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 [Page 2]very good, Gen. 1.32. From whence you draw this Conclusion, doubtlesse these words were spoken to take off some future ob­jections, or to prevent mens 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 minde a kinde of torment used in the Primi­tive times: when the persecutors would expose the bodies of Christians to wilde 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 Gods free election. When you see that there is such a Majesty in the truth it self that you cannot well oppose it, you do draw an ugly visage and forme over it, to the end that you may baite 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 non-election 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 mankinde to be equal. The difference of elect or non-elect is immanent onely in the De­cree of God, and election doth onely so farre forth begin to be manifest as men living under the meanes 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 onely. 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, [Page 3]partakers of the same education, though one was specially de­signed for the Kingdome. 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 intend to bring some to salvation, and to leave others voluntarily to run their own ruine; he may have mercie on whom he will have mercie, and he may have compassion on whom he will have compassion. You do then plainly impose upon us with your sophistrie, when you fetch arguments from some temporal acts to overturne the Lords eternal Decrees. But this is a passage onely by the way, we will go to the next Chapter.

CHAP. II. Wherein Adams abilities did consist.

HEre you define ability, that it is a fitnesse in the subject commanded every way answerable to performe 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 beleeve you do not onely 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 [Page 4]God as before. You say if in that service of God which Adam had to do he was compleatly furnished by God, why should I judge that he would employ him in a more hard service and not aford him sutable 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 returne 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, then you have done. To this if we adde the several passages in your Treatise concerning the im­provement of nature, and the freedome of infants from origi­nal sin, and compare all together, we shall finde the whole te­nour of your doctrine to be manifestly destructive to the Cove­nant of Grace. We will therefore endeavour on the contrary to shew the positive truth. And therefore, seeing God doth require obedience of man after the fall, I do freely assent that he doth give sutable 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 one­ly: To him they must go to supply all their wants, and he must help them to performe all the duties enjoyned: If you stand up­on the proportion of abilities to commands, then say that the ability is in Christ onely to be had, and we shall easily agree. He of God is made to us wisdome, righteousnesse, sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30. In him all the treasures of wis­dom and knowledge are hid, Col. 2.3. Of his fulnesse 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 onely, and the immediate supply of his Spirit. In this sence 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 seene in thy weaknesse, 2 Cor. 12.7.8, [Page 5]9, But the way to come by this ability is not in your me­thod to set up nature, but to die to a mans 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 seeme to speak more fairly for the grace of God then you do. They do not shun to affirme that we have all from Christ, and that of our selves 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 conceale themselves, and you openly pro­fesse your judgment: they seeme to speak more fairly, but you are more true to the principles and positions of the Separate Churches.

CHAP. III. Whether righteousnesse and holinesse be Gods Image.

HEre you endeavour to prove the Negative, to wit, that righteousnesse and holinesse 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 onely 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 sence and import of all which is to shew that God made man after his own Image, and that this Image did principally consist in spiritual and inward holinesse.

For that place, Gen. 1.26. Come let us make man after our [Page 6]Image, in our own likenesse. There is none doth doubt but this is the speech of the three persons in Trinity. Onely the question is wherein did this Image principally consist. The se­parate congregations and you also affirme, that it did ap­pear onely 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 fowle of the aire, and over the cattel, 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 soule to the spiritual Law of God. Secondarily, the Image of God was resplendent in that external priviledge of rule and dominion o­ver the creature.

Now that it may appear that the principal part of the Image of God is in inward holinesse, and that the soule so inwardly and spiritually endowed, doth more lively expresse his simili­tude, for this, reade 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 repaire 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 returne 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 repaire 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 signifie spiritual knowledge in the nature thereof, and that which comes from the Spirit of God as the cause. Fourthly, for the pattern [Page 7]of the renovation, it is expressely said, after the image of him that created him; Therefore the first man must be made in a state of spiritual knowledge and holinesse. If this be not so, how could the beleeving 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 rigteousnesse and true holinesse, Eph. 4.24. This Scripture also doth plainly shew that Adam had the Spirit of God before his fall. For first, why is it said be renewed in the spirit of your minde? This implieth that we were sometimes such. Secondly, the expression of righteousnes and true holinesse is opposed to feigned, and hypocritical sancti­ty. Thirdly, the whole tenour 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 adde a few reasons. First, it is a Maxime 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 compasse of my understanding to discerne. 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 quick­ned that were dead in trespasses and sinnes, Ephes. 2.1, 2. If all be dead in trespasses and sinnes, 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 Adams righteousnesse and holinesse was not in beleeving a Saviour, because be was not in a lost condition, pag. 10 Suppose all this be granted, that Adam was not to beleeve 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 beleeve 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 sinne, 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 finde an excellent corre­spondence betwixt both. For what if Adam was not capable of remission of sinne by Christs blood, it is all one if he be made in a state free from sinne? 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 righteous­nesse. What if he was not capable of the resurrection from the dead, because he died not a natural death? yet he was ca­pable to eate of the tree of life, to keep himself from death, and so to live for ever. Your whole way of reasoning is meer­ly 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 righteousnesse and true holinesse is the I­mage of God which the Lord created man in, and is not to be found there residing, then it is very requisite that this holinesse and righteousnesse be released. But how do you prove that this holinesse and righteousnesse did not reside in Adam? If you shall say, that he was not capable of such Evangelical holinesse as is set forth in the second Covenant; what of all this, not­withstanding [Page 9]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 minde, 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 bodie and soule, inward and outward, throughout all the parts of our life; because it is spiritual it self, 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 Sonne, see­ing he had no such lawes 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, Sonne, 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 Christs blood. Suppose all this be granted, that Adam was not to beleeve in a Saviour, because he was not in a lapsed or fallen condition, yet all this doth not [Page 10]prove him to be a carnal man, or absolutely destitute of the Spirit before his fall. He might beleeve 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 confesse to be true, but it is not the whole, nor the principal part of truth. For uprightnesse in the Scripture-lan­guage, doth not only signifie a freedome from evil, but also a positive habit of righteousnesse and holinesse, 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 holinesse and righte­ousnesse, to be entituled the Image of God, and shall mean by it a condition without sin, simply so considered, then 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 meerly 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 mothers wombe, 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 meerly from incapaci­ty, [Page 11]because they were not able to receive a spiritual Law; And Adams freedome was from the holinesse 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 enquire, Whether the Image of God did consist in light? These are your words, If the light that Adam had, was the Image, then 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 sheweth plain­ly, that man in the beginning was created after the Image of God, and that Image did chiefly consist in the spiritual light that was in the understanding.

But because there is a great controversie between the Arminians and us about the nature of this light, viz. Whether Adam had a power before his fall to be­leeve 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 beleeve in Christ, therefore he did not receive a­bility to beleeve 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 beleeve the Stories written in the five Books of Moses, the Books of Josbua, Judges, Samuel, &c. But will any man be so void of reason to argue, that he had no power to beleeve these Stories, in case they had been revealed to him? so God did not require Abraham to beleeve 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 beleeve, or that he had not the same spirit in substance which the Saints now have? He that doth so judge, let him answer [Page 12]the meaning of this Scripture, We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I beleeved, and therefore have I spoken, we also beleeve, and therefore speak, 2 Cor. 4.13. It is clear from hence, that the Patriarchs 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 Me­diatour. 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 uprightnesse. 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 diversitie 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 ex­tream, yet they are tangible objects to one and the same sense of seeling. So in the like case, though the Word of the Law, and the Word of the Gospel, are two contrary wayes 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 shew mercie, if we look to the outward act or the performance of the duty, for where there is no misery, what mercy can be shewed? 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 [Page 13]Angels to beleeve 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 Myste­rie 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 Mediatour, 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, then that ability which Adam bad 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 af­firme Adams 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 yeares ago, from the greatnesse 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 beleeve in Christ, & to raise himself from his fal, yet none of them do utter [Page 14]such speeches as these, that Adam was altogether destitute of the Spirit of God, and that he was a meer carnal man before his fall. This to my understanding doth cast a blurre upon the Creator himselfe. Now I would intreat you to shew 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, unlesse 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 dresse 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 A­dams abilities from his present employments? There is many a true Christian man in these times, that doth beleeve 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 mens abilities to their present employments. Further, what ground have you to af­firm, that Adams employment was only in those externals of keeping the Garden, and giving names to all cattel, &c? Will you argue, because you reade 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 singlenesse 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, [Page 15]and of giving names to all cattel, &c.

