of knowledge of good and euill especially seeing he fore-knew his fall THe answer is easie to wit that by the tryall of his obedience in this one commandment hee might subiect the whole man vnto himselfe in all things and that man by the breach or keeping of the said commandement might know by wofull experience as he truely did in his wofull fall the difference betweene good and euill so that whereas before hee knew it onely by contemplation now he should find it by a lamentable experience yea in this his sinne was the greater in that the obiect of his obedience was so facile and the commandement so easie to be kept Aug. li. 14. de ciu Dei cap. 15. For as S. Austine saith like as the obedience of Abraham is highly extolled because the slaying of his sonne with his owne hands was of such difficultie euen so the disobedience of Adam in Paradise was the more hainous by how much the precept which he had imposed was the more facile to haue beene fulfilled Againe as the obedience of the second Adam was so much the more admirable because hee was obedient euen vnto death so the disobedience of the first Adam was the more detestable by which he became disobedient euen vnto death for where the punishment of the disobedience is great and the thing commanded easie who can expresse how great an euill it is not to obey and how great an iniurie to so great a power especially threatning so great punishments Now as touching the second point I answer that therefore God as absolute in his will science and power would create Adam and giue him the aforesaid precept which hee knew neuerthelesse hee would so presently violate to the end that his vnhappy fall might bee an occasion of our most happy Redeemer for as the Schooles commonly hold if Adam had not sinned the Sonne of God had not beene incarnated so that as Gregory saith in regard of this it was a happy fall which deserued or rather required to haue such a Redeemer O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantum habere meruit Redemptorem in which I know not whether I should more admire the goodnesse of God in the creation and restauration of man or the ingratitude of man towards God in and after both his creation redemption and infinite offences and falles but that as it is the nature of that infinite goodnesse to effectuate the greatest good of the greatest euill so is it no lesse consequent to mans naturall propension and of himselfe as it were an infinite of euill of the greatest good to worke the greatest euill a thing not easily beleeued if our daily and wofull experience did not so manifestly proue it for as God by our greatest and originall euill did worke our greatest and originall good and this onely out of his infinite goodnesse the incarnation I meane of his eternall Sonne so man out of his infinite malice did by occasion of this so infinite a benefit worke the most wicked outrage that could bee imagined against his benefactour by seeking his dishonour and death who so abased himselfe to giue him life so that I know not whether I should more admire God shedding his bloud for man or man spilling the bloud of God mans ingratitude towards God or Gods infinite bountie towards man And hence it is that as faith teacheth vs this euill and sinne of Adam was foreseene and permitted of God so is it no lesse a blasphemous heresie to auerre that this or any other sinne is wrought by God wrought I meane by his particular command or concourse not by his vniuersall which is due vnto all entitie and being yet in some sense neither due vnto this of sinne as which in it selfe hath neither entitie nor being but rather if wee speake formally is a priuation of all rectitude goodnesse and being CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression AS it is certaine that the mortalitie of Adam and consequently of all mankinde did proceed of sinne so it hath no small difficultie to declare what instant death that was which God so instantly threatned should follow mans sinne for so saith the text Gen. 2. the 17. verse In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death What day is this what death is this seeing that he neither first sinned the last day of his life nor yet died the first day of his sinne true it is that as death was due at his last day for his first sinne so was it not inflicted in the first houre for his first dayes sinne Was this death peraduenture the priuation of grace by which his soule supernaturally liued for as the body liueth by the soule so Adams soule liued by grace consequently as the body is said to die by the absence of the soule so the soule spiritually by the priuation of grace but yet though this be true yet it cannot bee the sole meaning of the aforesaid words so that then no other death should haue beene due vnto man but only the death of the soule the separation from God who as he had sinned both in body and soule was iustly to be punished in body and soule which the effect afterward shewed that God had before accordingly decreed so that the sentence of his death as it was executed both in body and soule so it is to bee vnderstood to haue beene decreed as well in regard of the body as of the soule because the corporall death is a necessary consequent of the spirituall now then the spirituall being inflicted in the very instant of mans sinne how chanced it that the corporall also did not befall him in the day of his sinne especially seeing that though God threatned not death in the instant of his sinne for the instant of his sinne yet at least God saith that man shall die in the day of his sinne Is it peraduenture threatned and not truly decreed or if really decreed how is it not absolutely performed God threatned his death in the day of his eating Adam eateth and yet liueth long after his eating Could Adam change the decree of God or could God decree that hee meant not to performe Hee performed not therefore he decreed not if he decreed not how then was it said In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die the death not of the soule only for that was instantly but of the body principally seeing that is said to be in tempore in the day not in instanti or momentarily Was it a threat only as wee reade of the Niniuites but they changed their minde they repented their sinne therfore as the sentence was conditionall the condition being changed the sentence of God though eternall is said to be reuoked not changed in act but immuted in obiect the act being immutable the obiect mutable according to the decree of the immutable act But here in this of Adam the cause is altered God
threatneth the sinne is committed why then is not the sentence presently executed In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die the death Iustinus the Martyr Iustinus in dialogo cum Triphone Iren. lib. 5. aduersus haereticos in this more acute then Catholike answereth that euen the very same day that Adam was depriued of the spirituall life of his soule he was no lesse also of the other of his body for though he died not the same day according to the naturall reuolution of the heauen yet seeing that a thousand yeeres as Dauid and Peter speake are but as one day in regard of Gods eternitie Adams death being within the compasse of the thousand yeeres may well be said according to Gods and the Scriptures phrase to haue died euen the same day that he was created But seeing true histories doe seldome admit any such subtilities I rather incline to the interpretation of Ierome and S. Austine who vnderstand that sentence of death not of death then instantly inflicted but of the necessitie of death then forthwith contracted Ierome therefore commendeth Symmacus who for that which our translation hath morieris thou shalt die translateth mortalis eris thou shalt become mortall so that whereas hee had beene created to an eternitie of life now he is made subiect to the penaltie of death or as our interpretation seemeth to insinuate euen to death it selfe seeing that euen from thenceforth hee began to be mortall who by grace before was altogether immortall So that as according to true Philosophie wee may say that the alteration of qualities or the dispositions vnto generation are in some sort generation so likewise by this phrase of Scripture that Adam should die in the day of his sinne we may well vnderstand that he began to die dispositiuè by way of disposition in the day of his sinne seeing sinne was the immediate disposition or cause of his mortalitie and death sinne I say being the cause of his mortalitie his mortalitie consequently prepared forthwith the way vnto death For so it is said in the second booke of the Kings We all die and slide away as water for though at the present while we liue we be not iointly dead yet because wee slide away towards death as the flouds towards the Ocean wee are all said to die instantly because our life euen from the first instant thereof is nothing else but a swift sliding towards death yea our temporall life as Gregory the great well noteth compared to the eternall is rather to be called a present death then a continued life seeing that our continuall corruption and declining towards death may rather be tearmed a long or continuall death then euen a very momentarie life CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created AS it is most certaine that the principal end of the creation of Adam was to serue loue honour and obey his Lord and maker so the same likewise was the womans principal end Againe as Adams secondary end was to bee the father of mankinde so was it also Eues to be the mother of all and to bee a comfort and helpe vnto her husband Gen. 2. vers 18. It is not good that man should be alone I will make him an helper meet for him good neither in regard of God of man nor of the world of God for his seruice of man for his helpe of the world for procreation for though this was not absolutely necessary neither in regard of God man or the world yet supposing the decree of God that hee would be preserued by the beautifull disposition and order of this world it was not only most conuenient but in some sort necessary that he should make man a helper and a helper meet for him for though hee could otherwise haue disposed of things by immediate creation yet was it more agreeable to the nature of things and for the sweeter disposition of the course of nature that mankinde should rather be multiplied by naturall course of generation then by supernaturall power and immediate creation Hence peraduenture it may be inferred that seeing God saith it is not good that the man should be himselfe alone that consequently it must be euill if hee bee alone and therefore as by this sentence lawfull matrimonie is confirmed so virginitie by the contrary consequence is condemned for whatsoeuer is opposite to that which is good must necessarily bee condemned as bad as which is nothing else but the priuation of good To this I answer as our Sauiour did to the Sadduces in their obiection touching mariage Matth. the 22.29 verse Yee are deceiued not knowing the Scriptures for as Christ is not against Moses neither the new Testament contrary to the old neither the greater perfection to the lesse so neither is virginitie contrary to matrimonie both are laudable both in their degree excellent but virginitie more laudable more excellent most admirable as by which wee rather imitate the angelicall state and perfection then follow our owne depraued nature and corruption This is the definition of Paul not any humane inuention for thus doth Paul determine this controuersie the 1. to the Corinthians ch 7. vers 25. Now concerning virgins I haue no command of the Lord but I giue mine aduice as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull Loe here virginitie is not commanded but commended not exacted by force but commended through grace neither counselled to all because it cannot be performed of all counselled therefore onely to some and those but few seeing few can attaine to this perfection 1. Cor. c 7. vers 27. My counsell therefore is that of Saint Paul Art thou bound vnto a wife seeke not to be loosed lest loosing the knot which God hath knit thou loose thy selfe Art thou loosed from a wife seeke not a wife here Paul counselleth hee commandeth not neither is his counsell extended to all seeing all cannot be capable of this counsell not onely by nature because this is not any gift of nature but also euen by a lesser measure of grace for though the Sunne of iustice doth shine ouer the iust and vniust and send downe the dew of his grace vnto all yet not with equalitie vnto all but according vnto his good pleasure and will Wherefore as S. Paul prosecuteth If thou takest a wife thou sinnest not and if a Virgin marie she sinneth not verse 37. He that standeth firme in his heart that he hath not neede but hath power ouer his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virgin he doth well so then hee that giueth her to mariage doth well but he that giueth her not to mariage doth better the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liueth but if her husband be dead she is at libertie to marie with whom she will only in the Lord but she is more blessed if she abide in my iudgement and I thinke
