having ended their first sinne they were ashamed and had time to gather figleaves and sew them and make themselves aprons or things to gird about them after this they heard God speak and hid themselves after this was their examination de facto and their confession after all this begins Adams excuse Genes 3.12 and Eves vers 13. The diversitie of these severall actions and the distance of time interceding shew it was no part of their first sinne to excuse themselves An other especiall sinne it was aggravating the former and in this sinne Adam sinned worst as accusing God indirectly for giving such an helper to him as had hurt him Who will see things more at large let him consult with Estius and Bellarmine unto whom for the main I do subscribe though I make the last part and act of Adam and Eves sinne to be their reall orall manducation The second scape of Bellarmine is that whereas in true Divinitie the fall of mankinde is a consequent of our first parents transgression Bellarmine makes it one of the seven acts of their sinne confounding the cause with the effect and not sufficiently distinguishing the fault from the punishment May I adde these things Out of the words of Scotus I thus argue Originall justice was given to Adam as to the worthier abler and wiser person yea it was so given that if he lost it he was to lose it for himself and his whole posteritie But it was not so given or infeoffeed to Eve therefore since he failed when the trust of the whole World was reposed on him his sinne must needs be much more hainous then hers If the first sinning Angel was the greatest delinquent though none of the other Angels sinned in him but each of himself by his own proper will then Adam certainly sinned worse who bare our persons and being the Referre to whom our blessednesse or cursednesse was intrusted drew us all into unhappinesse For the woman was but the incompleat principle of offending saith Gorran But by Adams first sinne we lost the good of nature * Bonum naturae quod erat per originem naturae traducendum Aquin in Rom. 5. Lect. 3. which was to be transmitted by the spring of nature saith Aquine By Adams other transgressions the good of personall grace was diminished and might be recovered but the Naturall good traducible could not be regained by any repentance The greatnesse of Adams sinne appeared in that he might so easily have kept the precept * Quanta erat iniquitas in peceando vbi tanta eratnon peceandi facilitas Aug. De Civit. 14.15 How great iniquitie was there in sinning where such facilitie was of not sinning saith Augustine Indeed to eat of the apple seemeth a small matter to the carnall eyes of men but in the least thing to be disobedient is not the least offence for as to obey is better then sacrifice so disobedience is as the sinne of witchcraft and transgression is wickednesse and idolatrie 1 Sam. 15.22 23. Naaman who would have performed a greater matter should much more willingly have been ruled by the Prophet in a trifle it was the well-poised argument of his servants 2. Kings 5.13 and his correspondent obedience was justly rewarded with health But Adam besides the smallnes of the matter it self erred grosly in the manner for God did not appoint him any hard work no laborious task to perform Omission is of an easie and pliable nature more facile it is for one not to wash a thousand times then to wash once Now the precept unto Adam was inhibitive meerly of omission negation or preterition easier to be kept then broken and therefore to break it was a sinne of an high hand a presumptuous sinne which may be aggravated in him by this circumstance that he received the restraint from God which Eve did not They who think otherwise of Adams sinne do judge of it as the common people do of the fixed starres who imagine them to be no greater then a candle But if you truly take the height and breadth of Adams sinne it will be found as the starres in heaven of greatnes almost incredible divers of them in their severall stations being greater then the whole earth Perhaps one of the reasons why the Apostle Heb. 11. nameth not Adam among the old faithfull Heroes was this because he committed a greater sinne then any of them For his offence hath been the cause of death of sicknes of all punishments inflicted on men in this life or in the life to come Not Satans temptation not Eves seduction but Adams wilfull disobedience cost the bloud of the Sonne of God And all the despighteous sinnes of mankinde wherewith the Father blessed for ever the gracious Redeemer and the sanctifying Spirit are grieved and do as it were grone under and at which the holy Angels are offended and do in their sort mourn proceed originally from that sinne of Adam and but for that had never been Therefore was his offence greater then Eves Moreover God first summoned Adam though Eve sinned first and questioned Adam particularly for that sin and not Eve Genes 3.9 and at the censure perchance with an emphasis God said unto Adam which he did not unto Eve Gen. 3.17 Thou hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded THEE saying THOV shalt not eat of it and denounced more punishments against him then against Eve and worse and this among the rest ratifying the former threatning Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return inflicting death on Adam on Eve on us for Adams sinne and not for Eves Lastly the Spirit of God seemeth to derive the fault from Eve unto the Serpent 2 Cor. 11.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in astutia sua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his craft and her simplicitie he deceived her Now let Scotus lessen Adams offence as much as he can let him say * Esus ligni vetiti non fuit piccatum nisi quia prohibitum The eating of the forbidden tree was no sinne but because it was forbidden and he might well and lawfully have eaten of it if he had not been forbidden and he erred not against any naturall law but a law positive and in a thing otherwise indifferent I answer The same and more excuses are for Eve Again in regard of its spreading infection and the myriads of evils thence ensuing the blessed estate of many millions by him betrayed to the lake of fire and brimstone which never shall be quenched contrarie to the trust to him concredited I shall alwayes think Adams sinne the worst of all sinnes that ever any one of mankinde committed not excepting the sinne of Judas or the sinne against the Holy Ghost For these hurt but few and if they were worse intensively they were not so bad extensively and therefore I must account it one of Scotus his errours when he saith * Peccato Adae non debebatur maxima
the branches being saved the root also should not be saved But in his book De praescript advers Haereticos as it is cited by Bellarmine there is no mention of Tatian in Rhenanus his Edition Augustine saith of the Tatians and Encratites * Quòd contradicunt primorum hominum saluti Aug. De Haeresib cap. 25. That they gainsay the salvation of the first men Where Bellarmine used another Edition then Erasmus his or was mistaken in the collation He who will see more into this point let him consult with Bellarmine in the place above cited and Salianus ad Annum Mundi 930. where he justly taxeth Rupert for saying in this third book on Genes chap. 31. * Salvationem Adami à multit liberè negari à nullo satìs firmiter defendi That the salvation of Adam is freely denied by many and by none strongly enough defended And he bringeth many authorities and proofs to the contrary From Irenaeus he bids them blush for saying Adam was not saved and more vehemently That by saying so they make themselves Hereticks and Apostates from the truth and Advocates for the Serpent and Death God cursed not Adam and Eve but the earth and the Serpent Yea before God pronounced any punishment against Eve or Adam even in the midst of his cursing of the Serpent with the same breath he both menaced Satan and comforted Adam and Eve with the gracious promise of the Messiah Genes 3.15 Now there was never any unto whom God vouchsafed a speciall promise of Christ but they were saved Indeed the Apostle reckoneth not Adam among the faithfull ones Hebr. 11. but one reason of this omission is because he entreateth of such faithfull ones onely as were much persecuted which Adam was not so farre as is recorded If it be further objected That God is called THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ISAAC AND JACOB Exod. 3.6 Matth. 22.32 and is no where called THE GOD OF ADAM let it be answered That Adam is called THE SONNE OF GOD Luke 3.38 And I think he is too severe a judge who saith a sonne of God is damned The Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase set forth by Rivius on the Canticles chap. 1. vers 1. saith * Et veuit dies Sabbati protexit eum aperuit os suum dixit Psalmum Cantici diei Sabbati That the first song that ever was made was indited by Adam in the time when his sinne was forgiven him Damianus à Goes De Moribus Aethiopum makes this the belief of Zagazabo and the Ethiopians for whom he negotiated That Christs soul descended into Hell for Adams soul pag. 93. and that Adam was redeemed by Christ from Hell pag. 55. How glorious was it for Christ to save his first sheep and how would the Devil glorie if it were otherwise Adams fig-leaves may be thought to be sharp afflictive and penitentiall Epiphanius Haeres 46. calleth Adam Holy and saith We beleeve he is among those Fathers whom Christ reckoneth alive not dead God is not the God of the dead but of the living Irenaeus saith Adam humbly bare the punishment laid upon him Can humility be damned then may pride be saved Josephus 1.2 recordeth That Adam foretold the universall destruction of the World one by the floud the other by fire And can the first of Mankinde the first King Priest and Prophet of the World be condemned Others probably conjecture that before his death he called the chief of his children grand-children and their descendants and gave them holy and ghostly counsel as Abraham did Genes 18.19 and Jacob Genes 49.1 c. and Moses Deuteron 31.1 c. Salianus fits him a particular speech at his death and a witty Epitaph Feuardentius on Irenaeus thus relateth Nicodemus Christs Disciple in the History ascribed to him OF THE PASSION AND RESVRRECTION OF THE LORD reporteth That our Lord Jesus Christ when he descended into Hell in his soul spake thus to Adam and held his hand PEACE BE VNTO THEE VVITH ALL THY SONNES MY IVST ONES But Adam falling on his knees such spirituall knees as before his spirituall hand which Christ held while both their bodies were in the grave weeping-ripe thus prayed with a loud voice * Exaltabo te Domine quoniam suscepisti me nec delectâsti inimicos meos super me Domine Deus clamavi ad te sanâsti me eduxisti ab inferis animam meam salvâstime à descendentibus in lacum I will magnifie thee Lord because thou hast received me and hast not made glad mine enemies over me Lord God I have cried unto thee and thou hast healed me Thou hast brought up my soul from Hell thou hast saved me from those that go down to the pit Thus Salianus in his Scholia ad Annum 930. Another ancient Apocryphal book affirmeth that Adam repented Didacus Vega in his second Sermon on the fifth penitentiall Psalme pag. 443. thus Leonardus de Vtino in his Book De Legibus Sermon de Poenitentia saith That Adam repented not of his sinne but remained obstinate till the death of Abel but when he saw him lye dead at his feet wallowed in his bloud and yet pale and as in a glasse saw the deformity of death he began to repent Strabo saith He was so sorrowfull that he vowed chastity for ever and would have performed it if an Angel had not injoyned him the contrary And from the authority of Josephus he saith Adam was so sorry for Abel that he wept an whole hundred yeares But I beleeve saith Vega He rather wept for the cause which was sinne then for the very death of Abel Ludovicus Vertomannus in his sixth Book fourth Chapter of his journey to India hath recorded that a Mahumetan Merchant told him that at the top of an high mountain in the Iland of Zaylon subject to the King of Narsinga there is a den in which Adam after his fall lived and continued very penitently And though their tradition rests on an idle conjecture because there is yet seen the print of the steps of his feet almost two spannes long for how should they know they were his feet rather then some giants and because how Adam should come to this Iland and why cannot be shewed yet so farre as is probable we will joyn issue with their beleef to wit That he was penitent and so saved Thus much be spoken concerning the salvation of Adams soul Concerning Adams actuall sinne though I said truly before That as it was private and personall it was not imputed to us yet I must needs say as it was ideall and representative it was and is imputed to us He who denieth this let him also deny that Christs active and passive Merits are imputed to us Neither can the Divine providence be taxed with rigour much lesse with injustice for imputing Adams sinne unto us For first he imputeth not our own actuall and personall iniquities but forgiveth us both this sinne of Adam and all manner of
compared Book 1. p. 13 14 15. The Ascension of Christ represented in the assumption of Enoch and Elias Book 3. p. 191 to 195. B BEauty desired Book 1. pag. 19. The Being or not Being of a thing may be said divers wayes Book 2. p. 77. Bristoll built of old by Brennus ibid. p. 23 24. C WHence the Capitol in Rome had its name B. 2. pag. 18. Ceremonies Leviticall died at first by degrees and now they are not onely dead but deadly Book 1. p. 3. There is no Chance where Providence reigneth Book 2. p. 71 72. Cherubims with reall flaming swords were placed in Paradise Book 1. p. 2 3. and why ibid. p. 23. Christs beautie in his humanitie described together with his Passion B. 1. p. 18 19 20. compare ibid. p. 193. Christ doth us more good then Adam did us harm ibid. p. 185 to 188. Christ saved more in number then Adam condemned ibid. p. 188 189. c. Whether Christ were in Adam and how ibid. p. 82 83. The judgement of the essentiall Church of Christ is infallible ibid. p. 148. Circumcision of women by the Turks ibid. p. 144. A wicked Companion is very dangerous Book 3. p. 184 185. Conception what it is and how B. 1. p. 93 to 99. Confirmation in grace is of two sorts ibid. p. 48. Generall Councels are the highest earthly Judges of Scriptures controversed ibid. p. 136 148. D DEath is threefold Book 1. p. 4. Death is common to all ibid. Death Naturall and Violent ibid. p. 17. Sinne is the onely cause of Death ibid. p. 26 27. Death is bitter because painfull ibid. pag. 28 31. Death is sweet to some men because God makes it beneficiall unto them ibid. pag. 32 33 c. Death was inflicted on Adam for one sinne ibid. Death was inflicted for the sinne of the man Adam not of the woman Eve ibid. pag. 36 to 44. Speedy death by some is accounted best Book 3. pag. 187. Whether all Adams posteritie without priviledge or exception must and shall die Book 3. Chap. 1 2 3 throughout The difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Book 1. pag. 192 193 c. Disciples of Christ were none of them Noble at least not Nobly bred Book 2. pag. 86. E OF the East-Indians and their language Book 3. p. 204. Of Elias and Enoch whether they be yet living or dead Book 3. Chap. 2. throughout Divers questions about Enoch more especially ibid. p. 181 182 c. Equivocation in what sense and in what cases it may be allowable Book 1. pag. 165 167. The second book of Esdras was never held Canonicall ibid. p. 7. Eve remained an intemerate virgin untill after the sinne of Adam ib. p. 39 40. Whether Eve sinned before she