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 righ­teousnesse and true holinesse, 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 enquire, 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 beare 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 lesse 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 glasse 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 foure 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 glasse, 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 enlightned, 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 excell 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 shew that the Image of God did not stand in holinesse: You say, If it had layen in holi­nesse never so Evangelical and spiritual, surely the woman that be­leeved 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 preheminence, page 23. But this will not serve your turne neither, for when God created the woman in the be­ginning, she was not only created after his Image in righte­ousnesse and true holinesse, 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 mankinde 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 finde 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. IV. 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. [Page 17]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 aire, they are spoken only to the vulgar capacity of the Reader. For in the ordinary way the Image of God is more visible and easie to be discerned in the external dominion over the creature, then in the spiritual and inward endowment of the soule.

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 vilifie and slight all kinde of Magistra­cy, and make it a matter of nothing. And for the proof out of Daniel and the Revelation, you do shew your rudenesse in that kinde of learning. By the head of gold (say you) Daniel plainly sheweth to the King, thou art the head of gold. This King was an image in reference to his preheminence, otherwise he had not differed from other men, page 26. That Nebuchadnezzar was a King, and a mighty King, and that in his Kingly power he did carry the Image of God, I do willingly confesse. 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 Coun­treys are described as some parts in the Mappe. Further, if we should grant that the Babylonian Empire in Nebuchadnezzar, might be said to be the image by a Synechdoche, 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 foure Tyrannical Empires, which in their several successions one after another should afflict the Church. These foure great Empires be doth set forth by so many beasts, chap. 7. as they are described by the foure regi­ons and parts of the image, chap. 2. But what reference hath [Page 18]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 shepherds dog, and the dog starre, 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 tyrannie rather then of lawful dominion, and why he should do this by the foure parts of the body of man is from his own institution.

Neither is that other place more fitly alledged out of the book of the Revelation, for though it be true in the general, that Rulers in respect of their preheminence 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 formes 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 repaire of that Majesty, and a reviving of it, as it were, from the dead. This the Spirit doth expresse, 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 shew the repaire of the Roman Tyranny in the Popes, that was formerly lost in the Cesars. 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 Gods Image: of the image of the beast, which had received a wound in one of his heads. Again, here is mention made of a vice-gerent, but none of Gods 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 woful havock is here made of the Word of God. I do the more willingly put you in minde 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 [Page 19]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 justifie their actions, in case they neither adde 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 your selfe. 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. Adams 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 erre in the definition of that power that Adam had before his fall. But these improper speeches of yours might passe, if you did not turne 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 Gods Ordinances, then Gods Word or his Command are his Ordinances. And from hence you infer, if Rulers come as Gods Ministers, they must produce his Word for the power of Ordinances, page 30. Here I would have you to assigne the difference between the power appertaining to a Magistrate, and the power belonging to e­very [Page 20]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 termes? what do you make then of the power of the Ma­gistrate? when Pilate boasted, Knowest thou not that I have pow­er to crucifie 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 it self, then it will follow that these are co-incident termes. 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 passe that one should be in subjection to anothers 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 mans 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 passe with your own peculiar way of expression. Let us now see how you describe Adams entertainment in the Garden.

CHAP. VI. Adams 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 [Page 21]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 emploiment in these externals? Secondly, whether he did act in them as a meer carnal man?

For the first, if you shall say that Adam was only employed in these externals, then shew 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 re-minde you of, because you did a little be­fore affirme that Adam was a meer 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 free-will 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 freedome. By this account it will follow, that a natural man, as such, without the help of the Spirit hath no free-will 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 turne out against the Magistrate, when you spake of the power of Adam before the fall; so now speaking of his free-will you have your vagaries and excursions against the Ministry. These are your words, Paul preached the Gospel freely, he stood not [Page 20]upon such punctilio's 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, ought 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 glorifie 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 Hierusalem. But by what Logick 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 mans 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 proprietie from other men. Having gone so far along with you in your digression, let us now come to that freedome of will which Adam had before his fall. And here I do agree with you, that he had libertie to put himself forth chearfully and freely to action, by vertue 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 shew, 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 mans 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, unlesse 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 [Page 21]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, chear­fully 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 libertie 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 happinesse 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 free-will, that it is a chearful issu­ing forth to action by vertue 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 chearfully put forth their abilities to the glory of God: but Adams 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 obey ed by a free choice, but also that through his fall, a door might-be opened to the sending of the Sonne, and that salvation might be had upon termes 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; [Page 24]thirdly, time; fourthly, he doth use exhortations and reproofs. And then you adde, 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 mans 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 infalliblie and certainly carry on his own peo­ple to salvation. But that we may joyne issue with you, we do freely yield, that God giveth greater abilities and helps to men then they ordinarilie 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 mans 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 minde, 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 darkning 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 then 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 emprovement of natural abilities, in asserting that A­dams ability was as good after the fall as it was before. By the collation of all these, let any man judge whether you do [Page 25]not advance nature, and depresse 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 oppresse 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 alledged by the Patrons of free-will; I shall endeavour the more diligently to shew 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 finde 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 chusing them above all the people of the world, what he had done for them in Egypt, in the wildernesse, 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 turne them from the evil of their evil ways; and many such like passages of his grace and goodnesse 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 shew 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 inferre, ☜ that the fault [Page 26]is in man himself. For although by nature he be not able to will the good, yet when he heares 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 administred. As for that saying of yours, that God giveth a man ability to oppresse, 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 oppresse: 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 Romanes; 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 unrighteousnesse, because by oppression and other sinnes 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 dependance upon natural ability. The whole tenour of his speech is to shew, 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 owne emptinesse, that so in the sense of his own misery he may make out for mercy. The whole scope then of the Apostle is to shew, that Jewes 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 witnesse to the world that he desires no more encrease then the benefit of what he had first given means sufficient to bring forth, no more then was an­swerable to the seed he had first sowen; if one Talent, then the encrease of one, verse 18. The slothful man hides the Lords [Page 27]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 dayes) that God would be gathering where he scattereth not: but that must needs be a lye, 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 free-will, did endeavour to shew the difference betwixt the Philosophers and the Jesuites; They (saith he, meaning the Jesuites) do admit some kind of grace, which never entered into the thought of Aristotle; they acknowledge the corruption of nature by sinne, which the Philosophe's did never so much as dreame 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 Aristotles Ethical Philo­sophie and your Moral Divinitie, when you teach that Adams 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 onely the supply of the Spirit of Christ, how can you justifie this to be a true interpre­tation, that Christ requires no more encrease then 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 emptinesse, by the convicti­ons of the guilt of sinne he may look after a Christ, first, to justifie and to pardon; secondly, to sanctifie 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 thorough the inward working of the Spirit to empty him of all ability, that so he may look to the promise, [Page 28]where true ability is onely 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 mans 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 lesse; yet all the ability is from Christ himself. And therefore when he that received one Talent accused the Lord for an hard man, for reaping there where he did not sowe; 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 forreign supply where thine own natural and domestical ability was wanting. Second­ly, whereas you affirm, that there are many in these dayes that use such hard kinde of sayings, 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 then too many who do neglect their talent, and cast the blame upon God himself. But your aime is not so much at these, as against others who oppose free-will, 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 fulnesse of Christ set in opposition to the sinfulnesse and misery by Adam. Doctor Twisse disputing against the Arminians, lib. 3. errat. 9. pag. 211. doth of all others seeme to tread something hard, yet he doth shew many pithie 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 sinne, and thereupon the impotency and weak­nesse that hath ensued to all good, the Lord taketh this course to shew them their misery. Secondly he addeth these words, If by the grace of God we know our selves to be no way fit or able to do those things which the Lord commandeth, yet [Page 29]by his just counsel he doth command us, and by his commands he doth shew what we are indebted to him as Lord Creator, and that which we are not able to performe our selves we may beg help of him that we may performe 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 aske 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 signifie 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 farre the Authour 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 performe the commands, yet they shew also where the true ability is to be had, to wit, in the Lord Christ, and in the freenesse 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. Shewing 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 farre forth as [Page 30]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 mans ability is as good since the fall, as it was before. The second is of them who do ac­knowledge the need of grace to heale the sinfulnesse 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 Jesuites and Ar­minians. The third is of those who stand so much for the effi­cacie of grace, that they wholly take away the endeavour of man. The Enthusiasts in these dayes are so for the immediate workings of the Spirit, that they make us passive, as though we were meere blocks and stones in the work of our salvation. The fourth is of those who turn from these dangerous extrems, they hold a need of the grace to carrie 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 meere inanimate and dead instruments. Doctor Ames maketh this answer, Bellarminus hic luctatur cum larvâ 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 alledged, would be of good use against the Enthu­siasts of these latter times. Let us now see how you do pro­ceed.

