what Adam would do out of the Freedom of his own Will: This latter Proposition is modal and qualified, so not not of the same kind with the former, and therefore not opposite to it, for
Oppo∣sita should be Ejusdem Generis: As for Instance,
2 Kings 8.10. [Thou may'st certainly recover] was true
Respectu Rei & in Sensu diviso, because his Disease was of it's own Nature curable; and yet [Thou shalt surely dye] was true also Respectu Dei, & in Sensu composito, as subordinate to the Divine Decree fore-ordaming that Hazael should stisle him by the Occasion of this Disease; so 'tis a plain
Fallacia Divisionis, a Fallacy of Divi∣sion.
2. Adam might have stood (as well as fal'n) Respectu Rei, for God gave not his Creature a Law only, but furnish'd him with Power suffi∣cient to keep that Law also, if he would; and if Man had not been mutable, he had been God and not Man, for not to be mutable is peculiar to God, whereby he is distinguish'd from all Cre∣ated Beings: Yet respectu Dei, it was not possible he should stand; for in God's Decree it was cer∣tain, that Man being left to the mutability of his own Will (upon Saran's tempting, and God's permitting) would voluntarily encline to Evil; and this was a Certainty or Necessity of Infal∣sibility, Quoad eventum, but not of Compulsion, Quoad modum agendi et eveniendi.
3. Adam sinned freely in respect of himself, yet necessarily in respect of God; he acted as freely therein, as if there had been no Decree; and yet as infallibly, as if there had been no Li∣berty: God's Decree took not away Man's Li∣berty.