of the souls of men saith The mercifull Father made them mortall bands Whether the particle Is aimeth at Plato or Plotinus appeareth not by Augustine Bartholomaeus * Barth Sib. Peregrin Quaest Decad. 1. c. 2. q. 2. Sibylla appropriateth the word Is to Plato I rather assigne it to Plotinus as the good Expositor of Plato Or it may be that S. Augustine taking some words from both of them into one sentence purposely left it doubtfull unto whom the Is must be referred Howsoever his collection as I said is ingenious and subtile * Ità hoc ipsum quòd mortales sint homines corpore ad misericordiam Dei Patris pertinere arbitratus est nè semper huâ—us vitae miseriâ teneantur So he thought that this very thing that men are mortall in body proceeds from the mercie of our divine Father lest they should be alwayes held with the miserie of this life Even as the very miserie of mankind from which no man is free could not pertain to the just judgement of the Almightie if there had been no originall sinne as Augustine saith otherwhere Gods judgement brought miserie and death for sinne yet in death God remembred mercie distilled good out of it I cannot omit this memorable speech of Gregory * Naz. Orat. 2. de Pasch Nazianzen Adam was expelled and extruded from this tree of life from Paradise at once by God for sinne And yet even in this case by death he gaineth the cutting off of sinne lest the evill should be immortall So was punishment turned into mercy He is excellently seconded by Rupert * Rup De Trinit 3.24 c. How should we turn away with deaf eares the care of the death of the soul and the generall judgement if we should never have died that are so proud to day dying to morrow Well therefore did our Lord God strike Man with the death of the flesh of the body lest he should be ignorant of the death of his soul and sleep securely in his pleasures till the dawning of the last day that at least Man might be waked even by the fear of the instantaneall death and that he might not like the immortall devil adde prevarication to prevarication but rather flee and avoid the pride height of sinne by humble repentance Let me adde Hence is the patience of the Saints Here are the crowns of the Martyrs saith Chrysostome This death causeth many vertues which had else never been * O munde immunde si sic me tenes breviter transeundo quid faceres diu permanendo O unclean World saith devout Bernard if thou holdest me so shortly passing what shouldest thou do long remaining If ye desire more proofs that death was appointed to Adam for sinne and that he was kept from the tree of life after he had sinned lest his miserable life should have been immortall consult with the authoritie of Irenaeus in his third book and 37. chap. of Hilarius in his commentarie on Psal 69.26 of Hierome on Esai 65. of Cyrill of Alexandria about the middle of his third book against Julian and they shall confirm you in this point That death is a bitter-sweet a compound of judgement and mercy a loathsom pill and a punishment yet wrapt up in gold and working out health and blessings for mankinde * A culpa natae sunt duae filiae Tristitia Mors quae duaefiliae pessimam matrem destruunt From the transgression two daughters are born Sorrow and Death which two daughters destroy their very ill mother Augustine against two Epistles of the Pelagians 4.4 * Quamvìs bonis conferatur per mortem plurimum boni unde nonnulli etiam DE BONO MORTIS Congruenter disputaverunt tamen hinc quae praedicanda est nisi misericordia Dei quòd in usus bonos convertitur poena peccati Although by death much good be bestowed on good men whereupon some have fitly discoursed even of the good of death yet what hence can we commend but Gods mercie that the punishment of sin is turned to good uses I will seal up all with the saying of Cicero in the beginning of his third book de Oratore where he spake wiser then he was aware of * Mihi non à diis immortalibus vita erepta sed mors donata est Life hath not been taken away from me by the immortall gods but death hath been given Death is a benefit though it was appointed unto Adam for sinne for one sinne onely which is the next point to be explained 3. It is true that the wages due to any one sinne is death and as true that we commit many sinnes which are rightly divided into originall and actuall Actuall sinnes are of a thousand kindes committed by us yet none of these our sinnes nor Adams after-sinnes but his first sinne onely produced death Likewise originall sin consisteth of two parts of Adams transgression of our corruption In Adams transgression were many sinnes involved our corruption consisteth both in the want of original justice in the positive ill-qualitie of our nature Adams sinne is imputed to us our corruption both inherent imputed His sin as a qualitie concerned himself as relation concerned us As he was an individual man it touched himself onely as a coÌ„mon person it drop't down upon us His actuall sin is not propagated