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
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
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
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
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
Therefore he arose not at all as yet Lastly should we grant that Adam did bodily arise with Christ yet hath Pineda neither Authour nor reason that Adam ascended with Christ into heaven as I said before which is the main point now in question Thus much if not too much touching Adam 3. Eve also arose saith Dionysius Carthusianus on Matth. 27. but voucheth no authoritie nor produceth any reason or probabilitie and therefore I passe it over the more slightly adding onely this that in the Original it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood either no women arose or more then one or two though Pineda mentioneth not one woman and Carthusian but onely and soly Eve But why Eve should rather arise then Sarah or the mother of Moses who were singled out for famous Heroinae Hebr. 11. or other Prophetisses in the Old and New Testament as old Anna and the like I see no reason or that Eve in her raised bodie should be translated into heaven and not Adam her husband nor Abraham nor David is both foolish and fabulous This have I said as supposing the words to be understood of women alone as indeed they are not nor probably can they be applied to women mixt with men so far as any likelihood could present it self to the great conjecturer Pineda who would have balked none of them 4. Abraham arose saith Pineda on Job 19. and annexeth this colour because Abraham rejoyced to see Christs day and saw it and was glad John 8.56 I answer Whatsoever is meant by these words of the Text My day either Christs Godhead which Abraham saw a Quia mysterium Trinitatis agnovit Because he acknowledged the mysterie of the Trinitie saith S. Augustine Or the day of Christs nativitie which Abraham might have notice of in his life time by supernaturall inspirations and then did remember being dead and desired that day for separated souls have both remembrance and appetite intellectuall as I shall evidence hereafter Or it may be Abraham being in blisse might first know it by divine illumination so soon as the day came and thereupon rejoyced as the Angel did and the heavenly host Luke 2.13 of which host Abraham might be one for even the souls of men are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 19.14 saith Gregory Moral 31.12 In the foresaid place of Luke mention is made of an Angel and the heavenly host whereas if onely Angels were the heavenly host it might have been onely said The Angels or onely The heavenly host but The Angel and the heavenly host may give us cause to think that there were some of the heavenly host which were not Angels though Angels onely be mentioned If so humane souls were part of that quire and then Abraham in likelihood was one of them Now as the chief Angel like a chaunter began the Evangelisme of Christs birth so might it be answered by the heavenly host viz. as is probable partly by the Angels singing Glory to God in the highest partly by Abraham and the souls of men concluding the Anthem On earth peace good will toward men I say Whatsoever is meant by the words My day they cannot be expounded of Christs resurrection Some there are who interpret My day of the time of Christs passion whom Maldonate justly misliketh because saith he it is added ABRAHAM SAW IT AND REJOYCED but then when Christ said these words Abraham could not see Christs passion because it was not yet come I may say the same or more against Pineda who will have it expounded of the day of Christs resurrection for Christ speaketh of the day that was past he did see it he was glad and rejoyced so that day was ended when Christ said this but Christs resurrection was not accomplished when he uttered these words therefore they cannot be understood of Christs resurrection And if they were so to be interpreted yet it is not written Abraham arose or Abraham was partaker with Christ or Abraham ascended bodily into heaven this being the issue which we joyned in this controversie but Abraham rejoyced he saw it and was glad which words differ farre from Pineda his ridiculous interpretation 5. An other which rose at the same time was Isaac saith Pineda ibid. for he was a parable of the resurrection and this was done to recompense the fear which possessed Isaac of being slain when he represented Christ To this puncto I answer Pineda himself will not say that every one who was a parable or pledge of the resurrection or who figured it was raised as Samson from his sleep arising in strength and carrying away the gates of Azzah in type of Christ who brought away the gates both of death and hell or those who were raised by the Prophets or by Christ himself or the like for he mentioneth none of these Secondly what proof what consequence what shadow of truth is there that Isaac his fear which was past he