Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	ghost_n	holy_a	5,369	5	5.6194	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

and as a body without a head a common-wealth without a ruler or kingdome without a King confused imperfect without order or beautie But seeing that to bring man to this finall perfection and end many things were necessary each person of the blessed Trinitie did assume to himselfe diuers functions the Father to create because power and might doth especially appeare in the Father the Sonne did assume the reparation of man after his fall a worke of infinite wisdome and therfore it is particularly ascribed to this person and infinite wisdome finally the holy Ghost did particularly worke mans sanctification this therefore is likewise accommodated to this person together with all spirituall graces and finall glorification Neuerthelesse these offices operations and workes are so attributed to the three holy persons not that any one of them was effected alone by any one person for whatsoeuer is wrought out of the sacred Trinitie in or by any creature whatsoeuer is equally effected and wrought by all and euery person of the blessed Trinitie but because something doth appeare in euery of these workes which doth especially manifest the Father the Sonne or the holy Ghost the Fathers power the Sonnes wisdome the grace and sanctification of the holy Ghost therefore these and other the like attributes are particularly applied and attributed to each person of the blessed Trinitie Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate operibus ●ius This is the ground of Rupertus his discourse and reason why God created man to his likenesse and image why he changed his voice and altered his manner of speaking for whereas hee said in the creation of other creatures Fiat factum est Let it be done and it was done now as though hee had beene weary with going about the earth compassing the seas and measuring the amplitude of the heauens he sate him downe and as it were taking his breath hee called to minde that there was one thing as yet wanting which was no lesse necessary then fitting to be made then said he let vs make man to our owne image and likenesse Thus doest thou then thinke that a small matter which was intended by these words A great mysterie without doubt it was in that counsell of wisdome in that counsell of such persons the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Canst thou iudge that there was any thing wanting any thing superfluous either done or to be done in vs or about vs in that sacred Senate There doubtlesse was all our cause considered there our fall foreseene there our death and perdition foreknowne and determined vpon to wit that euery person should vndertake some part of the worke that as it is said before the Father should create the Sonne should redeeme and finally the holy Ghost should worke the remission of sinnes and the resurrection of the flesh But what should bee the reason why God deliberating about the creation of man should say Faciamus let vs make To whom did hee speake speaking in the plurall let vs make Shall we say to the earth as to a compart of man or to the Angels as the fellow-workers with God as though God had need either of the cooperation of the Angels or were so senselesse as thus to conferre with that his creature void of all reason and sense Ambrose in his seuenth chapter of the sixt booke of the Exameron answereth that God spake not to himselfe because hee speaketh not in the singular but in the plurall let vs make neither yet to the Angels as who are but his seruants therefore though the Iewes and Arrians doe neuer so much repugne these words without all question are spoken to his Sonne as who is the true and liuely similitude and likenesse of God the Father And this I deeme to be the truest opinion seeing that the eternall Sonne of God euen as hee is the Word and Sonne of God is a liuely and expresse similitude and likenesse not only of his eternall Father but also a most perfect Idea and exemplar according to which man was created Others not improbably doe interpret that God therefore spake in the plurall Faciamus let vs make as Princes and great persons are wont to doe to shew their authoritie and maiestie saying We will We command We decree c. yet of the two I deeme the first exposition to bee best and that the text may admit them both CHAP. XIIII How man was made to the image and likenesse of God FOr the vnderstanding of this Sainctes Pagnines in the sauro linguae Hebraae wee must note the originall Hebrew words Selem and Demuth by Selem is properly signified a shadow or transitorie similitude Psalme 33. In imagine pertransit homo man passeth away like vnto a shadow Likewise Psalme 101. My dayes haue declined as a shadow The other word Demuth signifieth to cut downe to faile to fade to be silent to recogitate and to expect but most properly to assimulate or liken wherefore seeing euery similitude or likenesse is transitorie vanishing and quickly passing away the same word doth also signifie to vanish to passe away to faile and to fade Now therefore when God said that man was made to his image and likenesse it was to giue vs to vnderstand that such was the likenesse and so perfect the representation as could be betweene an inferiour creature and his Creator but because God is of infinite perfection it must necessarily follow that his similitude