Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	see_v	soul_n	2,772	5	5.0753	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11363	A treatise of Paradise. And the principall contents thereof especially of the greatnesse, situation, beautie, and other properties of that place: of the trees of life, good and euill; of the serpent, cherubin, fiery sword, mans creation, immortalitie, propagation, stature, age, knowledge, temptation, fall, and exclusion out of Paradise; and consequently of his and our originall sin: with many other difficulties touching these points. Collected out of the holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, and other both ancient and moderne writers.	Salkeld, John, 1576-1660.	1617 (1617)	STC 21622; ESTC S116515	126,315	368

nature it cannot be denied but that it was grace as which was not consequent vnto nature but aboue all nature Wherefore as now in the law of grace all that are regenerated by baptisme in Christ doe in and by baptisme according to the opinion of many Diuines receiue the grace of Christ so likewise in the state of innocency all that should haue been borne of the loines of Adam should in and at the very instant of their naturall conception and first moment of naturall life haue receiued the first influence of their spirituall birth and supernaturall life Now the difficultie is whether if Adam had persisted in the state of innocencie all we his posteritie should then haue beene confirmed in grace insomuch that as wee should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God so wee should neuer haue fallen from the same Anselmus lib. 1. Cur Deus home cap. 38. Gregorius lib. 4. Moraliū c. 36. Anselmus and Gregorie the great answer that if Adam had not sinned then all his posteritie should haue beene confirmed in the grace and fauour of God for who saith Anselmus dare presume to affirme plus valere iniustitiam that iniustice should haue beene of more force to binde vnto bondage in mans first perswasion then his iustice to confirme him in liberty if he had persisted in his first temptation for euen as all humane nature was ouercome by Adams sinne so by him all should haue ouercome if he had not sinned Neuerthelesse I resolue with S. Austine that the posteritie of Adam should not at least way in the instant of their generation beene confirmed in grace though Adam had persisted in his originall iustice for how is it credible that they should haue receiued more abundant grace then their first head and father at his first creation Wherefore like as Adam though created in grace could fall from that happy estate of grace so it seemeth most probable that his posteritie might also seeing that wee read of no particular prouidence grace promised to them which was not profferd to their first father For though Adam could as many Diuines hold haue increased in grace yet none but Paelagians hold that hee could merit vnto himselfe the infusion of the first grace much lesse vnto others CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall SAint Austine in his 7. booke de Gen. ad lit cap. 25. answereth most excellently that the body of Adam before his sinne was both mortall and immortall mortall because he could die immortall beause hee could not haue died For it is one thing not to be able to dye another to be able not to dye that belongeth only to the Angells this is agreable euen vnto man not by the constitution of his nature but by the benefit of the tree of life from which tree hee was banished as soone as hee sinned that hee might dye who if he had not sinned might not haue died wherefore he was mortall by the nature of his corruptible body but yet immortall by the benefit of his Creator for if the body was mortall because it could dye by the like reason it was immortall because it could not haue died for that is not immortall onely which cannot dye at all vnlesse it be spirituall which is promised to vs in our resurrection Now therefore the difficultie is whether this gift of immortalitie due to the perfect state of Paradise was due also and connaturall vnto man persisting there Many of the best learned of this age are of opinion that this originall iustice which did bring with it a power of immortalitie and a perfect subiection of the flesh and senses vnto the rule of reason was a gift due euen vnto nature granted vnto man as not only agreable but likewise belonging and consequent vnto his naturall integritie and perfection insomuch that mans nature being now depriued thereof may iustly bee deemed in a manner maimed imperfect and monstrous especially seeing it was to proceed of naturall causes such as was the eating of the tree of life Againe euen naturall reason doth require that the minde and reason should rule and gouerne the whole man and consequently that the flesh and senses should be ruled by reason and obey the superiour power wherefore as it is without all question that the rebellion of the flesh against reason is contrary to mans nature so originall iustice which did restraine the rebellion did questionlesse pertaine to the naturall state integritie and perfection of man yea how were it otherwise agreable to the diuine wisdome to make a creature partly immortall and incorruptible partly againe mortall and corruptible Neuerthelesse vnlesse the question be more de nomine then dere I deeme it most certaine and out of all question that that gift of immortalitie was supernaturall as which was in no wise due or consequent to nature for neither this immortalitie could proceed of the qualities proportionate to the body seeing these tend rather to corruption then immortalitie as which are each contrary to other and after a sort consuming one another and these tending to the disvniting of the body and soule neither could this immortalitie be ab externo agente from some outward principle and cause for then if it were so it were rather to bee deemed in some sort opposite to the inclination of nature the which of it selfe as we haue already said tendeth to corruption yet as that which is congenitum or produced ioyntly with nature may in some sort be said to be naturall or rather connaturall so I will not deny of this quality of immortalitie though of it selfe it be altogether aboue nature yet respectiuely and in regard of the first infusion into nature I will not I say deny but that it may be deemed naturall CHAP. XLV