of all As the King represents the Kingdome and the chief Magistrate the Citie and the Master of the house the houshold so did Adam represent us and in him and with him we sinned 4. I can not part with this second point till I answer the objection Whether Christ were in Adam The doubt will be cleared by these two Positions First Christ may be said to be in Adam some kinde of way Therefore the Evangelist derives Christs Genealogie from him and he is said to be The Sonne of Adam Luke 3.38 And if he be called The Sonne of David as often he is Matth. 21.9 Mark 10.47 Rom. 1.3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh if he took on him the seed of Abraham as he did Hebr. 2.16 and is flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones and we of his Ephes 5.30 it must needs be confessed He was in Adam Paracelsus talketh of Non-Adami such as descended not from Adams loyns these if such are monsters in nature and as great a monster in Divinitie is it to say that Christ was no way in Adam I will enlarge this by a distinction Christ was not in Adam no nor we neither so that our substances or any part thereof were really or materially in him Yet both Christ and we were in him First because mediatly we were born of him and because he was the efficient cause of generation not the immediate propinque and proximous cause thereof which necessarily communicateth some matter to that which is begotten but he was the remote mediate yea the furthest and most distant efficient naturall cause of all from which it is not necessary that its matter reach to the hindermost effects Secondly be cause if he had not begotten children neither Christ in his humane nature nor we now long after him had ever been born Thirdly Christ took flesh of the thrice-blessed Virgin Mary and she was in Adam as all others are except Christ she was begotten by the concurrence and cooperation both of man and woman and so inasmuch as his holy Mother was in Adam Christ in a sort may be said to be in Adam * Christus fuit de genere Adae Holâ—â—t De Imputabintate peccati Christ was of Adams kindred saith Holcot The second Position is this Christ was not in Adam every manner of way as we were For we differed in this peculiar sort and manner because we were in Adam secundum seminalem rationem quâ per communionem vtriusque sexûs fit generatio For Adam could beget no childe without a femal sex which was one main reason of Eves creation neither did ever daughter of Eve conceive without a different sex except onely that stupendious miracle of our Saviours Incarnation And after this manner Christ was not in Adam He had true flesh from Adam but it was onely the listenes or similitude of sinfull flesh that he had Rom. 8.3 All other flesh except his is the flesh of sinne Had he come from Adam every way exactly as wee do he had had not onely true flesh as he had but true sinne also but because he had not Patrem naturalem as Scotus phraseth it therefore neither did he sinne in Adam nor was in Adam as we were Lombard * Lomb. lib. 3. dist 3. enquireth Why Levi was tithed in Abraham and not Christ when each of them was in the loyns of Abraham in regard of the matter He answereth * Leviticus ordo qui in Abraham secundum rationem seminalem erat ex eo per concupiscentiam caruis descendiâ— Sed Christ us non descendit secundum lâ—gem communem aut carâ—is libidinem The Leviticall order which was in Abraham according to the seed descends from him by the concupiscence of the flesh But Christ came not according to the common law or lust of the flesh And he resolveth thus When Levi and Christ according to the flesh were in the loyns of Abraham when he was tithed therefore was Levi tithed and not Christ because Christ was not in the loyns of Abraham after some manner or other that Levi was Moreover how could Christ be tithed to Christ how could the same in the same regard both pay and take Melchisedec was a figure of Christ and tithes by an everlasting law were due to the priesthood of Melchisedec as is unanswerably proved by my reverend friend now a blessed Saint Doctor Sclater against all sacrilegious Church-robbers Therefore Christ was not to be tithed in Abraham though Levi was Yea if Aaron or Melchisedec himself had lived till Christ had come in the flesh and lived with him perhaps they would have resigned up as it were their Office and no more have taken tithes or continuing in Office Sacerdotall under him they would have taken tithes in his name and for him Aquine out of Augustine thus * Quomodocunque Christus fuit in Adam Abraham in aliis Patribus alii homines etiam ibi fuerunt Aquin part 3. quaest 31. art 6. ex Aug. De Gen. ad lit 10.19 After what manner soever Christ was in Adam and Abraham and in other Fathers other men were there also but not contrariwise And Aquine himself setteth his conclusion When the body of Christ windeth up to the Fathers and so to Adam mediante Matris suae corpore Christ was not in them secundum aliquid signatum determinatum sed secundum originem Which I imagine he establisheth against such as Lombard saith did hold That from Adam descended by way of generation some such part or parcell as of it Christ was made Against which Aquine argueth thus whether modestly enough and truly let others judge The matter of Christs body was not the flesh and bone or any other actuall part of the Ever-blessed Virgin but onely her bloud which was potentiâ caro * Corpus Christi non seminaliter conceptum est sed ex castissimis purissimis sanguinibus Aquinas ex Damasceno But what she received from her parents was actually part of her but not part of Christs body Nor was Christs body in Adam and the other Fathers secundum aliquid signatum so that any part of Adams body or of the other Fathers could determinatly be pointed out and be said to be the very exact individuall matter out of which Christs body was framed but Christ was in Adam secundum originem as others were Whil'st Christ was in the wombe of the most happy Virgin Mary even many moneths before her delivery she was called Luke 1.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mother of my Lord which words in part Elisabeth took from Davids speculation Psal 110.1 The Lord said unto my Lord. Never woman was truly called or to be called a Mother before she were delivered except onely the Al-gracious Virgin Mary who could not possibly suffer abortion nor lose that Blessed Fruit of her wombe by the sinne of man or the punishment of mankinde for sinne which was conceived