his corrupting of our nature is deriv'd And this corruption is both a sin and a punishment of sinne Some late Divines have written Originall sinne is said to be twofold 1 Imputed which was inherently in Adam and charged upon his posteritie 2 Inherent which is naturally propagated to us So amongst others Scharpius pag. 463. But they speak improperlie for originall sinne is but one onely made up of two parts or branches indeed perchance parts constituent not ratione onely but re differentes yet not so natively to be call'd a double sinne as one sinne of two steps degrees sections composures parts or branches for originall sinne is not many not two but one onely viz for which death was inflicted And this is the point I must now insist upon and thus I prove it apodictically Rom. 5.12 Death entred by sinne and verse 21 Sinne reigned unto death Likewise Rom. 6.23 The wages of sinne is death and 1. Corint 15.56 The sting of death is sinne All in the singular number evincing it to be one onely sinne David complaineth Psal 51.5 I was shapen in iniquitie and in sinne did my mother conceive me In sinne not in sinnes both the Hebrew and the Vulgar Translation have all these places in the singular number Concerning David it is observable lest any one might imagine that Davids mother was lascivious and that therefore he complained and so this complaint concerned David himself onely and personally and not us that it was no part of Davids intent to disparage his mother and Aquinas saith David was born of a lawfull
his Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh and by the same words perhaps understand Christ and his Church and that mysterie explained by S. Paul Ephes 5.31 c. those being the words of Adam as †Epiph. Contr a Ptolemaîtas Epiphanius saith of Adam speaking unto God speaking the truth of God and in this respect as I conceive Christ saith Matth. 19.4 c. these words are the words of God of the Creator as all light is from the Sunne so all truth from God as on the contrarie all lies are from the Devill I say if Adam could foresee marriages generations cohabitations mysteries and future usances he could not be ignorant that that law was given him to keep to the blisse of all mankinde and the contempt thereof would draw on the destruction of his posteritie And I think I shall not erre if I collect from the correlative correspondencie which must be between the Type and the Antitype the shadow and the substance That the first Adam knew his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disobedience was sufficient to bring destruction on all mankinde as the second Adam knew that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obedience was a sufficient redemption for the sinnes of all the World Durand foolishly presupposeth that the will of Adam sinning was ours onely concomitativè interpretativè because we lost originall justice when Adam finned beyond his thoughts or intentions * Stap. De Originali Peccato 1.9 Stapleton saith truly If Adam intended no such thing with an actuall intention yet he did it with a virtuall intention But I rather think that the word If may be cut off and we may say Adam did as Esau afterward prefer temporals before spirituals and as all the sonnes of Adam do at one time or other for he was not ignorant of the danger yet embraced it and he might say within himself Video meliora probóque Deteriora sequor * Aug. De Gen. ad lit 11.18 Augustine hath this wittie Quaere Whether Adam and Eve foreknew their fall For if he did before hand know that he should sinne and that God would revenge it whence could he be happie and so he was in Paradise yet not happie If he did not foreknow his fall then by this ignorance he was either uncertain of that blessednesse and how was he then truly blessed or certain by a false hope and not by a right knowledge and then how was he not a fool I answer They did not know that they should fall or sinne for there was no necessitie laid upon them and to know the unalterable certaintie of a thing contingent as their future estate was is to take away the nature of its contingencie and to make it unavoidable But for all this ignorance they were certain enough of blessednesse if they would themselves and their wills and persons were in Paradise blessed though changeable though not so wholy blessed as good Angels are or as the Saints shall be For if we say Nothing is blessed but what hath attained absolute certainty and the height of blessednesse the very blessed Spirits of heaven shall not be said to be blessed especially if they be compared with God who onely is blessed And so Adam and Eve were beati modo quodam inferiori non tamen nullo that I answer in Augustines words Again to the former part of this Question I answer That they knew before hand that they could sinne and that God would punish them if they did sinne and yet for all this they had the grace given to stand if they would and so to avoid both sinne and punishment and withall they knew that they had that grace But if before hand they had known or could have known that they should have sinned they could not have been happie in Paradise yet as they were in Paradise they were happie though they knew not that they should fall For if men on earth may be called Saints Saints of light Blessed as they are often and Spirituall Galat. 