Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	apostle_n	sin_n	transgression_n	5,988	5	10.4357	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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 colloq●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

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

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

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