talked with the serpent ibid. pag. 60. Excommunication was of three sorts in the Jewish politie Book 2. pag. 48 49. F THe word Father is diversly taken in the holy Scripture Book 1. pag. 120. and Book 2. pag. 113 c. G GEnealogies were ever drawn from the Males Book 1. page 40 41. H THe Healed by Christ were never a second time cured of any disease Book 2. p. 8. Heavenly influences which are noxious are the causes of much sicknesse and destruction Book 1. p. 17. All languages have some words retaining the foot-steps of the Hebrew Book 2. p. 45. When the Hebrew points were first used Book 1. p. 100 101 102. Hebron the citie Book 2. page 19 to 29. Humilitie ibid. p. 161 162. The humilitie of S. Paul Book 2. p. 84 85. The Husband represents the wife Book 1. p. 140. I JEr 10.11 was the onely verse of his whole prophesie that was written in Chaldee which every captive Jew was commanded to cast in the teeth of the Babylonians Book 1. p. 180. Jerusalem the holy citie Book 2. p. 154 155 156. Ignorance threefold Book 1. p. 60. Interpretation of Scriptures is the Pastours right with whom the Laitie must consult ibid. p. 149 150 156 181 182. Book 2. p. 63. Interpretation of Scriptures by Anagrams is profane B. 1. p. 152 153. Whether interpretation of Scriptures or judgement of doctrine do in any sort belong unto the people and how farre ibid. p. 157 159. Helps and cautions prescribed unto the people for interpretation of Scriptures ibid. pag. 160 to pag. 169 c. John the Apostle his death Book 3. p. 187 188 189. Joseph was the first-born of Jacob. Book 1. p. 142 143. Joseph was a type of Christ Book 2. p. 33. A twofold acception of the word Judgement Book 1. p. 6. Judgement after death is private of souls publick of bodies and souls ibid. K. KIngs represent the people under them Book 1. p. 183 184. Of the honour due unto the King ibid. Whether Korah Dathan and Abiram descended with all their goods truly into hell Book 3. p. 214 215 to p. 221. L WHerein the confusion of Languages consisted Book 2. p. 45 46. Orientall languages conduce much to the understanding of Scriptures therefore necessarie to be studied ib. p. 48. Of the same languages also B. 3. p. 204 205. Of Lazarus raised by Christ Book 2. p. 7 8 9. Humane Learning is an handmaid to Divinitie ib. p. 88 89. Literall sense of Scripture is hardest to be found Book 1. p. 149. M MAgistrates not to be reviled Book 1. p. 168 169 170. Maran-atha expounded Book 2. p. 48 to p. 54. Of Melchisedech and why he is said to be without father and mother Book 3. p. 201 202 c. to p. 206. Members of the bodie are not all of equall worth Book 1. p. 63. God is very Mercifull unto all ib. p. 186 187. Whether Moses at the Transfiguration appeared in his own true person or not Book 3. p. 208 209 c. O IN Oaths we must be warie of mentall reservations and unlawfull equivocations Book 1. p. 166 167. Opinion Book 2. p. 83. Originall sinne See Sinne. P OF Paradise Book 3. pag. 194 195 196 197. The Pastours wisdome both for the matter and manner of his doctrine Book 1. p. 158. The Patriarchs were buried in Sychem Book 2. chap. 10. Meerly Personalls are not propagated B. 1. p. 109 to p. 138. S. Peter represented all the Apostles Joh. 21.15 16. Book 1. p. 147. The Pope is servus servorum Dei ibid. p. 132. The Priviledges of a few make not a law Book 2. p. 160. Whether God may justly Punish the Fathers for the childrens actuall delinquencies B. 1. p. 119 120. In what cases God may and doth punish the children for their Parents faults either with temporall or eternall punishment ib. p. 118 to p. 124. Every individuall man is justly punished for originall sinne in Adam ib. p. 145 146 147 c. R REdemption was of a double kinde in the Leviticall law Book 1. p. 143. Of Reliques Book 2. chap. 12. and the Authours esteem of a true choice Relique ibid. p. 130 131. The Resurrection was typified in
MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITIE Divided into three books Wherein is explained at large the estate of the Soul in her origination separation particular judgement and conduct to eternall blisse or torment BY EDVVARD KELLET Doctour in Divinitie and one of the Canons of the Cathedrall Church of EXON S. AUGUST serm nov 24. de S. Paulo ¶ Omnibus hominibus natis constituit Deus mortem per quam de isto seculo emigrent Exceptus eris à morte si exceptus fueris à genere humano Iam homo es venisti Quomodo hinc exeas cogita HINC LVCEM ET POCLA SACRA ALMA MATER GANTA BRIGIA Printed by the Printers to the Vniversitie of CAMBRIDGE and are to be sold by Robert Allot at the Beare in Pauls-Churchyard 1635. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD MY VERY GOOD LORD THE LORD Archbishop of CANTERBURIE his Grace Primate of all ENGLAND and Metropolitane Most Reverend THE manifold graces which God hath plentifully poured on you enabling you even from your youth to be a fit instrument divers wayes to advance his glorie and blessing your great good labours with the favourable acceptance of our dread Soveraigne State and all who have well-wishing unto this our Sion have caused me a crazie old retired man who never saw you but once and that long since to leave behinde me a testimoniall to the world both of my heartie thanks to God that you have been of my humblest prayers that you may long continue a prop of our Church a favoured Ezra the prompt Scribe in the Law a powerfull Aaron to make an atonement for the people an Elijah zealous in your calling a provident guide to the Prophets to the sonnes and schools of the Prophets a father chariot horsemen of Israel as Elisha called Elijah as king Joash called Elisha May heavenly influences and divine irradiations say Amen Amen Your Graces in all dutie Edward Kellet The Contents of the first book CHAPTER I. Sect. 1. THe subject of the whole work The reason why I chose the text of Hebr. 9.27 to discourse upon The Division of it Fol. 1. c. 2. Amphibologie prejudiciall to truth Death appointed by God yet for Adams fault The tree of life kept from Adam not by phantasticall Hob-goblins but by true Angels and a flaming sword brandishing it self Leviticall ceremonies dead buried deadly Things redeemed dispensed with yet still appointed 2 3. The Kingdome of Death reigning over all Bodily death here meant and onely once to be undergone 4 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implieth not necessarily the longinquitie of future times intercurrent but rather a demonstration that other things were precedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After doth often signifie an immediate succession Judgement here taken for an act of justice 5 5. The generall judgement here understood by OEcumenius and Bellarmine The second book of Esdras apocryphall and justly refused More then the generall judgement is meant Even the particular judgement also is avouched by many authorities Three questions arising from the former part of these words 6 CHAP. II. 1. HOw God is immortall how Angels and the souls of men how Adams bodie was mortall and yet immortall though compounded of contraries 10 2. Aristotles last words his death Holcot or the Philosophers pray for him Aristotle canonized by his followers Plato and Aristotle compared Vives taxed Adams bodie was not framed of the earth or dust of Paradise 12 3. Adam should not have been subject to any externall force he was lord of the creatures inward distemper he could not have Adams bodily temperature Christs who was fairer then the children of Adam the helps for Adams bodie meat drink and sleep 17 4. Divers opinions of the tree of life If Adam had eaten of the tree of life before or after his fall he had lived for ever If he had not sinned he had not died though he had not tasted of the tree of life To what use the tree of life should have served 20 5. The Councel of Millan Cardinall Cajetan Richeomus the Jesuit Julianus Pomerius and Saint Augustine think that Adam could not have died if he had not sinned The book of Wisedome Holcot Doctour Estius and two passages of Scripture Canonicall are authorities evincing that Adam had in the state of innocencie an immortall bodie 24 CHAP. III. 1. DEath is a bitter-sweet Enoch and Elias Raptures were not painfull to them Christs transfiguration and the manner of it That it was not painfull to him Adams translation to a life celestiall and a bodie spirituall should not have been painfull if he had not sinned They who shall be changed at Christs coming shall by it finde no pain Death is painfull 28 2. Man-kinde died the first minute of their sinne God draweth good out of evil Death in some regard is changed from a punishment to be a favour and blessing of God 31 3. Not many or more sinnes but one caused death One onely David begotten in lawfull wedlock That this one sinne is not lesse in the godly nor greater in the wicked Death was appointed for one sinne onely of one person onely 33 4. This one person onely was man this man that sinned that one sinne was Adam Strange and curious speculations that Eve sinned not that sinne for which mankinde was appointed to death 36 5. Two School speculations propounded The second handled at large as expounding the former and determined against the School-men themselves viz. That the children of innocent Adam had been born confirm'd in grace The censure of Vives upon these and the like points A part of his censure censured 43 CHAP. IIII. 1. ADams perfection in innocencie Our imperfection after his fall contrary to his both in understanding and will and in the parts concupiscible and irascible 55 2. Adam had other laws given him but one above all and one onely concerning posteritie 57 3. What this law was Adam knew the danger to himself and his off-spring The first sinne was against this law 58 4. Eve sinned before How she sinned the same and not the same sinne with Adam 60 5. Zeno the Stoicks and Jovinian confuted Sinnes are not equally sinfull 62 6. Adam sinned farre more and worse then Eve 65 7. This sinne of Adam was not uxoriousnesse as Scotus maintained but disobedience or pride The branches of Adams sinne 66 CHAP. V. 1. ORiginall sinne is an obscure point The errours of the Schoolmen concerning it The over-sight of Bellarmine 73 2. Originall sinne described by its causes Distinguished from Adams actuall sinne 77 3. In what sense Adam had and his posteritie hath Originall sinne We were in Adam He stood for us idealiter Every one of us would have done exactly as Adam did We did sinne in Adam and how 78 4. Whether Christ was in Adam and how 82 5. We sinned not that sinne in Adam by imitation onely 84 6. Adams sinne as personall was not imputed Adam is saved Adams actuall sinne as it was ideall and
troup may I put in somewhat unthought of by others Some have said truly that the divine providence and preserving power which extendeth to the least things in our declined estate as to the lives of birds and beasts and the fall of every hair God not being * Contra eorum dogmata qui primos homines si non peccâssent immortales futuros fuisse non credunt De Civit. 13.19 lesse in the least things then he was in the greatest and governing all things in number weight and measure would have much more watcht over Adam and his ofspring continuing perfect But this is that which I propose Whether the good Angels did immediatly minister unto Adam in his integritie and should have done unto us to keep mankinde from harm To which I answer That since the Prophet Psal 91.11 describing the blessed estate of the godly maketh this one especiall branch He shall give his Angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy wayes and verse 12. They shall bear thee up in their hands lest thou dash thy foot against a stone I can not but think that the same Angels should have watcht over us and friendly conversed with us in our innocencie For God reduceth * Deus non minor est in minimis quâ—m in maximis the lowest things to the highest by the middle working by subordination of causes Yea * Infima ad suprema per media grant that this is spoken of the Sonne of God onely which by the Evangelists Matt. 4.6 and Luke 4.9 seemeth to be the Devils argute inference yet it excludes not their watching over us and their ministerie if we had not fallen whose very office and name consist in being ministring Spirits All being sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation Heb. 1.14 which out of doubt both Adam and his issue continuing in perfection should have been But leaving these things Christs answer to Satan proves that unto whom these words were said He shall give his Angels charge over thee c. unto the same was also said Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God Matt. 4.7 which was not spoken to Christ alone or principally but in the plurall number to the Israëlites and others succeeding them as appeareth Deuter. 6.16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God as ye tempted him in Massah They are deceived whosoever imagine the ministerie of Angels should not have been any way necessarie if Adam had not sinned since Christ the immaculate Lambe of God who sinned not nor could sinne refused not their ministerie Matth. 4.11 and comfort or strength Luke 22.43 and since one Angel strengthneth himself with an other Dan. 10.21 and Revel 12.7 and since they might have ministred more matter of joy unto us by their most familiar conversation in assumed bodies Unto these authorities let me adde two memorable places out of the Apocrypha The first is Wisd 1.13 God made not death Satan begot it sinne brought it forth Adam and Eve nurst it The other passage is in Wisd 2.23 God created man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be immortall made him an image of his own eternity On which words Holcot thus Corporeall creatures have onely a footstep of God Man is the image of God Again * Quantum fuit ex parte Dei creavit hominem inexâ—crminabile msecundum corpus On Gods part he created him unperishable according to the body And there he hath a large discourse proving howsoever Aristotle Metaph. 8. defineth Man to be a reasonable creature mortall that the opposite is true and he resteth in it For Aristotle knew not Adams innocencie but spake of us as we are in the state of sin Whosoever desireth to read more curiosities strange and learned concerning the bodily immortalitie of Adam at the Creation let him read Estius on the second of the Sent. Distinct 19. But to confirm the truth delivered in the book of Wisdome the last and the best kinde of authoritie shall be produced out of the unquestionable Canon death is stiled our Enemy 1. Corinth 15.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inimicus as Hierome on the 27. of Esai readeth it hostis saith Valla therefore death is not naturall or kindly to us but rather a consort and fellow-souldier of Satan and sinne who fight against us But the sharp-pointed places are in Genes 2.17 In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die or dying thou shalt die Mortalis eris as Symmachus well translates it or morti obnoxius as Augustine well expounds it and Genes 3.3 Ye shall not touch it lest ye die therefore they should not have died if they had not touched the forbidden fruit And so they both were and ever might have been immortall When the woman of Sarepta said to Eliah * 1. Kings 17.18 Art thou come unto me to call my sinne to remembrance and to slay my sonne doth she not secretly intimate that sinne is a murtherer And if there had been no sinne there had also been no death * In 2. Sent. dist 19. quaest 1. in and by her evident confession that her sinne was the cause of his death Scotus shall determine the point Punishment can not be without fault but death is the punishment of sinne and during the state of innocency there could be no sinne therefore no death I have dwelt the longer on this part because every reason authoritie by which I have proved that Adams bodilie estate in the time of innocency was immortall affordeth also by way of preparative a binding argument to evince that Adam for sin was appointed to die which is the first of the two Propositions which I propounded In which words we intend to handle these things First somewhat concerning death Secondlie that Adam was appointed to die for one sinne onely Thirdly that it was for Adams own sinne onely and not for Eves Fourthly we will enquire what that sinne was O Onely-wise God who createdst Man in thine own likenes and madâ—st him the Image of thine own eternitie I beseech thee to renew in me that decaied Image make me like unto thee give me the favour to taste of the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God and to drink of the pure River of the Water of Life clear as Crystall proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the LAMBE Heare me O blessed SAVIOUR for thine infinite Merit and mercies sake Amen CHAP. III. 1. Death is a bitter-sweet Enoch and Elias Raptures were not painfull to them Christs Transfiguration and the manner of it That it was not painfull to him Adams translation to a life celestiall and a body spirituall should not have been painfull if he had not sinned They who shall be changed at Christs coming shall by it finde no pain Death is painfull 2. Man-kinde died the first minute of their sinne God draweth good out of evill Death in some regard is changed from a