us prove That originall sinne is not the concupiscence of the flesh See this confuted by * Bell. De Amiss Gratiae 4.12 Bellarmine by this argument If LVST were the cause of originall sinne he should have the greater sinne who was conceived in greater LVST which is manifestly false since originall sinne is equall in all men See other arguments well used to that purpose by Bellarmine in that place yet is he amisse * De Sacramento Baptismi 1.9 elsewhere in the answer unto the tenth argument of the Anabaptists For saith he * Originale peccatum non est materia poeniten tiae nemo enim rectè poe uitentiam agit ejus peccati quod ipse non commisit quod in ejus potestate non suit Originale autem peccatum non ipsi commisimus sed trahimus ab Adam per naturalem propagationem undâ— diâ—itur de insantibus Rom. 9 11. Originall sinne is no matter of repentance for a man doth not well repent of that sinne which he hath not committed himself and which was not in his power Now we have not our selves committed originall sinne but we draw it from Adam by naturall propagation whereupon it is said Rom. 9.11 of Esau and Jacob THEY HAD DONE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL First I answer to the place of Scripture confessing it is spoken of Esau wicked Esau that he had done no evill and of Jacob good Jacob that he had done no good Again it is spoken of both of them before they were born But secondly it is spoken of actuall sinnes and actuall goodnes that neither did Jacob good actuall good any good in the wombe nor Esau any actuall evil For the bodily organs are not so fitted that they exercise such actions as produce good or evil The words do evince so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 practically working no good nor evil Yet though God depended not upon their works as the Apostle there argueth for all that they might and did commit originall sinne and in it were conceived and the promise was made to Rebecca after she conceived Genes 25.23 It being then manifest that the place of the Apostle affordeth no patrociny to Bellarmine I say originall sinne is in part the matter of Repentance otherwise David in his chiefest penitentiall Psalme 51.5 would not have charged himself with that sinne nor needed not so vehemently to call for mercy Again we may be said to commit originall sinne and originall sinne to have been in our power as we were in Adam as we would have done the like and the like against Adam as Adam did against us if we had stood in Adams place as he did stand in our stead Thirdly our will was in his will what he did we did Bellarmines Philosophie here swalloweth up his Divinitie Fourthly he must not take committere strictly for a full free deliberate action of commission nor trahere strictly for a meer passion but as I shall make it appear there is some little inclination from the matter to the form of the body to the soul as also of the soul to the body and that the soul is neither as a block or stone on the one side to receive durt and be integrally passive nor yet so active as to make the originall sinne to be actuall So that it neither properly committeth nor properly contracteth draweth or receiveth originall sinne and yet in a large sense may be said both to commit and to receive Fifthly if Bellarmine be punctilious for the terms himself is faultie For he saith * Trahimus ab Adam originale peccatum We do attract originall sinne from Adam Is there any attraction on our part if there be no action Or is action or attraction without some kinde of commission Sixthly hath the whole Church of God prayed for the remission aswell of originall sinne as of actuall if it be not the matter of repentance Or needeth not one unbaptized till he come of age repent before Baptisme for his originall sinne Lastly why are children baptized but that originall sinne is matter of repentance To set all things better in order and to cleare all mists you are to know that there is wonderfull mistaking and ambiguitie whil'st originall sinne is confounded with Adams actuall sinne and one taken for another whil'st the cause is undistinguished from the effect when indeed there is a great traverse between them 2 Somewhat according to the new Masters of method the efficient cause of Adams sinne was both outward and inward Outward Remote Outward Propinque Remote Principall Satan Remote Instrumentall the Serpent Outward propinque was Eve the principall Outward propinque was The apple was the instrumentall cause The inward efficient cause was first the faculties of the soul which we may terme the principium activum and was more remote then the ill use of these faculties the misimploying of his free-will which you may stile principium actuale and was the more propinque cause But the cause efficient of originall sinne was outwardly the actuall sinne of Adam inwardly the conjunction of the soul after the propagation of nature The matter of Adams sinne subjectivè was the whole person and nature of Adam and his posteritie descending from him per viam seminalem objectivè the liking touching and eating of the forbidden fruit The matter of originall sinne subjectivè is all of our nature and every one of mankinde secundum se totum totum sui coming the ordinarie way of generation in so much that all and every of the faculties of the soul and bodie of all and every one of us is subject to all and every sinne which hath been or may ever hereafter be committed and this cometh onely from this originall sinne and the inclination wrapped up in it The matter objectivè is both carentia justitiae originalis debitae inesse and the vices contrarie unto it now filling up its room and stead Formalis ratio of Adams first sinne was aversion from God the ratio materialis was his conversion to a changeable good saith * Stapl. De Originali Peccato 1.12 Stapleton both these are knit up in one disobedience And so the formall cause of Adams sinne was disobedience the formall cause of our originall sinne is the deformitie and corruption of nature falne and propagated inclining to sinne so soon as is possible and without a divine hand of restraint as much as is possible The end of Adams sinne was in his intention primarily To know good and evill secundarily to prefer temporals before spirituals whil'st indeed he esteemed the Bonum apparens before the Bonum verum revera or reale In mankinde after him no end can be found of originall sinne since we contract it when we have nullum verum aspectum respectum intuitum vel-sinem For Finis bonum convertuntur There is no end of evill per se sed ex accidenti and so Gods Glory is the supreme end of all sinne The effects of Adams actuall