being dead one thousand seven hundred yeares before should just now be recompensed and recompensed by being raised to a temporall life which was a poore reward if he ascended not into heaven which Pineda proveth not nor can prove Lastly though it be truth it self that Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac Genes 31.53 yet it is not meant as Pineda fancieth the fear that Isaac was in when he was to be offered For I suppose he knew by Abraham that it was Gods especiall appointment and that he also willingly offered himself and might think as Abraham did that God was able to raise him up even from the dead Hebr. 11.19 that in his voluntarie condescent and free-will-offering he might be a type of Christ who layed down his life John 10.17 But the fear of Isaac was either the filial fear by which Isaac reverenced worshipped God as Aben Ezra and Cajetan say or the pious and humane fear wherewith Jacob revered his father Isaac or rathest of all Fear is here taken for the object of fear Metonymically for God himself as it is also taken Esa 8.13 Let God be your fear let God be your dread as Cornelius Cornelii à lapide hath observed after Augustine and divers others for not Isaac his fright or Jacob his pietie is to be sworn by but God Deuter. 6.13 O God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the living and not of the dead I beseech thee make me to die to my self and live to thee through him whom the Fathers looked for and whose day Abraham rejoyced to see even Jesus Christ thy onely Sonne my alone Saviour Amen CHAP. VIII 1. Pineda his fancie that Jacob then was raised 2. The reason why the Patriarchs desired the Translation of their bones was not to rise with Christ as Pineda opineth but upon other grounds and to other ends 3. Where Joseph was first buried where secondly 4. The great difficultie
to the first place of Matth. 13.35 and say Who ever denyed but that some Copies have been corrupted and in some of them some words foisted in but all Greek all Latine Copies with the Arabick and Syriack translations reade Abraham and not Jacob Whereas some Copies were alwayes perfect in that place of Matthew Now if you grant corruption in any point or title in all the Greek and all the Latine Copies how will you prove any part or word of the New Testament to be uncorrupt Which razeth up the very Corner-stone of our Faith Mr Beza again objecteth that the name of Jeremie is written for Zacharie Matth. 27.9 I answer that the Authour of the book of Maccabees giveth us to understand that Jeremie wrote other things which now we have not 2. Maccab. 2.1 and so did divers of the Prophets and why may not this be then taken from some of those works which are perished Secondly S. Hierome saith a Jew brought him an Apocryphall book of Jeremie in which he found this testimonie word for word and this book was called APOCRYPHA or OCCULTA JEREMIAE The Apocryphals or hid writings of Jeremie saith Erasmus on Matth. 27. As what S. Paul saith of Jannes and Jambres 2. Tim. 3.8 and what S. Jude saith of Michael the Archangel striving with the Devil is thought to be taken out of the books Apocryphall so might this testimonie be cited also out of Jeremies Apocryphals Thirdly Erasmus supposeth that Zacharie had two names and was called both Zacharie and Jeremie and so no inconvenience followeth Fourthly not onely the Syriack leaves out the name of Jeremie but even in Augustines time the name of Jeremie was not in many Latine Copies as Augustine himself testifieth de Consensu Evangelistarum lib. 3. cap. 7. The ordinarie glosse also saith that in some editions it is onely thus By the Prophet and the name of Jeremie is left unmentioned Fifthly Augustine in the last recited place of his resolveth that the Divine providence purposely set down Jeremie for Zacharie and what the holy Spirit did dictate S. Matthew did truely write And one reason why the Spirit of God confounded the names of Jeremie and Zacharie was this saith Augustine To insinuate that all the Prophets wrote by one Spirit and wonderfully consented in one and therefore we must beleeve that e Quacunque per eos Spâ—itus Sanctus dixit singula esse omnium omnia singulorum What the holy Ghost spake by them is not to be appropriated unto any one but to all and every of them What was said by Jeremie was as well Zacharies as Jeremies and what was said by Zacharie was as well Jeremies as Zacharies God spake not by the MOUTHS but by the MOUTH of all his holy Prophets since the world began Act. 3.21 and they had but one Spirit to guide them into all truth The Prophesie of Amos is called The book of the Prophets Acts 7.42 and the Word of God which in divers places is called in the plurall number Scriptures as John 5.