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 necessarie observations, because I will not stand upon every punctilio; [Page 60]And then I will come to the solution of your chief questi­on.

First, for the true cause of the fall, we do affirme that our first parents being seduced by the temptation of Sathan, did vo­luntarily and freely eate the forbidden fruit. Their own de­fective will was the immediate cause of their fall. Secondly, God was pleased according to his wise and just Councel to per­mit the fall, that thereby a doore 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 bad 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 sinne: so also it must needs be affirmed, that he was made in a mutable state, farre 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 farre did the Lord go in the fall of Adam? we must needs affirme 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 foure 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 shew 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 [Page 61]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 triall 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 Jewes, and their wonderful calling again, concludeth, O the depth of the riches, of the wisdome, 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 sonnes 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 shewed Peter by what death he should glorifie God, but he did not shew 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, [Page 62] is it a small thing that the righteousnesse of God should be questioned upon such low termes, 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 termes. 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 Gods 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 Gods will of Decree, to save much people alive; yet none can say that Josephs brethren did the Lords will of command; they went against his cōmand, when they sold their brother as a bond­slave. So it is expressely 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 hearkning to the voice of their Father did fulfill the Lords will of Decree, who had a purpose to judge the house of Eli for their sinnes. But we cannot say that they did obey the Lords will of com­mand, unlesse 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 Jewes did perform the Lords will of Decree to crucifie 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 sinne by his will of command; yet in a sense it [Page 63]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 tryal of those that are syn­cere. 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 secreet will permit him to eat. These two are not so put asunder, but they may well be joyned 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: unlesse he could serve the one in the forenoon, ☞ the o­ther in the afternoon. And yet further, to amplifie the difficulty, you say, The secret will is the controuler, for let the revealed will command any thing, we are to center 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 ruine which will soever he obeys. If Adam did obey the secret will of God, then 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, alasse we are undone! our Lead­ers are not agreed? for what the one sayes 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 [Page 64]affirme, 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 beleeve, 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 neverthelesse the revealed will of God is the onely 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 dye and not live, Isa. 38.2. and yet we finde that the Lord in his secret will had decreed that he should not dy at that time: fifteen years more were added to the dayes 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 ly in giving assent to the threatning of God denounced by the mouth of the Prophet. Though the denunciation was meerely conditional, spoken onely in relation to second causes, [Page 65] thou shalt dye of the present disease, unlesse thou humble thy self, 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 onely. 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 dy, and the secret will imply thou shalt live. What God had revealed concerning his present death he did beleeve the sen­tence outwardly made known to him; as for Gods secret De­cree, he had nothing to do with that, which did meerely 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 adde fifteen yeares more to the dayes of his life, then 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 fourty dayes 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 prevaile, or to use your language, was the will that did controll, yet for the time being the Nine­vites had nothing to do with the will of Decree, no further then 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 sinnes were so great that they did deserve destruction, and that the Lord would certainly de­stroy them within the space of fourty dayes unlesse they did re­pent in that limited time. Their beleeving 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 Ministery of Jonah came not to passe, it was no false message, because it was reversible upon a tacite con­dition, [Page 66]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 adde more examples to prove the vanity of your exceptions; but I will go neerer the matter, and that in a harder case then any propounded by you. We read touching the wast 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 fourty and two moneths, Rev. 11.2. Here it is plain that the Lord speaketh concerning the desolation of the Church that shall be in all Anti-Christian 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 tryal, 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 Gods general Command of preaching the Gospel, or should he believe that the Church should be destroyed accor­ding to the Prophecies. Here are two crosse 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 passe, did himself believe it, and blame the people for their incredulity. Yet neverthelesse 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 righteousnesse of God. pag. 80. [Page 67]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 alters not, if there be a secret will of his that controuls his revealed? page 81. In this also you may hold your self content, for the Scriptures which say God alters 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 judgments, 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 wil 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 marvail that so many cannot beleeve 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 thorough him might beleeve, for which purpose he tasted death for every man, and not for the Saints onely, but also for the sinnes of the whole world. But these sayings 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 beleeve the revealed will at all if they hold his secret will to be the Superiour, pag 81 82. I say the same as formerly, though the secret will of God be the Superiour, yet we are to look to that which is revealed. As for those who affirme 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 finde any one of solid [Page 68]judgment 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 thorough the convictions of the spirit to see their miserable and lost condition, then 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 Lords intention, yet they hold that the assurance thereof is and ought 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 lyable 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; onely 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 Sunne 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 non-election, though they do beleeve according to the Scriptures that there are a great multitude of men that the Lord doth intend to passe by, yet if you come to singulars, neither you nor any man li­ving can shew 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 bath 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 hardnesse of heart: this is no infallible argument of non-e­lection, for men may come into the Vineyard at all houres. So [Page 69]farre 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 onely to God to judge of their final and eternal condition And for that place which you alledg that God sweareth that he de­sireth not the death of him that dyeth, I pray you now tel us the par­ticular man in our method and way of teaching hat is not a cap­able hearer of this doctrine. Whatsoever God doth intend 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 termes 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 beleeve his revealed will at all, if they hold his secret will to be the Superiour; what good reason can you shew for that? for though the secret will of God touching the salvation of his elect be the Superiour, 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 moneths, 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 passe 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 Jewes should be hardened, and that a remnant onely 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 free-grace, in his book de 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 [Page 70]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. grat. 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 shew that we are to look onely 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 & turnings it will bring you to the Sea at last. But if you fur­ther urge, how can the sending of Christ into the world to dy for the lost sonnes of men stand with the Decree of election, where some onely are chosen to salvation? Answ. This point is solidly handled by Dr. Davenant, in his answer to that book that bears the title Gods love to mankind; and in another Treatise of the death of Christ. The scope and tenor of the whole dis­course is to shew 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 attonement 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 shew how farre 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 dye the death, according to the rigour of the Covenant of works and the strictnesse of divine justice there [Page 71]was no possibility for any mans salvation. But the Lord Christ having once satisfied the justice of God and removed the barre, there is now a possibility for all the lost sonnes 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 ransome 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 ransome for all men, there is a possibility of salvation forall upon termes of repentance and faith. Se­condly, I do agree with you, that by the death of Christ the Lord doth shew 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 child-hood; 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 mans sake, but seed time and harvest, winter and summer, day and night should continue to the worlds end. Thirdly, I do also agree with you in this, that the Lord Jesus by the shedding of his blood hath not onely procured a possibility for the lost sonnes 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 tast 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 dye for the elect on­ly? He did shed his blood not onely 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 dyed in a special manner) My Father that gave them me is greater then all, and none can take them out of my Fa­thers hands, Joh. 10.29. And in another place, who shall lay [Page 72]any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that dyed, Rom. 8 33, 34. The death of Christ for the elect is not only to obtain sal­vation upon termes 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 layed 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 Adams sinne, or any other mans sinne doth produce death or condemnation in a natural way.

