata sanetur gratiâ Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Sin may be avoided in case our corrupt nature may be healed by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. There would be no end if we should cite all the passages that he hath to this purpose. In which he doth acknowledge that we lie under a natural necessity of sinning, but yet that necessity is not absolute and irrecoverable where there is a want of ability to keep the command, there he doth refer us to the ability to be had from the word of promise. Of all our Authors in these latter times, Luther in his treatise de servo arbitrio, seemeth to speak most hard, yet for all this in the case of commands above natural abilities he always incourages men to go to free grace. He always testifies that the Law is to be preached to kill and undo a sinner, to put him under the curse and under wrath, that so he may come to Christ. To let pass all ensamples, we will come to that one instance in the beginning of the book, when Erasmus did argue in this wise. What profit or necessity is there to divulge such things, seeing from thence so many evils may seem to arise. To this he hath a double answer. Prima est humiliatio nostrae super●●●●●● cognitio gratiae Dei, alteraipsa fides Christiana, etc. The first is the humiliation of our Pride, and the knowledge of the grace of God, the other is the Christian faith itself. First, God certainly hath promised his grace to the humble, that is, to those that are cast down, and are without hope. Now a man cannot be throughly humbled, until he know as wholly out of his own abilities, counsels, studies, wills, works: so his salvation altogether to depend upon the disposal, council, will, work of another that is of God alone. For as long as he is persuaded that he can do the least for his salvation, he doth remain in the trust of himself, neither doth he wholly despair of himself. Therefore is not humbled before God, but presumeth upon place, time, or some work for himself either doth hope or at least wish for that by which he may come to salvation. He therefore that doubteth not wholly to depend upon the will of God, altogether despairs of himself chooses nothing, but expecteth God to work it in him, and for him, he is nearest to salvation. More he hath to the same purpose, Concerning the second reason, he hath these words, therefore saith he, that there maybe some place found for faith, it is needful that all things which are believed may be hidden out of sight, and they cannot be further hidden than under the contrary object, sense, experience. So God when he quickeneth, he doth it by killing, when he justifieth, he doth that thing by convincing men of the guilt of sin, when he lifteth up to heaven, he doth it by bringing down to hell, and much more to that purpose. All this is but a specimen, or handsel of the doctrine of Luther, though he doth every where teach that there is no ability in man to obey the command, yet all ability is to he had in the word of promise. He doth abundantly show that the use of the Law properly is to bring men to despair, that despairing in themselves, they may be driven to Christ. He doth marvellously express the doctrine of Saint Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere. Now on the contrary, Doctor Jeremy Taylor tells us a contrary tale, that the Lord did increase his commands above the ability of men in the times of the old world; and gave no spiritual promises in answer to the commands given in those days, and this he doth avouch to be the true cause why iniquity did abound in that age. Now how he can make Religion intelligible by the position of such principles, for my part I cannot understand. I think never any of our Divines was ever found to come to such a high pitch of severity.  
Now we go to his next Section.   

SECT. 5. Of the liberty of election remaining after Adam's fall.  
HEre he doth make it one chief part of his work, to prove the liberty of the will, to this purpose he bringeth many arguments against us, whereas (if he did well consider the matter) we do not deny such a natural faculty. Man hath a power in naturals and externals of Religion to use a liberty, and in spirituals when he is made free by Christ. Bellarmine bringeth in this as one chief point of accusation. They deny (saith he) freewill, so excellent and worthy a gift of God, and the best of all that are in man, by which alone we may be distinguished from bruit beasts, and may come nearest to the nature of Angels, and may bear the image of the Godhead itself; which also the whole race of mankind upon the earth do testify with great consent of mind: A thing (I say,) so clear that almost every moment it cometh into the view of our eyes and minds: yet nevertheless with incredible madness, and fury, these men do most obstinately refuse, confute, and reject it. So far Bellarmine. In which words of his, if he speak of liberty of will, so fare as it is a faculty we do not deny it, we would as soon deny the fire to be hot, or the water to be moist. Only this we deny in things spiritual, in matters that concern salvation, a man hath no free will. Neither do we absolutely say this in spiritual things, for though he hath no freedom by nature; he may be made free by grace. Grace doth not destroy the faculty, but doth perfect and adorn it. But of all our Authors let Doctor Usher in his answer to the challenge made by a Jesuit in Ireland, lay down our judgement, and then we shall see how fairly and honestly