What kinde of serpent that was which tempted Eue. IOsephus in his first booke of Antiq. chap. 1 holdeth that as it was a true and naturall serpent which tempted our first fathers so it was naturall vnto it to speake vnderstand yea and to goe vpright like vnto man and that vnderstanding mans felicitie moued with enuie hee sought his ouerthrow maliciose persuadens mulieri vt de arbore scientiae gustaret maliciously perswading the woman that shee should taste of the tree of knowledge Ephraim the Syrian as Barsalas relateth in his booke of Paradise the 27. chap. held that the serpent which spake with Eue was a true corporall serpent and that Satan had obtained of God the facultie of speech to be giuen vnto the serpent for a time so that as in Balaams reprehension God gaue the vse of speach vnto the Asse for his iust reprehension and punishment so likewise here saith Ephraim God gaue not only speach but euen intellectuall power and vnderstanding vnto the serpent for a tryall of our first fathers obedience Cyrillus in his third booke against Iulian the apostata and Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia are of opinion that this was not

mans fall and his perseuerance in grace for so small a space or hee fore-knew it not if not how was hee God if hee fore-knew it how is hee so presently changed and consequently also no God Againe if we were depriued of the gift of immortalitie bestowed vpon Adam and in him vpon all his posteritie how may it stand with the iustice of God and much more with his infinite mercy that wee should be punished for Adams iniustice the innocent for the guiltie the iust for the vniust Yea how standeth this euen with the word of God and his complaint by Ezechiel chapter 18. verse 2. where God complaineth of this as it seemeth blasphemie of his people What meane you that you vse this prouerbe concerning the land of Israel saying The fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge which is as much as to say our fore-fathers haue sinned and wee are punished for their sinnes How may this stand with the iustice of God seeing God himselfe taxeth this as vniust and as vniustly obiected against him in the third verse of the same chapter where contesting against mans vnrighteousnesse hee protesteth and proueth his owne righteousnesse and iust dealing insinuating thereby yea detesting the contrary as iniustice verse 3. As I liue saith the Lord yee shall not haue occasion any more to vse this prouerbe in Israel to wit that the fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that is that their fathers haue sinned and they were punished against which hee contesteth and that by an oath euen by himselfe in the latter end of the fourth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die that is all that sinne shall die and none shall die but those which sinne hee giueth the reason in the beginning of the verse and that with an ecce behold because he would haue all to acknowledge his iustice with man and how hee vseth equalitie with all men the father as the sonne and the sonne as the father euery one according to his deeds in Christ because all are equally his who saith Behold all soules are mine as the soule of the father so also the soule of the sonne is mine the soule that sinneth it shall die as who would say and none else shall die but who sinneth which may bee proued by the opposite iustice and is exemplified euen by the Prophet as that none shall bee rewarded for anothers righteousnesse so none shall bee punished for anothers vnrighteousnesse for so the Prophet prosecuteth in the fift verse But if a man bee iust and doe that which is lawfull and right and hath not eaten vpon the mountaines neither lift vp his eyes vnto idols of the house of Israel neither hath defiled his neighbours wife neither hath come neere a menstruous woman and hath not oppressed any but hath restored to the debter his pledge hath spoiled none by violence hath giuen his bread to the hungrie and hath couered the naked with a garment he that hath not giuen forth vpon vsurie neither hath taken any increase that hath withdrawne his hand from iniquitie hath executed true iudgement betweene man and man hath walked in my statutes and kept my iudgements to deale truly he is iust he shall surely liue saith the Lord God How then can it bee true that Adams posteritie should bee punished for his sinne or depriued of immortalitie which God had decreed vnto them for Adams transgression Or otherwise how can that bee true which the same Prophet prosecuteth in the twentieth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the wickednesse of the wicked shall bee vpon him Where hee prosecuteth throughout all the chapter prouing and approuing the iustice of God together with the reproofe of mans vnrighteousnesse and iniustice especially from the 29. verse to the end where hee propoundeth and answereth the obiections of his people Yet saith the house of Israel the way of the Lord is not equall O house of Israel are not my wayes equall are not your wayes vnequall Therefore I will iudge you O house of Israel euery one according to his wayes saith the Lord God repent and turne your selues from all your transgression so iniquitie shall not bee your ruine cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you haue transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit for why will you die O house of Israel for I haue no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God wherefore turne your selues and liue Now then if God haue no pleasure in the death of a sinner how hath hee pleasure in his mortalitie hauing created him immortall or how hath hee not pleasure in his death whom for so small a matter as the eating of an apple or some other such like fruit hee depriueth of immortalitie yea contradicteth his owne decree for the fulfilling of the aforesaid reuenge of sinne Againe though wee grant that Adam died for his sinne and iniustice why should wee not likewise say that Noe Melchisedech Abraham and others of the Patriarkes and Prophets were restored vnto immortalitie for their iustice and righteousnesse Wee know that God is alwayes more prone to shew his mercy then to execute his iustice how then may it bee said that here he so withdraweth his mercy and extendeth his iustice Hee often pardoneth the wicked for the godly mens sake and neuer punisheth the iust for the