TOuching the manner of the thing, how sinne doth cause death, whether death be the natural fruit of sinne, or whether it doth meerly depend upon the will of him who hath threatned to punish sinne 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 sinne is not the meritorious cause of death, and that Adams sinne was no cause of his condemnation. And then afterwards going to discover the causes of judgment; you tell us for the efficient cause, God is onely the contriver who doth inflict pun­ishments. For the material cause, the creatures are the onely instruments. For the formal, it is the manner of judgment 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 [Page 73]sinne is no cause of punishment neither efficient, material, for­mal, nor final, page 95. 96. And for the meritorious cause, You say also, that sinne doth not merit death, but it doth onely prepare, fit and qualifie a man for death, as grace doth for eternal life. page 106, 107, 108. You do not shunne 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 affirme that sinne 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 sinne 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 meer gift of God, but the wages of sinne is death. If death be the wages of sin, then sinne must be the meritorious cause of death. But say you, Though death be the wages of sinne, 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 sinne is death. The fruit and the wages are all one, and the sense of the whole text is this, that sinne 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 it self, it cannot be the cause of death. But, Sir, you are to look to the sense, and not to the strictnesse of the letter. In strict termes 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 shew your skill at catch-ball. I confesse, 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 [Page 74]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 sinne 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 Metonymie, the effect being put for the cause) it is death it self; or, in the way of causality, a carnal mind is that which produceth death, and death is the fruit thereof. But whereas you affirme, that neither death nor life are branches produced either by carnal or spiritual walking; in this you erre. 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 sinne is death? Masters 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 sinne is death, shewing that sinne is the meritorious cause of death, and death is the desart of sin. And for that expression of yours, that death is no branch pro­duced by sin, ☞ but it cometh meerly 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 onely? 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 your self, and blow up your own position. For if God doth inflict death as the punishment of sin, then it will follow that sinne is the meritorious cause of death; and death doth not onely 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 sinne, and sinne when it is finished bringeth forth death. Jam. 1.13, 14. To avoid the force of this Scripture you tell us, That sinne doth not bring forth death as lust doth bring forth sinne, sinne is lusts natural seed, but death hath no con­ceptions by any seed of sinne. page 94. But Sir, I would [Page 75]entreat you to leave all windings and shifts, deale plainly with the words of the text. The Apostle saith, sinne when it is finished bringeth forth death. I do here put it upon you to give a down-right answer, seeing the words of the Apostle are so plain. If sinne doth any way bring forth death then we must needs conclude that sinne is the cause of death; and this is the true meaning of the Apostle. But seeing you bind so much upon the Lords institution, who hath threatned death to the sinner, let us come to the original text, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye 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 intrinsecal nature thereof; but the Lord having forbidden it, it was evil to go against his Command. In this sense I say, though death was threatned by God, yet Adams own personal sinne 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 sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne; and death hath past over all men unto condemnation. You labour in many pages together to prove that Adams sinne 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 sinne 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, Doest 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 judgment of God, yet Adams sinne 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 sinne; yet if you look unto the na­ture of death, he is an enemy: The last enemy that shall be de­stroyed [Page 76]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, then death it self 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 it self shall come to be destroyed? If death then be an enemy, the last enemy, and shall be destroyed as an enemy, how can you affirme that it is a righteous Branch? Further you argue, That death cannot be the fruit of sinne, seeing God hath pleased to punish sinne with death; sinne, and punishment for sinne agree no more than light and darknesse, page 91. If this be your opinion, I pray you tell me what do you think of that case where God doth punish one sinne with another? He gave up the Gentiles to vile affections, that they might receive in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Rom. 1.23 24. If one sinne may be the punishment of another, why do you put such a difference betwixt sinne and punishment as betwixt light and darknesse? you have another evasion to help you our, you say, The very voice or death is enough to scare a sinner from his sinnes, therefore death is not the natural fruit of sinne, 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 sinne, doth not fulfill 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 sinne, there had been no punishment, therefore pu­n shmext must be produced by sinne, page 949. In this you deceive your self, 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 [Page 77]as the meritorious cause of death; the Apostle saith, sinne bring­eth forth death as the cause doth the effect, and the wages of sinne 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 sinne, why are not all Rebels pu­nished as Corah, all proud men as well as Herod, all guilty of the sinne of equivocation as well as Ananias? This is the sub­stance of your argument, page 99, 100. To all which I make this answer, unlesse they repent they shall meet with the same righteous judgment of God. The Lord is free in the execu­tion of judgment as upon those eighteen on whom the Tower in Siloah fel; yet that it may appear to you that death is the na­tural fruit of sinne, and that sinne is the meritorious cause of death, our Saviour shuts up the matter with these words, un­lesse 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 Adams 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 onely 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 sinne 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 grosse mistake of the question, or as Logicians call it, an ignorance of the elench? We do confesse, as shrist brought life into the world he brought it in by the institution of his Father; so when sinne brought death into the world, it was by the just appointment of God to punish sinne with death. The question that is in debate betwixt us is, whether sinne 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 enquire, how sinne 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 sinne will not be found nei­ther, [Page 78]seeing such causes are good in their own nature, Well then, what is the cause? you tell us, seeing sinne is an invention of man and the Devil, a meere accident that cleaveth to the sub­ject, man; we may call sinne 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 meere accidental cause of the boyling of the water. The force of your reason is no better when you say sinne is a meere accident in the subject, man; therefore it is onely the ac­cidental cause of condemnation. If you well observe the expres­sion, you shall find it to be very absurd to call sin a meere acci­dental cause of condemnation. Condemnation is alwayes set in relation to the guilt of some sinne that doth deserve it, how then can you call sinne 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. Sinne (say you) puts a man in a sutable 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) onely for a sutable 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 affirme that wicked men onely are made suitable to receive vengeance, for then the wicked are no more worthy of eternal death then the Saints are worthy of eternal life; ☞ which is plainly to crosse the Apostle, the wages of sinne is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. I cannot then but mention your words with a kind of horrour with which you close the Chapter: speaking of the wicked, they are, say you a sutable matter to receive vengeance, as Gods peo­ple are sutable to receive all the joyes of eternal life. Now the joyes of eternal life are the free-gift of God. All qualifi­cations, dispositions, frames of spirit, though never so evangeli­cal [Page 79]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 desarts in a holy life to the procuring of eternal salva­tion, but onely 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 sutable 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 no o­therwise worthy than persons fitted as the true subjects sutable for wrath, and God is as simply and intirely the authour of the one as the other. And so farre you. Now I leave it to all tender consciences to understand and to give sentence. We do willingly confesse 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 ab­horre 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 sutable 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 Authour 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 farre 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 righteousnesse of God.

I have staid 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 judg­ment 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 sinne 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 stirre up the confideration of the guilt of sinne in the conscience of [Page 80]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 sinne, that so men may be brought to see their misery. And yet you teach us here in this Chapter, that sinne 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 lesse then 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 adde, I make no question but God had so ordered the imployments, that he had for Adam some of them to be more spiritual than ever he had to do before his fall; and then 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 onely in the Lord Christ, and in the Word of promise. The true Church doth hold and ever hath held, that the imployment which God hath now for every true believer, is a spiritual imployment. 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 bad to do, if he was compleatly furnished by God, why should I judge that he would employ him in a more hard service, and not afford him sutable accommodation? Had God no other way to give Adam and his posterity sutable 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 [Page 81]the main sense of the Scriptures, which shew 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 onely 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 Exami­ners of the late Synods confession of faith in the Chapter of free-will, Sect. 2. are (in a manner) as foule as you. For the Synod having laid down this truth concerning Adam in the state of innocency, that then he had a power and free­dome 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 freedome 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 sanctifie and to regenerate, and to take away the sinne 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 then 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 [Page 82]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 shew­eth 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 bereaved 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 retaine the same spiritu­all and internall knowledge which he had before his fall.

Let us heare the Inventory of Adams losses as you make the account. You tell us that Adam forfeited his body and his limbes, and that God would bereave him of all after that nine hundred thirty years were expired. And you further adde, 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 A­dams 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 losse. The principal damage which he met withall was internal, in his soul, which was more than the losse of a thousand gardens. But we go to your next question.

CHAP. XIII. Whether Adam did dye 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 Lords day, in these words. ☜ This day some affirme that it was the first day of the week, but there is little to be shewn for that. It is a very private Interpretation, because there is no publick manifestation by the Word, but that men are willing to strengthen the opinion and practise of a first dayes Sabbath with a reference to the changing of Gods Commands, and setting up of their own thoughts, page 114, 115. By this it is clear what your judgment 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 surther alledged, 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 expresse Apostolical practise, and implicite Apostolical precept, which we are sufficiently able to prove and evince by the collation of foure Scriptures if we were put upon that argu­ment. But this would be too larg a digression from the matter in hand.

