to Adam was without a seal; but what that seal was is the question,

I

First, I observe, that Adam was naked, before the fall as well as after, but only they was not ashamed, because they knew it not. Compare Gen. 2. 25. chap. 3. 11. So they could not know that there was such a thing as being clothed. observe, that they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons; but this is before God came in the garden, so doth all the sons of Adam to this day; if they can but get a few leaves of duty to cover their nakedness, they think they are prepared for God, come when he will; but to know the necessity of being clothed they did not know.

I

Secondly, The promise was not yet made, therefore their fig-leaved aprons could be no seal. state this doctrine, that it is not all the works and obedience of the sons of Adam that can be a seal of the promise of life. I know I shall be opposed in this, but I value not, I desire but one argument, thus, if it be the promiser's prerogative to seal his own grace, then the receiver of grace has none. I thought to have offered no more, but another offered itself so directly to my service, that I cannot well pass it by. If a seal be to confirm the immutability of the counsel of the promiser, then the receiver of grace cannot by any grace received seal the promise; but the former is true, Rom. 15. 8. Heb. 6. 17. Egro, therefore it must be the promiser that seals. But I return to Adam; I observe, that after God has given Adam the promise of life, and before he turns him out of the garden, and denies him the tree of life, which was the seal of the covenant of works, he made them coats of skins and clothed them; but now what skins these was is the

question? I conceive that God prepared them himself or instructed Adam to do it, but I rather think that God inspired Adam to offer sacrifices, and so clothes them with the skins of the sacrifices, my reason is this, because Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, and we do not read of any command they had. Now we must say they was commanded by God, or by imitating their father. Now if it cannot be proved they was commanded, it is the more probable they had it from their father; if there be any proof for the command, let it be produced. I will be bold to say they had it from their father, as the seal of the promise of life. I shall prove it by such consequences, that it will put the opposer beyond confuting. I argue thus: if Abel offered sacrifices the sacrifices must be significant, or its virtue must be intrinsical in itself; but the former is true, Gen. 4. 4. If Abel offered sacrifices by faith, he must believe in the thing signified and sealed by his sacrifices, or in its intrinsical worth and virtue; in its intrinsical worth and virtue it was not, for then Abel's offering, and Cain's, had not differed.

Secondly, Had Abel believed in the intrinsical worth and virtue of his sacrifices, he had trodden the promises of life under foot, therefore he offered it as the seal of the promise of life made to Adam. Now oppose who can. So I say Adam and Eve was clothed with the skin of their sacrifices, as a seal of the promise, yet the promise or ministry was further confirmed to Noah, for that was confirmed by oath. It is true we have no account of an oath in Genesis, but only of a bow in the cloud, yet Isaiah tells us that God swore, Isa. 54. 9. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go

over the earth, so I have sworn I would not be wroth with thee nor rebuke thee. I observe that word this, for this is as the waters of Noah. What this? this that he was going to say, for I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. He swore to Noah that the waters should no more go over the earth; but to whom he sware that he would not be wrath is the question. Not to Noah, for then there needed not to have been his and so. I state this doctrine, that the one is the original, and the other an abstract or copy, the thing is plain; but which is the original is my matter in hand, I answer, that God had sworn that he would not be wroth with that thee, before he did swear to Noah, that the waters should no more go over the earth. Now this thee, must either respect a singular person, or a singular body; if we say this thee, respected only the singular person of Noah, then it had been in vain for God to have comforted his church with an dath, in which they was not concerned.

Secondly, If that thee, was a body that God swore to Noah for that he would not be wroth with, then I ask the bigness and substance of that body? If universal, God must be forsworn to Noah, in any that perish, for they cannot perish without wrath; if a particular body, then every particular person of that particular body must believe that God must lie to Noah, if he be angry with them, and so make Noah the object of faith. But one argument more, If it was a peculiar covenant with Noah, then must every one that are saved have such a peculiar oath made to them. Let any of those that are of this judgment produce their witness.

COURTEOUS READER,

HEREVER read in this book, that the you

W Author is speaking of the human nature

of Christ, or our nature in him (as in page 19, and other places) when he is speaking of the human nature of Christ being set up or taken into relation to God, or in personal union to God, it respects his esteem, or honour, or offices, or his names or powers that he had or has by virtue of the covenant between him and the Father, as being head of his constituted body, not that his human nature was created, as is proved at large in page 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. For consider an essential relation and a covenantal one. If you want light, look upon the figure Adam, for there is a great difference between the natural relation that Eve had to Adam, and her covenant relation to him, you know he runs the two crowned heads parallel.

THE Publisher begs leave to inform the Subscribers and other readers of this work, that the many grammatical Errors which they will meet with in it, are not owing to any want of attention on his part, he having faithfully adhered to the language of that copy of DAVID CULY'S WORKS, which was put into his hands.

PLANT, PRINTER, SPILSBY.