wickeds sinne from whence then is this his crueltie and vniust dealing against those which neuer committed any iniustice Moreouer the sonne of God was incarnate for Adams sinne we ought to bee thankfull euen to the deuill to our selues and to sinne it selfe as occasion of so great good as was the restoring of mankinde to a more blessed estate Lastly if Adams sinne was cause of his death why did not the deuils also die seeing they sinned much more grieuously If you say they died spiritually in that they were depriued of the grace of God why might not the like death suffice also for Adams sinne the death I meane of the soule his body remaining as it was created not subiect to death How did God iustly execute his iustice inflicting a greater punishment vpon Adam for a smaller offence then vpon the deuils for a greater depriuing them only of their spirituall life but Adam both of spirituall and corporall These are the arguments of these heretickes against the iust punishment which God did inflict vpon our first father for his first offence of disobedience by which they would conclude that whether Adam had sinned or remained in his former righteousnesse whether hee had eaten of the forbidden fruit or abstained from it hee had neuerthelesse beene subiect to death because hee was created of his owne nature mortall which nature neither the eating of the

be past yet that this might be imputed vnto vs his posteritie onely by reason of the relation which we might haue from his act and this without any other priuation negation or concupiscence remaining in vs. I answer that although this be the opinion of Albertus and Catharinus yet that in no wise it may be admitted for so we are not really and internally sinners in Adam but onely by an externe denomination of his sinne which as wee haue already showne is most erroneous CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie THere hath beene three distinct heresies about this point the first which making no difference betweene the soules of men and other liuing creatures held that as the soules of all other creatures compounded of matter and forme are produced with dependencie of their subiect and materiall substance so likewise the soules of men And that therefore they were infected and polluted by the coniunction with the body The second opinion no lesse absurd in Philosophy then erroneous in Diuinitie is that one soule doth concurre vnto the generation of another as the whole man wholy to the production of another The third and worst opinion of all doth attribute the production of originall sinne in our soules vnto the absolute power of God spotting thereby his infinite goodnesse by the too much extending of his omnipotence euen vnto that which rather argueth impotencie then omnipotencie Now therefore the true cause of originall sinne in vs as the Scripture often witnesseth was our first father Adam by reason of his transgression of the commandement of God but this not by reall influx and concourse but by morall first because hee could not of himselfe and by his owne nature passe vnto his posteritie any such effect especially seeing that that sinne now is altogether past yea at least way according to the guiltinesse thereof it is washed away by the blood of Christ but according to the decree of Almighty God he was the morall cause insomuch as the infusion of originall iustice into vs depended vpon his will by not sinning according to the compact made betweene him and God hee therefore eating of the forbidden fruit there followed necessarily priuation of originall iustice in our soules and consequently originall sinne in it selfe CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary that there should be made a couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CAtharinus aboue alleadged thinketh it altogether necessary that there should bee such a pact betweene God and man vt in posteros peccatum deriuari possit that so Adams sinne might be deriued vnto his posteritie and that the said pact was included in these words in quacunque hora comederis morte morieris in what houre soeuer thou shalt eat thou shalt die Gen. 2. 3. Sotus on the contrary side in his first booke de natura gratia cap. 10. thinketh it friuolous to admit any such pact which opinion many more moderne writers doe the rather follow because the law of nature did oblige man to the preseruing of iustice But certainely no man can deny but that originall grace and iustice should haue beene transfused to Adams posteritie if hee who was our head and had receiued it for vs all had perseuered and this by the sole will and ordinance of God for certainely this was not required by the nature of originall iustice and consequently it onely required the decree of God about this matter which might haue beene otherwise But that there was the said pact betweene God and Adam himselfe for himselfe it seemeth euident out of the aforesaid text of Gen. as Athanasius well noteth CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the flesh I Answer that this infection is not because the soule receiueth any reall influx from the body for without question the body can in no wise as an efficient cause maculate or spot the soule but this is because as soone as euer the soule is created and in the very same instant that shee is infused into the body shee wanteth that gift of originall iustice which shee ought to haue had and therefore concupiscence is imputed vnto her as sinne which should haue been healed or not imputed by originall iustice if Adam had not lost it for vs all and this is the meaning of venerable Bede tomo 8. in lib. quaestionum 4. 