Bellarmine, and now last of all, our Author himself does deal with us. That man hath freewill (saith he) is not by us gainsaid: though we dare not give him so large a freedom as the Jesuits presume to do. Freedom of will we know doth as essentially belong unto a man as reason itself: and he that spoileth him of that power, doth in effect make him a very beast. For this is the difference betwixt reasonable and unreasonable creatures: as Damascene rightly noteth. The unreasonable are rather led by nature, than themselves are the leaders of it; and therefore do they never contradict their natural appetite, but assoon as they affect any thing, they rush to the prosecution of it. But man being endued with reason, doth rather led nature, than is lead by it: and therefore being moved with appetite, if he will he hath power to restrain his appetite, or to follow it. Hereby he is enabled to do the things which he doth neither by a brute instinct of nature, nor yet by any compulsion, but by advice and deliberation: the mind first taking into considerartion the grounds and circumstances of each action, and freely debating on either side what in this case were best to be done, or not done, and then the will inclining itself to put in execution the last and conclusive judgement of the practical understanding. This liberty we acknowledge, a man may exercise in all actions that are within his power to do whether they be lawful, unlawful, or indifferent, whether done, by the strength of nature or of grace. For even in doing the works of grace, our free will suspendeth not her action, but being moved and guided by grace, doth that which is fit for her to do, grace not taking away that liberty which comes by God's creation, but the pravity of the will, that ariseth from man's corruption. So fare Dr. Usher, page 465. In which words of his, if we speak of the nature of freewill, we do not deny it to be a free faculty both under corruption and under grace, & why should we be upbraided, then with that which we do not maintain? but if we speak of the strength and ability of freewill, it is our constant doctrine that naturally a man hath no freedom to that which is spiritually good till he is made free by grace. And so far as he is made free by grace, and the way to obtain this freedom, the first step is to see his slavery and his bondage-under corruption. These things being premised and the state of the question made clear, we will now come to see what our Author can allege to the contrary. He proceedeth as followeth.  
The objection (saith he) hinders not, but choice still remains to a man, and that he is not naturally sinful, as he is naturally heavy, and upright, apt to laugh and weep.  
Answ. Though in a sense it is true, that a man is not naturally sinful as he is naturally heavy, yet it is from the corruption, and pravity of his nature within, that he is still apt to choose that which is evil. For though every man doth not choose the same sin, nor for the same cause, neither doth he always choose it, yet it is apparent that our wills are in a state of servility, and that the power to choose the things that are good is naturally lost. But he further addeth.  
This doctrine is destructive to all laws, it takes away reward and punishment, and we have nothing whereby we can serve God, and precepts of holiness might be preached to a wolf as well as a man, if men were naturally and inevitably wicked.  
Answ. These terms naturally and inevitably wicked are fallaciously coupled together. The Ephesians before their conversion were naturally wicked, they were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. But will any man say, that they were inevitably wicked? how then could they be quickened and made alive again by the infusion of a new life? Further, it is not destructive to all laws to say a man is naturally wicked, for by the help of restraining grace, he may outwardly sorbeare many evils which are forbidden in the law, only his sinfulness lies in this, that of himself he cannot come up to the purity and spirituality of the law in the denial of his lusts. Again, though naturally he be under the reign of lust, he doth not inevitably lie under that bondage. That reign may be broken, when he shall come to be acquainted with the liberty of the Spirit. The law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death, Rom. chap 8 2. Neither upon such a supposal is it true, that precepts of holiness may be given to a wolf as well as a man. A wolf is no way capable of precepts for want of faculties, he hath neither understanding will, nor any other power of the soul as a man hath. That of Augustine is true. A man doth not believe the impedement is not in the faculty, but in the vicious habit that doth hinder the faculty. Posse credere naturae est hominum velle credere gratiae est fidelium: to have a remote power to believe is of the nature of men, to have a will to believe is of the grace of believers. But a wolf hath neither nature nor grace to believe, and therefore he hath no precepts given to him to believe.  
Upon this account (saith he) it is so far from being true, that a man after his fall did forfeit his natural power of election, that it seems rather to be increased. For as a man's knowledge grows, so his will comes to be better attended, and ministered unto. But after his fall his knowledge was much more than it was before; he knew what madness was, and had experience of the difference of things, he perceived the evil and mischief of disobedience.  