children confirmed in grace and yet generate which he denieth Because the supposed priviledge of the All-gracious Virgin doth not derogate from the glorie of our most blessed Redeemer I will not contradict it though it maketh her more perfect then God made Adam and Eve in their integritie Lastly why might not generating parents be confirmed in grace when in the act there should have been no turpitude no salacious motion no lascivious titillation and those members might have been used without any itch of ticklish pleasure as our hands and feet and some other parts are now Reade S. Augustine De Civit. 14.24 and 26. most fully of these things Unto Estius his second reason which is this Angels were not ordained to blessednes but by the merit of their free-will and man was not first to be placed at the goal or end but in the way I answer Every Angel was to stand or fall by his own proper actuall free-will Man was unlike to them therein Adams actuall consent for us stood exactly for the actuall consent of each Angel for no Angel fell in Lucifer as we did in Adam But to the second branch of his argument I confesse with Aquine * Anim a hominis Angelussimiliter ad bea titudinâ—m ordinantur The soul of man and an Angel are alike ordained to blessednes The way was necessarie before the goal the means before the end But I must adde Adam was in the way and we in the way by him and in him and as he brought us out of the way by his straying by-path so by his undeviation we had been kept in the way More might be added but the Question hath swollen above its banks already I must be brief though I be obscure What Hugo and Lombard require was performed by Adam for us Though Estius in this point maketh God like an hard task-master and man a meer journy-man yet much was given to him who deserved little even for one onely and the easiest houres work So might God have done to us for his promise unto Adams obedience for us In that estate perhaps he needed no merit challenging due reward as there shall be no new recompense for desert after we are glorified But if merit had had place it might after confirmation in grace have procured speedier translation to an unchangeable life the accidentals of beatitude might have been increased in us as they shall be in the Angels of light though long since they were confirmed in grace Scotus objecteth The children of innocent Adam should have been Viatores in the way to happines therefore they might have been sinners I answer Viator is considered according to a twofold estate First for him that walketh in a slippery and dangerous way where he may be in or out Thus was Adam Viator thus were we Viatores in Adam before his fall and thus we could have sinned yea did sinne which is more then Scotus his argument evinceth Secondly Viator is taken according to the estate of him who walketh in a good sure way where no by-path can be made Thus we being confirmed should have been Viatores and yet could not have been sinners and herein we had been like to blessed Angels yea the same man might have been Viator in one regard and Comprehensor in an other respect at the same time So was Christ so had Adam and his children been upon confirmation in goodnes not that they should have had that plenitude of comprehension which is to be enjoyed after the generall judgement but such a comprehension which had been agreeable to that present estate though susceptible of degrees and capable of more perfection where Comprehensor is synonymous with beatus onely but not beatissimus The same Scotus further reasoneth thus The grace confirmed by the Merit of Christ in Baptisme or other Sacraments confirm not the receiver Therefore much lesse should any Merit of any parent or childe have confirmed us in justice I answer The confirmation had rather been from Gods gracious promise to Adam and his seed then from any merit properly so called Secondly The graces of Christ exhibited in the Sacraments of initiation and corroboration shall draw us up to an infallible confirmation in the estate of glorie where we shall have more comfort delight and good by Christ then we had harm by Adam if he had not fallen of which hereafter To some arguments and authorities for my opinion some answers are shaped by the Schoolmen I will loose the argument from S. Gregorie because it ingendereth more questions when this is too copiously handled already Anselm speaketh home for me if ever man spake Aquinas saith He did it opining not affirming Yet he saw the reason which induced Anselm to that Assertion Scotus also slubbereth over the authoritie of Anselm winking as it seemeth when he should have read the direct words * Dion De Divinis Nominibus cap. 4. Dionysius saith Bonum est potentius malo Good hath more power and vertue then evill But say I for the sinne of the first man came a necessitie of sinning upon all his children Therefore if he had stood there should have been a necessitie of not sinning Scotus answereth in the first place as if Dionysius were to be understood of a great Evill and a little Good which plainely that Father never meant Secondly he jumpeth in sense with Aquine and both do answer That we are not so necessitated to sinning that we can not return to justice and Adams sinne was not cause of our confirmation in evill I reply we are so necessitated by our nature that of our selves and from our selves we can not return to justice We are obstinate and confirmed in evill in regard of our own disabilities though not confirmed in evill nor obstinate if we consider the powerfull mercy of God And this is enough to make the argument hold good There should have been a necessitie of not sinning of our part otherwise Evill should have been more powerfull then Good which is the contradictorie to Dionysius For we can not but sinne of our selves and are obstinate though we are not so obstinate as the damned nor should have been so confirmed by Adam as the glorified shall be Unto our argument drawn from the similitude of Angelicall reward Aquinas answereth Men and Angels are not alike I reply We were both like in some things and unlike in other but in this we had been like That as the Angels were confirmed presently upon their first obedience so had Adam been confirmed and we in him For God loved not Man worse then the Angels For Christ verily took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 Scotus yeeldes himself captive to the force of this reason save onely that he opineth That every one of Adams children should as well as Adam have been confirmed in grace upon their actuall overcoming of the first temptation suggested unto them whereas I
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