Next, you come to shew the sense of the commination. And here you tell us that Adam did not dye the same day, if the day be taken for the space of twelve or twenty four houres. This is in plain termes to contradict the scope and sense of the [Page 84]text. For there it is expressely 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 onely to see their in­ward nakednesse in the losse of the image of God, but also to feel the guilt of sinne as the just fruit of their disobedience. If the opening of the eyes be taken for the eyes of the body, then their eyes were opened to see that, which they did not, nor could see before. Their nakednesse before was a nakednesse of ho­nour, innocency and righteousnesse, but their nakednesse after was a nakednesse of dishonour, of misery, of sinne, of provo­cation to sin. And for the particular time it is expressed in the Comination, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death. And accordingly in the same instant of time when they had eaten the forbidden fruit, the eys 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 dye the same day if the day be taken for an ordinary day of twelve houres long: For the clearing of this I would intreat 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 satisfie 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 judgment the very same day? The Lord had said, in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye 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 judgment. In Scripture where promises or threats are declared to be fulfilled in such a particular time there the Holy Ghost is punctuall in the observation of the time. The children of Israel should be in bondage soure 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 [Page 85] Egypt with their Armies, Exod. 12. 41, 42. So our Lord and Saviour did signifie 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 dye 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 judg­ment 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 dye 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 dye, 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 dye the death, he doth not speak this onely 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 untill 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 adde, If Adam had dyed 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 [Page 87]when the Apostle saith, by one man, sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne, 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 Adams transgression, ver. 14. And in the close of all, as sinne hath reigned to death, so might grace reign thorough righteousnesseunto e­ternal life, v. 21. Therfore 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 reigne 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 dye the same day, though he lived nine hundred thirty nine yeares after. And to make good this strange glosse of yours you tell us that God did not prescribe any quantity of houres, but hath declared that a thousand yeares 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 judgment should go to the typical and parabolicall ex­pressions used in Daniel, and the Revelation, and Peters E­pistle.

After this you come to enquire, 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 dye. In case then 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 alter 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 [Page 86]to the miseries of nature, and shall inevitably be brought to temporal death at last. All these things do hold by vertue of the first sentence: yet you must take heed that you go no further, because the second man hath all fulnesse of grace to repair the losses brought in by the first. By his intervening patience and long-suffering is extended to all the sonnes 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 dye 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 dye 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 accesse 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 extream 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 dye, o­therwise Christ could not make him alive, page 119. Here you mistake the state of the question, we agree that Christ did not dye 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 fulfill 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 [Page 88]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, lyable to diseases and to all the miseries of nature. But when did this vilenesse 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 bodie of Christ in glory, Philip. 3 Ʋlt.

CHAP. XIV. Whether Adam did dye a spiritual death yea or no?

IN the discovery of this point you observe this method. First you shew 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 erre in your application, when you use such an expression as this, that Adam had not such a cup of water in all his foure Rivers. You say also, that he could not savour the voice of the resurrection from the dead: for the goodnesse 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. [Page 89]Further you say that the voice of forgivenesse of sinne was a stranger to him. Well, let this be admitted, it doth not prove the point neither. Sicknesse it self was a stranger to Adam before his fall, will you inferre then that there were no herbs for medicine, and that the Lord did not create the herb of the field with a medicinal vertue? So in the like case, what if remission of sinne and the way of pardon of sinne by Christs blood was a thing hidden from Adam, as being not compatible with his condition; will you inforce from hence a want of ca­pacity in him to understand the mystery of salvation by Christ? or will you affirme from hence, that he was a meere 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 meere natural man by the condition of his creation, then 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 quickned Spirit. page 12 [...]. But in this you do miserably soobisticate. For though the Apostle doth draw a parallel between both the Adams; If you do well ponder the Scripture, you shall finde 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 finde that the Apostle in this Scripture doth not speak so much concerning the Spirit of God in the soules 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 [Page 90]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 quickning Spirit, verse 45. This doth not prove the first man to have been meerely 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 onely 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 quickning Spirit, this is meant principally of the divinity of Christ, by and thorough 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 meere carnal man, because he was not a quickning 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 quickning 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 affirme that all the bodies of the Saints shall be made immortal and spiritual at the resurrection, consider what the body of Adam might have [Page 91]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 runne in these termes. 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 onely 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 dyed 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 dyed, 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 adde further, I can safely say, that if Adam was to have dyed an eternal death, and that by the appointment of God, then Christ neither would nor could have stept 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 dyed the death, in such a case Christ neither would nor could have stept 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 judgment to be another. For [Page 92]the Decree, that cannot be changed, but the sentence may re­cieve alteration according to divers outward circumstances and conditions that may occurre. 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 dy 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 dyed 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 intreat 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 unlesse Christ had stepped in; we leave it onely to the Lord himself to judge of the several pos­sibilities of the salvation of man. This onely we affirme, so far as it is revealed to us, the present is the most excellent way to satisfie the justice of God and to shew 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 sinne, free-will, and the like; I must tell you, if you and they would not tear those things asunder which should be joyned 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 onely, 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 Adams posterity were guilty of his transgression,

IN this Chapter you endeavour to make good the purity of na­ture, and the freedome of all infants from original sin; you do not, as the Jesuites and Arminians, extenuate the matter, but after the manner of the ancient Pelagians you deny the sinne 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 shew the misery of man by nature) they are altogether si­lent in the point of original sinne. 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 sinne 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 onely of dipping, and baptizing Disciples, and of the manner of living in their way of Church-membership. And thus one great errour at the foundation doth in a manner overthrow the whole building of the Christian faith. And this is the wofull 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 Authours (who­soever they be) have further swarved from the truth. ☜ For they in their late Examen do not onely maintain the purity of the natural birth, but also have many other positions and dam­nable tenents. I will therefore take the liberty to joyn all to­gether. And therefore, Mr. Everard, where you and they do agree one answer shall serve both, and where they have a­ny [Page 94]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 Kingdome of God. Nicodemus saith unto him; how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mothers 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 Kingdome of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvail 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 mar­vell 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 masse 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 intend 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 Saviours argument is much in effect, because the nature of man is defiled with original sinne from the very birth the remedy must be proportionable to the disease, ☞ it is necessary that every one that shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven must be new born. There be divers cause? that do bring men to a habit of sinne, and there are divers means to be used to break of such habits. First, men are brought [Page 95]to a custome 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 sinne by long custome, which is as it were a second nature: and therefore the Scripture speaks that we should break off such kind of customes by a kind of violence. Thirdly, men come to a practise of sinne 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 practise 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 sinne. They then who maintain the purity of the natural birth as the Examiners, Mr. Everard, and the separate Churches do, overthrow the doctrine of the foundation of Christ. Now, Mr. Everard, ☞ let us come to your arguments.

First, you say, we could not sinne in Adam, our souls and bodies were not together in him, and how we could commit sinne 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 sinne entred into the world, &c. You should finde that all then were in one publick 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 Adams, 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 Adams 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 marvail then what delusion hath seized upon the [Page 96]Examiners, 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 mans 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 sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne, and death passed over all men. The common sap then that passed out of the first man into all his branches, is first sinne, and then death by sinne. By sinne is here principally meant original sinne and all other sinnes 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 sinne 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 righteous­nesse shall reigne 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 righteousnesse and to be born anew they come to the actual fruition thereof. For, let the death of Christ be never so largely tendred to the lost sonnes 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, [Page 97] They which receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life. As who would say in plainer termes, they only shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ who do particularly receive the gift of righteousnesse which is generally offered. This is the undoubted meaning of the text. And therefore for you to say that we could not sinne in Adam, our soules 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 sinne entred into the world. Adam, is here set forth as the root of all his branches, and al the branches were in him as the first publick man. What can you or the Examiners 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 no Law. page 127. To this I rejoyn, ☜ 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 sinne? why doth the Apostle speak so plainly, by the diso­bedience of one, many were made sinners? We must then ne­cessarily come to affirme this for a truth, that the Law was given to Adam as a publick 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 Crosse, 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 loth to stand to the latter, to lose your priviledge by the second Adam, I pray you give us leave to maintain the dammage 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 sonnes 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 sonnes of men from the state of sinne [Page 98]and death, especially when they neither thought nor knew a­ny thing concerning the means of their salvation. The great­nesse of our misery by Adam, doth amplifie and set forth the mer­rit of Christ in the fulnesse thereof. Now then when the Ex­aminers 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 dependance 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 dependancy 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 wearie themselves very much to find out, whether the soul be by infusion or by traduction? But I see no cause why we should intangle our selves in that difficultie. ☞ For, whether the soul be infused, or whether it be traduced, or which way so­ever it be conveyed, we must necessarily affirme in the continu­all flux of original sinne 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 then 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 satisfie 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 chiefly 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 performe that promise that he made in the beginning? Surely, by what power the [Page 96]earth doth continue to bring forth herbs, and every thing doth fructifie 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 sinne 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 soules and spirits of all that stock that came from Adam should have been lineally derived, then 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 adde 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 sinne 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 sinne is unnatural and acci­dental; but if you take nature in its vicious qualities, as it is since the fall, then 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 Saviours words, that which is born of flesh is flesh? This sheweth plainly that Adam is not onely the root of nature, but also since the fall a root of the corruption of nature; and upon this ground lyes a necessity of regeneration, or having a new nature from Christ the second Adam.