thereby to punish him not only in himselfe but euen in his instrument by which hee had committed that hainous offence against his God like as he who breaketh the instrument in hatred of the Musitian who plaied vpon it So likewise in the 20. chapter of Leuiticus God commanded that the beast shall be stoned to death with which any man hath offended thereby to signifie how great the offence is in the sight of God who doth punish it not onely in the principall actor thereof but euen in his instrument thereby to signifie vnto vs how hatefull sinne is seeing often hee doth punish it in his vnreasonable and insensible creatures who are not capable of the sinne it selfe Againe he cursed the serpent for Satans sake as he did the earth for Adams sinne yea and that which is most dreadfull he drowned the world with an vniuersall deluge not sparing the beasts for their owners sinnes The like also we finde in Princes and other Potentates of this world who take vengeance of the innocent for the nocents sake of the sonnes for their fathers offences of their subiects for their Princes outrages So the Poet not as a Poet saith Quic quid delirant Reges plectuntur Achiui The Chastillians bloud in France spilt at the massacre was long after required of the Guisâ—an race The Thracians did beat their wiues because their forefathers had killed Orpheus And Agathocles wasted the Iland Corsyra because in ancient times it gaue entertainment to Vlysses But now the difficultie may be about these words aboue alleaged Vpon thy belly shalt thou goe and shalt eat dust all the dayes of thy life For if it were a serpent before euen the very name doth signifie that it crept vpon its belly if then it was the serpents nature how was it a curse or if a curse how was it his naturall propertie I answer with Ephren and Barcephas in his booke of Paradise that creeping rather proceeded of Gods curse then of the serpents nature who as we reade of other serpents went vpon his feet yea more vpright then any other serpent but as Lucifer his principall mouer became by his sinne a most vgly deuill of a most beautifull Angell so the serpent who was the instrument of Lucifer in this action became a most filthy venomous and detestable creeping beast or worme of a beautifull and vpright going creature Neuerthelesse as I haue already before insinuated the curse pronounced against the serpent is principally to bee vnderstood against the principall author of the temptation and mouer of the serpent to wit the deuill according to the opinion of S. Austine Beda Rupertus Hugo de sancto Victore Caietan and many others so that the deuill as hath beene touched already is called a serpent for his subtiltie and craft in deceiuing of mankinde Againe he is said to be cursed amongst all the beasts of the earth because he is condemned to eternall punishment and whatsoeuer is said to be obscene filthy and abominable in any whatsoeuer beast or other most filthy creature that spiritually is found in the deuill in a higher degree and more detestable measure hee goeth likewise vpon his breast and belly because he tempteth principally in pride and lecherie and therefore most fit to tempt attempt and ouercome the woman as most inclinable to these kinde of vices he especially I say tempteth in pride signified by the breast in lust by the belly Or finally hee goeth vpon his breast which is the seat of the irascible power anger and wrath and vpon his belly because this is the fountaine of all filthy lust and concupiscences CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day that he was created Moses Barcephas supra citatus Philoxinus oratione de arbore vitae Ephren coÌ„ment in Gen. Sabugensis oratione de passione Domini Irenaeus Cyriiâ—us Diodorus Tharsensis SOme thinke that Adam was created the first houre of the sixt artificiall day without the compasse of Paradise and was brought in thither at the third houre afterwards about the sixt houre he eat of the forbidden fruit and finally about the ninth being reprehended by God he was cast out about Sunne setting The reason of this opinion is taken from the words of the serpent vnto Eue Why did God command you that you should not eat of euery tree of Paradise by which words wee may inferre that Adam and Eue had not eaten any thing till that time and consequently that they were but newly brought into Paradise yea that they were created but a little before Neuerthelesse I thinke it more probable Basil homil de Paradiso Damascen l. 2. de fide Orthodexa cap. 10. August li. 11. de gen ad lit cap. 21. l. 20 de ciuitate Dei cap 26. Gregorius lib. 4. dial cap. 1. Tostatus Abulensis super 13. ca pâ—t Gen. Ioseph lib. 1. antiquitat that our first parents persisted more then one day in Paradise and that this was done by the particular prouidence of God to the end that they might the better perceiue the miserie into which they fell by sinne by the knowledge and experience which they had of their former felicitie in Paradise And this is the opinion of S. Basil Damascene Austine Gregory Abulensis and Iosephus Yea it seemeth most probable that our first parents were not one only day in Paradise for otherwise the serpent would not haue asked them why they did not eat of euery tree of Paradise for then it might easily be answered because their necessitie did not require it as yet Wherefore though many haue defined the time of their abode in Paradise to haue beene so many yeeres as our Sauiour liued in this mortall life others fortie dayes according to the time of our Sauiours fast yet if it be lawfull to coniecture in this matter so doubtfull and vncertaine I would thinke that they were only eight dayes in Paradise because this was sufficient for the experience of that happy estate so that as our Sauiour was conceiued as many thinke on the Friday and died on the same day so likewise as some coniecture was the fall of Adam the cause of his death the same day so that Adams fall his creation and redemption was by the particular prouidence of Almighty God wrought as some contemplate vpon one and the same day The which though it be no conuincing reason neither sufficiently grounded in the sacred text yet can it not be denied but that it hath some congruitie and conueniencie in reason that the wound and the remedie should bee in one and the same day appointed to be by God who from eternitie foreseeth the end together with the meanes and decreeth of the end together with the meanes to the end that the common course of time and remembrance of the day might put vs in minde both of our miserable fall by Adam and our more happie redemption by Christ that so wee might continually bewaile our sinnes
parent Adam neither our immediate parents now regenerated in Christ haue in any wise the guiltinesse of originall sinne at the time of our generation how can it therefore possibly come to passe that any such guilt of originall sinne should proceed from them vnto vs Certainly this could not proceed from any matrimoniall act seeing that was and is lawfull in all lawes both of nature Moses and grace how therefore could that which is a sinne and consequently vnlawfull proceed from that which is altogether lawfull Thirdly the actions of our externall powers as of seeing smelling tasting and the like are in no wise voluntary or so tearmed but outwardly only or as the Philosophers tearme is by an extrinsecall denomination or name deriued from our will and this because they haue no freedome or libertie in themselues inwardly but only as they are directed from the inward facultie of the will and therefore as they haue no libertie or free will but only by an externe denomination so neither haue they any sinne inwardly inherent but onely as they are commanded or proceed from the will Therefore after the same manner seeing the soules and willes of the infants haue no libertie or freedome of choice but only by an externe denomination outwardly deriued from the will of Adam now altogether past and of his sinne now forgiuen it must needs follow that they cannot in any wise bee said to haue contracted any sin but only by an externe denomination proceeding from the sin of Adam Fourthly that which in it selfe is according to Gods law neither in any wise contradicting the same cannot be the cause of that which is against the law of God wherefore seeing that matrimonie or the matrimoniall act is according to Gods law it cannot bee the cause or occasion of originall sinne in the infant which is against Gods law Fiftly originall sinne cannot proceed from Adam vnto his posteritie neither as from the morall cause thereof neither as from a physicall naturall or reall cause not morally because as death did proceed from sinne so life if he had perseuered should haue proceeded from grace and originall iustice which was a gift giuen vnto all our nature in Adam not per modum meriti by way of merit as some haue dreamed but gratis otherwise as the Apostle argueth Romans the 11. chapter grace should haue been no grace Now therefore consequently neither doth originall sinne passe vnto vs his posteritie by way of demerit or as a morall effect of sinne seeing that the same reason which doth vrge for the transfusion of this demerit or sinne vnto vs doth also vrge for the transfusion of grace Wherefore seeing he could not be the meritorious cause of our grace because it doth implie contradiction to be deserued and yet to be grace a free gift and graciously giuen neither can he be consequently the morall cause of our originall sinne Neither finally can the sinne of Adam bee the reall or physicall cause of our sinne seeing that his sinne whereof ours should proceed is now neither actuall nor virtuall not actuall because it is forgiuen not virtuall for that then it should be latent in the generatiue power or seed which cannot possibly bee because then it should be attributed to God who is cause of the generatiue power seeing as the Philosophers say causa causae est causa effectus illius secundae causae the cause of any second cause is the cause of the effect proceeding from the second cause Lastly there cannot bee assigned any time or moment in which the sonnes of Adam doe or can contract this originall sinne therefore both according to true Diuinitie and Philosophie it cannot be that we doe really and inwardly in our soules contract any such sinne but rather wee are called sinners in Adam and are said by the Apostle to haue sinned in Adam by reason onely of his fall who was our head The antecedent seemeth certaine because this sinne can neither infect our soules in the first instant of their creation or infusion otherwise the soule should haue it from her creation and consequently it might bee attributed to Almightie God as to the author thereof seeing that as true Philosophie teacheth operatio quae simul incipit cum esse rei est illi ab agente à quo habet esse the action which beginneth iointly with the being of the effect is from that cause from which it hath being And hence Aquinas holdeth as impossible Aquinas 1 parte q. 63. art 15 in corpore Angelum in primo instante creationis suae peccasse quoniam peccatum illud tribueretur Deo that Lucifer sinned in the first instant of his creation because that sinne should haue beene attributed to God which were blasphemous Neither could this sinne bee contracted by vs in the instant in which our soules were infused into our bodies seeing that the immediate subiect of sinne is not the body but the soule or some of the powers of the soule seeing therefore no instant can be assigned in which the sonnes of Adam are infected with this originall crime it followeth necessarily both according to the grounds of reason and Scripture that there is no such infection or corruption inherent in our soules For the better vnderstanding of this fundamentall point so controuerted in all ages we must note first that originall sinne is called peccatum naturae the sinne of nature according to that of Paul Ephesians 2. Wee were by nature the sonnes of wrath because sinne did spot defile or rather corrupt the whole masse of humane nature in our first father Adam from whom as first head and fountaine it hath beene and is deriued Secondly this sinne is called the sinne of the world Iohn chap. 1. Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinne of the world because all men were defiled with this one onely excepted God and man by whom al others were redeemed Thirdly it is also tearmed peccatum humanae conditionis the sinne common to all humane nature because there is not any Christ only excepted which doth not vndergoe this yoke So Ierome explicating that of the 50. Psalme Behold I am conceiued in iniquities saith Hieron super cap. 4. Ezechiel not in the iniquities of my mother but in the iniquities of humane nature which are generall to all humane nature or which hath defiled all mankinde Fourthly the sinne of Adam is called peccatum radicale the radicall sinne or root of sinne because wee being now depriued by it of originall iustice which as it was in Adam so should it also haue beene in vs an antidote against all inordinate desires but now our inordinate appetite and concupiscence which is the root of all euill is let loose to the ouerthrow of all true libertie Lastly wee must note this difference betweene the originall and the actuall sinne of euery particular man besides Adam that the actuall sinne is committed by the actuall will and consent of euery sinner but the