Answ. I willingly yield, that as a man's knowledge grows, his will comes to be better attended and ministered unto. But that his knowledge should be much more after his fall than it was before: this goes against the whole scope of Scripture. For one chief cause of the servility and vassalage of the natural man under sin, doth arise from the blindness and darkness of his judgement. This is most lively set forth in the words of the Apostle. The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, because it is not subject to the law, nor can be, Rom. 8.7. We will explain the particulars in order. The wisdom of the flesh in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Saplence, prudence, and mind of the flesh. That which the eye is to the body to direct and guide it, the same is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mind of the flesh to the will, and other faculties: it teacheth them what to choose, and what to refuse, what to love, and what to hate? Now a man cannot choose the things of God, till he doth see the excellency of them. Further, to show the misery of the natural man, the wisdom of his flesh is said to be enmity against God. He doth not say, an enemy in the concrete, but enmity itself in the abstract; that is, an enemy in the highest degree. God is an enemy to such a mind, and such a mind is an enemy to God. And therefore in the third place he gives a reason of the enmity, it is not subject to the law of God, for the chief design of the mind of the flesh, is to set up other Gods in place of the true God; other Lords in direct opposition to the law of the Spirit. When men should trust in the Lord alone, this wisdom doth prompt them to trust in horses, and armies for victory, in good husbandry for riches, in friends for preferment in the world, etc. And this is the reason wherefore the wisdom of the flesh is called enmity against God, because it is always tempting, and alluring men to love the things of the world, to delight in them, and to trust in them more than the true God. Nay, the Apostle goes a step further, he doth not say that it is not subject, but it cannot be subject to the law of God. He doth not deny only an actual subjection, but that which is more, he denies a potential subjection also. Among several kinds of birds and beasts, there are many that are not actually subject to man, yet there is nothing doth exclude, but they may be brought under subjection. But the wisdom of the flesh is such, that it cannot be made subjection by art, or industry, or any outward means till grace comes. If this be so, it is strange to me that any man should so far forget himself, to affirm that a man's knowledge is more after his fall than it was before, seeing a great part of his misery lieth in the blindness of his judgement. And therefore as in the old creation, so it is in the new. The first work is in making of light, God that commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath commanded the light of his grace to shine in your hearts in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 4 6. By the same argument as he proves Adam's knowledge to be greater after, than it was before his fall, he may prove us to have more knowledge than Christ. Of Christ it is peculiarly said, he made him sin that knew no sin, we have an experimental knowledge of sin that Christ never had: so Adam had an experimental knowledge of sin and misery, after which he never had before his fall. But he further addeth.  
We may (saith he) as well suppose an understanding that can never understand, and passions that can never desire nor refuse, and a memory that can never remember, as a will that cannot choose.  
Answ. Though it be a preposterous thing to imagine a will that cannot choose, yet there is no strangeness to conceive of a will that cannot choose the things of the Spirit. To choose is natural to the will, as it is to fire to burn, to the memory to remember; but to choose the things of the Spirit of God, this must be from supernatural operation. When the rich Merchant found the pearl hid in the field, for joy he went and sold all that he had, Mat. 13.44. But he saith,  
As sin is the action of a free faculty, it can no more take away the freedom of that faculty than virtue can, for that also is the action of the same free faculty.  
Answ. Neither do we say, that sin takes away the freedom of the faculty, for all that do commit sin, do freely commit it, only it takes away the freedom to that which is spiritually good. In this sense our Saviour saith, He that commits sin, is the servant of sin, Joh. 8.36. While they promise themselves liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption, 2 Pet. 2.19. But he further saith,  
Men sometimes by evil habits, and by choosing vile things along time together make it morally impossible to choose that which is good, and to love that in particular which is contrary to their evil customs. Heraclitus saith, custom is that devil that bringeth in new natures upon us.  
Answ. It is most certain true, that many fall under the power of evil by long custom. But the main question is, Whether is evil custom the whole and adequate cause of the evil? This we deny: men by ill custom may intent the habit of original sin, as varnish may make colours more orient, and God in his just judgement may justly harden men in their sin, so that they may be worse than the ordinary sort of natural men. This we do willingly confess, but then also we must consider that the bottom, and the ground of all the evil doth lie in a sinful nature. This doth naturally descend upon us all from Adam, the root of corruption, and is only to be done away by Christ, the root of all grace, life, spiritual nature, as the Scriptures do abundantly testify. Next, he cometh to the testimony of the Philosophers.  