Thirdly, you say, If we must own all Adams actions sinful, as our acts, then pray give me leave to appropriate as large a [Page 100]portion in all his good actions. For why should I not plead for as much propriety in all his good actions, as some will per­swade me I have in all his evill 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 drest it, and gave names to all creatures, page 129. If this will give you content, I know nothing to the contrary but we may affirme, that all mankind were in Adam when he walked in the Garden, and gave names to all cattell. 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 fowle of the aire, &c. Gen. 1.26. Then you must needs conclude, that the priviledge 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 onely in his own private, but in their publick right did give names to all cattell. The like may be said of the institution of marriage in the beginning, & of a mans 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 sinne in Adam when he did eate the forbiden fruit, why might it not as well be said, when Adam beleeved, I beleeved; when Adam repented, I repented? page 130. I answer, the case is not equal, for when Adam did eate the forbidden fruit, he did this as a publick 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 Crosse to satisfie 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 [Page 101]answer may be given to that question, why do not the regene­rate propagate grace as well as original sinne? The answer is plain, piety is not hereditary, as original sinne is, neither doth holinesse come into us by nature, but by grace; not generation but regeneration doth intitle us to salvation. And therefore in the aforementioned case, when Adam did beget Cain in his own likenesse, he did not beget him as the sonne of his faith, but the sonne of his corrupt nature. The same may be said of the natural Progeny of all believers, they are born in original sinne 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 Examiners, (who, to il­lude the force of that Scripture, I was conceived in sinne and born in iniquity,) do not shunne to tell us that Davids 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 sonne, they were more like to convey grace and holinesse (if that be communicable) than sinne unto him. Be like then, these new Divines think the grace of God runnes in a blood, at least wise, that it is a more probable truth than to beleeve the propagation of the sin of the na­ture.

Now you come to open the text, and here say you, If we had all committed sinne in Adam, then of what use were these words (by the offence of one?) I do not finde such a saying parallelled, viz that one mans offence can be called all mens 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 sinne imputed, and original sinne 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 mans disobedience cannot be called all mens act, by the strictnesse 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 [Page 102]tenor of his discourse is turned upon this hing, 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 beleeve in him. And whereas you say, you cannot finde such a passage as this parallelled in Scripture; I would entreat you to consider the temporal judgments 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 linage did not know what Eli did, neither did they give con­sent to the sinnes of Hophni and Phinehas; yet for all this it is clear that the sinne 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 publick 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 Adams personal sinne was before the pollution of nature, but our nature is first polluted in the corrupted masse 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 sinne in Adam, that he was called to account for, then we should have sinned after the same si­militude: but we sinned not after the same similitude; and so we committed not the same sinne. And here also I yield, ac­cording to the strictnesse of termes, that we could not siune af­ter the similitude of Adams transgression: for Adam sinned by a deliberate will and by a free choyce, so could not we. Yet neverthelesse, though we could not sinne after the same simili­tude, we might sinne in him as the first publick man. For proof of this, read but the words of the text, Neverthelesse death reign­ed from Adam to Moses even ever them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, verse 14. The A­postle [Page 103]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 Infants aforesaid? No Law was then publickly 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 sinne 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 Examiners of the late Confession ar­gue, when they say, surely, If the Apostle had beleeved any such thing as the reigning of death over all men by the first mans sinne, he would not have omitted that, and onely 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 lesse reason for it, that death should reigne from Adam to Moses, when the Law was not publickly delivered, especially over Infants, that never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. But seeing experience hath plainly shewed in this whole interval of time that death hath reigned over Infants; by this medium the A­postle proveth them to have been guilty of sinne. How guilty of sinne? Not in their own persons, for they never committed any; but onely in Adam the common root of all mankind. And so that universal affirmation is made good, by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne, and death hath passed over all men to condemnation. The universality of death doth prove the universality of sinne in the first man. But you further stand upon a priviledge to interpret the words of the text, why in such a case as this (say you) may not I have the same priviledge 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 sinne in A­dam? page 133. For that freedome of expounding one Scrip­ture by the accounts of another, ☜ by my consent you shall have [Page 104]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 beleevers 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 Baptisme. 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 sinne in A­dam; I pray you deal ingenuously, and according to your own principles, do you not beleeve that Infants do bear he punishment of Adams sinne? 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 sinne, 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 sinne 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 sheweth, that the first man is the figure of him that is to come. If that be true then which you and the Examiners teach, that the guilt of the first mans sinne 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 sinne for us, who knew no sinne. By this meanes we may more [Page 105]fully understand in what sense we were made sinners in Adam, and knew no sinne. Wherein it will appear that we were as guiltlesse of that act, with reference to the fact committed by us, as Christ was guiltlesse in committing the sinnes of the world. Therefore take notice that Christ was said to be made sinne for us, in no other sense but this, viz. He hath laid up­on him that punishment which was due for sinne; he was wound­ed for our transgressions, he was reckoned amongst transgressors. But for any man so to affirme it, would be as large an untruth as men and Divels could devise. For it is one thing to be made sinne, and another thing to act sinne. Now Christ was said to be made sinne as one that had taken upon him such losses as did accompany sin. So those dammages that were to befall the world for Adams sinne, Christ is said to bear them, not in their essence or being, but in the demerit of them. As he was made sinne, not knowing a deceiving heart in himself, so we were made sinners by Adam, who knew no such sinne. And many such passages you have to the same purpose, page. 133, 134. Now I leave it to the Reader to judge to what passe you are come. And here so farre as you affirme that Christ himself was free from sinne 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 onely made sinne in A­dam after the same manner as Christ was made sinne for us, I do here admire at your boldnesse in many respects: First, when Christ was made sinne for us, by his own voluntary un­dertaking he was made a surety and a propitiation for to satisfie the justice of God for our sinnes. 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 sinne for us he knew no sinne, he ne­ver committed sinne, he had no natural pollution from the birth. Now it is not so with us, we bear the guilt of Adams sinne as copartners with him in the common pollution of na­ture. Thirdly, when the Apostle saith, he made him sinne for us that knew no sinne; here you must necessarily understand that he speaks of the peculiar prerogative of the Lord Jesus [Page 106]Christ, that he did bear the burden of sinne when he knew no sinne in himself. Now then, if that be true which the Exami­ners and you do affirme, that Infants are free from the natural pollution, and you here mainly stand upon it that they onely bear the burden of Adams sinne when they knew no such sinne; 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 affirme, that they bear the burden of Adams sinne when they knew no sinne, why doth the Apostle speak so peculiarly, so emphatically, so singularly of Christ above all other men, that he was made sinne for us when he knew no sinne? By this er­ror you do intrench upon the sovereign prerogative of the Lord Jesus, and I fear, (unlesse you and the Examiners repent) you may one day dearly answer for it. But you have an evasion, for say you, we are as guiltlesse of that act with reference unto the fact committed by us as Christ was guiltlesse in committing the sinnes of the world: But this restriction (as the act committed by us) will not mollifie the matter. For though the sinne of Adam was not committed by any act or will of ours immediate­ly in our own person, ☞ yet it was mediatly committed by the free act of our first parent. In this case, according to Scripture, the will of the first man doth passe 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 sinne he meaneth original sinne, or the sinne of the nature, and this saith he entred 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 guiltlesse of Adams sinne, as Christ is guiltlesse of the sinnes 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 onely bear the guilt of the sinnes of the world, but that his nature was also defiled with the lusts of the world. This [Page 107]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 sinne for us who knew no sinne, 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 sinne. But here you are grossely mistaken, when you take these two for parallel Scriptures which are not parallel. The text in the Corinthians is meantionely of the punishment of sinne, that Christ did bear the burden of our iniquities. But the text in the Romans is not onely meant of the punishment and the guilt of sinne, but also of the depravation of the nature of man. The scope of the place is plainly to shew 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 sinne in them. Peter said depart 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 sinne 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 sinne 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 sinne for us when he knew no sinne: so we are made sinners for Adam when we knew no such sinne. And to confirme this, you further tell us, it is one thing to be made sinne so as to bear the burden of Adams sinne, and ano­ther [Page 108]thing to act sinne. But whereas you speak of two things onely, you should have mentioned three. It is one thing to be made sinne, and another thing to be made sinful, and a third to act sinne. If you speak of being made sinne, so Christ onely was made a sacrifice for sinne, to satisfie 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 sinne, this onely men can do when they have the use of reason and under­standing. From all which we conclude, though Infants can­not be said to act sinne, yet neverthelesse 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 Adams 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 Adams 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 knowledg, wil, 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 sinne, and the pol­lution of his nature, ver. 12.14, 17. So in the like case, the second man did satisfie the justice of God, and sanctifie our na­ture without any personal knowledge, will, motion or act of ours; yet so really and effectually, that none of us can truly be­leeve 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 beleeve 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 [Page 109]provided for his enemies than for himself, page 137. These also are the whimsies of the Examiners of the late Confession. For they (speaking of the indifferency of the will) tell us in plain termes, that as Adams will before his fall did hang in an aequilibrium to good or bad, and enclined 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 your self contented, God is able to secure his own glory, though all men are born in original sinne; and the A­postle doth plainly give the reason, the Lord doth quicken us when we are dead in trespasses and sinnes, 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 shew the exceeding riches of his grace towards us in Jesus Christ, Ephes. 2. ver. 1.2, 3, &c. 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 sinnes, that they may be the greater objects of mercy. If you go in this method, though all Infants are involved in original sinne, though all are mise­rable by nature, yet God hath better provided for him­self than for his enemies; when his grand designe is through the miserie of man to shew 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 mans sinne. But say you, that children have any spawn of sinne cleaving to them, as seed to hatch and gender in, and by any thing received from Adam as we sprang from his loynes, this I deny, page 136. This al­so is the judgement of the Examiners in many pages together. [Page 110]Now if this be so, that infants have no such spawn of original sinne 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 onely evil from his childhood? Why doth the Lord Christ so earnestly presse 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 Adams sinne, yet it is not the whole, nor the full truth. The full truth is this, that he was conceived in sinne, that in the conception his nature was defiled, and the natural defilement was the cause of the two great sinnes of murther 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 judgment; the third, a want of due remembrance; the fourth, the power of temptation; the fifth, the habit and custome of sinne, 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 perversenesse of the will it self, and the pollution of the natural birth. When the bottome of a wound is not searched such Mountebanks must needs make a palliate cure.