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Search the Scriptures is also oftentimes called in the singular number The Scripture as John 2.22 they beleeved the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said Beleef was to rest as well on his Word onely without Scripture as on Scripture though he had said nothing and the word Scripture is not to be restrained onely to that place of Scripture before pointed at but to the whole Word of God written which they beleeved The Scripture hath concluded all under sinne Gal. 3.22 where not one single place onely but either common places of that point or the whole bodie of the Scripture is to be understood A few words of a Psalme of David is called by Christ himself The law of the Jews It is written in their law They hated me without a cause John 15.25 which is onely so written Psal 35.19 Again he saith to the Jews John 10.34 Is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods but it is written so onely Psal 83.6 Yea though one and the same thing in effect be written both Isa 28.16 and Psal 118.22 as also Matth 21.42 and Acts 4.12 yet S. Peter reckoneth all but as one All but one Scripture though severally written by these foure It is contained in the Scripture saith he 1. Pet. 2.6 in the singular number he mentioneth Scripture as if what one wrote the rest wrote S. Peter saith not It is contained in the Word with reference to one Spirit inditing or inspiring though that might have also been truely spoken but contained in the Scripture with relation to the unity and consent of the Pen-men Lastly the words of the Evangelist are these Matth. 27.9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet Jeremie saying And they took the thirty pieces of silver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effatum Jeremiae dicentis That which was spoken by Jeremie saying c. Now Jeremiae might say it speak it dictate it which is most true and is all that S. Matthew saith who by the Spirit might also know that Jeremie did teach preach prophesie and utter these words and yet for all this and after all this Zacharie by the same Spirit might write transcribe and insert those words of Jeremie into his own Prophesie which S. Matthew denieth not as Baruch wrote divers things which he had heard from Jeremie as Agur collected some Proverbs of Solomon Again there was no necessitie that all things whatsoever Jeremie as a Prophet did speak g Jerem. 36.2 he himself or Baruch should write much lesse presently since there were many yeares between Jeremie his speaking and his writing for Enoch prophesied as it is in the 14. verse of the Epist of S. Jude but he prophesied Saying c. as it is there written for writing was none till God set the Copie unto Moses by writing the Law in the Tables on the mount Again S. Paul Act. 24.35 remembreth the words of our Lord Jesus how he said It is more blessed to give then to receive yet none of the Evangelists record such words but this might the Apostles relate unto S. Paul or by divine inspiration he might know that Christ spake them or they might be part of the words which Christ himself spake unto S. Paul for there is no certaintie that they were written S. John the Evangelist was commanded to conceal and not to write the words of the seven thunders Revel 10.4 If he had wholly concealed such a thing we could not know it he spake it but wrote it not Jeremie might speak this and not write it or write it and not speak it Any of these answers is better then to incline to Beza that the Text is erroneous or patched up with a false addition or to Erasmus on Matth. 27. intimating there was lapsus memoriae in Evangelistis howsoever he qualifieth it That if there were memoriae lapsus in Nomine duntaxat he
things but if he turned it to the back side of his hand he was as conspicuous as an other man So Cicero in the third book of his offices out of Plato 4. The same Maldonat presseth us sore with an other argument What should they do here living again in mortall bodies who had a taste of Gods glory surely they had been in worse condition then if they never had been raised out of the bosome of Abraham where they were quiet to come to a turbulent life again Because this Maldonat is an importunate snarler at our religion I give him this bone to gnaw upon and for my first answer I will call to minde the prodigious Legend which divers eminent men of their own side have recorded of one Christina called by them by way of eminency e Mirabilis Wonderfull To omit what Surius and others relate I will speak in the words of Dionysius the Carthusian f Cùm defuncta esset in pueritia ducta erat in paradisum ad Thronum Majestatis Divina Domino congraiulante ineffabiliter gavisa est Dixitque Dominus Revera hac charissima filia est Christina died young and was carried into paradise to the throne of the Divine majesty and she was ineffably glad God congratulating with her And the Lord said Truly this is my deerest daughter And then he telleth That God gave her choice either to stay with him or to return unto her bodie and by penitentiall works to satisfie for all the souls in purgatorie and to edifie those who lived and to return to God b Cum meritorum augmentis with increase of her merits She answered the Lord presently that for that cause she would return to her bodie And so she did and because sinnefull men by their stench did too much afflict her O tender-nosed virgin she did flie or the Papists did lie and sit on the top-boughes of trees pinacles or turrets since noisome smells ascend it had been her farre better course to have crept into some dennes and caverns of the earth or vaults and tombes as he said she did sometimes and when her neighbours or kindred thought her mad and kept her from meat she prayed once to God and milk came out of her breasts was not she an intemerate rare virgin and so she refreshed herself This and a great deal more hath that Carthusian holy and learned above many of their side de quatuor novissimis part 3. Artic. 