Seneca saith, nature doth not engage us upon a vice, she made us entire, she left us free, but we make ourselves prisoners, and slaves by vicious habits.  
Answ. It is no way to be doubted, but we make ourselves slaves by vicious habits of our own acquiring. But whereas Seneca saith, nature hath made us free, nature hath left us free, these are those rudiments of the world of which the Apostle speaketh, beware lest any man spaile you through Philosophy, Col. 2 7. If nature hath made us free, what need is there of Christ, of the freedom of the Spirit, of the grace of regeneration, of all those things that are held forth to us in the principles of baptism and circumcision? In this sense the Apostle is to be understood, when he saith, beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy, he doth not speak of the knowledge that the Philosophers have of the motions of the heavens, and the measures of the earth, and such like speculations, but he speaks of Philosophy as it doth not hold Christ the Head, and is contrary to the very principles of baptism, and circumcision, as may be see by the context. Of this kind are those say of Seneca, nature hath made us free, nature hath left us free, such doctrines are contrary to Christ the Head. He further proceedeth.  
The Saints (saith he) love God so fully, that they cannot hate him or desire to displease him. And in hell the accursed spirits so perfectly hate him, that they can never love him; But in this, that is, status viae a middle condition between both, or a passage to one or the other it cannot be supposed to be so, unless a man here also be already saved or damned.  
Answ. We do agree, that the Saints in heaven do so perfectly love God, that they cannot hate him, and the damned spirits in hell do so absolutely hate him, that they cannot love him. But what of all this? The case of sinners upon the earth, is not all one with the damned in hell. The damned in hell do absolutely and irrecoverably hate God, but so do not sinners upon the earth. Though they are borne in sin, and lie under a natural necessity of sinning, yet they do not hate God absolutely and irrecoverably, but so far only as they are naturally corrupt and do remain in their natural condition. Though Ministers in the general do know that all shall not be saved, yet personally and individually no Minister can say that this or that man shall not be saved. They can say, as long as men continue in such ways they are in the way to damnation, but cannot certainly and infallibly pronounce of the final, and eternal estate of this or that particular man. Now it is not so with the damned in hell. But he further saith,  
Men can choose that which is commanded, and abstain from that which is forbidden, for if they could not, they ought no more to perish for this, than infants for that.  
Answ. Though we stand upon it, that a man cannot naturally choose that which is spiritually good, yet his case is not all one with the state and condition of an infant. For an infant cannot actually understand, will, nill, choose, refuse, but a natural man hath a power to will that which is in his own compass, he may perform many outward duties, abstain from many outward evils, and fly many occasions of sin. And for his willing the good that is spiritual, though he cannot choose it so far forth as is natural, yet doubtless his condemnation shall be, that he did not go so far as he might go by the help of the Spirit. At some seasons the Spirit doth convince, accuse, reprove, terrify, and put him upon a way of judging and condemning of himself, that so he might look after pardoning and healing mercy. But his fault is, that he will not see that which he may see, and doth obstinately harden himself against the light. But he further showeth,  
This is so necessary a truth, that it is one of the greatest grounds and necessities of obedience and holy living; and if after the fall of Adam it be not by God permitted to us to choose or refuse, there is nothing left whereby a man can serve God or affer him a sacrifice.  