Next you say, If you will take from Davids particular ex­ample the general condition of all infants, why do not you take the text concerning John his being sanctified from his mothers 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 mothers womb, this was by a peculiar privi­ledge [Page 111]granted to him; And whereas David saith, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sinne 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 sonnes of men fallen in Adam and born in the corrupted masse; 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 Authours of the Examen do stifly maintain, that the na­ture conveyed from Adam to all his posterity in the way of or­dinary generation is not defiled with sinne. 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 then 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 mothers 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 shew 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 beleeve none can rationally deny, though they will ac­knowledge also that he was sanctified from his mothers 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 Kingdome of heaven. Here say you, ‘If infants be so filthy, why doth our Saviour set such a pattern before us? And the Authours of the [Page 112]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 Kingdome of heaven belongs to such, and is replenished with such?’ I answer, in parables and similitudes we are to look onely to the scope. Our Saviour speaketh of the unjust Steward of putting the talent 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 wayes? No: he doth onely point to something wherein the force of the similitude doth stand? And so in the present case, when he speaketh of humbling our selves, and becoming like little children, it is not his purpose to ascribe such perfection to them, as though all infants were free from original sinne, or that their innocency were the terminus ad quem, the terme 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 onely this, that we should come to act the same things by the power of grace, as little children do thorough the weaknesse 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 lyeth then a palpable and grosse fallacy in your whole discourse, when you take the words absolutely that all infants are free from sinne, 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 sinne by way of act; and by way of omission, you cannot make it good that they ever received a command [Page 113]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 sinne 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 sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne. And many such places there are to prove infants to be guilty of sinne by the disobedience of the first man, and to be involved in the pollution of nature by hereditary contagion. But because you and the Examiners 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 Serpents head, was not this the promise of Christ to Adam after his fall? If infants therefore are absolutely acquitted from the guilt of Adams sinne, as being another mans 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 sinne of omission, because they are not capable of a command, I pray you shew 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 man-child should be cut off from his people? Gen. 17.11.12, &c. For my part I know no reason of the strictnesse of this Law, but that the Lord would signifie to beleevers under this dispensation that there infants were born in original sinne, and that it was not safe to omit the remedy for that disease. And though in strictnesse of termes we will yeeld so farre to Corvinus and to Julian the Pelagian, that there is no particular command that forbids an infant to be born in original sinne; yet for all this they must needs allow, that the Law was given to reveal, to convince, and to discover the sinne of the nature, and by the discovery thereof to drive a man to Christ, to look to him onely for sanctifying and regenerating glrace, S. Paul saith, the Law is spiritual, and I am carnal, sold under [Page 114]sinne. And in the same text, I had not known sinne, except the Law had said, thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7.

You go on, ‘for this sinne 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 sinne.’ Truly Sir your confidence is very great, and you have more boldnesse than truth on your side. For we may beleeve that you never heard of the promises nor the commands mentioned in Scripture when you dare affirme 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 sanctifie 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 beleeving Ephesians, and in them, all others, to subdue and mortifie. And further, if you look to the right use of Baptisme now, as of circumcision of old, you shall finde that the institution of these things doth primarily intend the do­ing away of the sinne of the nature, as I have already shewed in my Treatise of Infant Baptisme. Therefore I cannot but admire at your boldnesse, when you stand so much upon it that you can safely say, that God never called men to repentance for o­riginal sinne. I am so farre from your judgment, that I think the greatest part of repentance lyes in the mortification of the sinne of the nature. But you have an evasion, this sinne called original sinne, 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 sinne. It is proper [Page 115]onely to men of ripe years to commit sinne. For original sin, we say that is onely by propagation, thorough 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 finde a being in the world, that every infant was born in sinne, 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 sinne? for then he must have a share because he came from the loynes 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 sanctifie their nature? There is no need of salvation by the merit of Chri,st where there is no guilt of sinne. 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 baptisme? 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 sinne? For the first, he did assume our na­ture with all the miseries thereof, sinne onely 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 meerely the nature of man clothed with all the infirmities thereof, to sanctifie that nature, and to satisfie 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 sinne condemned sinne 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; onely Christ came in the similitude of sinful flesh. He had the reality of our nature with all the [Page 116]miseries thereof, onely he was born in the similitude of our sin­fulnesse, that he might satisfie the justice of God. And for the second point, how he came to be free from original sinne, 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 Virgins 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 amplifie the truth of this, Christ was not born by vertue of that promise, increase and multiply; for this since the fall hath filled the world with sinners: but he was born by vertue of the special promise, the seed of the woman shall break the Serpents 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 sinne by the mean of a wonderful generation. And in this matter by way of retortion we may turn your own weapons upon your self, and upon the Examiners. 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 inforce the propagation of original sinne. These extraor­dinary means would have been superfluous in case he might have been exempt from all sinne in the ordinary way.