should bee infinitely inferiour and of lesse perfection then the prototypon or first type of his perfection Like as though the shadow be in some sort the similitude and representation of the body yet is it obscure and imperfect yea nothing in it selfe and in comparison of the body nothing Hence consequently wee may inferre a twofold interpretation of the said words adimaginem similitudinem nostram to our image and likenesse to wit of that image or similitude which is in God his diuine nature essence being or vnderstanding insomuch that the nature of God and his Ideall representation of his vnderstanding bee the exemplar and first type vnto whose similitude man was made Or againe that ●his be the meaning of Gods words let vs make man such a one as wee are or so like vnto vs that he may bee such an image forme and similitude as he may represent our nature power wisdome and prouidence yea and immortalitie in a body of its owne nature mortall For as S. Austine well noteth Aug. li. 83. quaest q. 51. diuers things doe diuersly represent Almighty God some doe participate of vertue and wisdome others only of life others of existence and being insomuch that those things which only haue existence and neither liue nor breathe are counted an imperfect similitude of God because they are good according to their kinde and flow from that infinite Ocean of goodnesse from whence all other goodnesse doth proceed Againe those things which doe liue and yet doe not vnderstand doe more perfectly participate

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

the principall lest shee should be too impudent neither of the baser lest shee should be too much debased shee was therefore created of the ribbe and of that ribbe which was next to the heart the one to signifie the mediocritie of her condition the other to insinuate the esteeme and respect which both shee should haue towards Adam and Adam towards her as also to signifie the heart loue and fidelitie which he should beare vnto her who had her being from so neere his heart Now the difficultie is how Eue being of so perfect stature as she was created could be created out of a ribbe of so little quantitie seeing either shee was equall in stature with the man or not farre inferiour in greatnes vnto him was there any matter added vnto the ribbe or was the same matter of the ribbe multiplied surely it might be as Lombard and Gabriel said by the multiplication of the same matter or by rarefaction of the same ribbe or rather which I deeme more probable by addition of new matter as the Diuines hold it happened in the multiplication of the fiue barly loaues of which wee read in the gospell Neither may it be inferred hence that then it should rather haue beene said that the woman was framed of other matter then of the ribbe of Adam because the more principall part beareth the name not alwaies the greater especially when the principall part is not only the principall but also the first of the whole compound or worke Wherefore seeing the ribbe of Adam was the first and principall matter of which the woman was created and vnto the which the other was but an addition it is therefore rightly and absolutely said that Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam without the expressing of any other matter because though the new assumed matter was the greater in quantitie yet lesse in perfection so likewise in the muitiplication of the fiue loaues though that which was added was much more then the precedent quantitie of bread yet because it was but an addition vnto the former therefore the name was deriued of the more principall part according to the common axiome of the Philosophers denominatio sequitur principaliorem partem the name must follow the more principall part CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. BOth the Phisitians and Philosophers doe agree in this that euery man according to his naturall constitution and perfection hath 24 ribbes twelue of each side wherefore if our first father had thirteene on the leaft it may bee thought that this was rather monstrous then agreeable to nature which neither admitteth want nor superfluitie either therefore this ribbe was super-abundant in him and so he monstrous by super-abundance or it is wanting in vs and so we monstrous by defect I answer that though it were monstrous in any of vs to haue 13 ribbes yet was it in no wise in respect of Adam it were in regard of vs because none is to be created of vs but in regard of him the defect were rather monstrous because Eue was to be created of it so that neither was Adam a monster when he had that which we haue not neither yet deficient when he wanted that of which Eue was created because the name of monster is not so much in regard of superabundance or want as in regard of the ends and purposes intended by the author of nature grounded in that which is most connaturall Wherefore though in regard of the particular nature of Adam as hee was but one particular man this ribbe was superfluous and so consequently in an other person might be thought monstrous yet in regard of him of whom the rest of mankinde was to proceed it was most naturall Neither doe these two sorts of considerations imply contradiction seeing that euen in nature we haue infinite examples of this for so the heauiest drosse and massiest matter hath a naturall and particular inclination to descend to the center which