14 a little before the end where he saith animā ex vnione cum carne peccato maculatā esse that our soules are maculated by the vnion with the body CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in 〈◊〉 if either Adam or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree THe reason of this doubt is because as the preacher saith a muliere initium peccati sinne had his beginning from the woman and through her all doe die it seemeth therfore that though shee onely had sinned the same sinne should haue beene imputed vnto vs all yea all should haue contracted that sin in her and by hers Secondly S. Hierome S. Ambrose explicating these words ad Rom 5. per vnum hominem c. through one man sinne entred into the world in whom all haue sinned doe vnderstand that one to be Eue if therefore shee was the first cause of this sinne it seemeth that though shee onely had sinned neuerthelesse sinne should haue beene deriued vnto her posteritie though Adam had not sinned seeing that these words in whom all haue sinned according to the interpretation of S. Hierome and S. Ambrose are to be applied vnto the woman as who was the first cause of mans woe Although I can gather nothing altogether certaine about this point either out of the holy Scriptures or Fathers yet neuerthelesse it seemeth more probable that the whole cause of originall sinne in vs ought to bee reduced vnto Adam so that by Adams consent onely and not by Eues we were to be borne in originall iniustice The reason is for that all the Fathers S. Hierome and S. Ambrose only excepted who doe interpret the aforesaid place doe vnderstand it of Adam and not of Eue yea it seemeth that this may be gathered out of the words of S. Paul 1. Corinth 15. As in Adam all do die so all shall be reviued in Christ wherfore venerable Bede is plainely of this opinion in the 14 of his questions tomo 8 where he saith originale peccatum trahere originem ex Adamo non ex diabolo quia ex diabolo non propagamur non ab Eua quia vir id est Adam non est à muliere sed mulier a viro ex quo sequitur Adamo non peccante etiamsi Eua peccasset non futurum in nobis peccatum That originall sinne hath his beginning from Adam onely not from the Deuill because wee are not begot by the Deuill neither of Eue because the man to wit Adam is not of the woman but the woman of the man

that meate was corporall yet was it of such vertue and nature that it did confirme man in perfect health not as other meates but by an occult vertue proceeding from aboue And this he confirmeth by two examples the first of Elias his cake the second of the flower and oyle of the widow of Sarepta which without all question were effected by supernaturall power Beda likewise affirmeth that therefore it was called the tree of life because it hath receiued from the diuine power that whosoeuer should eat thereof should be confirmed in perpetuall health Neither ought we to maruaile Bonauen●ure 2. lib. sent dist 17 as Bonauenture well noteth that a man might be disposed vnto immortalitie by the fruit of this tree seeing there be many other things as Myrrhe and Balme which doe preserue from corruption for a long time therefore as our Sacraments doe not really concurre vnto grace but the diuine power which alwaies is assistant vnto them so the fruit of that tree did not of his owne nature produce immortality but rather the diuine power did communicate it by the eating of that fruit Here wee may see these so opposite opinions with their reasons and authorities in which it may be free for euery one to follow as he liketh seing there is nothing in this point plainely expressed in the Scripture with me both the authoritie of S. Austin and reason doth sway most for this latter opinion because it seemeth not so probable that a naturall tree or fruit should haue of his owne virtue and substance so supernaturall a virtue and qualitie as to cause immortalitie But to conclude whether the virtue of this tree was naturall or supernaturall all is one in regard of our losse ingratitude and sinne our losse of both liues spirituall and corporall our ingratitude towards God to vs wards so infinitely good our sinne also being the same seeing that though it had beene onely a naturall virtue which was in that fruit of life yet it depriued vs not onely of our owne liues but also of the author of life What therefore remaineth but that now being redeemed from this sinne and raised againe from this death we blesse him perpetually with all the powers of our soules and all the daies of our liues who is the onely giuer of life and sole redeemer of our soules CHAP. XI Of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill to wit whether it was a true and naturall tree like vnto others And why it was so called NOthing can bee so plainely set downe in the holy scripture but there will be some idle braine or other who will so moralize or so wrest it to a spirituall sense though often-times without sense that they will not sticke to deny the truth of the history as it happeneth here in the first point of our question in which some haue not feared that name before but afterwards of the euent so that when God commanded our fore-fathers that they should not eate of that tree either he called it by some other name or he demonstrated it vnto them as it were with his finger Many other reasons do the Rabbins giue of the name of this tree but so farre from reason that they be not worthy the repeating I will onely touch one as most fabulous by which we may coniecture of the rest They say that our first Parents were created as infants in sense and reason though men in body strength and stature Now because this tree had a virtue of ripening mans iudgment witt and discretion of good from euill it was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because to know good and euill according to the Hebrue and scripture phrase is as much as to haue the vse of reason But this is not onely contrary to the text but also to reason for certaine it is that as man was created perfect in all the parts of his body so was hee no lesse in the powers of his soule Yea how is it likely that he was without reason who was created lord of all vnreasonable creatures who gaue them their names proper to their natures and was to gouerne all things according to their nature by his owne rule of reason yea with whom God the author of nature and chiefe rule of reason had made this couenant most conformable to reason that if he liued according to the law of nature and instinct of reason his reward should be aboue all nature and exceed the capacitie of humane reason wherefore who was both culpable in this pact and punishable for his transgression must in all reason haue then had the vse of reason Iosephus in his first booke of his Antiquities perceiuing well the absurditie of this opinion fell into another which Lyra deemeth not much lesse absurd to wit that this tree was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because it had virtue to sharpen the wit ripen the iudgment and to giue prudence and vnderstanding to all humane affaires Lyra his refutation is this because the fruit of