Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	good_a	sin_n	transgression_n	4,384	5	10.5404	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

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

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 cōmitted 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 Manich●es who held some things to be

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

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

true that which the Poët saith that labour blunteth the arrowes of Cupid so doth it no lesse other darts of the deuill But hence peraduenture some patron of idlenes may inferre that labour was contrary to that blessed state of Paradise as which required all quiet rest and content no rather I say that it was consequent or necessarily pertaining to that blessed state seeing that labour was not any toile or paine but rather a pleasure and a voluntary effect of his well disposed minde as it is now likewise to men not so ill affected quorum otium as Seneca said maximum negotium so as S. Austine saith l. 8. de Gen ad lit cap. 8. non esset laboris afflictio sed voluntatis exhilaratio cùm ea quae Deus creauerat humani generis adiutorium laetius seraciúque provenirent that it should not be a toile or affliction of the body but a recreation and reioycing of the will and minde CHAP. XXIX Whether the precept of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill was giuen aswell to Eue as to Adam and how that was THe difficultie of this question proceedeth of the diuers readings of the precept because some with Greg. l. 35. moral cap. 10. do read it according to the Greeke in the plurall the Hebrue Caldaean with the vulgar Latin and English are in the singular Gen. 21.16 and the Lord God commanded the man saying thou shalt eat freely of euery tree of the garden but of the tree of knowledge of good euill thou shalt not eat of it for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death Whereby wee see that this commandement was directed to the man only not to the woman seeing shee as yet was not created as is apparent out of the 18 verse the 21 22 23 where the creation of Eue is described Neuerthelesse it is manifest that the same commandment was extended to Eue also for so shee answered the serpent according to the vulgar edition de ligno quod est in medio paradysi praecepit nobis deus ne comederemus but of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise God commanded vs wee should not eat wherfore though this precept was principally giuen to Adam yet was it also to be obserued of Eue for as they were conioyned in nature so were they not to be separated in regard of their precept and grace But why then may some say was the name onely of Adam expressed I answer with Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate operibus eius c. 32. because the precept was principally giuen vnto him as vpon whose obedience or breach his and his posterities happinesse did solely depend not vpon Eues CHAP. XXX Why God commanded Adam that he should not eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill TErtullian in the beginning of his booke against the Iewes saith that this commandement was giuen to Adam as the first principall foundation and ground from whence all other lawes were deriued and in which all the ten Commandments be virtually included so that as Adam was the first beginning of mankinde so this was the first ground of all other lawes But though this cannot be reiected as an improbable speculation yet certainely it is not so firmely grounded in the sacred text as Tertullian imagined The reasons therefore in my opinion why God so strictly prohibited the eating of the aforesaid fruit was first that thereby as God had declared vnto vs his power ouer vs so wee should shew our obedience towards him not that as S. Austine noteth God hath neede of our seruice Augustin l. 8. de Gen. ad literam cap. 11. but that wee haue neede of his power protection rule and dominion ouer vs according to that of the Psalmist who speaking in the person of God saith constitue super eos legislatorem vt sciant gentes quoniam homines sunt Constitute a ruler ouer them as the vulgare translateth that the heathen may know that they are but men so that as it is a token of vassalage and subiection to receiue lawes so is it of power dominion and authority to command constitute ordaine and set downe lawes to bee obserued Yea secondly God gaue this law vnto man that thereby he might exercise his obedience towards God a vertue as necessary to man as acceptable in the sight of God Aug. lib. 8. de Gen ad literā cap. 8. and therefore as S. Austine well noteth God gaue not this law in any obiect of it selfe otherwise euill or of its owne nature good to the end that the vertue of his obedience might be the more illustrious because it deriueth not his excellencie from the materiall obiect but from the formall the sole subiection to Almighty God It may seeme peraduenture not improbable to some that the law of nature which God had infused into the nature of man might haue sufficed to lay open try and manifest mans obedience towards God to what end then should the second law of abstayning from the tree of the knowledge of good and euill be added as a second tryall of that which otherwise might sufficiently bee manifest by the law of nature and obedience therevnto I answer that the law of nature would not haue beene a sufficient tryall of Adams obedience because it is not altogether manifest by the law of nature that God is sole and supreme Lord ouer all mankinde for some doe imagine that the law of nature is a propertie onely due vnto a reasonable creature as euery species or kinde of liuing creatures hath their particular propertie agreeing to their nature Againe some are of opinion that those things which are contained in the law of nature are to be imbraced or reiected in as much as they agree or disagree with naturall reason not as they are commanded or forbidden by God as supernaturall agent So that although it be prescribed by God vnto all men yet doth it not sufficiently manifest his most ample absolute power ouer all mankinde seeing that by this law there is not any thing commanded or forbidden but onely that which is according to humane reason either good or euill of its owne nature Wherefore Gods absolute dominion and extent of his diuine power were not sufficiently knowne onely by this law of nature but onely as it is agreeable to the instinct of nature the which as it was but onely in things within the spheare of nature could not possible shew the extent of the absolute power of God in things both with in the compasse of nature and aboue nature Hence Gregorie well noteth Lib. 33 moralium cap. 10. that the forbidden fruit was not euill of its owne nature but was forbidden to the end that man being created vpright by nature might increase in righteousnes by the subiection of his nature and perfection of his obedience to the author of nature CHAP. XXXI Why God commanded Adam that he should not touch the tree