neuerthelesse will ascend for the preseruation of the course of nature ne detur vacuum when there is any danger of vacuitie of aire or want of any other body which naturally should fill all places so that as to descend is proper to heauy things considering their particular inclination and nature so to ascend is no lesse agreeable vnto their nature considering their vniuersall propension for the preseruation of the vniuersall good of nature In like manner if we consider Adam as one particular man not as first parent of our humane nature it were monstrous that hee should haue more ribbs on the leaft side then on the right or more then any of his posteritie haue but if we consider him as he was to be the first father of mankinde after that particular manner that God hath determined it was most necessarie and agreeable to his nature that hee should haue more ribbs then any other of the same specificall nature seeing that our first mother Eue was to haue her being of this ribbe of his and we all ours by her CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had not sinned GRegory Nisene Damascene Chrysostome Procopius Gazeus and diuers others were of opinion that if Adam had not sinned there should haue beene no such naturall generation of mankinde as is now but rather an immediate multiplication and production of men by the immediate power of God So that as we shall be like vnto the Angels in the coelestiall Paradise through our vnion vnto Christ so wee should not haue beene vnlike vnto them in the terrestriall by the immediate production of God wherefore as sinne was the cause of our dissimilitude from the Angelicall life so was it according to these Fathers the cause also of the dissimilitude of our production the Angells being by creation immediately from God wee not immediately but by mediate generation and hence it is that Austine saith that consanguinities and affinities proceed of sinne not of nature The ground peraduenture of these Doctors may be the impure and corrupt manner of our generation and the deformitie of lust together with the immoderate pleasure thereof proceeding the which our first fathers as S. Austine saith presently vpon their sinne experimented and thence were ashamed and couered themselues Neuerthelesse I cannot but deeme it most certaine but that so long as mans superiour powers were subiect to God so long also should mans inferiour powers haue beene obedient to man wherefore whiles there was no deformitie by sin in the will neither should there haue beene any filthines or abomination in the actions of nature But as our eyes and other senses be as yet subiect to our will so also all other now rebelling inferiour powers should haue beene subiect to their superiour lastly as all deformities and disorder should haue beene taken away so all conformitie and order should haue beene left The sensitiue appetite should haue been subiect to the

infectious quality was naturally produced in our appetite and thence transfused into our wils or supernaturally the first is impossible because sinne had no such naturall force or power in Adam otherwise it should haue had the same effect likewise in all the posterity of Adam which euen our aduersaries doe deny seeing there is no reason why it should bee so auerred of one more then of all Or peraduenture this quality was not produced by naturall means but by supernaturall not by any naturall power of man but by the supernaturall of Almighty God and as some hath aduentured to pronounce ex sola Dëi voluntate meerly by the will of him to whom nothing is impossible cui non est impossibile omne verbum to whose will all doe obey But certainely if wee waigh this answer either in the naturall principles of true philosophy or supernaturall of grace we shall finde the aforesayd position and solution to bee most dissonant to both seeing that both doe euidently demonstrate vnto vs the repugnance and contradiction of this that hee who is the fountaine of all goodnesse or rather goodnesse it selfe should bee the particular and naturall efficient or morall cause of that which is summum malum the greatest euill nothing more distant then summum bonum and summum malum nothing so vnlike in their being so nothing so improportionate in their causalities and effects Wherfore as it is impossible for goodnesse it selfe not to be good so is it no lesse contradiction to the particular cause of euill and consequently seeing that sinne is summum malum the greatest euill possible and seeing likewise of all sinnes this in some sort is the greatest as which is the originall and fountaine of all other actual sinnes as it doth imply contradiction that God should be the particular cause of other actuall sinnes so it doth à fortiori imply the same that he should be in any wise of this originall yea euen natural reason was a sufficient light of this vnto the very Heathen Philosophers So Plato in his second booke De Republica saith Omnibus modis pugnandum est ne Deus qui bonus est dicatur esse malorum causa alioqui secum Deus pugnaret qui suis legibus contrarium fieri mandauit Wee must by all meanes endeauour saith this diuine Philosopher lest God who is altogether good be said to be the cause of euill otherwise God should bee contrary and repugnant vnto himselfe seeing that hee hath commanded the contrary in his lawes whose eyes as Abacuc saith are so dimme Abacuc 1. that they cannot see euill neither can