The arguments which you further alledge 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 pub­lick man, and the things that are ascribed to him as a particular person. If you speak of his publick 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 [Page 117]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 masse, 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 confesse 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 sinne entred into the world: If this seem harsh to you, to the Examiners, and to others, that all should be brought un­der a necessity of sinning and perishing by the disobedience of one man, this should pacifie 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 sinne 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 Examiners and you will not say that these are onely for the purging out of actual sinne, 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 pronenesse to sinne after the fall than before. If you can bring no proof for what you say for this, or for the like case, then 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 Baptisme of infants in the new Testament. And so here, you do not read of such and such particular sinnes which Adam did commit after his fall, and [Page 118]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 finde that this testimony is not onely given of Adam, but also of all his posterity. God saw the wickednesse of man that it was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was onely evil from his childhood, Gen. 6.5. If every imagination of his heart was evil from his childhood, then 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) then you must also necessarily conclude that Adam had a greater pronenesse 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 sinnes upon the first sinnes 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 sinnes which Adam did commit, we are not to ad­mire why all are set upon the score of the first sinne. When he received original righteousnesse in the beginning, he received it not onely 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 off-spring. And this is the reason why all is charged upon the first sinne, because that was the sinne of a fiduciary or trustee. The parent was entrusted with the whole stock, which was not only his own peculiar, but also the publick losse of all his posterity. If we might suppose that Adam did commit ten thousand sinnes af­terward, the hurt could not redound to any other but to him­self onely. For how could he bring dammage to small or great by any disobedient act, seeing he was trusted no more? You now come to declare your judgment, ‘why (say you) might we not have thought it more safe, that that which gave the first occasion to sinnes being, was yet the original cause of all [Page 119]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 sinne, 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 termes to excuse men, and to make them with­out blame, when any sinne is committed. The Apostle doth otherwise state the true cause of sinne, every man is drawn a­way with his own lust, and enticed, and lust when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sinne, Jam. 1.13. The sinful will of man and the lust of his heart, may be a cause that doth procreate sinne as well as the Devil and temptation. And more specially to speak in the case we are now upon, concerning the sinne of the first man; and the traducing of original sinne to all posterity, I do not doubt but the Devil and temptation had a great stroak in the fall of man, but we must go to other causes as well as to them; Adams own defective will was a chief cause: And therefore we read of the great judgments that were inflicted upon him for his disobedience to the command. And for that place of Scripture which you alledge, Joh. 8.44. He that com­mitteth sinne, 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 onely parent of sinne, and that we need go to no other but to him onely? Besides, in the case of original sinne, as the corruption of na­ture doth passe by propagation, the Apostle saith we must go to one man as the fountain; by one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne, &c. And therefore if to salve your Tenet, you shall alledge that speech, you are of your Father the Devil, & the lusts of your father will you do: By this I do confesse that the Devil is proved the first parent of sinne 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 [Page 120]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 sinne by temptation and seduction, we will not gain-say it. Onely we do intreat you to remember that Adam is the cause of the conveying of original sinne 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 then the Devil can do to infuse sinne into any man without a mans consent, page 142.’ This is true if you speak in the case of actual sinne onely, but for the deriva­tion of original sinne, 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 harshnesse in the point so long as there is such an effectual remedy prepared by the second man for the lost sonnes 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 sinfulnesse of nature is not without our deliberate and free consent. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darknesse 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 adde, some say the want of pure nature is the cause of our sinne, but it is plain that the purity of na­ture exempts not a man from sinne, for if it had, then 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 onely the cause of sin­ning, but also is the true cause why we can do nothing else but sinne. And this begins 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 [Page 121]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, then 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 alledg, that it is like that Adam would not have sinned again because he sped so ill, page 142. I beleeve it was with him after his fall as it was with David after his two sinnes of murder and adultery; David when he had committed those sinnes did look to the fountain of his misery as it did lye in the pollution of the natural birth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sinne 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 miserie 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 Jewes, if the Sonne will make you free, ye shall be free indeed, Joh. 8.36. By freedome we are to understand not such a civil immunity as Emperors and Kings do give, but a freedome from the bondage and vassalage of corruption. And therefore when the Jewes made him this answer, that they were Abrahams 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 onely. 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 sinne, 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 sinne, being left to himself to try what [Page 122]free-will could do, might fall in a state of natural purity. And being supported by the Spirit, to shew 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 inforce an equality of the states, or that a mans 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 confesse 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, meerely as natural, without the inspiration of the Spirit can go any other way but that which is meerely enmity against God? The Apostle saith, the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, be­cause they are foolishnesse 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 Crosse was foolishnesse. They could discern the wisedome of Plato, and the depth of Aristotle, but the wisedome 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 meerely 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 spake in none of them all he came nearer to God than in that speech which he [Page 123]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 beginne with the sight of misery, and the next is to looke after the free grace and mercie 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 Examiners stand for such a natural purity, I would entreat you to shew 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 Examiners in the Chapter of free wil 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 goodnesse 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 lesse evil then others; it is from the bar of restraining grace. Otherwise, take a natural man as meerly 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 [Page 124] Backbiters, haters of God, despitefull, 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 reliques 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, &c. 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 wil go along with you; But how do you prove from hence the purity of nature, and that a meer 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 imployed their nature wholly to satisfie their lusts. Such natural men percieve not the things of God.’ The same matter in substance is spoken by the Examiners 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 sinne, 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 falshoods. For their defects, they blame them because they [Page 125]do not distinguish the several kinds of natural men; and for their falshoods 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, &c. 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 it self, 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 Examiners 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 [Page 126]that the Apostle doth onely 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 meer­ly by their own strength were able to keep that Law which was made known to them. Only at seasons the Spirit did excite and stirre 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 maxime 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 Smiths forge, which by the operations and stir­rings 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 unrighteousnesse, and that for this cause the Lord doth give them up to a reprobate sense; yet in the next Chapter he doth shew that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law, and do shew [...], 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 farre 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 farre 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 shew that Jewes and Gentiles are both under sinne, and how by the sight of the misery of nature such of them as are saved come to be saved onely 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 Chimera's and fictions of mens own [Page 127]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 emptinesse 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 Adams sinne, 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, then it belongs to such persons onely as are dead in trespasses and sinnes; 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 aire 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 sinne 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 disanul that truth we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. For infants, so farre forth as they come out of Adams loynes 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 onely 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 Examiners mend the matter by their Intepretation, 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 [Page 128]to be by nature the children of wrath, especially when sinne by custome becomes a second nature to us, page 78.’ Here we will be no adversaries to them so farre 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 throught heir personal fall, yet the Apostle doth especially look unto the sinne of the nature: And therefore doth amplifie the grace of God in quickning and enlivening again when he saith you hath he quickned that were dead in trespasses and sinnes. They were not onely truly dead in sinne thorough custome and sinful conversation, but also thorough 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 sinnes. 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 losse 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 losse 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 sinnes. It is plaine 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 [Page 129]though men are dead in trespasses and sinnes, they are not dead as stocks and stones and other sencelesse creatures, but they are dead as they who sometime had spiritual life, and may have the return of the same life again in and thorough Christ the way, the truth, and the life. So also the Examiners in the Chapter of free will, page 130. do but calumniate, when they say that we teach, that a man is a meere passive block or a dead trunck 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 blindnesse shall be taken away from his understanding, and per­versenesse from his will. It is an excellent speech of Augustine, posse credere naturae est hominum, to have a remote ability to be­leeve, 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 beleeve, is of the grace given to beleevers: shewing that no natural man hath an immediate power to beleeve till he come inwardly to be en­livened by the Spirit.

Let us hear then what you can say; how the sonnes of men may be said to be dead in trespasses and sinnes. ‘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, then I shall grant it. But I shall deny that such a death is any sinne: 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 sinne, 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 sinne, 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 sinne. 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 [Page 130]in sense we affirme that not onely the Ephesians, but also all others are dead in trespasses and sinnes. But let us further enquire 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 affirme that they are any way the children of wrath, so farre 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 lyable to wrath.

The first are such as reject Christ in the publick tenders of the Gospel. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they should have had no sinne, but now they have no cloak for their sinne, Joh. 12.48. In this sense we say that not onely In­fants, but also the natural Ephesians themselves were free from the guilt of sinne. For if infants (as you affirme) 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 sinne, because the Gospel was not preached, and Christ was not tendered to them. The Apostle saith they were at [Page 131]that time strangers from the Common-Wealth of Israel, and aliens from the Covenant of promise. Secondly, they are lyable to wrath, who, though they never had the Gospel preached, yet do wilfully hold the truth in unrighte­ousnesse, 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 sinnes 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 publick 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 unrighteousnesse. Thirdly, they are lyable to wrath, who, though they never committed actual sinne, yet do partake of the sinne of the nature, and of the guilt of that sinne. 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 then it is true, that so farre 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 lyable to wrath, yet they do not unavoidably lie under a necessity of perishing. As for example, David by his murther 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 sinne of the nature doth not lay hold upon them because Christ hath satisfied the justice of God.

Secondly, if it be further alledged, that they which live out of the bosome of the visible Church must lie under a necessity of perishing, not onely 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 affirme there is no man whose eyes are truly opened thorough 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 shew 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 thorough 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 thorough all the arguments, brought by Mr. Everard, to prove the purity of the natural birth; and where the Examiners 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.