be a change of number as Vatablus stileth it And though the Interlinearie bible readeth it patrum eorum and Vatablus so expounds it but reads it patrum ejus why may it not be expounded patris ejus being accordant to that following peccatum matris ejus and whether it be patrum eorum or patrum ejus or patris ejus I see not but originall sinne may be meant in both places as being expressed onely in the singular rather then the many actuall transgressions especially since our singular originall sinne came to him by many fathers and it was not the intent of Gods Spirit in this Psalme to extenuate the sinnes of the wicked one's forefathers and to plaister this over with the title of one single iniquitie Indeed Theodoret on the place saith thus a Paterna virtus saepe siliis peccantibus prosuit ut fides Abrahae Judaeis Davidis pietas Solomoni The fathers vertue hath often profited the transgressing children as Abrahams faith did the Jews and Davids pietie Solomon So Cesar at his pardoning of those in Marseil and in Athens who took part with Pompey in the civill warres said They were excused for their ancestours sake as contrarily b Pravitas pattum filiis similibus poenam adauget The wickednesse of parents increaseth the punishment of like children saith Theodoret. I answer That all this speaketh of temporal chastisements none of eternall horrour infligible upon good children for the sinnes of their parents When God saith I will visit the sinnes of the parents if it implyed the visiting them with like sinnes as it doth not yet it is of them that hated him also and by their personall hating him deserved to have one sinne punished with an other for the hatred of the sonnes is meant as annexed to the sinnes of the fathers This any one may see that will read Ezekiel 18.14 Lo if a wicked man beget a sonne that doth not like his father he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father he shall surely live vers 17. God hath no pleasure that the wicked should die vers 23. And hath he delight that the righteous shall perish eternally for his wicked ancestours The drift of the whole chapter is against it and proveth his wayes to be equall because a wicked man repenting shall not die for his own transgressions vers 25. c. And shall a righteous man die or be condemned for he meaneth the death of the soul for the offences of others Who ever perished being innocent Even as I have seen they that plow iniquitie and sow wickednesse reap the same Job 4.7 8. and God rewardeth every man according not to the works of his forefathers but according to his own works Rom. 2.6 Mat. 16.27 which seemeth to be taken from the Psalmograph who ascribeth to the Lord not injustice not severitie but grace and mercie in his judicature Vnto thee O Lord belongeth mercy for thou rewardest every man according to his work Psal 62.12 And Every one shall give account of himself Rom. 14.12 Every one shall receive the things done in his bodie according to that he hath done whether it be good or evil 2. Cor. 5.10 If this be not enough more may be added with an easie hand to the strengthening of this sixth Proposition now chiefly questioned God never damned a good childe for the fathers personall wickednesse I now come to the seventh Proposition 10. No personall sinnes can be communicated Indeed they who maintain the traduction of souls may if that be granted better defend the propagation of actuall iniquities But that opinion being false ridiculous exploded and hereticall of which otherwhere in this Tractate the superstructive is founded on slippery ice and these terms To propagate communicate derive transmit and transfuse sinnes personall are meerly amphibologicall and dubious phrases If they mean as the words do signifie let them say that the matter of sinne actuall is transfused or the form or both The matter is the action the form is the obliquitie thereof both these do vanish Doth the guilt of punishment passe over c Reatus est vinculum inter poenam peccatum quasi medium interjectum Guilt is a band joyning punishment sin as a thing coming between them And this band is rather in God then in man to tie or untie at his pleasure d Actus qui jam transiit dicitur manere quoad reatum non quia rectus sit aliquid sed quia à tali actu denominatur quis reus Reatus peccati non est aliqua res cùm non sit substantia vel accidens sed solùm maneat in occultis legibus Dei mentibus Angelorum An act that is past already is said to remain in regard of the guilt not that the guilt is any thing but because a man is denominated guiltie from such an act The guilt of sinne is not any thing since it is neither a substance nor an accident but onely remains in the secret laws of God and mindes of Angels as Holcot De Imputab pec truely gathereth from S. Augustine The guilt is not the personall sinne it self but the effect thereof and our question is not now of the descent of punishments Doth the guilt of sinne take hold of the childe they cannot say so unlesse here also they confound the effect with the cause and this is but Petitio principii in other terms Again how heterodoxall is it to say A man begetteth a sonne guiltie of all his actuall iniquities For then though the father may be saved by his after-repentance yet the sonne who knoweth not perchance nor ever heard inckling of his fathers horrid and secret sinnes according to their position may be damned for them Do they mean the stain and spot is communicated I answer The stain and spot is not the actuall sinne but the fruit of it inherent in the soul of the offender and not transmissible by the bodie and is onely metaphorically termed the stain having no positive realitie transmissible Zanchius himself relates their opinion thus e Peccatorum quae aliquis parens committit labem ceu contagium justo Dei judicio redundare in ejus corpus sanguinem per ejus porrò sanguinem semen in filios quos ex illo semine it à vitiosè affecto gignit transfundi That the spot and as it were contagion of the sinnes which any parent committeth doth redound by Gods just judgement upon his bodie and bloud and is further transfused by his bloud and seed into the sonnes whom he begets of that seed thus viciously affected I answer That justo Dei judicio is brought in tanquam Deus aliquis è machina to make things vast improbable seem likely passable but the vain impertinencie of these words is easily observable by any who knoweth that no manner of Gods judgements are any way unjust Secondly are not sinnes of omission personall sinnes and are they communicated