which two attributes as they are to be found in all his workes so without all question most admirable in this his iustice in not leauing vnpunished so foule a fact as originall sinne his mercy in the mercifull manner of the punishment his iustice againe in that he depriued man of the vesture of immortalitie his mercy euen in the same penalty and depriuation of immortalitie least as Moyses Barsephas doth most excellently answer in this point ne ipsius prauitas foret immortalis qualis est diaboli least his wickednes should become immortall such as the Diuels is following the nature of the subiect to which it is adherent Furthermore God therefore punisheth man with this mercifull punishment of death that thereby hee considering the effect might eschew the cause or lastly because out of this mortalitie of man he would produce a more perfect immortalitie in the same man for God fore-seeing that out of Adams posterity should come an infinite multitude of martyrs the sentence of death was pronounced against Adam to the end that many of his posteritie suffering death for the Redeemers sake might supply the places of falne spirits But that we may returne from whence we digressed if God were therefore to be counted deficient in power because he created Adam with such liberty that he could contradict the commandment of his Creator after the same manner might likewise be inferred that now also he hath the like defect or impotencie seeing that now also man hath the like liberty to transgresse because as hee commanded Adam that he should not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and euill so likewise hath hee commanded vs his posteritie that wee should follow the good and eschew the contrary euill now therefore if we do transgresse this law it must needs bee God either allowing or contradicting this transgression if it be by Gods approbation why doth hee prohibite it if contrary to his will why doth he permit it or if hee permit that which is against his will how can such a God bee called omnipotent or lastly if he can hinder that which is euill and doth not how is he good who consenteth and concurreth so euill To these I answer out of the former principles that euen this permission of sinne doth most manifestly demonstrate the infinite wisdome power and goodnesse of God his wisdome in that out of this in a manner so infinite euill hee did worke such an infinite good as is the manifestation of his glory and the incarnation of his Sonne his power in that he could his goodnesse in that hee would But why saith the aduersarie did God prohibite Adam the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill what else could bee his meaning but least he should be able to iudge betweene good and euill and consequently least hee should eschew the euill and prosecute the good how then is not God enuious or how can hee be God who enuieth and prohibiteth that which is good I answer that God did neither absolutely decree that Adam should eat of this fruit neither that he should not eat though he did command him that hee should not eat but left him to his owne free will to eat or not eat hee did forbid him to eat not because the fruit was morally or of it selfe good or euill but in the issue good if he had abstained euill if hee abstained not good by obedience euill by disobedience where fore God did intend in this prohibition to try his obedience and that only was respected in this commandement so that if Adam had obeyed God accordingly as was in his power by the grace of God hee should for a time haue enioyed that terrene Paradise in which he was created and afterward haue beene partaker of the celestiall eternally with his Creator Hence wee see how impiously God is accused of wickednesse and enuie in the forbidding of our first fathers the eating of the tree of good and euill seeing that the eating of this fruit was indifferent of its owne nature as out of which neither good nor euill could proceed but that which God did regard in this commandment was our obedience or disobedience in respect of which hee was after a manner indifferent neither absolutely decreeing the one neither effectually willing the other onely this wee may adde that God did desire and will our first fathers abstinence and therein required his obedience but as this his diuine will had not his efficacie so did hee and might permit the contrary for other respects worthy his diuine prouidence and infinite wisdome which haue been already touched Not of enuie as some haue blasphemously imagined least Adam become immortall for if this blasphemie were consequent to the fore-said prohibition certainely God who foresaw all future euents either would not haue created man or hauing created him would not haue placed him in Paradise so neere vnto the tree of life or at least way hee might either haue hidden or not haue created the tree of life Wherefore the true reason why he forbad him the tree of life was as Moyses Barsephas well noteth ne perpetuò viueret in peccato least he should liue in perpetuall death of sinne as the Deuill doth euer liuing euer dying Lastly the aduersarie obiecteth against the curse of the Serpent for why saith he did God curse the Serpent if hee cursed him as the author of the euill committed why did he not hinder it least it should be committed but if he cursed him as author of that good which was consequent vnto the euill how is that God called good and not rather enuious and wicked who punisheth yea enuieth the author of such an excellent effect Againe if neither of these was the cause of the Serpents curse how may God bee excused of wilfull maliciousnesse or malicious foolishnes The answer to this blasphemy is patent out of that which hath beene already said out of the former obiections to wit that God did therefore curse the Serpent as author of euill neither did hinder him pretending the euill to the intent that he might out of so infinite an euill as was the transgression of the first Adam worke that infinite good of the incarnation of his Sonne and birth of the second Adam for though it be an argument both of his power and goodnesse ex bono efficere melius of good to make better yet it seemeth much more excellent and conuincing euen our naturall capacitie that hee is infinitely potent and good who can ex nihilo perfectissimum producere effectū vel ex pessimo efficere optimum who can I say produce the most perfect good and most excellent effect yea farre exceeding all other created perfection and excellencie of nothing yea euen of that nothing which is most remote from any goodnesse yea is the very priuation of all goodnesse and excellencie CHAP. LXV In which the obiections of Manes are assoiled MAnes that wicked heretike with the rest of his sect
mans fall and his perseuerance in grace for so small a space or hee fore-knew it not if not how was hee God if hee fore-knew it how is hee so presently changed and consequently also no God Againe if we were depriued of the gift of immortalitie bestowed vpon Adam and in him vpon all his posteritie how may it stand with the iustice of God and much more with his infinite mercy that wee should be punished for Adams iniustice the innocent for the guiltie the iust for the vniust Yea how standeth this euen with the word of God and his complaint by Ezechiel chapter 18. verse 2. where God complaineth of this as it seemeth blasphemie of his people What meane you that you vse this prouerbe concerning the land of Israel saying The fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge which is as much as to say our fore-fathers haue sinned and wee are punished for their sinnes How may this stand with the iustice of God seeing God himselfe taxeth this as vniust and as vniustly obiected against him in the third verse of the same chapter where contesting against mans vnrighteousnesse hee protesteth and proueth his owne righteousnesse and iust dealing insinuating thereby yea detesting the contrary as iniustice verse 3. As I liue saith the Lord yee shall not haue occasion any more to vse this prouerbe in Israel to wit that the fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that is that their fathers haue sinned and they were punished against which hee contesteth and that by an oath euen by himselfe in the latter end of the fourth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die that is all that sinne shall die and none shall die but those which sinne hee giueth the reason in the beginning of the verse and that with an ecce behold because he would haue all to acknowledge his iustice with man and how hee vseth equalitie with all men the father as the sonne and the sonne as the father euery one according to his deeds in Christ because all are equally his who saith Behold all soules are mine as the soule of the father so also the soule of the sonne is mine the soule that sinneth it shall die as who would say and none else shall die but who sinneth which may bee proued by the opposite iustice and is exemplified euen by the Prophet as that none shall bee rewarded for anothers righteousnesse so none shall bee punished for anothers vnrighteousnesse for so the Prophet prosecuteth in the fift verse But if a man bee iust and doe that which is lawfull and right and hath not eaten vpon the mountaines neither lift vp his eyes vnto idols of the house of Israel neither hath defiled his neighbours wife neither hath come neere a menstruous woman and hath not oppressed any but hath restored to the debter his pledge hath spoiled none by violence hath giuen his bread to the hungrie and hath couered the naked with a garment he that hath not giuen forth vpon vsurie neither hath taken any increase that hath withdrawne his hand from iniquitie hath executed true iudgement betweene man and man hath walked in my statutes and kept my iudgements to deale truly he is iust he shall surely liue saith the Lord God How then can it bee true that Adams posteritie should bee punished for his sinne or depriued of immortalitie which God had decreed vnto them for Adams transgression Or otherwise how can that bee true which the same Prophet prosecuteth in the twentieth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the wickednesse of the wicked shall bee vpon him Where hee prosecuteth throughout all the chapter prouing and approuing the iustice of God together with the reproofe of mans vnrighteousnesse and iniustice especially from the 29. verse to the end where hee propoundeth and answereth the obiections of his people Yet saith the house of Israel the way of the Lord is not equall O house of Israel are not my wayes equall are not your wayes vnequall Therefore I will iudge you O house of Israel euery one according to his wayes saith the Lord God repent and turne your selues from all your transgression so iniquitie shall not bee your ruine cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you haue transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit for why will you die O house of Israel for I haue no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God wherefore turne your selues and liue Now then if God haue no pleasure in the death of a sinner how hath hee pleasure in his mortalitie hauing created him immortall or how hath hee not pleasure in his death whom for so small a matter as the eating of an apple or some other such like fruit hee depriueth of immortalitie yea contradicteth his owne decree for the fulfilling of the aforesaid reuenge of sinne Againe though wee grant that Adam died for his sinne and iniustice why should wee not likewise say that Noe Melchisedech Abraham and others of the Patriarkes and Prophets were restored vnto immortalitie for their iustice and righteousnesse Wee know that God is alwayes more prone to shew his mercy then to execute his iustice how then may it bee said that here he so withdraweth his mercy and extendeth his iustice Hee often pardoneth the wicked for the godly mens sake and neuer punisheth the iust for the wickeds sinne from whence then is this his crueltie and vniust dealing against those which neuer committed any iniustice Moreouer the sonne of God was incarnate for Adams sinne we ought to bee thankfull euen to the deuill to our selues and to sinne it selfe as occasion of so great good as was the restoring of mankinde to a more blessed estate Lastly if Adams sinne was cause of his death why did not the deuils also die seeing they sinned much more grieuously If you say they died spiritually in that they were depriued of the grace of God why might not the like death suffice also for Adams sinne the death I meane of the soule his body remaining as it was created not subiect to death How did God iustly execute his iustice inflicting a greater punishment vpon Adam for a smaller offence then vpon the deuils for a greater depriuing them only of their spirituall life but Adam both of spirituall and corporall These are the arguments of these heretickes against the iust punishment which God did inflict vpon our first father for his first offence of disobedience by which they would conclude that whether Adam had sinned or remained in his former righteousnesse whether hee had eaten of the forbidden fruit or abstained from it hee had neuerthelesse beene subiect to death because hee was created of his owne nature mortall which nature neither the eating of the
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