6.1 though they were in their bodies to passe through both temptations and tribulations and can not divers times but fall much more Adam might be termed Blessed in Paradise who though he saw he might fall yet he saw also he might have stood and so rejoyced saith Augustine himself for the reward to come that he endured no tribulation for the present Lastly to S. Augustines three-headed Dilemma I answer by distinguishing There is a threefold ignorance The first is pravae dispositionis when one is prepossessed with a false opinion excluding knowledge this may be called positive ignorance or plain errour The second is ignorantia privationis when a man knoweth not what he is bound to know neither of these can consist with blessednesse nor was in innocent Adam But there is a third viz. ignoratio simplicis nescientiae when we know not such things as we need not to know This was in Adam and is in good Angels yea Christ himself knew not some things This ignorance is not sinfull nor erronious not making either imaginarily happie or foolish This great law in Tertullians phrase is stiled * Lex primordialis generalis quasi matrix omnium praeceptorum Dei The Mother-law breeding all other laws which had been sufficient for them if they had kept it saith he * Aug. De Civit. 14.12 Augustine and * Chrys Homil. 41. in Acta Apost Chrysostom agree in this That Adams first sinne onely maketh us culpable †Chrys in Ephes 6. Chrysostom calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first sinne Augustin saith that * Prima duntaxat Adae transgressio transit in posteros quia illo primo peccato universa naturae corrupta est Cont. Julian 3.6 Onely the first transgression of Adam is passed upon the posteritie because the whole nature is corrupted by that first sinne Therefore when a childe is born he hath originall sinne and death the wages thereof annexed as due to it not because he is a creature not because he is a person not because he is a person of mankinde or humane nature not because he descended from his immediate or mediate parents not because they came from Eve not onely because he was in the loyns of Adam of sinning or sinfull Adam but because he was in Adam when he first sinned and implicitly gave his consent to the committing of that first transgression and that primarie aversion which hath led us astray ever since 4. Some have held that Eve sinned before she talked with the Serpent So * Rup lib. 3. De Operib Trinit in Gen. cap. 5. Rupertus and * Ferus in Gen. 3. Ferus But certainly she sinned before Adam being carried headlong with the Bonū apparens did little imagine to work so much mischief Had she known that her husbands yeelding should necessarily and infallibly bring forth death to him and all his posteritie and after
and involved in originall sinne which they either knew not or considered not Lastly when I had taken these pains to frame this chapter in defence of a point which I never held to be questioned it grieved me to heare my ingenious friend so much to defend the new Writers and to dance after the new pipe Candid and favourable expositions I shall love while I live and both use towards others and desire to be used towards me but violent forced farre-fetched interpretations as this hath been I can no way allow For since reformation hath been so sharp-sighted as to finde fault in all things to esteem the Schoolmen as dunses though they are thought dunses that so censure them to account the Fathers as silly old men or as children though they are but babes that admire them not to disregard Provinciall Councels yea Generall Councels as the acts of weak and sinfull men though they are the chiefest the highest earthly-living-breathing Judges of Scriptures controversed which cavils against former times I have heard belched forth by the brain-sick zealous ignorants of our times since we have hissed out the Papists and think they speak against their own consciences when they maintain the infallibilitie and inerrabilitie of the Pope May not Bucer and Martyr erre Must all new opinions needs be true and defended with might and main with wrested part-taking over-charitable defenses rather then a small errour shall be acknowledged If such milde dealing had been used against times precedent we could not have found as some now have done about two thousand errours of the Papists But thus much if not too much shall suffice concerning these men and this matter with this cloze That Zanchius himself in the place above cited saith thus against that new-fangled opinion t Neque enim aliud peccatum in posteros transfusum est quà m quod ipsius