to the bodie Thirdly what say you to pride of heart and secret Atheisme Is the proud mans and Atheists bodie and bloud infected with these prodigies Again If such people be wholly forgiven and their sinnes by repentance blotted out are they now in their bodie seed and bloud which are wiped out of their soul and suppose he beget a sonne between the Atheisme and repentance shall his childe be damned while the repentant Atheist is saved should not he rather communicate his later repentance then his former Atheisme But let us weigh the words a little nearer f Peccatorum quae aliquis parens committit labes ceu contagium redundat in ejus corpus sanguinem per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The blot and as it were contagion of sinnes which the father commits redounds upon his bodie and bloud and by his bloud and seed to the sonnes What bloud is corrupted all or onely that which was made seed and of seed what seed all seed or onely that which is fruitfull Suppose a father begets a sonne with the seed which was in his bodie yer his sinne was committed how doth his sinne viciate his bloud or his bloud the preformed seed If seed and bloud be properly vicious then any ejaculation of seed or letting of bloud should emptie people of their sinnes or stains in them inherent and sinne should no longer be a privation but a positive thing Moreover when they say That by the fathers bloud and seed the blot and as it were contagion is transfused into the sonnes they speak without reason or sense For the blot and as it were contagion are transfused if transfused at all into the wombe of their mother which hath a preexistence and not into the children themselves who have no preexistence The vessell is before any thing can be poured into it how then can sinne be yoted by the fathers bloud seed into the childe that had no being The last passage is this The childrens bodies are first infected by these stains or actuall sinnes their souls after defiled by their bodies If by the word infected they mean really truly properly and actually infected I remit them to the place where I have proved that the Embryo without a reasonable soul is not cannot be sinfull If they would be expounded of a pronitude to evil or inclinations tending that way when the soul is united they have made much ado about nothing a meer logomachy retaining the old sense and using noveltie of terms Again if I should yeeld That the seed of one man is proner to one vice then an other according to the vivid strength and able disposition of the parents as they say bastards are more healthie and more salacious then other people as retaining part of that spiritfull vigour in which they were begotten yet is originall sinne the same in every one alike in all parts and every way and the likenesse to the parents in wickednes is most remotely ascribed to the seed but properly to originall sinne as to the inward cause and to the parents ill breeding them or to bad companie or custome or to the remembrance of their parents sinne which is a powerfull president in corrupt nature as to the outward cause For a wicked childe is as like a thousand other wicked men if not more like in behaviour then to his father yet this proceedeth not from their seed but from originall sinne But to the more distinct handling of this point this seventh and last Proposition First I will prove That the personall sinnes of all our forefathers are not derived to us Secondly That not the sinnes from the third and fourth generation are propagated Thirdly That the personall sinnes of our immediate parents are not transfused And so it will arise of it self that no personall sinnes are communicated In the second place I shall bring to light the authorities on our side But before I begin either let me briefly remove an objection Bucer and Martyr teach saith Zanchius that by this doctrine the transfusion of originall sinne is more confirmed I answer That Gods truth hath no need of mans lie to uphold it Cicero said well g Perspicuitas argumentatione elevatur Perspicuitie is lessened by argumentation For what is more beleeved more known to Christians then that originall sinne is traduced Weak arguments do often prejudice a good cause and while Bucer and Martyr would seem to confirm that truth which neither Jew Turk nor Christian doubt of let them take heed lest when they say actuall sinnes are traduced they give occasion to the world to think that humane souls are not created but traducted so by consequent bring in the mortalitie of the soul For it hath been confidently averred by learned men That if the souls be traducted they are mortall But of this hereafter Concerning the first branch these arguments confirm it If the actuall sinnes of all our forefathers be communicated to their posteritie then they that are the more ancient are still the better and the last people of this world shall absolutely by nature be worst But it is not so for Pagans and Infidels now should be many thousand times worse then the first infidels which is not so as is seen by experience Secondly then we might truely say O happy Cain happier by nature then Abel the righteous since Adam and Eve did manifoldly sinne between Cains and Abels generations yea happier then Abraham and the Patriarchs just Job and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists since thou hast fewer sinnes to answer for then any in the world Happier is all the drowned world in this regard then the dayes since Christ But to say so is new Divinity Therefore all sinnes of actually transgressing parents are not communicated Secondly God dealeth not so rigourously with mankinde as he did with the devils Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 whereby he magnifieth Gods mercy to man above that to the rebellious spirits but he should or did deal worse with mankinde at least with the damned then with them if all the personall sinnes of our progenitours be communicated to all us For each of them bare onely but their own sinnes and none did beare one anothers sinne further then they actually partaked with it And this can not be otherwise for both their sinne was pride and their nature uncapable of propagation or communication of sinne unlesse it be by reall and present consenting or partaking Lastly They all fell together the second or third instant of their creation saith the School Suddenly the devil of Lucifer became Coluber of Oriens Occidens of Hesperus Vesper He abode not in the truth Joh. 8.44 Satan fell from heaven like lightning where lightning is not said to fall from heaven but he saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 10.18 Satan falling as suddenly from heaven as