had not eaten of the tree of life Againe if it was onely ad melius esse for a better preseruation of our immortalitie due vnto that estate and not absolutely necessary for that effect then consequently it was not the tree of life in the sense which the Scripture insinuateth but an antidote onely against death and not a necessary cause of eternall life I answer that though the argument of Nectar and Ambrosia doth euidently ouerthrow the deitie and immortalitie of the heathen gods yet doth not the simile or comparison any thing impeach the immortalitie and deitie of the true God as neither the immortalitie of our first parents due onely vnto them in their estate of innocencie and which did principally proceed from the true and only immortall God because that immortalitie of life proceeding from the fruit of life was to endure no longer with man then man perseuered in the grace of God which was giuen him as a pawne of eternall life Neither doth this contradict that of the Apostle the wages of sinne is death for though death be due vnto man euen without sinne according to nature yet this debt was to bee remitted by originall grace and the naturall pronenesse thereunto to be redressed by the fruit of life Wherefore though the immediate cause of our immortalitie in Paradise should haue beene the tree of life yet the primarie and principall of all to which the other was consequent was originall grace whose immediate effect was our spirituall life and thereto secondarily followed the freedome from any corporall harme or death yea and this for euer of his owne nature though wee had not beene translated thence to a better life for so it is said of Adam that therefore hee was banished out of Paradise and interdicted the entrance vnto the tree of life lest eating of it hee should liue for euer Genes 3. chap. 22. v. And the Lord God said behold the man is become as one of vs to know good and euill and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and liue for euer therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken Hence I conclude with Abulensis and others esum illius arboris sufficientem habuisse virtutem vt vitam homini praestaret aeternam that this tree of life had sufficient vertue to prolong a mans life for all eternitie The which also is the opinion of S. Austine Aug. li. 13. de â—iuitate Dei cap. 20. 23. Chrys hom â—3 in Gen. Rupertus â—ib 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. Chrysostome and Rupertus lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. where hee addeth this more then other Doctors quòd semel sumptus vitam praestitisset immortalem that this fruit of life had beene sufficient to haue caused immortalitie of its owne nature though it had beene but once receiued the which though it may seeme improbable to humane reason yet considering the omnipotence of God and his infinite loue to man in that estate it cannot at leastway appeare impossible CHAP. X. Whether the vertue of the tree of life to preserue man immortall was naturall vnto it or supernaturall LEst wee erre in the resolution of this question by any equiuocation of words as it falleth out often in the like difficulties of naturall and supernaturall obiects I will first declare how the Diuines vse this distinction and then how it is to be taken here Naturall as farre forth as is necessarie for our present purpose is that which floweth from the principles of nature to wit matter and forme of which as of their only compacts all naturall and corporal substances are composed Supernaturall is that which is aboue all nature or rather cannot in any wise proceed from the principles of nature but as it is aboue all nature so it floweth from that sole principle which is aboue all nature if not only yet principally Secondly naturall oftentimes is taken pro congenito for that which is originally produced with any other thing though it flow not in any wise from the principles of nature or bee not due thereunto so no doubt but if an Angel were created with the light of glory or beatificall vision of Gods essence both the light of glory and the vision of God should be in that sense naturall or rather connaturall vnto the Angell because it was produced together with his naturall substance or essence And the same oftentimes is auerred by the Fathers of man in regard of his originall iustice in which hee was created for though this original iustice did not flow from the principles of nature yet neuerthelesse because it was produced with nature by Almightie God and infused into mans nature as due vnto it in that happy estate therefore it is and may well be termed naturall though in its owne essence it was supernaturall Now by these two distinctions of things naturall wee may euidently inferre what is supernaturall namely that which is aboue both these kindes of acceptions or distinctions of naturall obiects that is which neither floweth from the principles of nature neither is any way due vnto nature as originall iustice was due vnto vs in Adam before our fall and corruption of nature This distinction presupposed the difficultie consisteth in this whether the vertue of the tree of life for to preserue man from corruption may bee called naturall or rather is to bee deemed supernaturall Strabo answereth Strabâ— in Gen. Lignum vitae hanc naturaliter habuisse virtutem that the tree of life had naturally this vertue that he who did eat of that fruit should be endued with perpetuall health neither should bee touched with any infirmitie wearinesse or irksomenesse which are wont to be the companions of age Hugo de Sancto Victore addeth Lignum vitae habuisse in se naturam vt perpetuaret homini vitam si competentèr ederetur that the tree of life had that vertue in it to perpetuate our life if it were taken competently For man saith he was made mortall and immortall immortall because hee could not die by reason of that immortall food mortall because he might haue died by outward violence But God had so inwardly fortified him by the tree of life and outwardly by his diuine power that hee could not die Againe because hee had shut vp within him the gate of negligence by the vigilance of humane reason outwardly also the gate of violence by the diuine protection insomuch that vnlesse man abusing his reason should open the gate of negligence neuer any harme should enter into him by the gate of violence But because hee was not carefull to keepe the charge committed vnto him God therefore forsooke the custodie and care he had ouer him S. Austine on the contrary side thinketh that the vertue of this tree of life was supernaturall for so he saith in his 8 booke de Gen ad literam cap. 5. That though
the reward yet neuerthelesse the all-seeing and infinite good God doth neuer leaue the least loue of man without his reward It is necessary saith Paul that hee who doth come vnto God should beleeue and especially beleeue that he is a rewarder Wherefore as the first act of a regenerate person is faith so the first obiect of this act is touching our end for as the Philosopher saith quod est primum in intentione est vltimum in executione that which is first in intention or speculation is last in practise or execution and contrariwise that which is first in practise and execution is last in intention and speculation Wherefore as our supernaturall end and felicitie is the last thing which wee are to enioy so is it the first and principall which we ought to seeke and intend and if this bee true in all our actions it must needs bee much more in this of faith which is as Paul said the substance ground or confidence of things hoped for and of all our supernaturall actions By this it is manifest that the measure of the knowledge of the meanes of this supernaturall felicitie was according to the perfection of the apprehension and notice of this end insomuch that as this end may be attained vnto by a threefold meane so was man ordained thereunto by the same meanes to wit faith hope and loue faith for the discouerie of the obiect of our felicitie hope for the effectuating of the meanes of our happinesse loue for the combining of both the meanes a triple cord with a triple knot which not euen the power of Satan shall be able euer to dissolue Againe it seemeth most certaine that he knew the fall of the damned spirits because he might by the knowledge of this be much holpen in the obtaining of his end as thereby inferring the seueritie of the diuine iudgement towards the Angels and his infinite mercy towards men by the one he might be moued to feare the like seueritie if himselfe should fall and hope to replenish the places of the fallen Angels if he should stand The third obiect reuealed vnto Adam was the mysterie of the blessed Trinitie how God I meane was three in one and one in three three in distinction of persons one in the indiuisibilitie of nature being and essence and all his other infinite attributes the which though distinguished for our capacitie according to their obiects yet he well vnderstood them to bee one and the same in nature realitie and simplicitie of essence My reason why I thinke the reuelation of this obiect vnto Adam to be certaine is seeing that the sight of it is to be the perfection of our blessednesse in the life to come it must needs be also a beginning of it here wherefore as it is there by a perfect sight face to face so it must be likewise here in speculo in aenigmate with imperfection and obscuritie Yea seeing Adam knew himselfe to be made to the image of God three in one and one in three in his simple essence and his three spirituall powers so he must needs inferre the same of his prototypon and Creator Lastly hee had reuealed vnto him the incarnation of the Sonne of God not as passible for his sinne which certainly hee did not foresee but as to bee vnited to our nature for the excellencie of the mysterie and because he was to bee the head of mankinde CHAP. XLII Whether Adam was created in the grace of God or no. THough it be out of all controuersie that Adam was before his fall in the state of grace yet many bee of opinion that hee was not created so this was the opinion of Alex. Hales Scotus Bonan Marsilius and Altisiodorensis who though they grant that he was created in originall iustice yet distinguishing these two they deny that hee was created in state of grace their reason is because by grace there is contracted a spirituall kinde of wedlocke league and vnion betweene God and our soules Now then as matrimoniall vnion requireth the consent of both the parts so likewise here and the rather that Adam thereby might the better know himselfe and the weaknesse of his owne nature by an after infusion of grace Neuerthelesse it seemeth much more probable that though wee distinguish grace from originall iustice or howsoeuer that Adam was created in grace for as S. Austine saith God created the first man in that estate in which if hee would haue kept himselfe hee should haue beene transposed at his due time without any death vnto a better estate and where as he could haue committed no sinne so could hee haue had no will vnto sinne so that it was with Adam as the same Father saith in another place of the Angels God did simul condere naturam largiri gratiam ioyntly create his nature and giue him grace yea this according to the opinion of Origen Victorinus Basil Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Beda and Rupertus is signified by these words let vs make man according to our image and likenesse image to wit in nature and her proprieties similitude according to grace and her euer following vertues yea this is insinuated by Paul himselfe in his epistle to the Colossians 3. chap. 9. and 10. verses where he saith that wee should not lie one to another seeing that wee haue put off the old man with his works haue put on the new man which is renewed with knowledge after the image that created him CHAP. XLIII Whether if Adam had not falne all his posteritie should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God and confirmed in the same HVgo de sancto Victore answereth that though Adam had begot children in his innocencie yet that his children should not haue beene borne inheritors of their fathers righteousnesse because righteousnes proceedeth not of flesh and bloud but of the meere grace of God so though they had not beene borne in sinne yet neither should they haue beene endued with originall iustice Neuerthelesse the common tenent of Diuines doth perswade the contrary to wit that as Adam by his sinne did transfuse into his posteritie the imputation of sinne together with the crime it selfe so likewise if hee had kept the same originall iustice in which hee was created he should also haue deriued the same vnto all his posteritie And this in effect is the meaning of the Arauficane Counsell where it defineth Adamum peccando sanctitatem iustitiam perdidisse non sibi tantum sed omnibus etiam posteris suis that Adam lost both his sanctitie and righteousnes by his originall sin and transgression not only in regard of him selfe but also to all his posteritie Neither may it bee inferred hence that then grace were no grace as Paul speaketh seeing that it should be cōnaturall in the aforesaid cause for though in some sense it should haue been connaturall that is hauing her being together with nature yet seeing it was not of nature neither due vnto