opineth * Tu es Diaboli janua tu es quae eum invasisti quem Diabolus aggredi non valuit Tert. lib. De Habitu muliebri That by that serpentine craft by which the woman was seduced Adam could not have been seduced Tertullian speaketh thus to womankinde * Probat quòd Diabolus non poterat seducere Adam sed Evam Hiero. lib. 1. adversus Jovinianum circa medium Thou art the Devils doore thou art she that hast invaded him whom the Devil could not set upon If he could not set upon him much lesse could he have overcom him Hierom saith * the Apostle doth prove that the Devil could not seduce Adam but Eve But then comes Eve in her simplicitie intending no hurt or deceit to her husband upon three other grounds specialized Genes 3.6 First she saw that the tree was good for food Secondly it was pleasant to the eyes Thirdly a tree to be desired to make one wise She I say upon these three motives did both eat and give Adam to eat So Adam was not deceived either first or immediately by the Serpent or serpentine deceit as Eve was neither doth Adam complain that the Serpent or Eve beguiled him but when he derived the fault from himself the worst that he said of Eve was this Genes 3.12 The woman whom thou gavest to be with me she gave me of the tree Neither doth the Scripture any where impute a malicious envious or guilefull intent to Eve in drawing Adam into the transgression Nor doth the Apostle say absolutely Adam was not in the transgression but Adam was not deceiv'd or brought into the transgression by fraud For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be deceived by art and craft so the Devill perswaded Eve That God of envy unto man forbad him that tree saith * Aug. De Gen. ad lit 11.30 Augustine and perhaps told her it was no sin for her to eat because she received no immediate commandement whereas Adam knew it was a sinne but therefore might think it easilie pardonable because he had formerly known no experience of Gods severitie saith the same * Aug. De Civit. 14.11 Augustine And yet for all this Adam might be in a transgression in the transgression and the greatest transgression though not in that transgression of being seduc'd And for his transgression death is appointed for us For in Adam all die Abel was the first who died the bodily death yet Abel died in Adam and if for Adams sinne death had not been appointed to him first Abel had not died yet since Morte morieris was spoken to Adam alone before Eve was created and it may be it implieth that upon his sinne all that any way came of him either by avulsion of some part as Eve did or by propagation should die in him And so though Eve had eaten if Adam had not sinned neither Adam nor perhaps Eve herself had died And if Adam had eaten and Eve forborn yet perhaps Eve should have died for Eve was in Adam as well as we 1. Corinth 11.8 The man was not of the woman but the woman of the man And in him was she to stand or fall live or die as well as we In Adam all die and she among the rest since she was one and a part of that all If my above mentioned speculations require further proof consider Rom. 5.14 Death reigned from Adam where he is expresly mentioned as being in my interpretation the Idea of mankinde and we being in him tanquam in principio activo Satan sinned against God in tempting the woman the woman sinned against God in eating and offering the fruit unto the man If thou O Adam hadst not consented neither of these sinnes had hurt thee or mankinde * Adam erat nos omnes Adam was we all Give me leave to say so since S. Augustine saith * Omnes eramus ille unus Adam De peâ—cat Merit Remis 1.10 We all were that one Adam Nor did God first challenge Eve but Adam nor her so punctually as he did Adam Genes 3.9 And vers 22 it is not said of Eve but of Adam ironically Adam is become like one of us for he was the root of mankinde Eve was but a branch of Adam before or when she sinned and no root of mankinde actuall but potentiall for she sinned when she was a virgin Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Triphon thus Eve being an intemerated virgin and conceiving by the Serpent brought forth disobedience and by consequent death Theodoret on those words of the Psalmist Psal 51.1 c. The transgression of the commandment went before Eves conception for after the transgression and the divine sentence and the privation of Paradise Adam knew Eve his wife and she having conceived brought forth Cain Had Adam carnally known Eve before he sinned yea after herself sinned she had conceived and then the issue had had no originall sin yea he is no worse Divine then Aquinas who holdeth that at this instant if one by miracle were created an humane creature body soul he should not have originall sin 1.2 Quaest 18. Art 4. * Art sequenti And if Adam had sinned not Eve we had fallen into originall sin and if she had eaten and not he we had not been stain'd with originall sinne Scharpius saith * The cause of originall sinne was Adam not Eve and Adams sinne not Eves doth passe to the posteritie Tertullian proveth that Eve was neverthelesse a virgin because being in Paradise she was called a woman * A woman saith he pertains to the sex it self not to the degree of the sex One may be call'd a woman * Mulier ad sexum ipsum non ad gradum sexûs pertinet Tertull. lib. De velandis Virginibus though not a wife but a non-mulier a no-woman can not either be or be call'd a wife I adde she was a wife so called Genes 2.25 and yet till after Adam sinned she was a virgin espoused married yet not known carnally She was termed Isha or Issa Virago before the fall Genes 2.23 because she was taken out of Ish or Is out of man She was also stiled The female and wife but she was never called Eve during her creation and innocency or in the interim between her fall and Adams But after Adams sin he first called his wives name Eve Genes 3.20 because she was the mother of all living Not as if any did then live as from her or were born of her when Adam so called her but the great Calculator of natures the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Onomastick or exact and true Nomenclator of all things brought before him thought fit to name her Eve that is The mother of all living not before but after his fall because in my opinion she had not been Mater viventium if she alone had sinned Her sinne might have had other punishment her personall fault had ended
us prove That originall sinne is not the concupiscence of the flesh See this confuted by * Bell. De Amiss Gratiae 4.12 Bellarmine by this argument If LVST were the cause of originall sinne he should have the greater sinne who was conceived in greater LVST which is manifestly false since originall sinne is equall in all men See other arguments well used to that purpose by Bellarmine in that place yet is he amisse * De Sacramento Baptismi 1.9 elsewhere in the answer unto the tenth argument of the Anabaptists For saith he * Originale peccatum non est materia poeniten tiae nemo enim rectè poe uitentiam agit ejus peccati quod ipse non commisit quod in ejus potestate non suit Originale autem peccatum non ipsi commisimus sed trahimus ab Adam per naturalem propagationem undâ— diâ—itur de insantibus Rom. 9 11. Originall sinne is no matter of repentance for a man doth not well repent of that sinne which he hath not committed himself and which was not in his power Now we have not our selves committed originall sinne but we draw it from Adam by naturall propagation whereupon it is said Rom. 9.11 of Esau and Jacob THEY HAD DONE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL First I answer to the place of Scripture confessing it is spoken of Esau wicked Esau that he had done no evill and of Jacob good Jacob that he had done no good Again it is spoken of both of them before they were born But secondly it is spoken of actuall sinnes and actuall goodnes that neither did Jacob good actuall good any good in the wombe nor Esau any actuall evil For the bodily organs are not so fitted that they exercise such actions as produce good or evil The words do evince so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 practically working no good nor evil Yet though God depended not upon their works as the Apostle there argueth for all that they might and did commit originall sinne and in it were conceived and the promise was made to Rebecca after she conceived Genes 25.23 It being then manifest that the place of the Apostle affordeth no patrociny to Bellarmine I say originall sinne is in part the matter of Repentance otherwise David in his chiefest penitentiall Psalme 51.5 would not have charged himself with that sinne nor needed not so vehemently to call for mercy Again we may be said to commit originall sinne and originall sinne to have been in our power as we were in Adam as we would have done the like and the like against Adam as Adam did against us if we had stood in Adams place as he did stand in our stead Thirdly our will was in his will what he did we did Bellarmines Philosophie here swalloweth up his Divinitie Fourthly he must not take committere strictly for a full free deliberate action of commission nor trahere strictly for a meer passion but as I shall make it appear there is some little inclination from the matter to the form of the body to the soul as also of the soul to the body and that the soul is neither as a block or stone on the one side to receive durt and be integrally passive nor yet so active as to make the originall sinne to be actuall So that it neither properly committeth nor properly contracteth draweth or receiveth originall sinne and yet in a large sense may be said both to commit and to receive Fifthly if Bellarmine be punctilious for the terms himself is faultie For he saith * Trahimus ab Adam originale peccatum We do attract originall sinne from Adam Is there any attraction on our part if there be no action Or is action or attraction without some kinde of commission Sixthly hath the whole Church of God prayed for the remission aswell of originall sinne as of actuall if it be not the matter of repentance Or needeth not one unbaptized till he come of age repent before Baptisme for his originall sinne Lastly why are children baptized but that originall sinne is matter of repentance To set all things better in order and to cleare all mists you are to know that there is wonderfull mistaking and ambiguitie whil'st originall sinne is confounded with Adams actuall sinne and one taken for another whil'st the cause is undistinguished from the effect when indeed there is a great traverse between them 2 Somewhat according to the new Masters of method the efficient cause of Adams sinne was both outward and inward Outward Remote Outward Propinque Remote Principall Satan Remote Instrumentall the Serpent Outward propinque was Eve the principall Outward propinque was The apple was the instrumentall cause The inward efficient cause was first the faculties of the soul which we may terme the principium activum and was more remote then the ill use of these faculties the misimploying of his free-will which you may stile principium actuale and was the more propinque cause But the cause efficient of originall sinne was outwardly the actuall sinne of Adam inwardly the conjunction of the soul after the propagation of nature The matter of Adams sinne subjectivè was the whole person and nature of Adam and his posteritie descending from him per viam seminalem objectivè the liking touching and eating of the forbidden fruit The matter of originall sinne subjectivè is all of our nature and every one of mankinde secundum se totum totum sui coming the ordinarie way of generation in so much that all and every of the faculties of the soul and bodie of all and every one of us is subject to all and every sinne which hath been or may ever hereafter be committed and this cometh onely from this originall sinne and the inclination wrapped up in it The matter objectivè is both carentia justitiae originalis debitae inesse and the vices contrarie unto it now filling up its room and stead Formalis ratio of Adams first sinne was aversion from God the ratio materialis was his conversion to a changeable good saith * Stapl. De Originali Peccato 1.12 Stapleton both these are knit up in one disobedience And so the formall cause of Adams sinne was disobedience the formall cause of our originall sinne is the deformitie and corruption of nature falne and propagated inclining to sinne so soon as is possible and without a divine hand of restraint as much as is possible The end of Adams sinne was in his intention primarily To know good and evill secundarily to prefer temporals before spirituals whil'st indeed he esteemed the Bonum apparens before the Bonum verum revera or reale In mankinde after him no end can be found of originall sinne since we contract it when we have nullum verum aspectum respectum intuitum vel-sinem For Finis bonum convertuntur There is no end of evill per se sed ex accidenti and so Gods Glory is the supreme end of all sinne The effects of Adams actuall