that tree being corporall how could it saith he haue any spirituall effect wherefore the minde witt and iudgment of man being spirituall how could they be holpen by any corporall cause For though the superior cause and more perfect then his effect may haue influence into the inferiour and imperfect yet neuer the inferiour into the superiour Therefore though the spirituall causes be of such excellent perfection that they haue influence into our bodies yet neuer any corporall creature saith he is so perfect that it can inflow in the spirituall For what is that which any corporall thing may produce in the spirit not any thing corporall seeing that all that is in the spirit is spirituall neither againe can it be spirituall because nothing spirituall can bee contained in the vertue of a materiall or corporall cause It cannot be denied but that this discourse of Lyra might haue some force in those causes which as the Philosophers speake doe worke directè per se by themselues directly yet in those whose causaltie is altogether indirect true philosophy teacheth the contrary wherefore though it be most certaine that the body cannot directly haue any influence into the soule or spirit yet bicause the spirit whiles it is in this life dependeth in her operations of the body and the dispositions thereof according to the generally receiued philosophicall axiome the manner of the working followeth the manner of being it must necessarily follow that accordingly as the dispositions of the body are better or worse so may the operations of the minde be also more or lesse perfect Yea Aristotle teacheth vs in his 7. booke of his Politikes that though those men who are borne and brought vp in the Northerne parts of the world bee stronger then others in corporall forces yet that they bee of a much more slow and duller capacity contrariwise those who are borne in hotter climates of Affrica Spaine and Mauritania

proceeding from Adams and giue humble and hearty thankes for the infinite mercies receiued by Christ CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise THe Originists doe vnderstand this allegorically so that by this kinde of custodie is meant nothing else but the particular prouidence of God by which our first parents were depriued of all hope of returning to Paradise Others thinke that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is mystically vnderstood a twofold impediment or means by which we be now debarred from the celestiall Paradise the first inuisible of the inuisible spirits and deuils according to that of Paul to the Ephesians the last chapter verse 12. For we wrestle not against flesh and bloud but against principalities against powers and against the gouernours of this world the Princes of darknesse against spirituall wickednesses which are in high places The second impediment as these Authors say mystically signified by the fiery sword is the perpetuall fight of flesh and bloud in our spirituall battell as well in prosperitie as aduersitie according to our Sauiours words Matth. 11. chap. 12. verse The kingdome of heauen suffereth violence and the violent take it by force and that of Iob Militia est vita hominis super terram Or rather as other doe interpret we may vnderstand by these lets of accesse to Paradise three principall hinderances of accesse to the celestiall Paradise by the Cherubin which is interpreted the fulnesse of science wisdome and knowledge may be vnderstood too much curiositie of science and spirituall pride oftentimes contained therein much repugnant to the simplicitie and puritie of Christian faith By the fiery sword may bee vnderstood as some Authors doe allegorize all enflaming lusts and vices proceeding from the sensitiue appetite the which as it is twofold concupiscible and irascible so is it signified by the fire and sword or fiery sword the which being voluble or as it were wheeling about and alwayes in a perpetuall motion doth plainly expresse the perpetuall inconstancie volubilitie and motion of humane matters Aquinas and Tertullian thinke Aquinas 2. 2 ae quaest 165. ar vlt. that by the Cherubin and fierie sword is vnderstood the place and situation of Paradise vnder the aequinoctiall line or Torrida Zona the firest Climate of the world But certainely the heat of this place is naturall vnto it and proceeding from the neerenesse of the Sunne as the Mathematicians doe demonstrate and therefore could not bee occasioned by the sinne of man much lesse proceede thereof as a naturall effect of sin which in it selfe hath no reall being but is rather the priuation of goodnesse according to its formall essence and being Lyra. in Genesim Lyranus thinketh that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is vnderstood a mighty and flaming fire issuing out of the mountaine of Paradise defending and compassing it round about in the manner of a wall Ambros of in Psalm 118. Ambrose vpon the Psalme 118. thinketh the fore-sayd flaming sword to be the fire of Purgatory by which the soules that depart our of the world not altogether purified are cleansed before their entrance into Heauen But to omit the controuersie of Purgatory this cannot bee seeing that the sword and Cherubin were placed at the entrance of Paradise as is manifest in the Text lest Adam should enter into Paradise and participate of the tree of life for so saith the Text Gen. 3 ver 24. Thus he cast out man and at the East side of the garden of Eden he set the Cherubins and the blade of a sword shaken to keepe the way of the tree of life That therefore which seemeth most probable in this poynt is that the words of the aforesayd text are to be vnderstood literally of a true Angelicall custody of Paradise and fiery swords the first against the infernall spirits the second for to terrifie man The Diuels were repelled and kept from this place of Paradise lest they should deceiue man by the tree of life promising him thereby a perpetuity of life such as he should haue enioyed if he had not falne man also was banished out of the same place not onely by the iust iudgment of Almighty God executed vpon him for his disobedience but also by a fatherly diuine prouidence and tender loue towards mankinde lest eating of the forbidden fruit which was of immortality a sufficient cause I meane to make him immortall he should liue an immortall life in this vale of misery and so become miserably