communicateth sinnes actuall to the third and fourth generation because God punisheth the sinnes of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation unlesse they can prove Whatsoever God punisheth man doth communicate unto man which is impossible for God sometimes punisheth such sinnes of the childe as the father never had and of such a childe as never had childe after to whom he might communicate them The third and last branch of the seventh and last Proposition is this That the immediate parents personall transgressions are not communicated to us They may by way of punishment by way of offence or sinne they cannot No one sinne actuall is traducted propagated transfused communicated If any one actuall sinne be derived why not more why not all and every one Why should the communication of sinnes rest in the father and mother ascendendo when many children are liker their grand-fathers both in shape and feature and in minde and in vices then to their father and mother who were void of such personall transgressions Thirdly it is a true and old distinction That original sinne viciateth our whole nature and actuall sinnes infect the person But this distinction is taken away and removed if actuall sinnes do viciate our nature and are propagated by the seed which is proper to sinne-originall It is not called originall sinne for being the root of all sinne for Satan sinned first but as it is in our nature originally In this point Whitaker agreeth with Stapleton De originali peccato 1.4 And there Stapleton worthily observes that l Originale peccatum differentiam specificam notat quae opponitur personali designans causam peccati naturam esse non personam Original sinne noteth a specificall difference which is opposed to personal intimating that the cause of sinne is the nature not the person As when we mention actuall sinnes we make an opposition to sinnes habituall or to sinnes of omission or to sinne original If personall sinnes do passe over unto the children then Adams sinne did so to his children But not so For it is but one single singular sinne which we sinned in Adam If Adams personall vices were propagated to Cain were all or part propagated if part what were those and why those above others if all what did Adam traduce to Abel Seth c. Did he propagate onely those sinnes which were committed between the generation of one and the other And what sinnes did Seth propagate to his posteritie Are personall sinnes propagated alike to all the children How is it that of one mans children I have known one naturally exceeding angry an other naturally stupid Again if a naturall fool begetteth one wise what sinnes doth he communicate or on the contrary a Machiavel begetteth a naturall fool shall the fool be damned for his politick fathers malengin If actuall sinne be traduced then is it in the seed ere the soul come in the seed in the fathers bodie in the seed at the emission at the reception and retention Then millions of seeds spent in lawfull matrimonie when women do not conceive or what they have conceived yet having no soul shall have sinne actuall and if they have sinne they must come to account But such fruitlesse disburdenings do not appeare in judgement Again if personall sinnes be propagated are they remitted in Baptisme or not if remitted how are they so like their parents afterwards How can the seed which is not so much as an humane body actually but onely potentially be actually sinfull If personall sinne be communicated from the next parents how is it that experience teacheth us that very godly mens children are given to such enormities as their parents in their youth middle-age and old age have detested It cannot come by communication of actuall sinnes You will say it doth arise from sinne original So we say and so do all sinnes whatsoever arise from that corrupted fountain that ever-bubbling wel-spring of evil and not from a phantasticall communication of actuall transgressions If a meer Pagan and heathen an idolatrous worshipper of devils beget two twinnes shall they be alike wicked We have heard and known the contrary Gods discriminating saving grace doth not difference them as you may say it doth in Christians Lot committed actuall sinne and knew it not was that sinne propagated to his sonnes That actuall sinne should be in the seed which is but a superfluity of nature is very strange If Job had presently after that God had commended him to Satan saying There is none like him in the earth a perfect and upright man one that feareth God and escheweth evil Job 1.8 betook himself to the act of generation or David at those times when he was a man according to Gods own heart what personall iniquities had they propagated Isa 56.5 unto holy eunuchs God will give a place better and name better then of sonnes and daughters yet by this opinion they of all other are most miserable for they receive all the actuall sinnes of their fathers and cannot waft-over either them or their own sinnes into their children by their feed for they have none but all must rest in their souls in their bodies in their bloud and upon themselves onely If God should miraculously create a man and woman not of the seed of Adam and they blaspheme God and beget children shall they transfuse actuall sinne which have not original sinne or shall their children blaspheme naturally Or if they be innocent themselves from that great offence shall they be damned for their parents blasphemy If personall sinne be propagated then the habits or acts But neither Not acts for they are transient and glide away Not habits for then first why should not habits of knowledge or goodnesse or the like be transfused as well as of evil especially the habits of knowledge of evil Secondly then a childe is not onely originally sinfull by froward inclinations but habitually by multiplied actions Thirdly habits belong to the person individuall not to him as he is a species of mankinde but propagation is according to the kinde or species not according to the individuals If ye object Ezek. 16.3 God chargeth them of Jerusalem thus Thy father was an Amorite thy mother an Hittite whereby he upbraideth them with their fathers sinnes I answer These words are not spoken of naturall descent but of parents and children by imitation For the Amorites and Hittites were idolaters and the Israelites who succeeded them in their inheritance as children do fathers inherited also their sinnes as appeareth in the whole chapter especially vers 44. Behold every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee saying As is the mother so is her daughter Thou art thy mothers daughter that loatheth her husband and her children and thou art the sister of thy sisters which loathed their husbands and their children your mother was an Hittite and your father an Amorite And thine elder sister is Samaria she and her daughters that
