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
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
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
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
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
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
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