they behold any iniquity Not that really hee doth not perfectly view and comprehend with his all-knowing science the secretest and most hidden and abhominable action or most inward cogitation and that from all eternity euen before it bee conceiued or thought of by the sinner himselfe but he is said not to see it or not to know it scientia approbationis that is he doth not approoue it but reprooue it not allow it but condemne it and in this sense that is to be vnderstood which the Gospell saith shall be pronounced vnto the vnrepenting sinners nescio vos I know you not not that our Sauiour either according to his humanity much lesse in his diuinity was or is ignorant of any good or bad action according to which hee is to reward in his iudgement but that he did not see or know them so as that hee did deeme them as worthy of the diuine knowledge and approbation or of any reward but onely of eternall fire prepared for the Diuell and his Angels Albertus Pighius Catharinus de originali peccato Albertus Pighius and Catharinus flying the inconueniences of the aforesayd opinions fell into another extreame to wit that there was no other originall sinne in Adams posterity then the sinne of Adam by which he first of all then all his discendence were reputed sinners hee inwardly they outwardly and as the Schooles terme it by an outward denomination to wit by Adams sinne inward to Adam imputed onely to them as though it had been really their own and actually committed by them whereas in very deede they had none proper or inherent but Adams onely by imputation not by reall appropriation Which opinion may fitly bee declared by the example of a man who being adopted by a King as his sonne and heire apparant to the Crowne should haue granted vnto him and to his posterity all the priuiledges annexed vnto his adoption and principality but yet with this condition that if this Prince so adopted should commit any treason against his father both he and his posterity should not onely lose the aforesayd titles and priuiledges but also should be accounted traytours vnto the Crowne In which cause although the posterity of this man had not committed any fault in themselues yet were they to be reputed morally as traytours and to haue committed high treason in their head and pregenitor After the same manner as the Doctors of this opinion auerre was the compact made betweene God and our first father Adam so that if hee had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator eating of the forbidden fruit he and his should haue beene translated out of the terrene Paradise vnto the kingdome of heauen But this compact being broken by our first father both he and wee lost our right vnto the blessednesse for which wee were created he in himselfe and we in him Not that as he had inherent in him the spot and blemish of originall sin wee also should haue it but only by an externe denomination as the Diuines terme it because we had really the effects thereof our first father in whom we were all contained had really both the cause effect the sin I meane of disobedience and the priuatiō of originall iustice together with all other effects therupon ensuing This opinion is gathered out of Paul Rom. 5. In whom to wit in Adam all haue sinned as who would say wee had not sinned originally but onely in Adam wee haue not therefore originally sinned in our selues consequently if wee haue not sinned in our selues but only in Adam our sin only is in Adam as it is only by Adam not in our selues as it was not committed by our selues in so much that it may only bee tearmed ours by imputation from our fore-fathers not by reall inhesion in our selues seeing we neuer gaue any consent by our owne willes vnto the foresaid disobedience but as wee were included in Adam as in our head wee are therefore said to be spotted with originall sinne in as much only as hee who was our head and in whose loines we were contained did really commit the said sinne and consequently as the foresaid Doctors inferre originall sinne in vs neither consisteth in any actuall or habituall transgression neither in concupiscence or in the priuation of originall iustice not in the first Vide Augustinum li. 1. retract

Atha oratione contra idola that it is an ethnicall and hereticall opinion to say that sinne or euill hath any entitie or essence seeing it is rather the priuation of entitie or essence And this is the reason why Nazianzene compareth sinne vnto darknesse Naz. oratione 9. n. 39. not only because darknesse and obscuritie in matters of saluation and the mysteries of our faith is the effect of sin but also or rather because as darknesse is opposite vnto light and is nothing else but the priuation of light so sinne is nothing else but the priuation of goodnesse wherefore in his 40. oration in sanctum baptisma he concludeth that which Nisenus Damascenus and Nizetas tooke from him nullam esse mali essentiam that euill or sinne hath no essence to wit no reall or positiue essence or being Augustin l. 11. de civ Dei or as St. Austin describeth it natura nulla sed boni amissio no positiue nature but the losse of goodnesse which position Fulgentius in his booke of faith the 21. chap. deemeth so certaine that it ought saith he to be holden as a matter of faith because all things that haue reall being or nature are good his words be these Quia omnis natura in quantum natura est bona est sed quia in ea bonum