the living God and not with penne and ink For though the sense and words of this Epistle to the Galatians be from God and most divine yet there is no reason to imagine that S. Paul intended to include that sense under these words Videte or Videtis qualibus literis scripsi vobis manu meâ You see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own hand But if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie quantitie though S. Paul wrote in great letters and characters yet it might be a verie good and fair hand as there are few fairer writings then some where the letters are large and full drawn and I doubt not but he who gave them the extraordinary gift of tongues and languages did also as a necessarie appendant give them the power to write well those languages especially since their writings were to benefit more then their voices could reach unto We never reade that the holy Apostles Peter James or John were learned or could reade or write before their calling or learned it by degrees after their Apostleship yet they could and did write and as the Spirit guided their thoughts and words so did he their hands and they wrote both divinely for matter and as I think exquisitely for the manner yea more exquisitely then other men as being governed and actuated by the hand of God which is perfect in all his works And indeed the true sense of the place in my opinion toucheth not at the deformednesse of the characters or at the grand-greatnesse of them but at the length or prolixitie of the Epistle which is excellently rendered by our English You see how large a letter I have written as if S. Paul had spoke thus more at large I who before told you that we must not be weary of well-doing but must do good unto all men whilest we have time especially to the houshold of faith I say I my self have not been wearie in writing this Epistle though it be long and whilest I had time I have spent that time in doing you good by writing this letter by writing this long and large letter to you For though I have written longer Epistles yet I did rather subscribe to them and wrote not all of any one of them with mine own hand but you may take it as a token of my heartie love that I wrote all this Epistle my self You see how large a letter I have writ to you with mine own hand And this sense better answereth to the coherence then that of S. Hierom or of the other learned man whom S. Hierom wondered at So much for the third Lemma 8. I come now to the first Question viz. Whether it was necessarie that Scripture should be written for mens instruction That it was not absolutely necessarie must be confest for God might have used other means He is liberrimum agens the freest agent or rather ipsa libertas libertie it self not chained to fate nor bound in with nature or second causes Necessitie freedome of our will or indifferencie to either side and contingencie are the issues of his will Yea God did use other means in the law of nature for above 2450 yeares the Patriarchs were nourished with agraphall Tradition onely No word was ever written till God wrote the Law the two first Tables the work of the onely-wise Almightie The writing was the writing of God graven upon the Tables Exod. 32.16 Written with the finger of God Exod 31.18 The Jews say The book of Genesis was written by Moses before God wrote the Law For though God spake all the words of the Decalogue Exod. 20.1 c. yet he delivered not the Tables to Moses till Exod. 31.18 but Exod. 24.4 it is related that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord and vers 7. that he took the book of the Law and read it in the audience of the people Kemnitius answereth That the things are recorded per Anticipationem seu per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last is recorded in the first place for the writing and dedication here mentioned were accomplished afterward Exod. 34.32 The pillar of stone and that other of brick which Josephus Antiq. 1.4 saith the children of Seth did write in before the floud were either fictions or antidated The prophesie of Enoch was not written by him as S. Augustine de Civit. 15.22 and Origen Hom. 28. in Num. think but Enoch prophesied Saying Jude 14. As the prophesie of Adam Genes 2.24 and of God himself Genes 3.15 both of them concerning Christ were spoken in Paradise not written and as the Apostles wrote not the Creed but delivered it onely vivâ voce by word of mouth saith Irenaeus 3.4 and Augustine de Fide Oper. cap. 9. and Ruffinus on the Creed and divers others so is it likely that Enochs prophesie was not written or rather was written long after it was spoken for writing was not so necessarie for the Patriarchs First because they were purer in minde saith Chrysostom Hom. 1. in Matth. And it is the fault of our corrupt nature and we may be rightly impleaded that ever there was any writing as may be gathered from Isidorus Peleusiota lib. 3. epist 106. Secondly the long lives of the Patriarchs supplied the room of writing for Methusalah who lived 240 yeares with Adam with the first Adam who was AETATIS ILLIUS EPISCOPUS Bishop of those times saith Kemnitius in Examine part 1. pag. 13. lived also 90 and odde yeares with Sem and Sem lived 50 yeares in Jacobs time by the calculation of Helvicus and there were not 200 yeares from Jacobs death to the writing of the Law Thirdly besides such aged venerable Prophets as were Adam Enoch Noah and Abraham who was an eminent instructer with authoritie and as it were with a Pretorian power Gen. 18.19 I know that Abraham will command his sonnes and his houshold after him that they keep the way of the Lord other Patriarchs knew the will of God by immediate revelation by dreams and visions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At sundrie times and in divers manners Heb. 1.1 Gods speech was in stead of writing But when men grew more impure and upon the increase of sinne mans dayes were shortened God did withdraw himself and his familiar conversation was not so common but because their hearts of flesh were hardened in which was printed the law of nature by them even obliterated and they received new evil impressions in stonie hearts God himself wrote the Morall Law in two Tables of stone and Gods own handie-work being broken by the occasion of their sinne to shew that the Morall Law should continue for ever the broken Tables were removed and none knoweth what ever became of them and Moses was commanded to frame two new whole Tables of stone like the former Two extreams about the written word are here to be avoided The first is of the Papists who too much disgrace the Scripture at least comparatively