children confirmed in grace and yet generate which he denieth Because the supposed priviledge of the All-gracious Virgin doth not derogate from the glorie of our most blessed Redeemer I will not contradict it though it maketh her more perfect then God made Adam and Eve in their integritie Lastly why might not generating parents be confirmed in grace when in the act there should have been no turpitude no salacious motion no lascivious titillation and those members might have been used without any itch of ticklish pleasure as our hands and feet and some other parts are now Reade S. Augustine De Civit. 14.24 and 26. most fully of these things Unto Estius his second reason which is this Angels were not ordained to blessednes but by the merit of their free-will and man was not first to be placed at the goal or end but in the way I answer Every Angel was to stand or fall by his own proper actuall free-will Man was unlike to them therein Adams actuall consent for us stood exactly for the actuall consent of each Angel for no Angel fell in Lucifer as we did in Adam But to the second branch of his argument I confesse with Aquine * Anim a hominis Angelussimiliter ad bea titudinâ—m ordinantur The soul of man and an Angel are alike ordained to blessednes The way was necessarie before the goal the means before the end But I must adde Adam was in the way and we in the way by him and in him and as he brought us out of the way by his straying by-path so by his undeviation we had been kept in the way More might be added but the Question hath swollen above its banks already I must be brief though I be obscure What Hugo and Lombard require was performed by Adam for us Though Estius in this point maketh God like an hard task-master and man a meer journy-man yet much was given to him who deserved little even for one onely and the easiest houres work So might God have done to us for his promise unto Adams obedience for us In that estate perhaps he needed no merit challenging due reward as there shall be no new recompense for desert after we are glorified But if merit had had place it might after confirmation in grace have procured speedier translation to an unchangeable life the accidentals of beatitude might have been increased in us as they shall be in the Angels of light though long since they were confirmed in grace Scotus objecteth The children of innocent Adam should have been Viatores in the way to happines therefore they might have been sinners I answer Viator is considered according to a twofold estate First for him that walketh in a slippery and dangerous way where he may be in or out Thus was Adam Viator thus were we Viatores in Adam before his fall and thus we could have sinned yea did sinne which is more then Scotus his argument evinceth Secondly Viator is taken according to the estate of him who walketh in a good sure way where no by-path can be made Thus we being confirmed should have been Viatores and yet could not have been sinners and herein we had been like to blessed Angels yea the same man might have been Viator in one regard and Comprehensor in an other respect at the same time So was Christ so had Adam and his children been upon confirmation in goodnes not that they should have had that plenitude of comprehension which is to be enjoyed after the generall judgement but such a comprehension which had been agreeable to that present estate though susceptible of degrees and capable of more perfection where Comprehensor is synonymous with beatus onely but not beatissimus The same Scotus further reasoneth thus The grace confirmed by the Merit of Christ in Baptisme or other Sacraments confirm not the receiver Therefore much lesse should any Merit of any parent or childe have confirmed us in justice I answer The confirmation had rather been from Gods gracious promise to Adam and his seed then from any merit properly so called Secondly The graces of Christ exhibited in the Sacraments of initiation and corroboration shall draw us up to an infallible confirmation in the estate of glorie where we shall have more comfort delight and good by Christ then we had harm by Adam if he had not fallen of which hereafter To some arguments and authorities for my opinion some answers are shaped by the Schoolmen I will loose the argument from S. Gregorie because it ingendereth more questions when this is too copiously handled already Anselm speaketh home for me if ever man spake Aquinas saith He did it opining not affirming Yet he saw the reason which induced Anselm to that Assertion Scotus also slubbereth over the authoritie of Anselm winking as it seemeth when he should have read the direct words * Dion De Divinis Nominibus cap. 4. Dionysius saith Bonum est potentius malo Good hath more power and vertue then evill But say I for the sinne of the first man came a necessitie of sinning upon all his children Therefore if he had stood there should have been a necessitie of not sinning Scotus answereth in the first place as if Dionysius were to be understood of a great Evill and a little Good which plainely that Father never meant Secondly he jumpeth in sense with Aquine and both do answer That we are not so necessitated to sinning that we can not return to justice and Adams sinne was not cause of our confirmation in evill I reply we are so necessitated by our nature that of our selves and from our selves we can not return to justice We are obstinate and confirmed in evill in regard of our own disabilities though not confirmed in evill nor obstinate if we consider the powerfull mercy of God And this is enough to make the argument hold good There should have been a necessitie of not sinning of our part otherwise Evill should have been more powerfull then Good which is the contradictorie to Dionysius For we can not but sinne of our selves and are obstinate though we are not so obstinate as the damned nor should have been so confirmed by Adam as the glorified shall be Unto our argument drawn from the similitude of Angelicall reward Aquinas answereth Men and Angels are not alike I reply We were both like in some things and unlike in other but in this we had been like That as the Angels were confirmed presently upon their first obedience so had Adam been confirmed and we in him For God loved not Man worse then the Angels For Christ verily took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 Scotus yeeldes himself captive to the force of this reason save onely that he opineth That every one of Adams children should as well as Adam have been confirmed in grace upon their actuall overcoming of the first temptation suggested unto them whereas I
is an obscure point The errors of the Schoolmen concerning it The oversight of Bellarmine 2. Originall sinne described by its causes Distinguished from Adams actuall sinne 3. In what sense Adam had and his posteritie hath originall sinne We were in Adam He stood for us idealiter Every one of us would have done exactly as Adam did VVe did sinne in Adam and how 4. VVhether Christ was in Adam and how 5. VVe sinned not that sinne in Adam by imitation 6. Adams sinne as personall was not imputed Adam is saved Adams actuall sinne as it was ideall and representative is imputed to us 1 COncerning originall sinne though it be most true what S. Augustine saith de Morib Eccl. 1.22 * Nihil est peccato originali ad praedicandum notius nihil ad intelligendum secretius There is nothing to preach of more known nothing to understand more hidden then originall sinne And * Vltra radicem nihil quaerere oportet De lib. Arbitrio 3.17 We ought to seek nothing beyond the root Yet let us search till we finde this root And since the Apostle hath broken the ground and opened the way let us joyfully follow so blessed a guide S. Paul Rom. 5.12 hath a large Tractate of originall sinne as it is propagated unto us by Adam and Rom. 6. he speaketh of it as it is in the Regenerate The present questioned point hath nothing to do with this latter consideration and it is pertinently excluded from this discourse But of originall sinne as it is conveyed unto us by Adam divers things must be explained First you are to know that the Schoolmen are blindly led in this point You may see it at large in Beatissimo * Whitak De Originali Peccato lib. 1. cap. â— Whitakero for even that title is given to him by the learned Albericus Gentilis in the tenth Chapter of his Disputation on the first Book of the Maccabees And certainly none of late time hath so tripped them up as he hath done in his canvasse of Stapleton The errors of singular Schoolmen are various too many to be here confuted severally yet not so many as are imagined Holcot in his Question Whether every sin be imputable to the will proveth out of Augustines Book De Haeresibus Chap. 8. that some Hereticks have denied originall sinne or that there is any such thing But he resolveth That the Church hath determined the opinion to be erroneous And Augustine Gregorie Bede and all Authentick Doctors have spoken fully and expresly hereof and I saith he presuppose it as one Article of Faith Then cometh he to the diversitie of opinions Some saith he have held that originall sinne is not culpa but poena or obligatio ad poenam Anselm and Lombard dislike this saith he And indeed * Lomb. 2. Sent. dist 3. lit E F. Lombard proveth soundly both that according to this opinion originall sinne is neither culpa no nor poena and by excellent arguments establisheth that it is culpa Some saith Holcot who say it is culpa hold it is nothing els but the actuall sinne of our first parent imputed to us and this Tenet Anselm disliketh But Anselms dislike hath not hindered Catharinus and Pighius from embracing that error Yea Stapleton himself acknowledgeth three great errors in this by-path of Pighius First That he makes originall sinne no sinne but an obnoxietie to punishment Secondly That children want all sinne and yet are by him made sinners Thirdly That he makes no inherent originall sinne in every one Whitaker addeth a fourth absurdity That he teacheth children are damned who yet have no sinne I return to Holcot who addeth Others say Originall sinne is the pure privation of justice originall or injustice which is nothing in nature but a pure privation and want of justice in subjecto apto nato Yet saith Holcot as I have said otherwhere it appeareth not to me that any such pure privation is either originall or actuall sinne At last Holcot professeth to follow Lombard holding that originall sinne is an evill habit with which we are born and which we contract from the beginning of our nativitie This habit is concupiscence this concupiscence is a vice quod parvulum habilem concupiscere facit adultum verò concupiscentem reddit and this he fathereth on Augustine But this opinion is no better then the rest if by concupiscence they mean as they do onely the sensuality lust and brutish appetite of things sensitive You shall see it further confuted when I have disclosed the erronious doctrine which Lombard and his partisans hold to uphold this That originall sinne is the vice of concupiscence * Lomb. 2. Sent. dist 30. lit N. Lombard maintaineth that every one of our bodies were in Adam and whereas it was before objected That all flesh which descended from Adam could not be at once and together in him because it is farre greater then the body of Adam in which there were not so many as it were motes of flesh as men who have descended from him Lombard answereth All flesh was in him materially and causally though not formally and all that is in humane bodies naturally descendeth from Adam and in it self is increased and multiplied and this is that which shall arise at the Resurrection That no outward substance doth passe into that substance That it is fomented by meats but no meats are turned into that substance humane which by propagation descended from Adam For Adam transmitted a little of his substance into the bodies of his children when he begat them that is a little MODICVM was divided from the masse of his substance and thereof was the body of his sonne formed and by multiplication of it self is increased without the adjection of any outward thing And of that Modicum being augmented somewhat is separated whereby the bodies of posterities are in the like sort still formed His proofs were easie to be answered but there is a veru or an obelisk set on that opinion in the margin Magister hîc non approbatur And more at large among the errors condemned in England and in Paris for so go the words of the Preface not in England and France not alone in Oxford and Paris but in both the Universities of England and in that of Paris you shall finde him forsaken in these opinions pag. 985. 1 Quòd in veritatem humâ—nae naturae nihil transit extrinsecum That no externall thing passeth into the truth of humane nature 2 Quod ab Adam descendit per propagationem auctum multipliâ—atum resurget in judicio pag. 985. That which descendeth from Adam and is increased and multiplied by propagation shall arise in the day of judgement These singular opinions being now rejected and confuted by Estius Sentent 2. Distinct 30. Paragraph 13. and whatsoever Lombard bringeth for himself answered in his next Paragraph let us grapple with Holcot who is a second unto Lombard and let
sinne were his Corruptio personae Reatus Poena as he was considered by himself till he repented but as he was the Referree and Representor of mankinde the effects were The corruption of our nature our fault our guiltines our punishment till we be freed The effects of our originall sinne are sinnes actuall with all the penalties or punishments due to them Moreover that we may more distinctly enlarge this point and remove the doubtfulnesse of termes know that in a larger sense the actuall sinne of Adam may in a sort be said to be originall sinne it may be called Adams originall sinne as it was first and originally in him It may be originall sinne both of Adam and all his posterity because our naturall defects and all manner of sinnes flowed originally from this onely sinne as from a defiled fountain Yet properly this sinne was in him actually in us potentially in him explicitly in us implicitly in him personally in us naturally in him perse in us per accidens And that his first sinne or aversion from God may both be said to be his originall sinne and the cause also of our originall sinne the cause not physicall or naturall for he doth not traduce by the vertue of that sinne any real thing which is properly sinfull unto his posterity but it was and is the morall cause of our originall sinne As originall sinne is by some described namely to be propagated to be in all alike and to be in the humane creature at the beginning of his being or to be an hereditarie transgression so Adam had not originall sinne but onely his posterity As originall sinne is defined to be That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or transgression that totall aversion of mankinde from God whereby we incurre death and damnation so was Adams sinne our originall sinne and he had originall sinne 3. Which the fuller to demonstrate let me insist on this point namely That sinne of Adam we sinned this way as we were in him materialiter though not formaliter As the severall members of a mans body united to his soul make one individuall person so all the branches of Adams posteritie with himself make one humane nature and are as it were but one by participation of the species * Fuerunt omnes in Adam quando peccavit fuerunt quidem in illo sed nondum nati erant ipsi All were in Adam when he sinned they were indeed in him but they were not yet born themselves saith Augustine De Civit. 