in divers refpects; it is loft unto Man, and it is loft, (fo to speak) unto God, being fo fmothered and buryed, under the filth and impurity of fin in mans heart, that the Lord hath not that ufe of IT, fo as to appear and shine forth therein, and convey the mani eftations, of his glory, there through, unto man's foule. And thus it may be faid, to be loft unto God. Who is here fignifyed by the wom an that lights a Candle, and fweeps the house and feeks dil gently till she finds IT. And, if man would find this piece of mony, he must seek IT, in the Light of this Candle which God hath lighted him with, and not in the Light of his own kindling; and he muft concur with the Lord to fweep the house, and feek IT diligently in the vertue and Power of that true Light of God, which hath inlightned him, and fo he will find it, in the house, where it was loft, even in his own heart. Again, though this piece of mony doth remain, as it were, in many men loft unto God, yet certainly the Lord will not give over the feeking of it, till he find IT in ALL, and raife IT up in ALL, to have that ufe in them, which he hath appointed in wihch he will appear in everlafting joy, peace and refreshment, unto the foules of them who have beleeved and been obedient, but eternally be revealed, in flames of fire, taking Vengeance on all them who have continued in unbelief and disobedience, till the day of their mercifull visitation be over.

Matth. 25. From Verse 19. to 31. Compared with Luke 19. Verse 12. to 19. Thefe two Parables are much of a kind, most evidently and truly pointing at the fame thing with these already mentioned. For what elce do thefe Talents, which the Lord gave unto ALL the fervants of his houfe fignify; but the divine Grace or Gift which Chrift hath received of the Father, and given unto every man, to profit with all to the falvation, of his foule? And is it ought elce but partiality and prejudice against the Truth, in our Adverfaries, to fay that the One Talent, which the one received, was not in kind and Nature, one and the fame, with the other Talents, and fo not of a faving nature? For from the Words of Scripture they have not the leaft occafion to thinke and judge fo. As if the one had not been sufficient enough for him to have traded with and increased it, and confequently have been accepted of God, as well as the others. True it is

one

one of the Parables holds forth a difference in refpect of the Quantity, but not at all of the Quality, nature or kind. Now, leaft some might yet think the flothfull fervant had not received what was fufficient; the fingular providence of God gives us another Parable: declaring that the flothfull fervant had his Pound given him, as the other; Every one their Pound. Which imports that fome may have, not onely the fame grace given them as others, but even the fame measure, and yet prove flothfull fervants. Befides, that this Talent was not any Natural gift, but indeed fupernaturall, Spirituall, and fufficient to falvation, is moft evident from thefe enfuing Reasons. &c. 1. Because the Kingdome of heaven is held forth by this Parable, but no meer naturall gift hath relation thereunto. Therefore this Talent, is no meere Naturall gift.

2. Because the flothfull fervant is faid to have hid his Talent in the Earth, and made no use therof. But there is no meer Naturall man but doth more or lefs ufe the naturall gift of Wisdome or knowledge that is given him. Yea the worft of men have very much used the naturall light, and abufed it to ferve their lafts. Wheras this is hid in the earth, and not used at all.

3. Because otherwife the flothfull fervant might have had an excufe Viz. that his Talent was not fufficient, with all his induftry, to procure any increase, that might be accepted of his Lord. But the flothfull fervant himself pleads not this, onely charges the Lord (though falfly too) with hardness and auftereness.

Thus I have the more briefly ran through thefe Parables, not infifting upon the many circumstances, but onely pointing at the main thing intended in them, as knowing that the scope of a Parable is mostly to 'be heeded.

SECTION

SECTION II.

Holding forth the fame thing, in divers Arguments from the intrinfick evidence of the Truth it felf, confonant to found Reafon...

G

1. Argument.

From the Righteousness of God.

OD,the righteous Judge of the whole earth hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in Righteousness, -and give unto every man according to his deeds done in the body, whether good or evill. Now the fentence of his righteous judgement against all workers of iniquity will be for their difobedience to his righteous will and Pleafure. For, God having made all men to dwell upon the earth, and been good unto them, 't is a righteous thing in him to require of them all service and obedience, even to love him above all, to fear, and worship him, and do the things that are well pleafing in his fight.