16. Let censorious and maledicent Maldonat ponder these things well and it will stop his mouth for ever from barking at the belief of us whom they style Hugonets Calvinists Hereticks though none of us think or say otherwise then the good Pacianus did of old in his first epistle to Sempronius CHRISTIAN is my name and CATHOLICK is my surname The Turks indeed have some strange figments of this nature but though the Mahumetan priests have devised and feigned many superstitious miracles concerning their great Saintesse Nafissa as is confessed by Joannes Leo in his African historie lib. 8. yet the Papists have surmounted both this and other their impostures with this their mirabilarie Christina Secondly concerning these Many raised I answer unto Maldonat They continued not long in this life but as I guesse shortly after Christs ascension laid their bodies down to sleep again in the earth Thirdly what thinks Maldonat of Lazarus Was not his soul in Abrahams bosome as well as the other poore Lazarus his soul who was so tenderly beloved of Christ and his Apostles and yet he lived long after and whatsoever can be objected against these Saints holds stronger against Lazarus Fourthly I denie that they by their return into the flesh were in worse condition Lorinus on Acts 9.41 saith c Non affert molestiam ut Deo vocanti mortuus obtemperet reviviscendo It is no trouble to a man if being dead he obey Gods call and live again And Salmeron saith No reason but holy men at Gods command may put on and put off their own bodies as well and as contentedly as the Angels do their assumed bodies which I do the rather beleeve because I do say with Tostatus on the 2. King 4. Quaest 56 Though it cannot be certainly proved yet it is probable That none of those that ever were raised did perish everlastingly nor that any reprobate had the favour of an extraordinary resurrection for a separated soul that hath been partaker of these unspeakable joyes will esteem worse then dung or salt that hath lost its savour all the pleasures and profits of this life though their severall excellencies were distilled into one quintessence of perfection So that as Lorinus saith well in the place above cited Whosoever hath once escaped the perill of damnation he shall not come into the same danger again 5. The last objection that I have met withall is this That to die the second time is no favour but a punishment and a punishment iterated I answer If a righteous man should die thrice or oftner death is no punishment unto him yea to passe seven times through hell to come once and everlastingly to heaven a despairing soul would hold to be a cheap blessednesse Secondly Suarez himself saith It is no punishment to die the second time no more then it was to Moses to die twice as saith Augustine de Mirabilib Scripturae 3.10 though others dissent from Augustine Nay saith Suarez To lay down their bodies the second time is more acceptable and pleasing to God To this doth Peter Martyr agree in 1. King 4.22 If by mans hurt or losse God be glorified it is no injurie to man But in truth it is no hurt or losse to man for saith Barradius Perchance without any pains they might redeliver their carcases to the earth And if the pains be any the pains both of the latter and former death may be so tempered and diminished that they both shall not exceed the pains of one death saith Peter Martyr ibid. Which learned Peter Martyr out of S. Augustine de Mirabilib Scripturae 3. ult hath an excellent observation or two First That to every man is setled and appointed a prefixed time of death Secondly That before the last prefixed time some do die that they that raise them up to life may be more famous and God more glorified And this is proved by the very phrase which Christ used concerning Lazarus John 11.4 This sicknesse is not unto death Yet did he die and besides the time intercedent between his death and his buriall he was foure dayes buried But his sicknesse was not d Ad mortem plenam in qua Lazarus maneret to an intire death in which estate he should remain Neither is that so properly called death e Quando praeoccupat ultimum terminum when it is abortive and cometh before its time So Luke 8.52 She is not dead but sleepeth and yet verse 55. her spirit came again Therefore it was gone and she was