13.14 and more punctually in the same Chapter * Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata distributa forma in qua singuli viveremus sed jam natura erat nobis seminalis ex qua propagaremur The form in which every one of us should live was not yet created and distributed to us but the seminall nature was alreadie of which we were to be propagated Anselm saith * Infans qui damnatur pro peccato originali non damnatur pro peccato Adam sed pro suo nam si ipse non haberet suum peccatum non damnaretur Aâ—sel De Partu Virginis cap. 26. The infant that is damned for originall sinne is not damned for the sinne of Adam but for his own for if he himself had not his own sinne he should not be damned And therefore Augustine Retractat 1.13 * Originale peccatum in parvulis cùm adbuc non utantur libero arbitrio voluntatis non absurdè vocatur voluntarium Originall sinne in infants though they have not yet the use of freewill is not absurdly called voluntary And Confess 1.7 * Imbecillitas membrorum infantilium innocens est non animus infantium The weaknes of infantine members not the soul of infants is innocent Lastly De Peccat Meritis Remiss 3.8 as he calleth originall sinne oftentimes Alienum peccatum to shew it began not in us alone but was delivered to us came from without so in the same place he termeth it Peccatum proprium our selves sinning in and with Adam and having corruption in us by him It can not sink into my head that God would have imputed unto us Adams fault by his absolute irrespective decretory will of good pleasure but that he whose foresight reacheth to things that are not yea to things that shall never be much more to things certainly future of which in another place did foreknow and preconsider that every one of mankinde if they had been in Adams state and place would have done as Adam did Therefore let us not accuse God or lay the fault onely on Adam our selves would have done so For as one said concerning the thief on the Crosse confessing Christ when Christ was on the Crosse nailed naked pained reviled scorned dying and forsaken of his own Disciples Profectò ego non sic fecissem I should not have made so glorious a confession as the penitent thief did at that time So on the contrary I say and am fully perswaded I should have done as Adam did Let God be just and all men faulty for it would have been the fault of all men Yea I must go one step further and without boldnes justifiably say by verdict of Scripture it was the fault of all men all men did sinne that sinne in Adam It is not said Propter hominem but Per hominem Mors 1 Cor. 15.21 and Rom. 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In quo in whom all sinned Of the first man Adam are all these words By man and in whom to be understood and by him and in him all died and sinned saith the Apostle and sinned that sinne by which death came into the world Though the father of the faithfull payed tithes of all unto Melchisedec before Leviwas born and Abraham alone personally discharged that duty yet for all this the Apostle saith Hebr. 7.9 Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham for he was yet in the loyns of his father So on the contrary though Adam the universall father of mankinde did actuate that great offence long before we were created yet we also concurred in our kinde and were partakers in that iniquity For he stood Idealiter for us and we were in him our will in his our good and hurt in his and so farre as he received a law for us so farre as he represented us so farre when he sinned did we sinne in him with him and by him And if the worthy S. Augustine may say as is before cited * De Peccat Merit Remiss 1.10 Omnes eramus ille unus Adam I hope I may as well say Adam ille erat nos omnes I am sure Prosper in his Sentences pickt out of Augustine saith that * Primus homo Adam sic oâ—im defunctus est ut tamen post illum secundu homo sit Chrisius cum tot hominum miilia inter illum hunc orta sint idâ—ò manifestum est pertinere ad illum omnem qui ex
of all As the King represents the Kingdome and the chief Magistrate the Citie and the Master of the house the houshold so did Adam represent us and in him and with him we sinned 4. I can not part with this second point till I answer the objection Whether Christ were in Adam The doubt will be cleared by these two Positions First Christ may be said to be in Adam some kinde of way Therefore the Evangelist derives Christs Genealogie from him and he is said to be The Sonne of Adam Luke 3.38 And if he be called The Sonne of David as often he is Matth. 21.9 Mark 10.47 Rom. 1.3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh if he took on him the seed of Abraham as he did Hebr. 2.16 and is flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones and we of his Ephes 5.30 it must needs be confessed He was in Adam Paracelsus talketh of Non-Adami such as descended not from Adams loyns these if such are monsters in nature and as great a monster in Divinitie is it to say that Christ was no way in Adam I will enlarge this by a distinction Christ was not in Adam no nor we neither so that our substances or any part thereof were really or materially in him Yet both Christ and we were in him First because mediatly we were born of him and because he was the efficient cause of generation not the immediate propinque and proximous cause thereof which necessarily communicateth some matter to that which is begotten but he was the remote mediate yea the furthest and most distant efficient naturall cause of all from which it is not necessary that its matter reach to the hindermost effects Secondly be cause if he had not begotten children neither Christ in his humane nature nor we now long after him had ever been born Thirdly Christ took flesh of the thrice-blessed Virgin Mary and she was in Adam as all others are except Christ she was begotten by the concurrence and cooperation both of man and woman and so inasmuch as his holy Mother was in Adam Christ in a sort may be said to be in Adam * Christus fuit de genere Adae Holâ—â—t De Imputabintate peccati Christ was of Adams kindred saith Holcot The second Position is this Christ was not in Adam every manner of way as we were For we differed in this peculiar sort and manner because we were in Adam secundum seminalem rationem quâ per communionem vtriusque sexûs fit generatio For Adam could beget no childe without a femal sex which was one main reason of Eves creation neither did ever daughter of Eve conceive without a different sex except onely that stupendious miracle of our Saviours Incarnation And after this manner Christ was not in Adam He had true flesh from Adam but it was onely the listenes or similitude of sinfull flesh that he had Rom. 8.3 All other flesh except his is the flesh of sinne Had he come from Adam every way exactly as wee do he had had not onely true flesh as he had but true sinne also but because he had not Patrem naturalem as Scotus phraseth it therefore neither did he sinne in Adam nor was in Adam as we were Lombard * Lomb. lib. 3. dist 3. enquireth Why Levi was tithed in Abraham and not Christ when each of them was in the loyns of Abraham in regard of the matter He answereth * Leviticus ordo qui in Abraham secundum rationem seminalem erat ex eo per concupiscentiam caruis descendiâ— Sed Christ us non descendit secundum lâ—gem communem aut carâ—is libidinem The Leviticall order which was in Abraham according to the seed descends from him by the concupiscence of the flesh But Christ came not according to the common law or lust of the flesh And he resolveth thus When Levi and Christ according to the flesh were in the loyns of Abraham when he was tithed therefore was Levi tithed and not Christ because Christ was not in the loyns of Abraham after some manner or other that Levi was Moreover how could Christ be tithed to Christ how could the same in the same regard both pay and take Melchisedec was a figure of Christ and tithes by an everlasting law were due to the priesthood of Melchisedec as is unanswerably proved by my reverend friend now a blessed Saint Doctor Sclater against all sacrilegious Church-robbers Therefore Christ was not to be tithed in Abraham though Levi was Yea if Aaron or Melchisedec himself had lived till Christ had come in the flesh and lived with him perhaps they would have resigned up as it were their Office and no more have taken tithes or continuing in Office Sacerdotall under him they would have taken tithes in his name and for him Aquine out of Augustine thus * Quomodocunque Christus fuit in Adam Abraham in aliis Patribus alii homines etiam ibi fuerunt Aquin part 3. quaest 31. art 6. ex Aug. De Gen. ad lit 10.19 After what manner soever Christ was in Adam and Abraham and in other Fathers other men were there also but not contrariwise And Aquine himself setteth his conclusion When the body of Christ windeth up to the Fathers and so to Adam mediante Matris suae corpore Christ was not in them secundum aliquid signatum determinatum sed secundum originem Which I imagine he establisheth against such as Lombard saith did hold That from Adam descended by way of generation some such part or parcell as of it Christ was made Against which Aquine argueth thus whether modestly enough and truly let others judge The matter of Christs body was not the flesh and bone or any other actuall part of the Ever-blessed Virgin but onely her bloud which was potentiâ caro * Corpus Christi non seminaliter conceptum est sed ex castissimis purissimis sanguinibus Aquinas ex Damasceno But what she received from her parents was actually part of her but not part of Christs body Nor was Christs body in Adam and the other Fathers secundum aliquid signatum so that any part of Adams body or of the other Fathers could determinatly be pointed out and be said to be the very exact individuall matter out of which Christs body was framed but Christ was in Adam secundum originem as others were Whil'st Christ was in the wombe of the most happy Virgin Mary even many moneths before her delivery she was called Luke 1.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mother of my Lord which words in part Elisabeth took from Davids speculation Psal 110.1 The Lord said unto my Lord. Never woman was truly called or to be called a Mother before she were delivered except onely the Al-gracious Virgin Mary who could not possibly suffer abortion nor lose that Blessed Fruit of her wombe by the sinne of man or the punishment of mankinde for sinne which was conceived
first parent before the soul be united is not sinne but a punishment of sinne a debilitie of nature an effect of sinne For if the Embryo should die or suffer abortion before the infusion and unition of the reasonable soul as such a time there is such a thing may be it must appeare in judgement and without extraordinarie mercy be damned if there were sinne in it but that a lump of flesh which onely lived the life of a plant at the utmost the life of a brute creature for indeed some abortions seeming livelesse lumps being pricked have contracted themselves and shewed they had sense which never had reasonable soul or spirit or life of man for those three severall lives are not onely virtually but really distinguished I say that such a rude masse of flesh should be lyable to account and capable of eternall either joy or pain is strange Divinitie which yet followeth necessarily if sinne be in the seed or unformed Embryo But you may ask When sinne beginneth I answer So soon as the soul is united * Subest rationale peccati susceptibile There is a reasonable subject susceptible of sinne and then sinne entreth Original sinne is in the reasonable soul as in the proper subject and is there formally the fleshly seed is the instrumentall means of traduction both of humane nature and originall sinne Originall sinne in a large sense may be said to be in the flesh and fleshly seed virtually as in the cause instrumental and to be in it originally causally materially and in such sort to be sooner in the body then in the soul by the order of generation and time but exactly and in most proper terms sinne is sooner in the soul by the order of nature and hath its first residence in the substance of the soul then in the faculties of it and last of all in the body 2 In Bishop Bilsons Survey pag. 173. this Position following is produced and maintained against him by his opposers Pollution that is sinne and reall iniquity is not in our flesh without the soul The Bishop answereth very copiously The soul cometh not to the body presently with the conception Mothers and Midwives do certainly distinguish the time of quickning from the time of conceiving neither doth the childe quicken presently upon conception That the body is not straightway framed upon the conception many thousand scapes in all females and namely women do prove Physicians and Philosophers interpose many moneths between the conception and the perfection of the body Job saith we were first as milk then condensed as cruds after clothed with skinne and flesh lastly compacted with bones and sinews before we received life and soul from God Job 10.10 The New Testament noteth three degrees in framing our bodies Seed bloud flesh Upon the premisses he thus argueth If nothing can be defiled with sinne as by your doctrine you resolve except it have a reasonable soul of necessitie we either had reasonable souls at the instant of our conception which is a most famous falshood repugnant to all learning experience and to the words of Job or els we were not conceived in sinne which is a flat heresie dissenting from the plain words of the Sacred Scriptures and from the Christian Faith So farre Bishop Bilson If company may excuse his opinion I adde these First Mollerus accordeth with him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be referred to the time of conception so soon as ever it was conceived in the wombe and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the time that the Foetus lieth hid is carried in the wombe signifying the seed was impure the conception was not without the flames of concupiscence and all the masse of bloud that nourisheth the Embryo was defiled with vices in the wombe and lastly the masse of the Embryo when in the first ardor of conception it first began to be warmed by the wombe was contaminated with sinne Enough of Mollerus Kemnitius in his Examen de Peccato Originali pag. 167. thus * Cùm mossa Embryonis in primo ardore conceptionis primùm inciperet uteri calore foveri jam erat peccato contaminata quae contaminatio juxta Davidis confessionem habebat veram rationem peccati cùm nondum formata essent vel mentis vel voluntatis vel cordis organa When the masse of the Embryo in the first ardor of conception began to be warmed and cherished by the heat of the wombe it was already defiled with sinne which defilement according to Davids confession was truly a sinne when the instruments of the minde or of the will or of the heart were not yet framed Luther on the words In iniquitatibus conceptus sum thus * Non loquitur David de ullis operibus sed simpliciter de materia ipso esse dicit Semen humanum id est massa ex qua conceptus sum tota est vitio peccato corrupta Materia ipsa vitiata est lutum illud ex quo vasculum bee fingi coepit damnabile est foetus in utero antequam nascimur homines esse incipimus peccatum est David speaks not of any works but simply of the matter and being and he saith The humane seed of which I have been conceived is all corrupted with vice and sinne The matter it self is infected that clay of which this little vessel hath begun to be fashioned is damnable the fruit in the wombe before we be born and beginne to be men is sinne Hierom in his Commentary on the words * Concipitur nascitur in originali peccato quod ex Adam trahitâ—r Whatsoever is drawn and derived from Adam is conceived and born in originall sinne Cajetan thus * Hic est textus unde trâ—kitur originale peccatum quo scilicet ex commixtione maris foeminae conceptus dicitur in originali peccato This is the Text from which originall sinne is deduced wherein every one is said to be conceived in originall sinne by the conjunction of male and female All this shall not make me beleeve that there is sinne and real iniquity without a reasonable soul Illyricus is justly deserted for saying The very substance of the soul is sinfull And these deserve as few followers who say That the substantiall bodily soul-wanting masse is sinfull And I professe in this latter to take part with others rather then with the otherwise most Reverend and learned Bishop For * Culpa non potest esse in re irrationali There can be no sinne in a thing reasonles Unto Bishop Bilson I thus answer That all his premisses are true that I subscribe to his opinion in the first member of his disjunction The second part of it I do wholy deny nor do I fear his aspersion of heresie To the place of the Psalmograph I answer with reverence by distinguishing First that the words sinne and iniquitie are taken rather for inclinations to sinne then for sinne