proceeding from Adams and giue humble and hearty thankes for the infinite mercies receiued by Christ CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise THe Originists doe vnderstand this allegorically so that by this kinde of custodie is meant nothing else but the particular prouidence of God by which our first parents were depriued of all hope of returning to Paradise Others thinke that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is mystically vnderstood a twofold impediment or means by which we be now debarred from the celestiall Paradise the first inuisible of the inuisible spirits and deuils according to that of Paul to the Ephesians the last chapter verse 12. For we wrestle not against flesh and bloud but against principalities against powers and against the gouernours of this world the Princes of darknesse against spirituall wickednesses which are in high places The second impediment as these Authors say mystically signified by the fiery sword is the perpetuall fight of flesh and bloud in our spirituall battell as well in prosperitie as aduersitie according to our Sauiours words Matth. 11. chap. 12. verse The kingdome of heauen suffereth violence and the violent take it by force and that of Iob Militia est vita hominis super terram Or rather as other doe interpret we may vnderstand by these lets of accesse to Paradise three principall hinderances of accesse to the celestiall Paradise by the Cherubin which is interpreted the fulnesse of science wisdome and knowledge may be vnderstood too much curiositie of science and spirituall pride oftentimes contained therein much repugnant to the simplicitie and puritie of Christian faith By the fiery sword may bee vnderstood as some Authors doe allegorize all enflaming lusts and vices proceeding from the sensitiue appetite the which as it is twofold concupiscible and irascible so is it signified by the fire and sword or fiery sword the which being voluble or as it were wheeling about and alwayes in a perpetuall motion doth plainly expresse the perpetuall inconstancie volubilitie and motion of humane matters Aquinas and Tertullian thinke Aquinas 2. 2 ae quaest 165. ar vlt. that by the Cherubin and fierie sword is vnderstood the place and situation of Paradise vnder the aequinoctiall line or Torrida Zona the firest Climate of the world But certainely the heat of this place is naturall vnto it and proceeding from the neerenesse of the Sunne as the Mathematicians doe demonstrate and therefore could not bee occasioned by the sinne of man much lesse proceede thereof as a naturall effect of sin which in it selfe hath no reall being but is rather the priuation of goodnesse according to its formall essence and being Lyra. in Genesim Lyranus thinketh that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is vnderstood a mighty and flaming fire issuing out of the mountaine of Paradise defending and compassing it round about in the manner of a wall Ambros of in Psalm 118. Ambrose vpon the Psalme 118. thinketh the fore-sayd flaming sword to be the fire of Purgatory by which the soules that depart our of the world not altogether purified are cleansed before their entrance into Heauen But to omit the controuersie of Purgatory this cannot bee seeing that the sword and Cherubin were placed at the entrance of Paradise as is manifest in the Text lest Adam should enter into Paradise and participate of the tree of life for so saith the Text Gen. 3 ver 24. Thus he cast out man and at the East side of the garden of Eden he set the Cherubins and the blade of a sword shaken to keepe the way of the tree of life That therefore which seemeth most probable in this poynt is that the words of the aforesayd text are to be vnderstood literally of a true Angelicall custody of Paradise and fiery swords the first against the infernall spirits the second for to terrifie man The Diuels were repelled and kept from this place of Paradise lest they should deceiue man by the tree of life promising him thereby a perpetuity of life such as he should haue enioyed if he had not falne man also was banished out of the same place not onely by the iust iudgment of Almighty God executed vpon him for his disobedience but also by a fatherly diuine prouidence and tender loue towards mankinde lest eating of the forbidden fruit which was of immortality a sufficient cause I meane to make him immortall he should liue an immortall life in this vale of misery and so become miserably immortall and immortally miserable CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished out of Paradise wherein two auncient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne TVrrianus in his Epistle to the Bishop of Towres alledgeth as an ancient opinion of diuers Doctors that originall sinne was that which the soule had coÌ„mitted before it was infused into the body which opinion seemeth first to haue beene taken from Origenes who held that the soules of men being first created altogether in heauen were cast downe thence into this vale of misery and ioyned vnto these materiall and grosse substances of our bodies in punishment of their sinne committed in heauen before their vnion to their bodies But this is euidently convinced as false out of many places of Scripture for if originall sinne was contracted in heauen how was it contracted by Adam in Paradise and if we did all contract it by one how did wee all contract it in our selues by our selues according to that of Paul Rom. 5. chap. vers 12. By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne so death went ouer all men forasmuch as all men haue sinned vers 16. Neither is the gift so as that which entred in by one that sinned for the fault came of one offence vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification vers 18 19. As by the offence of one the fault came on all men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men to the iustification of life Where wee may manifestly see contraposed death and life iustice and iniustice condemnation and iustification these as proceeding from the obedience of Christ those as flowing from the disobedience of Adam The second opinion in this point is that our originall sinne doth not consist in any qualitie or accident inherent in the substance of our bodies or soules or in any priuation of any excellencie or good qualitie which wee ought to haue retained in our soules but euen in the substance of our corporall and spirituall nature the reason is for whatsoeuer is not conformable to the law of God is sinne but all our nature is corrupt and auerse from the law of God therefore the whole nature of man both body and soule being thus corrupt and become abominable in the sight of God is sinne But thus it would follow as S. Austin well vrgeth against the Manichâ—es who held some things to be
originall commeth only by Adams sinne and transgression and thereby is transfused and passed into vs. Wherefore God speaking not of the former but of the latter Ezechiel chap. 18. saith The soule that hath sinned shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither the father the sonnes iniquitie the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the impietie of the wicked vpon him On the contrary side originall sinne being the sinne of nature requireth only the free libertie of the first and principall head of nature because his will is reputed as the vniuersall will of all whence it is that wee must not thinke that when the childe is first conceiued and the soule first infused into the body that then I say it may bee deemed to sinne but rather that then it is conceiued in sinne so Dauid saith that he was conceiued in sinne not that he sinned in his conception For though both insinuate a true sinne in vs yet the one that is originall sinne is thereby signified to be deriued from Adam vnto vs yea also to be inherent in vs the other that is actuall sinne is from our selues and of our selues whence it is that the person of Adam was first infected with this originall contagion and then his nature but in vs contrariwise first the nature is infected then the person depraued These things presupposed my first conclusion is that it is a point of catholike faith that all those who descend of the seede of Adam by ordinary meanes are infected with this generall maladie of originall sinne Wherefore God threatneth Gen. 13. that he whose flesh is not circumcised shall be blotted out of the booke of God Aug. lib. 3 de peccato originali cap. 30. 35. li. â— dâ— nupt ijs â— concupiscentijs cap. 17 because hee hath made frustrate his couenant out of which testimonie S. Austine thus argueth against the Pelagians The infants did not frustrate this couenant made with God by any actuall sinne seeing they could not commit any actually therefore they contracted originally by originall sinne deriued from Adam The second testimonie which proueth this point is out of the 51. Psalme where Dauid saith Behold I am conceiued in iniquities and my mother conceiued mee in sinne Out of which place almost all the Greeke and Latine Fathers doe inferre the foresaid conclusion especially Origenes Basil and Chrysostome who in his 3. booke in Leuiticum cap. 12. noteth that Dauid doth not by these words accuse any sinne of his mothers but that he calleth nature his mother signifying thereby that the filth and impuritie of Adams sinne hath descended vpon all his posteritie Yea this is also the exposition of Eutimius Hilarius Ruffinus Innocentius tertius Beda Gregory Ambrose and Hierome who also alleage for the same conclusion Eccles cap. 4. a heauie yoake vpon the sonnes of Adam from the day of their birth vnto the day of their death which place S. Austine thus explicateth Quid est graue iugum nisi peccatum What is this heauie yoake but sinne And why is it called a yoake but because it proceedeth from two the male and the female of the good and of the bad and because it is a yoake in both the sexes therefore it is said to bee a heauie yoake vpon the children of Adam therefore in that he said vpon the sonnes of Adam he made no difference of ages no distinction of sexes and by the comparing of sinne vnto a yoake hee made all men equall Christ only excepted who was not borne as others were of corruption and sinne Many of the Fathers August lib. 6 contra Donatistas cap. 12. lib. 1 de piccatorum me ritis remissione cap. 17. 20. 29. 30. lib. 2. cap. 27. and principally S. Austine doth deduce this our conclusion out of the 3. of Iohn where our Sauiour saith that vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen out of which place though Bellarmine with most of the Doctors of the church of Rome doe inferre an absolute necessitie of baptisme by reason of the generall exception made by our Sauiour that vnlesse a man be borne of water he cannot be saued yet neuerthelesse this is not so to bee vnderstood of the materiall water but of the grace of God purging and cleansing vs as water doth as a reuerend Author of this age doth wel expound Attersol in his 2 book of the sacrament of baptisme chap. 5. which interpretation may be gathered by conference of a like place Matth. 3. vers 11. hee shall baptise with the holy Ghost and with fire that is by the spirit of God which is as it were fire lightning our hearts with the knowledge of God enflaming them with his loue and purging them from all euill affections So when wee are said to bee borne againe by water and the spirit he meaneth by the spirit shewing forth in vs the force power and propertie of water as if he should say we are borne of water which is the spirit as Iohn 7.38.39 and 4.21 Againe if it were meant of water in baptisme it must bee vnderstood according to a like sentence Iohn 6.53 Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you which must bee vnderstood of such as are of yeeres according to the exposition of Innocentius 3. Decret Gregor lib. 3. tit 42. cap. 3 Lumbardus lib 4. sent distinct 4. and Peter Lumbard the master of the sentences But to leaue the confirmation of this point as touching the saluation of infants vnbaptised S. Chrysostome Theodoretus S. Austine with many other Doctors doe euidently deduce the foresaid conclusion out of the 5. to the Romans Rom. 5. where Paul saith that by one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne death passed vnto all men in which all haue sinned Irencus l. 5. cap. 17. 19. Athan. de iâ—carnatione verbi Bâ—siâ— super Psalmos 32. 50. Concilium MilevitanuÌ„ Araustâ—anum Jâ—stinus Martir Greg Nazian oratione 42. in sanctum Pascha oratione 38 in Christi nattuttate Chrysâ—stomus de Adamo Eua. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 1. in Gen. Theodoretus in Psalmum 50. Damascenus lib 2 fâ—leâ— Orthodoxae Origines super epistolam ad Romanos c. 6. Cyprian epistola 59. Hilarius Pictariensis ad Psalmum 18. Ambros l. de Tobia c. 9. ad Psal 48. l. 1. de poenitentia c. 2. Hierom ad cap. 42. Zech Fulgentius de gratia Jesu Chrsti cap. 31. Bernard seria 4. hebdomadae paenosae de passione Domini Yea this is plainely the opinion of the Milevitan and Arausican Councels of Iustine Martyr Ireneus Athanasius Cirillus Nazianzen Chrysostome Cirillus Alexandrinus Theodoretus Damascenus Origenes Cyprianus Hilarius Pictaviensis Ambrose Ierome Fulgentius Bernard and many others Now it remained that I should haue answered to all and euery of the