Answ. Though the Divines do maintain a necessity of sinning, and the loss of the liberty of the will, to spiritual good at least; they are not cast upon such a straight as our Author thinks they are. Indeed some of them are more clear, and distinct, and do give less offence than others do, yet I know none do absolutely take away the power from the will to choose or refuse. To what purpose then would exhortations, admonitions, and reproofs be given? But leaving all others, we will cite a testimony out of one of the chiefest of our Authors, for he may serve as a pattern for the rest. Mr. Calvin in his book of Institutions, Lib. 2. Chap. 2. doth show, that the foundation of all sound learning is grounded upon the knowledge of a man's self. But how? not upon the knowledge of a man's own excellencies, perfections, natural liberties, for so the Philosophers do vainly trifle: But upon the knowledge of his own misery, thraldom under sin, and this he affirms to be the bottom of all saving knowledge to bring men to Christ. By the former kind of learning men are set up, and by the latter they are plucked down. He speaks of two dangerous extremes to be avoided on either side, some when they hear that a man hath no ability, no freedom of will, they give over all care of piety and godliness: On the other side, others trusting in their own ability, liberty of will, and the like, they bereave the Lord of that honour that is due to him. He showeth that a middle course is to be taken between these two extremes, and that the rocks on either side are to be declined. For the clearing of this, he showeth how far a natural man may go in all natural, civil, ecclesiastical actions, and how (by the general assistance and concurrence of the Spirit) he may do great things in all Physical, Mathematical, Ethical, Oeconomical, and Political kinds of learning. Only when he cometh to that which is spiritual, here he plainly tells us that a man hath no power, and to use the words of the Author, he hath no ability to offer a sacrifice to God. What is then to be done? here he tells us, that we must have recourse to the freeness of the promise where all fullness is to be had. To that end he citys the words of the Prophet Isaiah, I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods of water upon the dry ground, Isa. chap. 44.3. And again, Ho, every one that thinsteth, come ye to the waters of life, chap. 55.1. Having cited these and such like passages, he comes to close in these words: Quae testantur ad percipiendas dei benedictiones, nullos admit ti nisi suae paupertatis sensu tabescentes. Which testifieth to the receiving of the blessings of God, no others are to be admitted, but such only which languish with a sense of their own poverty And then he addeth. Semper sanè mihi vehementer illud Chrysostomi placuit; Fundamentum nostrae Philosophiae esse humilitatem. That of Chrisostome hath always pleased me exceedingly. Humility to be the foundation of our Philosophy. Or rather that of Augnstine, even as the Retorition saith, when he was demanded, what was the chief thing in the precepts of eloquence, answered, pronunciation, what the second, pronunciation, what the third, pronunciation: So if thou mayest ask me concerning the precepts of Christian Religion, first, second and third, always it would please me to give this answer, humility, and more he hath to the same purpose. I have drawn out the words more at length, because the Author himself is a chief leader in the reformed Churches, and because indeed, they are the pattern of whole some words. By this our Author may understand, though Original sin be asserted, the natural liberty of the will denied, and the necessity of sinning introduced, yet nevertheless according to the tenor of these principles, men may have a sacrifice to offer, and exhortations may be of good use. Dr. Preston in his Treatise of humiliation, pag. 224. doth propound the question, who is able to practise according to his knowledge? His answer is, and I will appeal to any man's experience, let him look back to the course of his life and examine himself, was there any particular action in all thy life from which thou wast so hindered that thou caused say, that thou couldst not do it? was there any particular sin of which thou couldst say, this sin I could not abstain from? And howsoever we may make it a matter of dispute in the Schools, yet the worst man, in whom we may think corruption of nature to be most strong, when he comes to die, doth not excuse himself, but acknowledges he is guilty. In the next page he propounds the main objection. How can a man he condemned for not believing and turning to God, when naturally he hath no power to do these things? To this he answers. Though a man hath no power to believe and repent, yet he is condemned for the neglect of such precedent actions which he had a liberty to do, etc. Our Divines in the Synod of Dort, in the Suffrage of the Britan's, do distinguish betwixt regeneration, and those antecedaneous acts that lead towards regeneration. These antecedaneous acts, a natural man (by the help of the Spirit) may do as to see sin, mourn over it, judge himself for it, he may go further, he may taste the sweetness of the promise, and have some beginnings of joys, all which he may fall from: many other testimonies may be brought to show that our Authors, by the tenor of their principles do not extinguish the endeavour of man, but do rather more truly direct and instruct men to follow the right course. I shall stay too long upon this point, because I perceive that it is the chief rock of offence that our Author doth stumple at: he further showeth,  
All things else are determined, and fixed by the divine providence even all the actions of men, but the inward act of the will, is left under the command of laws only and under the arrest of threaten, and the invitation of promises.  
Answ. It's true, that laws, threaten, promises, are made with special respect to the will. But that the inward act of the will should be so under laws, that it should not be under the decree of God: this Tenet doth exclude the chiefest part of the world from being under the care of God. Nay, if the matter be well considered, here is the very height of the Atheism of the ancient Philosophers. To maintain the absoluteness, independency, and sovereignty of the will of man upon the earth, they do deny the providence of God in heaven. Cicero upon this reason, did deny the infallibility of the prescience of God. And our Author seemeth to me to come too near to this coast. In the next words he gives his reason.  
And that this is left for man, can no way impede any of the divine decrees, because the outward act being overruled by the divine providence, it is strange that the Schools will leave nothing to man whereby he may glorify God.  