were begotten and conceived was an unclean thing saith Bishop Bilson as Job calleth it saying Who can make a clean thing of an unclean Job 14.4 It is also corruptible that is saith he full of corruption as Peter nameth it when he saith Born again not of corruptible seed 1 Peter 1.23 of which we were born of our parents Thirdly The Apostle calleth our flesh The flesh of sinne Rom. 8.3 If by these places he takes uncleannesse corruption and sinne improperly for such ill dispositions as seed bloud and livelesse flesh is capable of the Question is ended I confesse all But he understandeth uncleannesse corruption and sinne properly The title of his pages 174. and 175. is this Mans flesh is defiled in conception before the soul is created and infused And in the body of his Discourse he enlargeth it as in his Conclusion to the Reader at the end of his Sermons pag. 252. he first propoundeth it and citeth Ambrose to assist him saying * Priùs incipit inhomine macula quà m vita Amnr. Apolog. David cap. 11. Pollution sooner beginneth in man then life Now the soul is the life of the body then if pollution cleave to the flesh before life come and consequently before the soul come whencesoever it cometh it is evident that Adams flesh defileth and so condemneth us So farre he None of these proofs reach home to cleare this That sinne true sinne proper sinne originall sinne or actuall is in the seed or bloud or flesh before the reasonable soul be united Neither did that learned Bishop consider that it can not be called our originall uncleannesse pollution or sinne till we have originem that is till our soul hath its first being in the body He erreth to say Pollution cleaveth to the flesh before life cometh and more erreth saying Adams flesh defileth and condemneth us if he make the flesh subject to condemnation before its life and union of the soul For then many thousand abortions should be damned which never had rationall soul annexed to them As for Ambrose * Whitak De Origin Peccato 1.4 Whitaker thus citeth him from the same Book and Chapter * Antequam nafcimur maculamur contagio antequam usuram lucis originis ipsiut accipimus injuriam Before we be born we are stained with contagion before we enjoy the light we receive the injurie of our verie beginning Ambrose saith not We have sinne ere we have life but We are conceived in iniquity which is true and confest if we take conception largely so Ambrose taketh macula for such inclination to evill as is in the seed potentially maculative Concerning the place of Job First Job saith not The seed is unclean but Quis dabit mundum ex immundo Which may have reference to the person or the nature of the unclean father Secondly it may be a parallell with that of Job 25.4 How can he be clean that is born of awoman yea the starres are not pure in his sight vers 5. Lastly things may be said to be unclean that have no sinne Ask the unclean beasts and they will justifie it and the trees will send forth this truth as leaves Levit. 19.23 24. The fruit of the trees planted shall be as uncircumcised or unclean unto you three yeares it shall not be eaten of but in the fourth yeare it shall be holy to praise the Lord withall yet was not the fruit sinfull it self but quoadusum The place of S. Peter is answered by the same Apostle 1 Pet. 1.18 Silver and gold are things corruptible yet these creatures as creatures are good in themselves though they are causes of most sinnes yet have no sinne many other corruptible things as heaven earth are void of all sinne As concerning the place of the Apostle S. Paul I answer it is apparent he speaketh of flesh after the soul is united which is nothing to our Question and therefore a most impertinent proof of the Bishop Lastly the Reverend Bishop bringeth this objection against himself How could David say he was conceived in sinne when at the conception he had neither soul nor body His main answer is With God nothing is more frequent then to call those things that are not as though they were Rom. 4.17 and speaketh in Scriptures of things to come as if they were past or present David and Job call that seed which was prepared to be the matter of their bodies by the names of themselves because it could not be altered what God had appointed But the void conceptions of women which miscarry before the body be framed never had either life or soul and so neither name nor kinde but perish as other superfluous burdens and repletions of the body So he I reply that I may not question the worthy Bishop about the meaning of that place Rom. 4.17 He hath made a great stirre to little purpose since he maketh many conceptions void of finne or punishment like superfluous burdens and repletions of the body which none ever said to have sinned Secondly which is the better answer to the place of the Psalmist to say as the Bishop doth Conceptions which come to nothing are not sinfull but such as may have souls are sinfull before they have souls whereby he splitteth himself on this rock That a perfect conception susceptible of a soul and aborsed casually before the unition with the soul is sinfull and liable to account or to answer with me That sinne and iniquity in the place of the Psalmist is taken for the aptitude to sinne which is in the matter or els conception is taken in its latitude for our time in the mothers wombe and so true original sinne not to be in the body without a soul Aquine saith * Quum sola creatura rationalis sit susceptiva culpae ante infusionem animae rationalis proles concepta non est peccato obnoxia Aquin. part 3. Quaest 27. art 2. in corp art Sith none but the reasonable creature is susceptible of fault the childe conceived is not subject to sinne before the infusion of a reasonable soul Whitaker saith well * Carnem nihil concupiscere sine anima nec doctus nec doctus dubitat ut loquar cum Augustino Quid enim caro iâ—animis a trunco differt Whitak De Origin Peccato 3.1 That the flesh covets nothing without the soul neither the learned nor the unlearned doubts that I may speak with Augustine For what doth the inanimate flesh differ from a stock And I hope the Bishop will not say A block or a stock hath sinne Moreover after thousands of sinnes committed in the body and by and with the body yet the body separated from the soul hath no sinne is not sinfull much lesse is sinne and shall the seed in the wombe be called sinfull or sinne as Kemnitius or Luther calleth it before it is warmed with life or enlivened with a soul Lastly in our very Creed conception is used with libertie and
yet his repentance could not wipe out the sinne of his posteritie because his repentance was by an act personall which could not extend it self beyond his person So farre Aquinas But let discourse give way to Scripture Jer. 31.29 30. They shall say no more The fathers have eaten a sowre grape and the childrens teeth are set on edge but every one shall die for his own iniquitie every man that eateth the sowre grape his teeth shall be set on edge They had occasion to use this proverb in reference to Adam who ate one sowre grape in whom we sinned and are punished But as I live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel Ezek. 18.3 Behold all souls are mine as the soul of the father so also the soul of the sonne is mine the soul that sinneth it shall die vers 4. And when God said Exod. 20.5 I visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me I answer First the place speaketh not of the sinnes of children for the fathers personall iniquitie maketh not the sonne inique or wicked it is onely spoken of punishments Secondly even punishment eternall doth not reach from the father to the sonne unlesse the sonne communicate with the sinne of the father for if a wicked father beget a sonne that seeth all his fathers sinnes which he hath done and considereth and doth not such like he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father he shall surely live Ezek. 18.14 17. In this sort you may object A man shall not be punished at all for the sinnes of his forefathers but for his own sinnes onely I answer He may be punished temporally but not eternally for in temporall chastisements as there be many causes producing one effect so many sinnes even of diverse men may be corrected by one punishment and the father is often more grievously punished in his sonne then in himself Now having spoken what I thought convenient concerning the propagation of originall corruption unto all the posteritie of Adam I am in the last place to shew the just consequent That as he did die for that his sinne so we his offspring for having that sinne should die and in regard of this sinne It is appointed for men to die and to undergo that punishment For original sinne is in one regard a fault of transgression and the same originall sinne in a different respect is also a punishment b Aug. de baptismo parvulorum As every man was in Adam and his corrupted nature was propagated to us it is a sinne as originall sinne is considerable in every man without reflecting on the common nature it is a punishment It is so a sinne or such a sinne that it is also a punishment and we have spoken of it as a sinne let us now descend to handle it as it is a punishment MOst Prepotent Eternall and onely Wise God I a poore dejected sinner with an humble and contrite soul devoutly beg pardon at thy Mercie-seat confessing from the bottome of my heart my manifold personall and actuall sinnes from all which if thy Grace had prevented me yet my offence in Adam and with him had justly condemned me But I meekly beseech thy Divine Majestie that I may be one of those many to whom the bloud of thy deare Sonne shall do more good then the fault of Adam did hurt Grant this I beseech Thee for the Al-sufficient merit of thy onely Sonne our onely deare and gracious redeemer Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. VII 1. A review of the last point Zanchius not against it Bucer and Martyr are but faint and rather negative then positive 2. Bucer and Martyr make the state of the question to be voluble not fixt and setled Their objections answered The place of Exodus 20.5 examined 3. S. Augustine appealed unto and defended 4. God justly may and doth punish with any temporall punishment any children like or unlike unto their parents for their parents personall sinnes 5. God doth and may justly punish some children eternally and all temporally for originall sinne whether they be like their parents in actuall aversion yea or no. 6. God justly punisheth even eternally wicked children if they resemble wicked parents 7. God oftentimes punisheth one sinne with an other 8. The personall holinesse of the parent never conveyed grace or salvation to the sonne 9. God never punished eternally the reall iniquities of the fathers upon their children if the children were holy 10. No personall sinnes can be communicated The point handled at large against the errour of Bucer and Martyr 11. The arguments or authorities for my opinion The new Writers not to be overvalued Zanchius himself is against Bucer and Martyr 1. HAving thus farre proceeded and as I thought without the contradiction of any I found by the discourse of a loving learned friend that diverse late Writers were otherwise minded in the point last handled in the former chapter whereupon I betook my self to review it Zanchius in locis commun Theolog. upon the second chapter of the Ephes loc prim toward the end bringeth this objection against one part of his definition of originall sinne Some say that if therefore Adams sinne was transferred to posteritie because we were in his loyns by the same reason the other sinnes of Adam and our other parents should be likewise traducted which is absurd and cometh not alwayes to passe since of evil parents oftentimes the best children are born He answereth first The reason is not alike for the first sinne was not so proper and personall to Adam as common to humane nature his other sinnes and others after him are truely personall Which answer is excellent and he confirmeth it at large Then cometh he to a second answer which is not his own but onely barely related without his approving or open disproving of it a Deinde negant multi viri docti absurdum esse si dicatur peccata pronimorum parentum communicari liberis ità ut similes parentibus nascantur filii vitiosi vitiosis Besides many learned men denie that it is absurd to say that the sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children so that sonnes are born like their parents vicious and perverse sonnes of vicious and perverse parents which they confirm by experience by examples of Scripture by Exod. 20.5 And Augustine truely in Enchirid. cap. 46. saith it is probable for that place of Exodus For saith he if the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father but the soul that sinneth shall die and yet God visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children it seemeth to follow that the sinnes of the parents passe over to the sonnes and the sonnes follow the sinnes of the parents that those sinnes may be justly punished in them which are not so proper to the parents as common both to parents and children And for this
opinion he citeth Bucer and Martyr All this cloud for it is but a cloud and an empty one also will quickly be dispersed First in the generall replication observe that Zanchius himself never specializeth this as his own judgement Secondly note how cautelously Bucer and Martyr carry it on the negative Many learned men denie that it is absurd to say c. Themselves see no convincing demonstration but are content if their opinion be not absurd Errours there are that are absurd if this be not absurd all is well Thirdly of those many are but two named by him Bucer and Martyr learned men indeed yet not more learned then many that herein differed from them Fourthly many words are homonymous and they themselves slide back from them by varying the state of the question as will appeare by and by Lastly let the grounds by me set down in the last chapter be well weighed and the truth will appeare on my side 2. Now let me descend to the matter of their objections b Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis The sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children say they Here they should have been punctuall and I desire to be satisfied what they mean Whether the sinnes of the father and mother be transfused into all the sonnes and daughters and into all of them alike or not alike And if the father be vertuous and the mother wicked or contrariwise the mother vertuous and the father wicked what is communicated to the childe Secondly what sinnes be communicated all or some Whether Atheisme and profanenesse of thoughts or onely such sinnes as the bodie is much imployed in performance of Thirdly whether the sinnes of grand-fathers and grand-mothers be derived and if so whether if there be a good grand-father and a good grand-mother and a good father the children shall inherit no goodnesse but the sinne of their wicked mother onely Or if two of them be good and two bad the males good and the females bad or contrariwise what sinne shall be communicated to their children Fourthly whether the sinnes of the great-grand-father and of his parents our more remote progenitours be derived and where beginneth the derivation of these sinnes and why from such determinate persons and generations rather then from others Or whether they must reach up from all the descendants of Adam to his actuall and personall sinnes Fifthly whether such