wherevpon it followeth that though Eue had sinned if Adam had not we should not haue been borne in sinne Aquinas giueth another reason quia mulier passiue se habet ad generationem prolis because the woman doth onely concurre passiuely vnto generation but whether this be true or no quod medicorum est curent medici tractent fabrilia fabri one thing seemeth most certaine that this dependeth more on the secret will of Almighty God then of any naturall reason and consequence which may be deduced out of the principles of nature CHAP. LXII What punishments be due vnto originall sinne in this life I Answer briefly that the first punishment due vnto originall sinne and which was first of all inflicted vpon man was the priuation of originall iustice as proceeding from God and as it did subdue the inferiour portion of the soule vnto the superiour and the superiour vnto God The second punishment proceeding from the first was in the soule and her powers both vnderstanding and will not that any thing essentiall either to the soule or her powers is taken away but that they are not so able to exercise their functions as they should haue beene being endued with originall iustice The third punishment of originall sinne was that both Adam and his posteritie became thereby subiect to all corporall infirmities yea euen vnto death it selfe and many other expressed in the third chapter of Genesis vers 16. I will greatly increase thy sorrowes and thy conceptions in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children thy desire shall bee to thy husband and hee shall haue the rule ouer thee Verse 17. Vnto Adam hee said because thou hast hearkened vnto the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree concerning the which I commanded saying thou shalt not eat of it cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the dayes of thy life Verse 18. Thornes also and thistles shall it bring forth vnto thee and thou shalt eat of the hearbes of the field Verse 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou bee turned againe to the ground for out of it was thou taken for dust thou art and into dust shalt thou be turned againe Now seeing this naturall death could not naturally bee effectuated so long as Adam was in Paradise because the tree of life retained his vertue wherewith man might renew his age therefore Almighty God addeth in the same chapter verse 22. 23. and 24. And now lest peraduenture hee put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and liue for euer therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to dresse the ground whence he was taken And so he droue out man and at the East side of the garden of Eden he set the Cherubins and a flaming sword which turned euery way to keepe the way of the tree of life CHAP. LXIII What punishment is due vnto originall sin in the other life AL the difficultie of this point is wholly as concerning those who depart out of this world without baptisme whereby the guilt of originall sinne as many hold should haue been taken away wherefore the question is what becommeth of these or what punishment is due vnto them for this sin supposing that it be not taken away as certainly it is not at leastway in those that are not comprehended in the couenant of grace The common opinion of the schoole-Diuines in this point is that the innocents vnbaptised either baptismo sanguinis fluminis or flaminis either with the baptisme of bloud to wit of martyrdome or of the holy Ghost by some supernaturall act or habit sufficient to iustification or finally by the ordinary baptisme of water that such I say are punished with the losse of their supernaturall blessednesse though not with any other sensible punishment This is expresly the opinion of S. Ambrose vpon that of the 5. chapter to the Romans as by one man where thus hee declareth his minde in this point Death is the resolution of the body when the soule is separated from the body there is also another death which is called the second death vnto hell which wee doe not suffer through Adams sinne but this is gotten by our owne proper actuall sinne though by the occasion of the other Yea if wee onely attend vnto the nature of originall sinne contracted by the aforesaid innocents we shall finde that they are altogether vncapable of the punishment of hell fire for who will say that a man might iustly bee cast in prison or beaten for his originall sin seeing it was neuer in his power to auoid it much lesse therefore were it iust Lumbar 2. dist 33. Bonau ibid. ar 3. q. 1. Rich. ar 3. q. 1. Dur. q. 3. Scotus q. vnica Gal r. q. 1. ar 2. concla 1. seq Marsil in 2 q. 19. ar 5. post 2. conclusionem Alex. 1. par q. 39. mem 3 ar 4. Dom. Sotus l. 1. de natura gratia ar 4. cap. 14. Cath. in opusc peculiari de hac re that any man should suffer the eternall torments of hell fire for that sinne which hee neuer committed neither was euer in his power to auoid it wherefore this is the most common opinion of the Schooles that the infants or others who die with originall sinne only shall not suffer any sensible torment of hell fire though they bee eternally excluded from the company of the blessed in heauen and the glorious sight of Almighty God and this in particular is the opinion of the master of the sentences Bonauenture Richardus Durand Scotus Marsilius Gabriel Alexander Sotus and lastly of the Councell of Florence in the last session in literis vnionis The second opinion of other schoole-Diuines is that the said vnbaptised innocents are to bee punished in the other world not only with the losse of the sight of God their essentiall blisse but also with other sensible torments euen with hell fire it selfe This is plainly the opinion of S. Austine l. 5. hypognosticon post medium and in his booke de fide ad Petrum c. 27. 44. But if these be not so certainly Austines workes the second at least is of the learned Bishop Fulgentius and the other of some learned Author yea whosoeuer be the authors of those it is most certaine that Austine was of this opinion in his 14. sermon of the words of the Apostle where he saith infantes in peccato originali discedentes ex hac vita deputandos esse ad sinistram ad ignem aeternum that the infants that depart out of this world in originall sinne are to be deputed to the left hand vnto euerlasting fire Againe in his fift booke against Iulian the 8. chapter a little after the midst he auerreth hanc poenamignis seruatam esse infantibus quanta verò futura sit non audet definire that this punishment of fire is reserued for infants though as he
doe most blasphemously accuse the wisdom of God as touching the fore-said commandement of abstaining from the tree of good and euill for saith he doubtles when God did giue this law vnto our first fathers hee thought that they would obey it which seeing they did not God as Manes obiecteth was deceiued Secondly he accuseth God of vniust wrath and indignation in that he condemned man for so small a matter as the eating of an apple Finally he accuseth him of ignorance mutabilitie and contradiction to himselfe in that ignoring his future compassion towards man hee did frustrate the law which hee himselfe had made yea and contradicted the sentence of death as rashly pronounced by himselfe against Adam Here we may see how as Tertullian saith God of his infinite goodnes and mercy suffereth himselfe to bee dishonoured in his other infinite attributes and dietie but that it may bee apparent that these blasphemies haue not any ground euen in naturall reason we answer that though all things and consequently the disobedience of Adam was perfectly fore-knowne by God Almighty yet neuerthelesse it was conformable to reason that Adam being a reasonable creature should haue this law of obedience prescribed vnto him so conformable to reason first for to manifest the absolute power dominion and authoritie of God the Creator ouer his creature and the due subiection of the creature towards his Creator Secondly this law of obedience was most profitable vnto man though foreknowne that it was to be violated by man most profitable I say it was both in regard of the manifestation of Gods iustice and mercy as also for the exercise and tryall of the good and bad righteous and vnrighteous a necessarie obiect of the afore-said attributes Now if this law should therefore haue beene omitted because God fore-knew the transgression thereof by the same reason or rather no reason no other law should haue beene prescribed vnto man seeing there is no law either of nature or grace which God in his fore-knowledge did not foresee would be often-times violated by man Furthermore as touching the blasphemie against the wrath of God I answer that it is not to be attributed to God as signifying any passion or mutation in the immutable or impassible God but that this shadow of change or shew of mutabilitie is attributed vnto him who in his nature is altogether immutable because hee seeing the wickednesse of man he worketh those effects which in vs bee euident tokens and signes of mutabilitie and change Nay secondly I adde that after Adam had transgressed the commandement of God God pronounced against him the afore-said sentence of death more moued by mercy then of any anger or wrath which wee may euidently see in that hee did not die the same day of his transgression according as the sentence which God pronounced against him seemed to threaten so that whether wee respect the sentence giuen before Adams disobedience or the execution of the same after his sinne we may admire the infinite mercy of the Almighty in both both in regard of Adam and his posteritie as also in regard of the sentence threatned to be inflicted so immediatly after their sinne so that euen in his iustice wee may magnifie his mercy and say with the Psalmist misericordia eius super omnia opera eius that his mercy aboundeth in all his workes yea and is aboue all his works because as the Diuines say remunerat vltra condignum punit citra condignum he rewardeth our workes farre beyond their worth which is none at all vnlesse it bee in Christ and punisheth our sinnes much lesse then they deserue To the other blasphemie which Manes vseth against the Almighty God in accusing him of repentance and mutabilitie I answer that we must first suppose what it is to repent or to be sorry for any thing which wee haue done For repentance or sorrow supposeth ignorance in vs of future euents yea of such as are noxious or hurtfull to those who are affected with the afore-said passion both which are farre vnfitting the all-seeing science and omnipotent power of God who did not remit the rigour of this sentence moued by sorrow or repentance as it happeneth in vs but rather as we haue said before by his infinite mercy and clemencie to the end that his infinite goodnesse and mercy might bee the more manifest vnto vs. In like manner wee may say that when any sinner doth turne from his former being in sinne God Almightie in some sort may bee said to remit the rigour of his sentence pronounced against him and this not by reason of any ignorance or mutable repenting himselfe of the former fact or threatning as Manes blasphemously obiecteth but rather hee remitteth out of his infinite clemencie the sentence of damnation which conditionally hee had decreed to wit if the sinner had not repented himselfe of his sinne an example of which wee finde in the commination of doome and vtter destruction threatned not absolutely but conditionally against the Niuiuites Ionae 3. that they should vtterly bee destroied within forty dayes 4. Reg. 20. likewise against Ezechias that hee should die for his sinnes whom neuerthelesse God pardoned vpon their repentance and the like also wee finde in others most hainous offenders against whom God hauing denounced his wrath neuerthelesse pardoned vpon their sorrow contristation and humiliation Now as touching the lie which this hereticke obiecteth against God in that hee threatned death vnto man in the day of his transgression which neuerthelesse was not inflicted I answer that as man is composed of body and spirit so likewise the death threatned against him was both corporall and spirituall which both were in some sort inflicted euen in the very instant of his transgression the spirituall in the separation of his spirit from God and his grace wherein consisted his spirituall and supernaturall life the corporall in the perturbation of his affections and powers both spirituall and corporall which was a kinde of beginning of a neuer dying death beginning in this life and which according to the present iustice of God if it had beene executed was to haue beene consummated in the other life or rather eternall death if so be that this first lapse and fall had not been remitted not of mans merit but by Gods mercy CHAP. LXVI The obiections of Theodorus and Nestorius THeodorus Bishop of Laodicea and Nestorius Patriarke of Constantinople with diuers others of the Greeke Church were of opinion that sinne was not the occasion of death but that man should haue died though hee had not sinned because mortalitie is consequent to nature as immortalitie proceedeth only of grace How then is it possible vnlesse God can contradict and denie himselfe or that one of the diuine decrees can be opposite to another that God should first decree the immortalitie of man then presently vpon his transgression the obiect being changed God also should be changed in his decree for either God fore-knew