immortall and immortally miserable CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished out of Paradise wherein two auncient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne TVrrianus in his Epistle to the Bishop of Towres alledgeth as an ancient opinion of diuers Doctors that originall sinne was that which the soule had cōmitted before it was infused into the body which opinion seemeth first to haue beene taken from Origenes who held that the soules of men being first created altogether in heauen were cast downe thence into this vale of misery and ioyned vnto these materiall and grosse substances of our bodies in punishment of their sinne committed in heauen before their vnion to their bodies But this is euidently convinced as false out of many places of Scripture for if originall sinne was contracted in heauen how was it contracted by Adam in Paradise and if we did all contract it by one how did wee all contract it in our selues by our selues according to that of Paul Rom. 5. chap. vers 12. By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne so death went ouer all men forasmuch as all men haue sinned vers 16. Neither is the gift so as that which entred in by one that sinned for the fault came of one offence vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification vers 18 19. As by the offence of one the fault came on all men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men to the iustification of life Where wee may manifestly see contraposed death and life iustice and iniustice condemnation and iustification these as proceeding from the obedience of Christ those as flowing from the disobedience of Adam The second opinion in this point is that our originall sinne doth not consist in any qualitie or accident inherent in the substance of our bodies or soules or in any priuation of any excellencie or good qualitie which wee ought to haue retained in our soules but euen in the substance of our corporall and spirituall nature the reason is for whatsoeuer is not conformable to the law of God is sinne but all our nature is corrupt and auerse from the law of God therefore the whole nature of man both body and soule being thus corrupt and become abominable in the sight of God is sinne But thus it would follow as S. Austin well vrgeth against the Manich●es who held some things to be

parent Adam neither our immediate parents now regenerated in Christ haue in any wise the guiltinesse of originall sinne at the time of our generation how can it therefore possibly come to passe that any such guilt of originall sinne should proceed from them vnto vs Certainly this could not proceed from any matrimoniall act seeing that was and is lawfull in all lawes both of nature Moses and grace how therefore could that which is a sinne and consequently vnlawfull proceed from that which is altogether lawfull Thirdly the actions of our externall powers as of seeing smelling tasting and the like are in no wise voluntary or so tearmed but outwardly only or as the Philosophers tearme is by an extrinsecall denomination or name deriued from our will and this because they haue no freedome or libertie in themselues inwardly but only as they are directed from the inward facultie of the will and therefore as they haue no libertie or free will but only by an externe denomination so neither haue they any sinne inwardly inherent but onely as they are commanded or proceed from the will Therefore after the same manner seeing the soules and willes of the infants haue no libertie or freedome of choice but only by an externe denomination outwardly deriued from the will of Adam now altogether past and of his sinne now forgiuen it must needs follow that they cannot in any wise bee said to haue contracted any sin but only by an externe denomination proceeding from the sin of Adam Fourthly that which in it selfe is according to Gods law neither in any wise contradicting the same cannot be the cause of that which is against the law of God wherefore seeing that matrimonie or the matrimoniall act is according to Gods law it cannot bee the cause or occasion of originall sinne in the infant which is against Gods law Fiftly originall sinne cannot proceed from Adam vnto his posteritie neither as from the morall cause thereof neither as from a physicall naturall or reall cause not morally because as death did proceed from sinne so life if he had perseuered should haue proceeded from grace and originall iustice which was a gift giuen vnto all our nature in Adam not per modum meriti by way of merit as some haue dreamed but gratis otherwise as the Apostle argueth Romans the 11. chapter grace should haue been no grace Now therefore consequently neither doth originall sinne passe vnto vs his posteritie by way of demerit or as a morall effect of sinne seeing that the same reason which doth vrge for the transfusion of this demerit or sinne vnto vs doth also vrge for the transfusion of grace Wherefore seeing he could not be the meritorious cause of our grace because it doth implie contradiction to be deserued and yet to be grace a free gift and graciously giuen neither can he be consequently the morall cause of our originall sinne Neither finally can the sinne of Adam bee the reall or physicall cause of our sinne seeing that his sinne whereof ours should proceed is now neither actuall nor virtuall not actuall because it is forgiuen not virtuall for that then it should be latent in the generatiue power or seed which cannot possibly bee because then it should be attributed to God who is cause of the generatiue power seeing as the Philosophers say causa causae est causa effectus illius secundae causae the cause of any second cause is the cause of the effect proceeding from the second cause Lastly there cannot bee assigned any time or moment in which the sonnes of Adam doe or can contract this originall sinne therefore both according to true Diuinitie and Philosophie it cannot be that we doe really and inwardly in our soules contract any such sinne but rather wee are called sinners in Adam and are said by the Apostle to haue sinned in Adam by reason onely of his fall who was our head The antecedent seemeth certaine because this sinne can neither infect our soules in the first instant of their creation or infusion otherwise the soule should haue it from her creation and consequently it might bee attributed