actuall and personall sinnes as are repented of by our parents and all our forefathers be derived unto us or onely such as they were not repentant of or both sorts of them Sixthly let noveltie know Peccata proximorum communicantur liberis in stead of Propagantur ad liberos is an unknown phrase to antiquitie and it is better to speak plainly according to the dayes of the Fathers then in terms covert and dubious and then in defence of such riddles to say no more then the old Tenet c In universalibus latet dolus Deceit lieth hidden in universals The second branch of pendulous new-fanglednesse is this d Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis ità ut similes parentibus nascantur liberi vitiosi vitiosis The sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children so that children are born like unto their parents vicious of vicious First it is petitio principii that the vicious childe being like to his vicious father proceedeth from the fathers multiplied transgressions for if he be like to his father in sinne he is also in that regard as like and more like to many other actuall sinners from whom there could proceed no generative communication of iniquitie Secondly what is naturall is ordinary is oftenest is alwayes so without some notable hinderance but the childrens being like the parents are not thus therefore the communication is not naturall Thirdly suppose a wicked sonne curseth his father or wisheth him dead or mocks at him he also begetteth a sonne which sonne doth the like to him as he did to his father shall we say if the generation had descended after many from Cham who laught or mockt at his father Gen. 9.22 that this sinne of Cham was traduced derived or did passe over to this last mocker or shall we say it was derived unto him from the personall sinne of his immediate last father No we must rather say it was derived unto him from his last parents in and by that originall sinne onely which was traduced That this may the better be manifested consider these points First that Adams first sinne though it were one onely yet more sinnes were involved in it Augustine saith e In illo uno peccato quod per unum hominem intravit in muâ—dum in omnes homines pertransâ—it possunt intelligi plurapeccata si unum ipsum in sua quasi membra dividatur singula Aug. Enchir. cap. 43. In that one sinne which by one man entred into the world and passed over to all men more sinnes may be understood if that one sinne be divided into all its parts or members And he found there many branches of Adams sinne and denieth not but more may be found in hoâ— uno admisso in that one committed Secondly he maketh that one to be transfused unto all mankinde Thirdly none in the world were ever more eager then some of these latter times to aggravate the greatnesse of original sinne Illyricus is almost frantick on the point Zanchius and others are truely peremptory that all faculties of body and soul are infected Let me adde There never was sinne nor can be but the seed of it was couched in the sinne originall So that every man hath just cause to blesse God for withholding him from every sinne great or small since every man hath a naturall inclination to every sinne even unto that sinne which by Gods grace he most detesteth Therefore if wicked children be like their parents it proceedeth not from their parents personall transgressions but from that one infectious root of the first sinne of Adam strengthened by connivence ill breeding or custome or ill company Fourthly an holy man and woman who never mocked their parents have a sonne who mocks at them shall his mocking proceed from his parents or his parents parents who never personally did the like or shall Chams sinne be communicated to him Then why do they instance in this sinne of the next parents If they mean it is communicated in originall sinne they mean what I say and contrary to their own words Lastly sinne originall is alike in all and every one and alike remitted in Baptisme of infants yea though the parents should be infidels and send their childe for fashion-sake or by way of jesting to be baptized if the Church know not so much and if the childe be offered unto God by the wel-meaning devotion and faith of Priest and people present and be baptized with true matter and form it receiveth spirituall regeneration as I read long since if my memory
contracting of sinnes and undergoing punishment for them Fourthly weigh this strong inconvenience which he toucheth at That the latter born in time is still the worse in nature worse then any that went before as followeth necessarily if the sinnes of our forefathers are communicated to us Fifthly he seemeth to conclude the unreasonablenesse That they who were never regenerated should be overburdened with eternall damnation if they should be compelled from the beginning of mankinde to contract the sinnes of all their progenitours and be punished for them And therefore he questioneth Whether it reacheth onely to the third and fourth generation I would also question Whether if the threat reach onely to the third and fourth generation upon supposall that from Adam all the predecessours of a man were wicked till the fourth generation that man shall have none of those sinnes imputed to him before his progenitours in a fourth ascent Or if an others progenitours were all good from Adam till the foure last generations and from it all and every of his parents in a lineall descent were stark-naught till we come to himself who is good Whether he shall have communicated to him the sinnes of these foure last progenitours and no goodnesse for a thousand generations of holy and repentant forefathers himself also being a holy man since God sheweth mercy unto thousands that love him that is more mercy to more good men then severitie which extendeth even towards his haters but to the third and fourth generation which number is short of thousands The last objection from the place of Exodus is this q Consequi videtur Deum permittere ut pâ—ccata parentum in filios transeant It seems to follow that God doth permit that the sinnes of parents passe unto their children and the sonnes imitate the sinnes of their fathers that God may justly punish sinnes which are not so proper to the parent as to the parent and childe I answer He doth well to mince it with It seems to follow But Quaedam videntur non sunt Some things seem to be and are not Bucer and Martyr do float too much in generalities they neither mention what sinnes all or some neither what parents good bad or all nor what they mean by passing when they say r Peccata parentum in filios transeunt The sinnes of parents passe unto the children There are also nets and ginns in these their words Å¿ Peccatorum labes cou contegium redundat in patris corpus per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The spot and as it were contagion of sinne overspreadeth the fathers body and by his bloud and seed redoundeth upon the children Before they said sinnes now the spot of sinnes though there be a great difference between them two for the sinne is past before the spot cometh and the latter is the effect of the former Again because it is easie to prove that t Macula patris non redundat in filios the stain of the father redoundeth not on the children it is added u Labes ceu contagium the spot and as it were contagion Moreover how unaptly do they bring the place of Exodus to prove the sinnes of the next parents to be communicated if by them they understand onely the immediate father and mother when in that place there is expresse mention of the third and fourth generation If they stretch the words of the next parents to the third and fourth generation onely why not to the fifth sixth and so upward Sixteen generations since Christs time are the next parents if you compare them to the thirty nine generations which in the law of Nature and of Moses preceded Christ Lastly note their wilde inference God permits the fathers sinne to passe unto the childe and the childe to imitate the father that he may punish as if God could not justly punish the sinnes of the fathers in the children unlesse they be like them in personall transgressions as if the communication of original sinne onely were not cause enough to punish children for the sinnes of their parents as if the evil of sinne were ordained to justifie the evil of punishment Away then with this fishing in troubled waters this delighting in amphibolous terms Which censure that I may the rather justifie I will endeavour to explain all things necessary to the knowledge of this point to salve all doubts to unfold all intricacies in these seven propositions 4. God justly may and doth punish with any temporall punishment any children like or unlike to their parents for their fathers personall sinnes Horat. Epod. 7. Immerentis fluxit in terram Remi Sacer nepotibus cruor And Carminum 3. Ode 6. Delicta majorum immeritus lues Romane For the children are a part of the fathers and in the childes punishment the father himself is punished For as a sonne receiveth under God life and the things of this life by the father so it is no injustice if he lose the same for him The widow of Zarephath her sonne was in her apprehension dead for her sinne 1. King 17.18 So 2. Sam. 12.15 God stroke the childe that Uriahs wife bare to David and it was sick and died Both father and childe endured a punishment of seven dayes the father in sorrow fasting a fast lying on the earth in a holy sordiditie weeping and praying the childe by sicknesse tormenting him to death Ahabs children were punished for his offence 1. King 21.21 and among the rest Jehoram his sonne who although he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord yet was not so bad as his father or mother 2. Kings 3.2 The passage is very observable Jer. 16.3 4. For thus saith the Lord concerning the sonnes and daughters that are born in this place and concerning their mothers and fathers They shall die of grievous deaths Both the great and small shall die vers 6. The punishment of Gehazi his posterity is more exemplarie for though they sinned not nor could sinne the sinne of Gehazi yet the leprosie of Naaman did cleave unto him for that his personall simonie and unto his seed for ever 2. Kings 5.27 The case of Jobs children surpasseth this for they were not stricken with death for their own sinnes or the sinnes of their father Job so much as for the triall of his patience and for the experimentall confutation of Satan yet was it not unjust that they should lose their lives for their fathers good which they had by him since he also suffered in their sufferings and might easily see Gods especiall hand against himself For the greatest winde in the world naturally cannot smite the foure corners of an house and if it should yet one corner would uphold the other but this whirlwinde did so and the house fell Job 1.19 1. Sam. 15.6 the Kenites are spared because they shewed kindenesse to the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt but because Amalek had fought with
to the bodie Thirdly what say you to pride of heart and secret Atheisme Is the proud mans and Atheists bodie and bloud infected with these prodigies Again If such people be wholly forgiven and their sinnes by repentance blotted out are they now in their bodie seed and bloud which are wiped out of their soul and suppose he beget a sonne between the Atheisme and repentance shall his childe be damned while the repentant Atheist is saved should not he rather communicate his later repentance then his former Atheisme But let us weigh the words a little nearer f Peccatorum quae aliquis parens committit labes ceu contagium redundat in ejus corpus sanguinem per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The blot and as it were contagion of sinnes which the father commits redounds upon his bodie and bloud and by his bloud and seed to the sonnes What bloud is corrupted all or onely that which was made seed and of seed what seed all seed or onely that which is fruitfull Suppose a father begets a sonne with the seed which was in his bodie yer his sinne was committed how doth his sinne viciate his bloud or his bloud the preformed seed If seed and bloud be properly vicious then any ejaculation of seed or letting of bloud should emptie people of their sinnes or stains in them inherent and sinne should no longer be a privation but a positive thing Moreover when they say That by the fathers bloud and seed the blot and as it were contagion is transfused into the sonnes they speak without reason or sense For the blot and as it were contagion are transfused if transfused at all into the wombe of their mother which hath a preexistence and not into the children themselves who have no preexistence The vessell is before any thing can be poured into it how then can sinne be yoted by the fathers bloud seed into the childe that had no being The last passage is this The childrens bodies are first infected by these stains or actuall sinnes their souls after defiled by their bodies If by the word infected they mean really truly properly and actually infected I remit them to the place where I have proved that the Embryo without a reasonable soul is not cannot be sinfull If they would be expounded of a pronitude to evil or inclinations tending that way when the soul is united they have made much ado about nothing a meer logomachy retaining the old sense and using noveltie of terms Again if I should yeeld That the seed of one man is proner to one vice then an other according to the vivid strength and able disposition of the parents as they say bastards are more healthie and more salacious then other people as retaining part of that spiritfull vigour in which they were begotten yet is originall sinne the same in every one alike in all parts and every way and the likenesse to the parents in wickednes is most remotely ascribed to the seed but properly to originall sinne as to the inward cause and to the parents ill breeding them or to bad companie or custome or to the remembrance of their parents sinne which is a powerfull president in corrupt nature as to the outward cause For a wicked childe is as like a thousand other wicked men if not more like in behaviour then to his father yet this proceedeth not from their seed but from originall sinne But to the more distinct handling of this point this seventh and last Proposition First I will prove That the personall sinnes of all our forefathers are not derived to us Secondly That not the sinnes from the third and fourth generation are propagated Thirdly That the personall sinnes of our immediate parents are not transfused And so it will arise of it self that no personall sinnes are communicated In the second place I shall bring to light the authorities on our side But before I begin either let me briefly remove an objection Bucer and Martyr teach saith Zanchius that by this doctrine the transfusion of originall sinne is more confirmed I answer That Gods truth hath no need of mans lie to uphold it Cicero said well g Perspicuitas argumentatione elevatur Perspicuitie is lessened by argumentation For what is more beleeved more known to Christians then that originall sinne is traduced Weak arguments do often prejudice a good cause and while Bucer and Martyr would seem to confirm that truth which neither Jew Turk nor Christian doubt of let them take heed lest when they say actuall sinnes are traduced they give occasion to the world to think that humane souls are not created but traducted so by consequent bring in the mortalitie of the soul For it hath been confidently averred by learned men That if the souls be traducted they are mortall But of this hereafter Concerning the first branch these arguments confirm it If the actuall sinnes of all our forefathers be communicated to their posteritie then they that are the more ancient are still the better and the last people of this world shall absolutely by nature be worst But it is not so for Pagans and Infidels now should be many thousand times worse then the first infidels which is not so as is seen by experience Secondly then we might truely say O happy Cain happier by nature then Abel the righteous since Adam and Eve did manifoldly sinne between Cains and Abels generations yea happier then Abraham and the Patriarchs just Job and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists since thou hast fewer sinnes to answer for then any in the world Happier is all the drowned world in this regard then the dayes since Christ But to say so is new Divinity Therefore all sinnes of actually transgressing parents are not communicated Secondly God dealeth not so rigourously with mankinde as he did with the devils Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 whereby he magnifieth Gods mercy to man above that to the rebellious spirits but he should or did deal worse with mankinde at least with the damned then with them if all the personall sinnes of our progenitours be communicated to all us For each of them bare onely but their own sinnes and none did beare one anothers sinne further then they actually partaked with it And this can not be otherwise for both their sinne was pride and their nature uncapable of propagation or communication of sinne unlesse it be by reall and present consenting or partaking Lastly They all fell together the second or third instant of their creation saith the School Suddenly the devil of Lucifer became Coluber of Oriens Occidens of Hesperus Vesper He abode not in the truth Joh. 8.44 Satan fell from heaven like lightning where lightning is not said to fall from heaven but he saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 10.18 Satan falling as suddenly from heaven as