CHAP. XXVIII To what end was Adam placed in Paradise CHAP. XXIX Whether the commandement of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill was giuen aswell to Eue as to Adam and how that was CHAP. XXX Why God commanded that Adam should not eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill CHAP. XXXI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created CHAP. XXXIV What sleepe that was which God caused to fall vpon Adam for the creation of Eue and whether it was a true sleepe or no CHAP. XXXV Why Eue was created of Adams ribbe and not immediately of the earth and how that could be without any griefe to Adam CHAP. XXXVI Why and how Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had persisted in Paradise CHAP. XXXIX Whether there should haue beene more men or women in the state of innocencie or rather an equalitie of both sexes and how there could haue beene any women seeing they are said to proceed out of the defect of nature CHAP. XL. Of the prerogatiues and excent gifts wherewith Adam was endued in the state of innocencie and first as touching his knowledge and naturall wisdome of naturall things CHAP. XLI Of the knowledge which Adam had of things aboue nature CHAP. XLII Whether Adam was created in the grace of God or no. CHAP. XLIII Whether if Adam had not fallen all his posteritie should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God and confirmed in the same CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall CHAP. XLV What kinde of Serpent that was which tempted Eue. CHAP. XLVI Whether that which Moses saith that the Serpent was craftier then all beasts of the earth is to be vnderstood of the true Serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. XLVII What was the reason why the woman was not afraid to speake with the Serpent CHAP. XLVIII Why the Deuill tooke the shape of a serpent rather then of any other creature and why Moses made no mention of the Deuill seeing he was the chiefe tempter CHAP. XLIX Whether when God cursed the serpent it is to be vnderstood of the true serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day he was created CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and Sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished Paradise wherein two ancient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne CHAP. LIII In which diuers other opinions touching originall sinne are refuted CHAP LIV. Whether originall sinne consist in any priuation or no CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is discussed and reiected and the true doctrine of originall sinne set downe CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. LVII Wherein diuers difficulties are solued against the former doctrine CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary there should be made any couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the body in the posteritie of Adam by his originall sinne CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in vs if either Adam only or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree CHAP. LXII What punishments bee due to originall sinne in this life CHAP. LXIII What punishment is due to originall sinne in the other life CHAP. LXIV The obiections of Simon Magus against the aforesaid doctrine of the creation of man and his being in Paradise CHAP. LXV In which the obiections of Manes are assoiled CHAP. LXVI The obiections of Theodorus and Nestorius against originall sinne are solued CHAP. I. Whether there was euer any such place as Paradise or rather the description of Moses is to be vnderstood Allegoricallie and so to be referred vnto the minde onely AS there is nothing in nature so plain which may not be contradicted neyther any thing so pure which may not be defiled so nothing so euident in Gods Worde which hath not beene opposed Such is our nature after our fall and such our daily most lamentable lapses after our first lapse and originall Fall Insomuch that ignoring the cause of our infinite misery we become desperately sicke and of our selues and nature without remedy Wherfore my intent beeing chiefly to shew vs our end and eternall felicity I will first shew the place and demonstrate the grace from which we fell that thereby knowing the infelicity of our fall and place from which we fel we may be more thankfull vnto God for that felicity place and grace vnto which we are exalted after our fall and so come to a more perfect blessednes after our fall then that which wee possessed before we fell or should haue possessed in Paradise if wee had not falne Now therefore as touching this place of our first happinesse and from whence our misery was first deriued I will begin with a worthy Prelate who though hee was one of the chiefest Doctors of the Church of God yet being to explicate these very difficulties of Paradise Ambrosius de Paradyso in principio capitis primi was not ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance De Paradiso adoriendus sermo non mediocrem nobis oestum videtur incutere quid nam sit Paradysus et vbi sit qualisue sit inuestigare explanare cupientibus maxime Apostolus siue in corpore siue extra corpus nesciat raptū se tamen dicat vsque ad tertiū coelū 2 Cor. 12. idemque testetur se ibi audiuisse arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui Being to speake saith this Father of Paradise it doth not a litle trouble me to search out and explane what Paradise is where it is what manner of place it is especially seeing the Apostle saith that he was rapt thither into the third heauen where hee heard such things as bee not lawfull for any mortall man to vtter By which words he signifieth two things the first that that place was Paradise vnto which S. Paul was carried the which opinion in what sense it may bee verified it shall afterward be explicated the second thing there to be noted is that it is impossible for man to declare what kinde of place that was vnto which the Apostle was carried vnlesse peraduenture it might haue been by him who had that speciall priuiledge to be carried thither Hence peraduenture it is that Origenes Philo the Hermetians and Seleucians were
that he did not only giue vnto him what was necessary or conuenient for his naturall estate there but also added other most extraordinarie meanes and helpes both naturall and supernaturall conuenient and necessarie for both his estates of nature and grace such was this of the tree of life which as some well note according to the originall text was called the tree or wood not of life onely in the singular but in the plurall of liues because it was so to lengthen the life of euery man that euery singular and particular mans life might well seame the life not of one onely man but of many Whereby we may first admire the power of Almighty God secondly his goodnesse towards man his power in the creating of such a fruite his goodnesse in bestowing it vpon him whom he knew was in so short a time after to be so vngratefull for that and many other most excellent as well naturall as supernaturall gifts The second reason why it is tearmed the tree of liues is because as a man hath three liues virtually if not really distinct the sensitiue vegetatiue and rationall so this fruite of the tree of liues should haue had vertue to fortified all three in which also we may note the wisedome of God but more againe his mercy his wisedome in that hee knew to produce incorruption at least way for many yeares if not eternall as many hold by a continuall repairing of nature by the eating of the said apple but more againe I say may we admire his mercy and bountie by which he sought meanes to eternize him whom he knew by his fall was to bee his owne death yea the death of his most deare and eternall sonne which was the true tree of life prefigured by this tree of life or liues so also called because it was not to giue or prolong the life of Adam only but also the liues of his posteritie vntill such time as it should please their Maker to translate them from that earthly beatitude vnto a more perfect and supernaturall estate Man 17. where as Saint Austine saith they were to possesse in a more perfect measure and that through all eternity ioy without sorrow rest without labour honour without feare wealth without damage health without sicknesse aboundance without care life with all security immortalitie without corruption all happinesse with no miserie at all Where all perfection is in the highest degree and all imperfections remote where sight is face vnto face where perfect knowledge and nothing vnreuealed of which humane nature can be capable where Gods soueraigne goodnesse raigneth super omnia aboue al things and the light enlightening is glorified of the Saints where the present maiestie of the Almightie is perpetually beholden and the minde of the beholders eternally filled with this fruit of life Fourthly it was called the tree of life or liues because it did after a double manner sustaine and renew the life of man first in restoring our naturall moisture by which wee liue which consumeth euery day more and more by our naturall heat which was a proprietie common also to all other fruits of Paradise Secondly in that which was proper to this tree only and for which it was particularly tearmed the tree of life because it was of such qualities and excellent proprieties that being eaten it did renew our humidum radicale our naturall humiditie and moisture whereby wee should haue liued with the like or equall puritie and perfection which had beene in man at his first creation yea it should haue so fortified our naturall heat that although it did naturally suffer some detriment and losse by continuall action yet should it haue beene so strengthned by that fruit of life that it could neuer haue decaied or perished and consequently man could neuer die corporally in that happy estate vnlesse hee had first killed himselfe spiritually by being partaker of the forbidden fruit insomuch that the disobedience of one brought in by concupiscence was the cause of all our misery and mortalitie that so God of his meere goodnesse through his infinite wisedome might thereby take occasion of shewing his mercy vpon those who after Adams fall were nothing but miserie and by the obedience of his dearest Sonne might repaire and redeeme the disobedience of vs most accursed caitifes so that wee participating of the fruit of the tree of life communicated vnto vs in the sacred communion by vertue of that tree of life prefigured in this Paradise might thereby be reuiued from a temporall death to an eternitie of blessednesse and perpetuitie of a most blessed life yea so by occasion of our first sinne gaine more then euer we had obtained if we had not sinned seeing hereby we obtained that fruit of life to be prepared for vs vpon the tree of the crosse yea and thence communicated vnto vs in the sacred communion and bread of life which doubtlesse wee should not haue obtained at leastway after that manner and measure if wee had not transgressed Or at leastway Christ prefigured in this tree of life should not haue appeared passible as one of vs if wee by our sinne had not needed his passion Wherefore we being astonished at so great mercy shewne vnto vs in so infinite miserie and that so lamentable a losse should be an occasion of so ioyfull and infinite gaine we may well exclaime with Gregory the great O foelix culpa quae talem tantum habere meruit Redemptorem O happy fall and happy vnhappinesse which was occasion of so great happinesse Lastly the aforesaid tree was worthily called the tree of life or liues because it did not only preserue our naturall being by the repairing of our naturall forces but also did so renew them by a supernaturall vertue proceeding thence that thereby we might haue liued a life free from all kinde of feares of death or of any griefes vexations or torments now necessarily annexed to both deaths corporall and spirituall temporall and eternall now I say annexed to both deaths vnlesse wee haue applied vnto vs the vertue of another tree of life by whole life all things being haue their being and by whose influence all things liuing haue their life Hence it is that the former was a most perfect patterne or representation of the latter but the latter a more perfect forme then could bee fully represented by the former or by any other possible Neuerthelesse the tree of life was created in the terrestriall Paradise to the end that it might be a type and in some sort represent that which should be fully represented or seene in the celestiall kingdome by the eternall light of glory according to the diuine oracle In lumine tuo videbimus lumen in thy light wee shall see light that is by and through thy light of glory which is a supernaturall habit infused into our vnderstandings wee shall see the glorious light of thy essence not comprehensiuely which is impossible but most perfectly and essentially which