to Almightie God as to the author thereof seeing that as true Philosophie teacheth operatio quae simul incipit cum esse rei est illi ab agente à quo habet esse the action which beginneth iointly with the being of the effect is from that cause from which it hath being And hence Aquinas holdeth as impossible Aquinas 1 parte q. 63. art 15 in corpore Angelum in primo instante creationis suae peccasse quoniam peccatum illud tribueretur Deo that Lucifer sinned in the first instant of his creation because that sinne should haue beene attributed to God which were blasphemous Neither could this sinne bee contracted by vs in the instant in which our soules were infused into our bodies seeing that the immediate subiect of sinne is not the body but the soule or some of the powers of the soule seeing therefore no instant can be assigned in which the sonnes of Adam are infected with this originall crime it followeth necessarily both according to the grounds of reason and Scripture that there is no such infection or corruption inherent in our soules For the better vnderstanding of this fundamentall point so controuerted in all ages we must note first that originall sinne is called peccatum naturae the sinne of nature according to that of Paul Ephesians 2. Wee were by nature the sonnes of wrath because sinne did spot defile or rather corrupt the whole masse of humane nature in our first father Adam from whom as first head and fountaine it hath beene and is deriued Secondly this sinne is called the sinne of the world Iohn chap. 1. Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinne of the world because all men were defiled with this one onely excepted God and man by whom al others were redeemed Thirdly it is also tearmed peccatum humanae conditionis the sinne common to all humane nature because there is not any Christ only excepted which doth not vndergoe this yoke So Ierome explicating that of the 50. Psalme Behold I am conceiued in iniquities saith Hieron super cap. 4. Ezechiel not in the iniquities of my mother but in the iniquities of humane nature which are generall to all humane nature or which hath defiled all mankinde Fourthly the sinne of Adam is called peccatum radicale the radicall sinne or root of sinne because wee being now depriued by it of originall iustice which as it was in Adam so should it also haue beene in vs an antidote against all inordinate desires but now our inordinate appetite and concupiscence which is the root of all euill is let loose to the ouerthrow of all true libertie Lastly wee must note this difference betweene the originall and the actuall sinne of euery particular man besides Adam that the actuall sinne is committed by the actuall will and consent of euery sinner but the

forbidden fruit could make mortall nor the abstinence from it immortall Hence therefore they are imboldned to affirme that wheresoeuer the Scripture maketh mention of Adams sinne as cause of his corporall death that it is to bee vnderstood figuratiuely not that Adams sinne was properly the cause or the occasion of his death but that the Scripture vseth this phrase to the end that when Adam should heare of so seuere a punishment as the death of both body and soule he might bee terrified thereby from the committing of sinne The Scripture vseth the like manner of speech in diuers occasions as in the 22. chapter of Genesis God tempted or tried Abraham which place must needs be vnderstood figuratiuely for God who seeth all things as well future as present or past hath no need of any triall or experience The like kinde of threatning wee haue in the fourth chapter of Exodus where it is said that God would haue slaine Moses which places are not to bee interpreted literally as they sound but figuratiuely as all other places of Scripture according to the rule of S. Austine when otherwise they signifie any absurditie as this of the death of Adam doth because it contradicteth the decree of God concerning his immortalitie Neuerthelesse the contrary exposition is most firmly to bee holden as concerning the immortalitie of man before his fall and mortalitie after and by his transgression not that there was any mutation in God but transgression in man God predetermined according to his foresight man sinned according to that foresight not that the foresight was cause of mans fall but rather mans fall was the obiect of Gods foresight insomuch that God had not foreseene mans fall if man had not beene to fall neither man had fallen if God had not foreseene his fall so that though it bee necessary that God foresee that which is future yet that is not necessarily future which God doth foresee for so seeth hee things future as they are future not imposing any necessitie in things not necessarily future by his foresight which as it is necessary in regard of things necessary so is it contingent in regard of things contingent contingent I say in respect of the obiect though necessary in respect of his owne entitie and being or as the Schoole-Diuines doe explicate it ad intra necessary ad extra contingent insomuch that all the mutation is in the outward and created obiects nothing at all can reflect or redound vnto God Wherefore though Almighty God had eternally decreed the immortalitie of man in his first creation yet was there no mutation in God because vpon his transgression he made him mortall and subiect to death for as both the degrees were eternall so the foresight of the euent of both was likewise eternall the mutation issued onely from the obiect and remained in the same immutabilitie was alwayes and remaineth in God because as hee had foreseene so he determined and as he determined so likewise he foresaw Lege ad Rom. cap. 5. 