communicateth sinnes actuall to the third and fourth generation because God punisheth the sinnes of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation unlesse they can prove Whatsoever God punisheth man doth communicate unto man which is impossible for God sometimes punisheth such sinnes of the childe as the father never had and of such a childe as never had childe after to whom he might communicate them The third and last branch of the seventh and last Proposition is this That the immediate parents personall transgressions are not communicated to us They may by way of punishment by way of offence or sinne they cannot No one sinne actuall is traducted propagated transfused communicated If any one actuall sinne be derived why not more why not all and every one Why should the communication of sinnes rest in the father and mother ascendendo when many children are liker their grand-fathers both in shape and feature and in minde and in vices then to their father and mother who were void of such personall transgressions Thirdly it is a true and old distinction That original sinne viciateth our whole nature and actuall sinnes infect the person But this distinction is taken away and removed if actuall sinnes do viciate our nature and are propagated by the seed which is proper to sinne-originall It is not called originall sinne for being the root of all sinne for Satan sinned first but as it is in our nature originally In this point Whitaker agreeth with Stapleton De originali peccato 1.4 And there Stapleton worthily observes that l Originale peccatum differentiam specificam notat quae opponitur personali designans causam peccati naturam esse non personam Original sinne noteth a specificall difference which is opposed to personal intimating that the cause of sinne is the nature not the person As when we mention actuall sinnes we make an opposition to sinnes habituall or to sinnes of omission or to sinne original If personall sinnes do passe over unto the children then Adams sinne did so to his children But not so For it is but one single singular sinne which we sinned in Adam If Adams personall vices were propagated to Cain were all or part propagated if part what were those and why those above others if all what did Adam traduce to Abel Seth c. Did he propagate onely those sinnes which were committed between the generation of one and the other And what sinnes did Seth propagate to his posteritie Are personall sinnes propagated alike to all the children How is it that of one mans children I have known one naturally exceeding angry an other naturally stupid Again if a naturall fool begetteth one wise what sinnes doth he communicate or on the contrary a Machiavel begetteth a naturall fool shall the fool be damned for his politick fathers malengin If actuall sinne be traduced then is it in the seed ere the soul come in the seed in the fathers bodie in the seed at the emission at the reception and retention Then millions of seeds spent in lawfull matrimonie when women do not conceive or what they have conceived yet having no soul shall have sinne actuall and if they have sinne they must come to account But such fruitlesse disburdenings do not appeare in judgement Again if personall sinnes be propagated are they remitted in Baptisme or not if remitted how are they so like their parents afterwards How can the seed which is not so much as an humane body actually but onely potentially be actually sinfull If personall sinne be communicated from the next parents how is it that experience teacheth us that very godly mens children are given to such enormities as their parents in their youth middle-age and old age have detested It cannot come by communication of actuall sinnes You will say it doth arise from sinne original So we say and so do all sinnes whatsoever arise from that corrupted fountain that ever-bubbling wel-spring of evil and not from a phantasticall communication of actuall transgressions If a meer Pagan and heathen an idolatrous worshipper of devils beget two twinnes shall they be alike wicked We have heard and known the contrary Gods discriminating saving grace doth not difference them as you may say it doth in Christians Lot committed actuall sinne and knew it not was that sinne propagated to his sonnes That actuall sinne should be in the seed which is but a superfluity of nature is very strange If Job had presently after that God had commended him to Satan saying There is none like him in the earth a perfect and upright man one that feareth God and escheweth evil Job 1.8 betook himself to the act of generation or David at those times when he was a man according to Gods own heart what personall iniquities had they propagated Isa 56.5 unto holy eunuchs God will give a place better and name better then of sonnes and daughters yet by this opinion they of all other are most miserable for they receive all the actuall sinnes of their fathers and cannot waft-over either them or their own sinnes into their children by their feed for they have none but all must rest in their souls in their bodies in their bloud and upon themselves onely If God should miraculously create a man and woman not of the seed of Adam and they blaspheme God and beget children shall they transfuse actuall sinne which have not original sinne or shall their children blaspheme naturally Or if they be innocent themselves from that great offence shall they be damned for their parents blasphemy If personall sinne be propagated then the habits or acts But neither Not acts for they are transient and glide away Not habits for then first why should not habits of knowledge or goodnesse or the like be transfused as well as of evil especially the habits of knowledge of evil Secondly then a childe is not onely originally sinfull by froward inclinations but habitually by multiplied actions Thirdly habits belong to the person individuall not to him as he is a species of mankinde but propagation is according to the kinde or species not according to the individuals If ye object Ezek. 16.3 God chargeth them of Jerusalem thus Thy father was an Amorite thy mother an Hittite whereby he upbraideth them with their fathers sinnes I answer These words are not spoken of naturall descent but of parents and children by imitation For the Amorites and Hittites were idolaters and the Israelites who succeeded them in their inheritance as children do fathers inherited also their sinnes as appeareth in the whole chapter especially vers 44. Behold every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee saying As is the mother so is her daughter Thou art thy mothers daughter that loatheth her husband and her children and thou art the sister of thy sisters which loathed their husbands and their children your mother was an Hittite and your father an Amorite And thine elder sister is Samaria she and her daughters that
number weight and measure which the School-men call Meritum siecum a drie merit and I Meritum candidum a white merit which actions and performances of his are as the fine linen with which the Saints are properly clothed and apparelled when they are imputed to us And thus to return to my old matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Revelation is taken for the merits of Christ clothing us with fine linen as Jacob was with his elder brothers clothes when he was to receive the blessing Genes 27.15 so we with his righteousnesse which is ascribed unto us as if it were our own and now called ours because it was given unto us by Him Yet thirdly and lastly besides these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle useth another verball differing from both and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which under correction I opine is not to be translated either with the Bishops Bible righteousnesse of life for that is coincident with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet justification or Christs righteousnesse for then it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was immediately before ascribed to Christ But what is then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how is it to be translated It is but twice used in the New Testament First Rom. 4.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was raised again for our justification But some Greek Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place and then the sense altereth of it self Beza saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fifth to the Romanes signifieth more then it doth in the fourth and seemeth thus to difference it That in Romanes the fourth the passive obedience imputed is understood and in Romanes the fifth the active obedience imputed is meant And though in both places he doth Latinize it Justificatio yet the new coined words of Justificamen or Justificamentum seem better in his judgement to expresse the sense in the latter place In this he saith wittily that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is the onely argument of worth against the following opinion Yet thus it may be answered That though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be expounded damnation or condemnation or a sentence damnatorie as Beza calleth it yet Beza himself will not translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p Sententia absolutoria vel salvifica a sentence absolutorie or saving For there is no necessitie that a direct opposition in all parts should be between those terms neither doth the nature of the antithesis necessarily require such an exact contradiction But how doth Tolet render and interpret these words q Putat justificationem vitae bîc appellari actionem eperationem quâ Deus ex justitia merito Christi omnes homines etiam reprobos à morte suscitabit ad vitâ—m perpetuò duraturam He thinks saith Cornelius à Lapide of him that by the words jusTIFICATIO VITae The justification of life which in the Vulgat is the exposition of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here meant that action or operation whereby God through the righteousnesse merit of Christ will raise up all men even the reprobate from death to a life for ever to endure And so the similitude between Adam Christ is every way compleat for as by Adams sinne all every one die so by Christs merit all every one shall be made alive And certainly for the truth of Tolets opinion it is a part of our Creed denied of none it is expresly avouched even in the same comparative form 1. Cor. 15.22 As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive But my opinion herein differeth from Tolets That I do make not onely Gods power the merits of Christ concurring to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more commonly then properly rendred justificatio to be an act of man defending and pleading for himself at the resurrection As if the Apostle had thus balanced Adam and Christ As by the offence of the one judgement came upon all to condemnation so by the righteousnesse of the other the free gift came upon all that they shall all without exception be raised up to know the cause why they deserve wrath to excuse themselves if they can to plead in their own defence if they can justifie their lives and free themselves from condemnation For God condemneth no man without reason nor without suffering him to come to his answer nor without letting him see and know the just cause of his condemnation The substantiall truth whereof is confirmed Rom. 14.10 We shall all stand before the judgement-seat of Christ and every one of us shall give an account of himself to God vers 12. The end is specialized 2. Corinth 5.10 That every one may receive the things done in the body according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad As for the objection of our adversaries and their demand where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so used in Scripture I first retort it thus Let them prove the use of the word in Scripture as they apply it Secondly I say It is iniquum postulatum An unjust demand on either side since the word is onely once onely here in the New Testament without variation of reading so farre as I remember Thirdly I think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crosse-pleading and all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as * Apud Lysiam Suidas expounds it and what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but causificatio causae suae defensio juris sui in medium prolatio 2. Maccab. 4.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They pleaded the cause before him Yet nearer to the purpose Psal 43.1 Plead thou my cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Litiga litem meam as it is in the Interlineary Disceptando tuere causam meam as Vatablus interprets it And Psal 35.23 Awake to my judgement even unto my cause The Septuagint have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Symmachus readeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where David makes God a Judge and Umpire between David himself pleading his own cause and Davids adversaries who pleaded against him and opened their mouth wide against him vers 21. So that with Symmachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly the pleading of ones own cause as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the defence of a mans thoughts words and deeds in this world and may in a good sense be called a justification of his life Moreover it is said Exod. 12.49 Lex una erit indigenae peregrino One law shall be unto him that is home-born and unto the stranger Which is diversified Levit. 24.22 Ye shall have one manner of law Judicium unum erit vobis as the Interlineary readeth it it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