quoque fuit Adami fuit enim inobedientia cum privatione justitiae originalis totius naturae corruptione Deinde etiam non propter aliud peccatum nos sumus adjudicati morti quà m propter illud propter quod Adamus Ejusdem enim peccati stipendium fuit mors Illi autem fuit dictum Morte Morieris propter inobedientiam c. For no other sinne was transfused to posteritie then that which also was Adams for it was disobedience with a privation of originall justice and corruption of the whole nature Besides we are sentenced to death for no other sinne then for that for which Adam also was for death was the wages of the same sinne Now it was said to him THOU SHALT DIE THE DEATH for disobedience c. Now let them say if they can that Adam was sentenced to death for any sinne of predecessour or successour or any other sinne of himself but one onely I have maintained and do resolve Death was inflicted for his first sinne onely Therefore by Zanchius his true Divinitie against Bucer and Martyr and their peremptorie defenders Not all not many sinnes of all of many of any of our predecessours but the first sinne onely of Adam is transfused to posteritie nor are they guiltie or condemnable for any other preceding actuall sinne or sinnes of others whosoever O Father of consolation O God of mercies who knowest that every one of us have sinnes personall more then enow to condemne us lay not I beseech thee the sinnes of our fathers or fore-fathers or our own if it be thy holy will to our charge to punish us in this life present or our originall sinne in and by Adam or our own actuall misdeeds to trouble our consciences by despair or to damne us in the world to come but have mercy upon us have mercy upon us according to thy great mercy in Christ Jesus our alone Lord and Saviour Amen CHAP. VIII 1. Original sinne came not by the Law of Moses but was before it in the World 2. God hath good reason and justice to punish us for our original sinne in Adam Gods actions defended by the like actions of men 3. Husbands represent their wives The men of Israel represented the women Concerning the first-born of men and beasts The primogeniture and redemption of the first-born 4. The whole bodie is punished for the murder committed by one hand Corporations represent whole cities and towns and Parliaments the bodie of the Realm Their acts binde the whole Kingdome Battelling champions and duellists ingage posteritie 5. S. Peter represented the Apostles The Apostles represent sometimes the Bishops sometimes the whole Clergie The Ministers of the Convocation represent the whole Church of England The authoritie of Generall Councels National Synods must be obeyed 6. Private spirits censured Interpretation of Scripture not promiscuously permitted An Anabaptisticall woman displayed 7. An other woman reproved for her new-fangled book in print Scriptures not to be expounded by anagrams in Hebrew much lesse in English but with reverence How farre the people are to beleeve their Pastours 8. Saul represented an entire armie Joshua and the Princes binde the Kingdome of Israel for long time after 9. Christ represented us Christ and Adam like in some things in others unlike Christ did and doth more good for us then Adam did harm IT hath been plentifully evidenced that death entred into the world by sinne and that both Adam and we were sentenced to die for one sinne the first sinne onely of Adam onely and not for any other sinne or sinnes of him or any other our remote propinque or immediate parents and that death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Rom. 5.14 I adde Death shall live fight and prevail though not reigne from Moses unto the end of the world For when this mortall shall have put on immortality then then and not till then shall be brought to passe the saying that is written Death is swallowed up in victory 1. Cor. 15.54 and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death 1. Cor. 15.26 Aquine on Roman 5. lect 4. thus Because corporall death reigned from Adam by whom originall sinne came into the world unto Moses under whom the Law was given and death is the effect of sinne especially originall sinne it appeareth there was originall sinne in the world before the Law and lest we might say they died for actuall sinnes the Apostle saith Death reigned even over those who sinned not proprio actu as children So he 2. The things themselves then being unquestionable and before elucidated to the full That death is inflicted for originall sinne and that we all and every of us except Christ have contracted originall sinne it followeth justly by the judgement of God that death is appointed unto us for this sinne Tertullian lib. 1. contra Marcion a Homo damnatur in mortem ob unius arbusculi delibationem pereunt jam omnes quì nullum Paradisi cespitem nôrunt Man is condemned to death for tasting of a small
