The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…

2 The other, that man, in the state of original sin or natural corruption devoid of the spirit of regeneration, is under the servitude of sin, hath no liberty from it. Now in these particulars I could not imagine that this Author differed from us, unless with Pelagius he entertains an affection to deny original sin. For if all men be borne in original sin, seeing it is God that takes us out of our mothers womb, and by whom we are brought forth into this world, it cannot be denied, I should think, that God bringeth all men forth into the world, in original sin. As for the second, Doctor Potter confesseth it as the doctrine of the Church of England, that man in state of nature hath no liberty from sin. It is true, this liberty he distinguisheth from that liberty, which is called, liberty from necessity, which he grants to a natural man; to whom he denies the former, which cannot stand without contradiction. For if a man hath no liberty from sin he must needs sin. And therefore Doctor Fulke upon the Rhemish Testament doth usually distinguish between liberty from sin, and liberty from coaction. And both Arminius and Corvinus confess that by the sin of Adam all men are cast upon a necessity of sinning, though God be ready to deliver us from this necessity of sinning upon reasonable terms to be performed on mans part, which latter doctrine we utterly renounce as manifestly breathing the spirit of Pelagius, in a particular generally condemned in the Church of God, namely, that grace is conferred according to works or merits. This makes me conceive that this Author carrieth himself cunningly in the proposition of this doctrine which he imputes unto us, and that he hath a reach more then every one is aware of. And indeed the phrase he useth of bringing men into an estate, is very harsh, though applied to Adam and Eve our first parents, much more applied to their race and posterity. For albeit Adam was created in a better state, and afterwards brought into the state of sin, and bondage of corruption: yet what sinister judgement moved this Author to impute this unto God, rather then to Adam himself? what if God took his holy spirit from them upon their fall, whereupon they found themselves naked and were ashamed? was it not just with God to do so? Doth not M.

2 The other, that man, in the state of originall sinne or naturall corruption devoyd of the spirit of regeneration, is under the servitude of sinne, hath no liberty from it. Now in these particulars I could not imagine that this Authour differed from us, unlesse with Pelagius he entertaines an affection to deny originall sinne. For if all men be borne in originall sinne, seing it is God that takes us out of our mothers wombe, and by whom we are brought forth into this world, it cannot be denyed, I should thinke, that God bringeth all men forth into the world, in originall sinne. As for the second, Doctor Potter confesseth it as the doctrine of the Church of England, that man in state of nature hath no liberty from sinne. It is true, this liberty he distinguisheth from that liberty, which is called, liberty from necessity, which he grants to a naturall man; to whom he denyes the former, which cannot stand without contradiction. For if a man hath no liberty from sinne he must needs sinne. And therefore Doctor Fulke upon the Remish Testament doth usually distinguish betweene liberty from sinne, and liberty from coaction. And both Arminius and Corvinus confesse that by the sinne of Adam all men are cast upon a necessity of sinning, though God be ready to deliver us from this necessity of sinning upon reasonable termes to be performed on mans part, which latter doctrine we utterly renounce as manifestly breathing the spirit of Pelagius, in a particular generally condemned in the Church of God, namely, that grace is conferred according to works or merits. This makes me conceive that this Authour carryeth himselfe cunningly in the proposition of this doctrine which he imputes unto us, and that he hath a reach more then every one is aware of. And indeed the phrase he useth of bringing men into an estate, is very harsh, though applyed to Adam and Eve our first parents, much more applyed to their race and posterity. For albeit Adam was created in a better state, and afterwards brought into the state of sinne, and bondage of corruption: yet what sinister judgement moved this Authour to impute this unto God, rather then to Adam himselfe? what if God tooke his holy spirit from them upon their fall, whereupon they found themselves naked and were ashamed? was it not just with God to do so? Doth not M.