7. Hence it is is that seeing the Scripture so often witnesseth that death was the effect of sinne and that if sinne had not raigned in our soules neither should death haue destroied our mortall bodies questionlesse though man was created immortall by grace yet is hee iustly depriued of that immortalitie and become subiect to death through his transgression Now as touching the absurdities so ignorantly if not blasphemously inferred vpon the foresaid doctrine I answer that though God doe reproue that ancient prouerbe of the Iewes and their comparison of the sowre grape with other the like contestations of sillie wormes with their Creator that these I say are principally to bee vnderstood in regard of actuall sinne as is plaine out of the text it selfe and not habituall or originall of which the text speaketh not But if it bee referred as some haue done euen vnto originall sinne yet neither can the iustice of God bee any whit impeached thereby for though wee eat not the sowre grape neither taste the forbidden fruit in our selues yet did we both taste and eat in Adam who was our head yea though wee tasted not the fruit it selfe in our selues yet we contracted the sowrenesse thereof and the effect of the sinne yea the sinne it selfe in our soules for though the action was onely in our head yet the passion and effect was in all the members as is more largely explicated aboue in the question of the manner nature and essence of this sinne in which all the difficulties concerning this and the like points are answered Neither can it bee inferred hence that God doth punish the iust for the vniust or reuenge the fathers wickednesse in the sonnes which neuerthelesse were no iniustice seeing the sonnes are in some sort deemed as parts of the fathers and consequently may iustly be punished for their fathers offences but rather that euery man is punished for his owne originall sinne which though it bee contracted from Adam yet it is inherent in euery mans owne nature Againe seeing Adam of his owne nature was created mortall and by grace onely was to bee preserued immortall there was no iniustice in God towards Adams posteritie in that they were depriued of originall iustice but this proceeded from Adams demerit for himselfe and his posteritie Especially seeing that the couenant was so concluded betweene GOD and Adam that qua die comederet moriretur that his eating should be his death his abstinence life with this difference that death should be onely from himselfe as sinne had beene onely from his will but life should haue beene onely from God and the preseruation from sinne from Gods grace onely Hence wee may vnderstand how there is no iniustice or vnrighteousnesse in God that although Adam was created immortall yet we should be borne of Adam mortall and subiect to death seeing hee was iustly depriued of immortalitie by his sin and we by him Lastly if we read the sacred text we shall finde it neither to be iniustice or any nouelty that the sonnes be punished for their fathers offences for so it is in the 1. of Samuel the 15. because I remember that which Amalech did vnto Israel going out of Aegypt goe thou Saul and fight against Agag and his people and the 2. of Samuel 18 it is said that the wiues of Dauid should be defiled for Dauids sinne againe in the 2 of Samuel the 21 it is written how Dauid hanged the sonnes of Resphe for the Gabaonites sake Moreouer if it were true that which the Poet sang vnto his friend delicta maiorum immeritus lues thou shalt beare the offences of thy fore-fathers without thine owne deseruings then certainely the question B. King vpon Ionas cap. 1. v. 7. as a reuerend and learned Prelate well noteth were more difficult but who is able to say my heart is cleane though I came from an vncleane seede though I were borne of a Morian I haue not his sinne though an Amorite were my father and my mother a Hittite I haue not their nature though I haue touched pitch I am not defiled I can wash my hands in innocencie and say with a cleare conscience I haue not sinned but if this be the cause of all that there is not a soule in the whole cluster of mankinde that hath not offended though not as principall as Achan in taking the cursed thing Choran in rebelling Dauid in numbring the people yet as accessarie in consenting and concealing if neither principall nor accessarie in that one sinne yet culpable in a thousand others committed in our life time perhaps not open to the world but in the eyes of God as bright as the Sunne in the firmament for the Scorpion hath a sting though hee hath not thrust it out to wound vs and man hath malice though hee hath not outwardly shewed it it may be some sinnes to come which God fore-seeth and some past which he recounteth shall we stand in argument with God as man would plead with man and charge the iudge of the quicke and the dead with iniurious exactions I haue paied the things that I neuer tooke I haue borne the price of sinne which I neuer committed You see already the ground of mine answere We haue all sinned father and sonne rush and branch and deseruedly are to expect that wages from the hands of God which to our sinne appertaineth Besides it cannot be denied but those things which we part in our conceipts by reason that distance of time and place haue sundered them some being done of old some of late some in one quarter of the world some in another those doth the God of knowledge vnite and view them at once as if they were done together out of all which conceiued together as the all-vnderstanding wisdome of God doth conceiue and vnite them we may well inferre that the iudgements of God bee as iust and his waies as right as his mercy and goodnesse and prouidence extended to all that as there is no worke of man not fully recompenced or rewarded with ouerplus so there is no sinne whether actuall or originall not iustly punished citra as the Diuines hold but neuer vltra condignum lesse I meane then the sinne doth deserue neuer more then the fact doth require Gods mercy being as the Scripture witnesseth ouer all his workes and alwaies in some sort more extended then his iustice for though it be true that as his iustice is included in his mercy euen formally as most Diuines hold so like wise his mercy is included in his iustice and so both equall in nature and being yet such is the goodnes of our infinite good God that in the execution ad extra as the Diuines tearme it his mercy should alwaies be extended further then his iustice and his iust iudgements alwaies in somewhat at least deteined or after a sort restrained by his mercy Wherefore as we are wont to say of famous worthy and excellent men in caeteris vicit omnes in hoc seipsum in other things hee exceeded all men in this hee ouercame himselfe The like wee may affirme of God that hee is incomparable in all attributes and workes but in this hee exceedeth himselfe To him therefore as infinite mercifull and euerliuing God three persons and one indivisible deitie bee ascribed all honor power maiestie and dominion now and for euermore AMEN FINIS