But, as it is righteous with the Lord to require this of all men, fo is it also as righteous that he should give unto every man of whom he requires this obedience, fuch a manifeftation of his will as is fufficient. to give them the knowledg of all that he requireth ofthem; and alfo adminifter to them that power & ability, whereby it is, at least, poffible for them fo to do the things required of them as to be accepted. of him. Seing then, that men can neither fufficiently know, nor be able to do, the will of God, without an inward principle of light & life from God, fufficient to that effect; Therefore, it is manifeft, that there is fuch a Principle given to them. Even to every man that cometh into the world.

Object. To this our Adverfaries object, That ability hath been given unto every man both to know, and do the Will of God; but they, by their fin, have loft it, and fo it is righteous with the Lord, now to re

quire

quire obedience of them, though they cannot perform it, because they once had it, and their playing the prodigall with it diminis hes not the Lords right of exalting it from them ftill.

Anfw. But of thefe men we ask, when or how was this Power & ability given to all men? how and when, did they loofe it? If they say in Adam. Ireply, that this is but a deceitfull mift caft before mens eyes to blind them from feing the truth. But the day is dawned, and dawning, the glorious light of which will go on to difpell all fuck mifts of deceit. But, that I may make this the more plainly appear, I shall first premise fome things. First, I grant, Adam had, when God made him, an ability or Power given him, in a divine principle oflight and life, both to know and do the will of God. Secondly: That Adam, by his fall, came to loofe this ability, by loofing the divine Principle in which the ability ftood. Which though he loft, yet it remained in his own houfe: but the light and life thereof became though the prevalency of the fall extinguished, it died in him, remained shut up in death, till the Lord raifed it up againe by adminiftring unto it fomewhat of its owne nature that was living which HE was no way obliged to do, but might of Adam have required obedience, even after this loffe, because it was the fruit and confequent of his own Perfonall disobedience. Thirdly its also true, this loffe is defcended upon all Adams pofterity, fo that (as they come from him) they are impotent, and unable, from any Principle conveyed from him, either to know or do the will of God: and the Image of God lies flain and loft in them. But I deny, that this lofs is, by God, imputed unto Adams Pofterity, before their own actuall or Perfonall tranfgreffion: for they brought not this lofs upon themfelvs, they having then no perfonall Being, but Adam brought it upon

them.

Object. If they say, they brought it upon themfelvs, because, being in Adam, they finned (though not perfonally and actually) when he finned, and fo his fin was their fin.

Anfw. I reply, that all men were in Adam when he finned, 'this imports no more, then that Adam was the ftock or root of all mankind, but not, that all men had a perfonall exiftence in Adam; Therefore I deny that they can be faid to have finnéd in Adam. That is to fay,

Anfw. By all, in the firft propofition 't is cleare that MEN are to be understood: for its faid, death passed upon all men, for that all have finned, or (as it may be rendred) in which all have finned. But this place fpeaketh not at all of infants, who are not Men and Women,

but children.

Object. But they would again infer their fiction from another tranflation of the words [o] rendring them (not for that, but) in whom (that is, fay they, in Adam) all have finned.

Anfw. To this we fay, that though the words be rendred in whom, or in which, there is not onely no neceffity, but no ground to underftand it of Adams perfon. For there is another Antecedent unto which it more nearly relates, Viz the fin that entred into the world by which came death. And indeed is death it felf, to wit, that curfed feed of fin, in wich all have finned, that ever did fin. All fin being committed in it. And this feed and birth of fin is called Adam, i.e. the old Adam or old Man: as the feed and birth of righteoufnefs, is called the NewMan or fecond Adam. And in this fence, the tranflation [in whom may be admitted and the explication, to wit, in Adam all have finned. The word Adam not being understood of that first perfon whofe name was Adam, but of that finfull and finning nature wich being derived from him beares his Name.

Obj. They Object further that because its faid death reigned over them who have not finned after the fimilitude of Adams tranfgreffion, therefore infants are finners, for by that phrafe, fay they, are infants understood.

Anfw. Suppofe that infants are there understood, it is fo farre from proving them finners, that it doth rather the contrary. Saying that death reigned over them who had not finned, &c.

Obj. But fay they, Infants are finners becaufelyable to death, as many do actually dy in their infancy. Ergo they are finners.

Anfw. I deny the confequence, their death no more proves them finners, then it proves the Apostles and other holy men deceased, to be ftill finners, because they are dead, or do ftill continue in the state of the dead, and shall, till the refurrection of the body. But this they themselves beleev not. Therefore this argument overdoes again, ifit does any thing.

They