Answ. If it be supposed that the inward act of the will be under the decree of God, as well as the outward action, this doth not take away that by and through which we may glorify God. For it is not all kinds of necessity that are contrary to liberty, but some only. The necessity of nature, the necessities of a bruit instinct, and outward compulsion cannot stand with liberty: but the necessity of the decree of God, the necessity of infallibility, the necessity of the creatures dependency can be proved to consist with liberty. For God usually brings his decrees to pass by the free act of his creature, which work under his decrees, and are subservient to those ends that he hath appointed. And for the inward motions of the will, innumerable examples may be brought to prove that they are under the decrees of God. The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and he turneth it about as the streams of water, Prov. 21.1. God hath put it into their hearts to hate the whore, and to burn her flesh with fire, Apoc. 17.11. And speaking of the Egyptians, he turned their heart to hate his people, Psal. 105.25. Besides the promise. A new heart and a new spirit I will give them, Ezek. 36.26. The Psalmist prayed, create in me a clean heart O God, and renew within me a right Spirit, Psal. 51.10. All these places of Scripture do abundantly prove, that the inward act of the will is under the decree of God, as well as under laws, and that the certainty of the decree doth not overturn the liberty of the will, but both do go together. Next he tells us:  
That Augustine in his zeal against a certain error of the Pelagians, made him take in auxiliaries from an uncertain and less discerned error, and caused him to say many things which all antiquity disavowed, and which the following ages took up upon his account.  
Answ. The following ages, specially since the times of Luther, have adhered to the doctrine of Augustine. But that the Sager sort have done this merely upon his account, we cannot easily admit. They have followed him so far, as his interpretations have come nearer to the natural and genuine sense of Scripture. What hard speeches he hath concerning original sin, the natural servitude of the will, the spirituality of the law, and the imperfection of man; the rigour and austerity of them will be well allayed, by comparing them with other sweet say of his concerning the fullness of Christ, and the freeness of the promises. His scope is no way to hinder the endeavour of man, but to ground and settle it upon such principles that are more solid and divine. And whereas our Author in his Vnum Necessarium, and his further explication, doth commend the Fathers before the times of Auguistine for their temperate speeches concerning freewill: Here many things are to be observed. First, who will assures us that he may not do the same with their authorities about freewill, as he doth with the doctrine of the Church of England, and the sense of the Article in the point of Original sin? If he will pervert the plain sense of that which is open in the view of all men, what may he not do with the testimonies of the Ancients? Besides, what he allegeth for freewill out of Justin Martyr, Cyril, Hierome, and others, those speeches may admit of a benign interpretation. All Divines do agree that a man hath freewill, he hath a power to understand, to choose, to refuse, to act by counsel, he were not a man if he could not do this. The speeches of the Fathers may be taken in such an absolute sense: in relation also to a particular state, Adam had freewill in innocency; and the Saints have freewill to that which is spiritually good in the state of grace: Further, suppose some things have escaped from them that have been less authentic, let us consider that many of them came new out of the Schools of the Philosophers, and therefore together with the truth they might mingle some errors of Philosophy. Their conflicts also were with the Philosophers, and the Manichees, and therefore it was necessary that they should speak something more than ordinary for the liberty of the will. But enough of this matter, which is so largely spoken and so plentifully by others.  
FINIS.    

A Catalogue of some books printed for, and sold by Edmund Paxton, over against the Castle Tavern, near to the Doctor's Commons.  
THe holy Arbour, containing the body of Divinity, or the sum and substance of Christian Religion; for the benefit and delight of such as thirst after righteousness; wherein also are fully resolved, the questions of whatsoever point of moment have been, or are now controverted in Divinity, By John Godolphin, J. C. D. fol.  
The holy Lymbeck, or A Semicentury of spiritual extractions: wherein the Spirit is extracted from the letter, of certain eminent places in the holy Scriptures. By John Godolphin, J. C. D. 12.  
The Temple measured, or a brief survey of the Temple mystical, which is in the instituted Church of Christ, wherein is solidly and modestly discussed, most of the material questions, touching the constitution and Government of the visible Church-militant here on earth, etc. By James Noyes of New- England. 4.  
Laws and Ordinances of War in 4.  
England's complete law-Judge, and Lawyer by Charles George Cock.  
The method of grace in the justification of sinners being a reply to a book written by Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury: by Benjamin Woodbridge Minister of Newberry.