augeri minui potest in tantum mala dicitur in quantum bonum eius minuitur malum enim nihil aliud est nisi boni priuatio vnde geminum constat esse rationalis creaturae malum vnum quo voluntariè ipsa defecit à summo bono creatore suo alterum quo in vita punietur Euill saith this Father is nothing else but the priuation of good and hence it is manifest that the creatures endued with reason are subiect to two kinds of euils one by which they voluntarily fall from their cheefest good the other by which they are punished in this life Likewise St. Austin in his first Treatise vpon St. Iohn giueth this reason why God being the Creator of all things may not bee sayd to bee the author of sinne to wit because sinne in his owne being hath no entitie or being but rather is a priuation of entitie and being Peccatum quidem non per ipsum factum est vt manifestum est quia peccatum nihil est nihil fiunt homines cùm peccant Sinne saith he was not made by God because sin of it selfe is no thing but nothing and men become nothing becomming sinners Now then if the essence of sinne in common or of all sinne whatsoeuer be nothing but that nothing which is the priuation of good Turrianus in epistola ad Iacob●m Ami●tum episcopum Antisiodorensem Corduba lib. 1. q. 10. opinione 6. qu●s etiam sequuntur plures recentiores hence it must needs follow that the essence of originall sin must also consist in some particular priuation of some particular good the which wee are now particularly to search out In which poynt Turrian and Corduba are of opinion that this priuation is subiectionis coniunctionis cum Deo in qua nati fuissemus si primus parens non peccasset of the subiection and coniunction with God in which we should haue been borne if our first father Adam had not falne This they prooue by impugning of the other opinions for that as hath beene already prooued it cannot consist in any positiue and reall thing because God otherwise might in some sort haue beene sayd to concurre vnto it and consequently after that maner to be the cause of it which were blasphemous neither can it consist in any other priuation of any other supernaturall gift because all such priuations or depriuations are rather effects consequent as punishment due vnto the sinne it selfe therefore as the heat cannot be sayd to bee the cause of the fire from whence it doth proceede nor the light cause of the Sunne so neither the priuation of originall iustice or of any other vertue or supernaturall gift can be said to be the essence of originall sin for certainely if wee vnderstand aright wee shall finde that all such priuations are rather consequent vnto sinne and so the effects then the sinne it selfe yea rather the punishments inflicted by Almighty God vpon man for his transgression then the transgression it selfe And heereby also wee may easily demonstrate the absurdities of that common opinion of the Papists that the essence of originall sinne in vs consisteth formally in the depriuation of originall iustice which had beene due vnto vs all if wee had not transgressed in our first father which is the common opinion of the schooles and Papists of Aquinas Caietan Conradus Scotus Taperus Sotus Marsilius Ocamus Buderius Alexander Bonaventure Richardus de Medianilla Maior Vasquez Zuares Sumel and almost all other Papists of this age Anselm lib. de conceptu virginali cap. 26. Yea Anselmus saith that hee cannot conceiue that originall sin is any other then that which was committed by the inobedience of Adam to wit the depriuation of the iustice in infants which was otherwise due vnto them Arasicanū concilium 2. Can. 2. Finally the Arausican Councell 2. Can. 2. defineth it to be the death of the soule wherefore if death as is plaine out of Philosophy be nothing else but the priuation of the life of the soule seeing nothing else can be vnderstood to be the life of the soule but onely the inward grace of God by which onely the soule did liue that supernaturall life which is possessed in Paradise consequently the priuation of this originall grace or iustice wherewith the soule was adorned and liued in Paradise must needs be the priuation of the same gift As if our naturall life here in this vale of misery doth consist in the presence of our soule or vnion thereof with the body consequently our death must necessarily consist in the absence of the same soule which gaue it life or in the disvnion or separation of these two comparts the soule and the body after the same manner if the supernaturall life of our soule consist in the presence of God dwelling in our soules by his grace then certainely our spirituall death whether it be considered here after our expulsion out of Paradise or in the fall from that first happinesse must necessarily consist in the departing of God from our soules or which is all one in the absence or depriuation of his grace Neither can this want of originall iustice be rightly deemed a punishment of our originall sinne as hath beene before obiected because no defect or want worthy of an other punishment can be inflicted as a punishment wherefore seeing that this maketh our soules worthy to be depriued of eternall blisse which is the greatest punishment imaginable that could be inflicted for originall sinne Aquin. 2. 2. q. 21. it can in no wise be the punishment due vnto the fault but rather it must be the sinne it selfe

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