eternall God not carnally as carnall men dreame but spiritually in the bread of life as hee himselfe doth affirme of himselfe As therefore he who is the tree of life or rather the author of life or to speake more properly life it selfe euen as he is in the Sacrament of life doth heere truly in this miserable life produce in vs the life of grace as a present pawne of our future glory so it seemeth most probable that the other tree of life as a most perfect figure of this planted in the terrene Paradise had the like inherent vertue for to perpetuate or at least to prolong the liues of Adam and his posteritie as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradise But whether this fruit of the tree of life was sufficient to perpetuate our life or only to prolong it for some determinate time Abulensis super Genes c. 13. quaest 175. Scotus li. 2. sent dist 19 quaest 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7 art 4 Caiet ibid. many dispute probably for both opinions Tostatus vpon the 13. chapter of Genesis q. 175. is most peremptorie for this perpetuitie Scotus Thomas Caietan and Durand for a very long time but not for eternitie because that is the naturall measure of nature this the supernaturall of him who is aboue all nature Secondly seeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cause the effect could not bee supernaturall for though effects be often inferiour to their causes yet neuer the causes vnto the effects the reason because no cause can giue that which it hath not neither any effect haue any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cause wherefore if the tree of life was as without question it was a naturall tree as the Laurell Cypresse and other trees be it could not haue as connaturall the supernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philosophie that omne agens physicum in agendo patitur debilitatur that euery naturall cause doth suffer some detriment euen in and by his owne action consequently therefore though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conserued by the vertue of this excellent fruit yet at length it should haue failed and thence finally mortalitie should haue followed as a necessary effect of so forcible a cause Lastly it is not likely that God who is the author and first rule of nature doth produce any thing frustrate in nature seeing therefore the fall of man was patent vnto him euen from all eternitie to what end should he prouide an eternall cause for a temporary effect But if this argument had any force it should force also our aduersaries to the like if not a greater inconuenience for who doubteth but that God knew also the little time that man was to persist in his grace and yet neuerthelesse he gaue him that fruit which was sufficient for the preseruation of his life for many a yeere as our aduersaries hold why then might hee not likewise for all eternitie is it because of the impossibilitie at non impossibile Deo omne verbum to God nothing is impossible which doth not imply contradiction but what contradiction is in this is it that here naturall philosophie is contradicted omne agens in agendo patitur debilitatur euery agent doth decay euen by his owne action but seeing the author of nature is aboue nature why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature or though in the compasse of nature yet beyond our naturall capacitie which is so small that wee scarcely or very imperfectly vnderstand things of farre inferiour degree yea such as are within our selues why therefore shall wee deny vnto God that which we doe not vnderstand in our selues My resolution therefore is that of Abulensis Propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quòd fructus eius vim haberet seruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus faciendi eum immortalem that this tree was therefore called the tree of life because it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life and the vnion of the body and soule for euer if we had not lost the supernaturall grace which was the vnion of our soules with God but seeing wee wilfully separated our selues from our supernaturall life it was most iust that wee should also be depriued of the naturall hence therefore is that which Paul so often preacheth mortem in mundum intrasse propter peccatum that death entred into the world by the doore of sinne which doore if we had debarred to sinne the grace of God should haue beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vs and the tree of life should haue caused the like betweene our bodies and soules and this of his owne nature eternally though de facto wee needed it but only temporally both supposing our fall as likewise not supposing any at all for if we had not fallen or sinned in our first father wee should certainly after some number of yeeres haue been translated from that terrene Paradise which was our first though temporary habitation vnto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen and this should haue heene without any assault of death because we had alwaies liued in God who as hee would then haue preserued vs by his grace from the corruption of sinne would also haue preserued vs from this corruption which was only the effect of sinne according to that of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death the wager being the deuill our soules are bought and sold sold away for nothing sinne being nothing but a priuation of being but bought againe by the death of the most precious of mortall liues which in no wise should haue beene necessary if wee had not beene lost or fallen from our first grace and innocencie But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambrosia seemed to Aristotle of small ground so this for the like reason may seeme to bee as fabulous for as Aristotle argueth against the former either the Gods vsed this Ambrosia and Nectar for pleasure only or also for necessitie if only for pleasure how then could Ambrosia and Nectar be any necessary cause of their immortalitie againe if for necessitie certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature and consequently no Gods seeing that that which hath need of any thing for his preseruation must necessarily be mortall After the same manner we may argue against this fruit of this tree of life which is said to be sufficient to cause an eternitie of life à parte post as the Philosophers speake for if our immortalitie was onely to be from the tree of life then questionlesse without it wee had beene mortall and subiect to death contrary to that of the Apostle Stipendium peccati mors the wages of sinne is death for whether wee had sinned or persisted in our primatiue grace all had beene one wee should naturally haue tasted of death if wee
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 â—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 â—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
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 Iacobâ—m Amiâ—tum episcopum Antisiodorensem Corduba lib. 1. q. 10. opinione 6. quâ—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 ArasicanuÌ„ 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
because as the schoole Diuines well note the fault as it is a fault deserueth punishment so that the worthinesse or debt of the punishment doth follow the fault as a proper passion thereof as intense heare followeth the fire and light necessarily proceedeth from the Sunne CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is refuted and the truth set downe in what consisted the sinne of our first father and ours contracted from him WE may easily perceiue by the opinions refuted in the precedent Chapters how easie it is euen for the greatest witts to erre in supernaturall matters without the assistance of Gods supernaturall grace and illumination seeing that those who were accounted the very mirrours of wisdome in their time haue beene so hoodwinked and blinded in the cause and first fountaine of their felicitie insomuch that though they knew that they were conceiued as Dauid saith in iniquitie and sinne yet they were not able to declare sufficiently in what consisted that iniquitie and originall sinne much lesse to demonstrate with any certainety that which S. Austine almost in one word doth declare so euidently libro q o de nuptijs concupiscentijs cap. 23 26. where hee expresly holdeth that our originall sin consisteth in concupiscence which though it remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed to them in ijs ergo qui regenerantur in Christo in those therefore who are regenerated in Christ when they receiue the remission of all their sinnes it is necessarie that the guiltinesse of this as yet remaining concupiscence be remitted So that as I haue already said it be not imputed to sin for as the guiltinesse of those sinnes which cannot remaine because they passe when they are committed remaineth neuerthelesse which if it be not remitted will remaine for euer so the guiltinesse of the foresaid concupiscence when it is remitted is quite taken away Calvin lib. 2. Instit c. 1. Melancth in colloqâ—io Wormatien apologia confessionis A gustanae So that here we see auerred and proued that which many learned late writers doe auouch as a matter of faith euidently deducing it out of the 6 7 8. chap. of the Apostle to the Romanes and the 11 to the Hebrues to wit that our originall iniustice consisteth in concupiscence the which though it doth remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed vnto them so that as diuers learned men doe declare themselues in this matter tegitur non tollitur raditur non eradicatur it is couered not rooted out it remaineth but is not imputed For proofe of which Rom. 7. verse 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. sequentibus I will only ponder the example of Paul who no doubt was regenerate at least after he was called an Apostle and yet he could finde this sinne of concupiscence within himselfe striuing against the spirit yea hee did acknowledge it to be his originall sinne the fountaine of all actuall sinnes and therefore hee addeth Wee know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne for I allow not that which I doe for what I would that doe I not but what I hate that doe I now then it is no more I that doth it but sinne that dwelleth in mee Now what sinne is this the Apostle speaketh of but originall or concupiscence remaining as yet euen after his regeneration drawing him vnto that which he would not and therefore afterward in the same chapter opposing it to the right inclination of the minde hee calleth it another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde and leading him captiue vnto the law of sinne which was in his members and hence he concludeth O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the body of this death that is from originall sinne the which as it is the death of the soule so likewise it causeth the death of the body CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed THe first heretickes who after the preaching of the Gospell denied originall sinne were Pelagius and Coelestius as S. Austine writeth lib. de peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 1. 2. 3. 9. 19. whom Iulian the Pelagian followed in his fourth booke which hee wrote against originall sinne yea this is attributed vnto the Armenians to Faber Stapulensis and others The first argument of this heresie is that which Iulian the Pelagian vsed against S. Austine because it is essentiall to all sinnes to be voluntary but nothing can be voluntary vnto infants before the vse of reason seeing that as the Philosophers say and proue nihil concupitum quin praecognitum nothing is willed desired or sought after which is not first knowne infants therefore who haue no vse of reason can haue no abuse of will by consent vnto a foreknowne euill and where there can be no sufficient foreknowledge or distinction of good from euill there questionlesse can be no sinne Yea this seemeth to be confirmed by S. Austine himselfe lib. 3. de libero arbitrio cap. 13. where hee confesseth that sinne is so voluntary an euill that nothing can be sinne which is not voluntary and in another place he auoucheth that neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent Wherefore Doctor Bishop against M. Perkins out of those words doubteth not to vpbraid the Church of Englands doctrine about this point saying What vnlearned learned men are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too To this argument of Iulian peraduenture some will say that originall sinne is voluntary in the infants not by their owne proper actuall will as who can haue none such but by the will of their first father Adam which after a sort may be said to be the will of all his posteritie seeing he was the head of them all and therefore that by his voluntary transgression all Adams posteritie may bee said to haue sinned in him But this seemeth not to satisfie for originall sinne if wee will consider well the nature of it and as all the aduerse part doth hold verè auertit à Deo parvuli voluntatem cam conuertit ad bonum mutabile it doth truly auert the will of the infants from God vnto an apparant and mutable good yea euen to the deuill therefore the will of our parent and his sinne is in no wise to cause originall sinne in vs. Secondly as true Philosophie teacheth no cause can produce that which it hath not in it selfe either virtually or formally neither doth any cause produce any thing but after the manner that it containeth the thing which is to bee produced either formally if so bee that it hath the same forme species or kinde which the effect hath or virtually if it containe it in a more perfect degree and measure But certainly neither our first