reasonable the reasonable to the spirit the spirit to God And as no disorder in nature could proceede from the author of nature so no disorder in the acts of nature could haue beene found in the course of nature and this though euen in the very estate of innocencie there had beene generation of mankinde as now it is as now I meane in the substance of the act not in the manner of raigning and raging lust And this certainely was Gods intent in the creating of our first fathers male and female because if it had not been for generations sake they might haue beene both created males because all things at their first creation were created in their greatest perfection if therefore the man bee more perfect then the woman why should they not both haue been created male if it had not beene for their multiplication by the ordinarie course of generation especially seeing God blessed them with these words which signifie no lesse increase or as the Hebrue hath fructifie and multiply especially seeing as the Philosopher saith generation is the most naturall action of life Aristotiles lib. 2. de anima lib. 4. meteor yea then euery thing is in his perfect estate when it is powerfull to bring forth another like to it selfe 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 AS touching the first point I thinke it most probable that there should haue beene more men then women if so be that wee had persisted in the state of innocencie my reason is because nature then being in a full perfection would for the most part haue produced the most perfect which questionlesse is the male for the most part I say not alwaies because the female also was necessary for the naturall propagation of mankinde Againe it was necessarie for the most part not altogether necessarie but only most perfect and therefore most agreeable to that most perfect estate As touching the second point of the multiplication of the female sexe and how that could be connaturall and agreable to that perfect estate of paradise seeing it belongeth to the perfection of nature to bring forth the most perfect and consequently male not female as which is rather a declining from perfection and argueth some weaknes in nature or imperfection in the Parents Aristotelis de generatione animalium lib. 4 cap. 2. 6. yea as Aristotle saith is praeter intentionem agentis and therefore seemeth rather a monstrous act of generation then a perfect issue or patterne of the Parents or nature And least this may seeme improbable euen nature herselfe as the Philosopher writeth giueth sufficient tokens and signes of this seeing that the female sex is begotten rather in tender and old age then in the flourishing and vigorous time of mans age for as naturall heat hath not attained vnto his perfection in the one so hath it lost his former vigour in the other It is also ordinarily seene that the moistest and most feeble bodies doe beget females by reason of the want of naturall heate Furthermore the same philosopher saith that the female kinde being of their owne nature feeble and cold are to be deemed as a defect errour default or declination of nature Neuerthelesse I answer briefely because this matter more belongeth to Philosophy then to Diuinitie that the production of the female doth not proceede only or rather not alwaies of the defect of nature but oftentimes also of the more remisse manner of concurse of the power of generation as also of the imagination thereto inclining and other like naturall defects whence it is that though the generation of the female be in vs a signe of lesse vigor of nature yet was it not so in Adam but rather it proceeded of the afore-said causes of the imaginatiue apprehension or particular disposition of the author of nature for the multiplication of mankinde CHAP. XL. Of the prerogatiues and excellent gifts with which Adam was endued in the state of innocencie and first as touching his knowledge and naturall wisdome of naturall things IT is the common opinion of the Fathers and other Diuines that Adam had infused into his soule a most perfect knowledge of all naturall obiects according to that of the Preacher the 17. chapter where thus hee describeth the creation of man together with the prerogatiues wherewith he was first endued vers 3. Ecclesiasticus cap. 17. v. 3.4 5.6.7 8 9.10.11 He endued them with strength by themselues and made them according to his image and put the feare of man vpon all flesh and gaue them dominion ouer beasts and fowles They receiued the vse of the fiue operations of the Lord and in the sixt place he imparted them vnderstanding and in the seuenth speech an interpreter of the cogitations thereof Counsell and a tongue and eyes eares and a heart gaue he them to vnderstand Withall hee filled them with the knowledge of vnderstanding and shewed them good and euill Hee set his eye vpon their hearts that he might shew them the greatnesse of his workes He gaue them to glory in his maruellous acts for euer that they might declare his works with vnderstanding Besides this hee gaue them knowledge and the law of life for an heritage And hence it was that Adam perfectly vnderstanding the nature of other inferiour creatures gaue each of them their names according to their natures for so saith the text Gen. 2.19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed euery beast of the field and euery fowle of the aire and brought them vnto Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoeuer Adam called euery liuing creature that was the name thereof and Adam gaue names to all cattle and to the fowles of the aire and to euery beast in the field Now if Adam gaue to each liuing creature his name according to his nature as questionlesse he did it can be no lesse certaine but that he had a perfect notice if not comprehension of their natures according to which hee had giuen them their names But now the difficulitie is how this is to bee vnderstood that God brought the beasts and fowles vnto man whether only by an intellectuall representation bringing them or representing them as obiects of his minde and cogitation as Caietan holdeth or corporally truly and really in their owne nature essence and being and if thus by what meanes whether by naturall instinct guiding them to performe this will of the author of nature or that God himselfe immediately by himselfe or by the ministerie of his Angels did present them before Adam Though I finde no constant resolution of this point either in the Scripture Fathers or reason neuerthelesse that which seemeth to me most probable is that as euery liuing creature hath his naturall peculiar and proper instinct vnto

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