Solomo Procopius Gazaeus Sophista in his Commentarie on the place thus o Si tum demum postquam genuit Methusalem placuit Deo Enoch certè antequam gigneret ut Scriptura docet non gratus acceptus erat Deo Quòd igitur amore complexus est eum Deus poenitentiae quam egit imputari debet If then at last Enoch pleased God after he had begot Methusalem certainly before he begat him as the Scripture saith God did not like him nor accept of him Therefore it is to be ascribed to Enochs repentance which he performed that God made so much of him and loved him Though Salianus saith of this testimonie that p Nescio quomodo animus aversatur his minde was against it yet there is no impossibilitie no nor improbabilitie in it and howsoever it be not apodicticall yet it is not inepta foolish as Salianus censureth it He addeth Perhaps Philo the Jew was of that opinion for in his book de Abrahamo speaking of repentance c. he bringeth Enoch in as an example And it seemeth saith he that he followed Jesus the sonne of Sirach in the words cited viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclefiastic 44.16 And though he slubbereth over the words and matter which are to him Canonicall and saith that The minde of the Scripture in that place is that Enoch shall be an exemplarie penitent not as David and Manasses Peter or Mary Magdalene but as John Baptist yet I answer First no Ancient ever said John Baptist was an example of repentance and did repent of any enormous sinnes but was alwayes holy and most austere preventing great sinnes rather then repenting and not so much bemoaning his own offences as dehorting other men and crying out against their iniquities with a charge almost inforcing them to repentance whilest himself shewed a signe of his being sanctified and illuminated even in his mothers wombe Secondly there is as much joy over a repentant and God is as much glorified for point of mercie in a Marie Magdalene or a Peter as in a Baptist or just man that needeth no repentance if not more Procopius Gazaeus who imagined the worst of Enochs former part of life till he begot Methuselah yet speaketh very good things before of Enoch thus God rested on the seventh day when he had made the world q Et nunc ille idem Deus generatione septimâ accipit ceu symbolum consummationis seculi Enochum ut primitias rationalis creaturae c. and now the same God in the seventh generation of the world assumeth as a signe of the ending of an age I say assumed Enoch as the first fruits of the reasonable creature He was out of Gods favour for a while but when he pleased God he was extraordinarily assumed Thus in effect Procopius which the Jesuit had not much cause to finde fault withall Let this suffice for the first question Whether Enoch were at any time a very wicked man The second question is Whether Enoch did ever die Divers Rabbins maintain that he did die So Rabbi Solomon on the fifth of Genesis Aben Ezra saith His death was sweet and he felt no pain which opinion the Jesuit Cornelius à Lapide ascribeth also to Calvin whether truely or falsely I enquire not but the matter giveth me the hint of an excursion Moses said from God Genes 6.3 Mans dayes shall be an hundred and twentie yeares and Moses himself died when he was 120 yeares old Deut. 34.7 David said The dayes of our yeares are threescore yeares and ten Psal 90.10 and he himself who prayed to God to teach him to number his dayes died the same yeare being the first lesser climactericall yeare after that great one of nine times seven that dangerous threescore and third yeare for He was thirtie yeares old when he began to reigne and he reigned fourty yeares 2. Sam. 5.4 Both these were most certain Prophets of their own deaths and perhaps had more especiall reference to their own times designing those yeares out in the more generall which were more appropriate to their own persons in particular Let me adde two heathen examples by way of imperfect parallels That most exquisite work of nature her glory pride and master-piece Julius Cesar preferred a swift and sudden death in his choice before any other kinde Suetonius in vita Julii Caesaris in fine thus of him r Quondam cùm apud Xenophontem legisset Cyrum ultimâ valetudine mandâsse quaedam de funere suo aspernatus tam lentum mortis genus subitam sibi celerémque optavit mortem pridie quà m occideretur in sermone nato super coenam apud M. Lepidum Quisnam esset vitae sinis commodissimus repentinum inopinatúmque praetulerat When Julius Cesar had sometime read in Xenophon that Cyrus in his last sicknesse ordered some things concerning his funerals he hating so lingring a death wished that himself might have a sudden and quick end Again the day before he was slain as he was at supper with Marcus Lepidus a question arising Which death was most commodious and to be wished for Cesar preferred a sudden unlooked for and unthought of end And sutable to his choice and desire in that respect did a sudden and unlooked for end befall him Likewise that wonder of Fortune that darling of terrene happinesse Augustus the successour unto the Dictatour ſ Fere quoties audîsset citò nullo cruciatu defunctum quempiam sibi suis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem precabatur Almost as often as he had heard saith Suetonius in Augusto in fine that any one had died speedily without long pain or great torment he would pray that the like easie departure might befall himself and his friends And saith he t Sortitus est exitum similem qualem semper optaverat c. He died according as he alwayes desired parting as in a complement with his most familiar friends u Et repentè in osculis Liviae defecit and gave up the ghost amidst the kisses of Livia This storie hath brought my Miscellanie home to that point which the Rabbin said of Enoch That he died without pain The New Testament also is thought to afford us such an other example x De Joanne Evangelista dicitur quòd dolorem in moriendo non sensit It is said of John the Evangelist that he died without any pain saith Holcot on Wisd 2.5 and by that instance saith concerning those who rose about Christs resurrection y Non sequitur quòd si iterum moriehantur moriebantur cum poena vel sentirent etiam poenam It followeth not that if they died again they had or felt any painfull death But because of the strange opinions which are held concerning S. John the Apostle let me enlarge my discourse a little concerning him Melchior Canus Locor Theolog. 7.2 saith We may hold or deny z Salvâ fide without prejudice to our belief either that he