was reserved for him and fore-promised Genes 1.26 so soon as he was created the dominion was assigned over to him verse 28. And if no beast hurt Noah or his familie in the Ark though everie Creature imitated Adam and rebelled against him their Lord as he did against his Lord God much lesse could they have hurt Adam persevering in innocencie During which estate the lambe and the wolf the lion and the dragon would not have hurt one another much lesse would they have hurt Man least of all would the issue of Adam have done him violence or have said as the wicked in the Gospell This is the heir let us kill him and divide the inheritance Matt. 21.38 For then there had been no distinction of Lord Heir and Servant nor strife for inheritances It is too too true that the higher bodies and the heavenly powers do now besides their ordinarie influences sometimes dart down among us hurtfull and noxious qualities the workers of sicknes and destruction so that in divers Regions have been Epidemical popular diseases which in the great conjunction of Planets falleth out saith Prolemee Alcabitius with other Astronomers But then the heavens should have dropped plentie poured down health and no bane-full qualitie could have descended from them As for lightning and thunder and the now-right-ayming thunderbolts the armies of Gods wrath and messengers of death either there should have been none the aire then needing no purifying or at least not hurtfull or dangerous Lastly if Satan could have used outward violence and destroyed Adam or his posteritie that way perhaps he would never have brought in Death by the back-doore of sinne and never have undermined him by such hidden baits and lurking temptations Likewise inward distemper he had none nor could have and thus it appeareth There is a twofold temperature Vniformis all humours being exactly in the same degree Difformis one humour ruling prevailing over the rest The first may be called temperamentum ad pondus which is proportion Arithmetica when all the foure qualities are equally weighed and tempered so that there is no predominancie no superioritie nor can be but all parts are equipondiall and even The second is termed temperamentum ad justitiam which is Geometrica proportio when the foure qualities hang unevenly in the balance yet fitted to the best service and use of the body Whether of these two tempers was in Adam I will not define But if there were in his bodie difforme temperamentum it was so perfect yea equal in in equalitie as was fit for such a bodie as might be fit for such a soul such was the mixture of humours by the divine hand of God compounding them that both he and we should have lived in the flower of youth for ever if Adam had not offended What the bodilie constitution of the first Adam was may be thought to be the same or the like of the second Adam to whom the Psalmist singeth Psal 45.2 Pulchruisti prae filijs hominum Thou art fairer then the children of men Perpulchruisti as Vatablus rendereth it which can not be so properly understood of Solomon as of Christ who not onely superabounded in all vertues and vertue is fairer then the morning-starre saith Aristotle but also in all comely proportion and bodilie beautie * Prae filiis hominum quare non prae Angelis quid voluit dicere prae filiis hominum nisi quia homo Then the children of men why not then the Angels What means he by saying Then the children of men but because he is a man as S. Augustine on the place reasoneth most acutely inferring that not Christs divinitie but even his humane nature is in this place commended for beautie Though the Prophet saith of him Esai 53.2 He had no form nor comelines yet he speaketh it in the person of the Jews and as they thought saith Hierome on the place Or he had no comelines in his own apprehension as Christ himself in great humilitie might undervalue his own worth Thirdly I may expound all passages seeming to vilifie Christs bodily shape onely comparatively with reference unto his divinitie thus the bodily beautie of Christ is not to be nam'd or to stand in competition with the Deitie Fourthly and most properly in my opinion Esa◠describeth Christ as he was to be in his Agonie and Passion his body rent and torn with rods so rufully that David in the first and literal sense if not in that sense onely compareth the tormentors to plowers and the dintes impressions and the bruised bloudy concavities and slices to furrows The plowers plowed upon my back and made deep furrows his face spit upon his temples gored and bleeding by the Crown of thorns which was not onely platted on his head but fastned in it by the beating with canes his body black-and-blew by their striking his hands and feet digged throughout with great nails that I may use the metaphor of the Psalmist rather digged foderunt then pierced to shew the latipatencie of his wounds his side so rent a sunder so broad and wide that Thomas thrust his hand into it Take Christ as bearing our griefs as wounded for our transgressions as bruised for our sinnes as weltered in his streaming blood I will say as Esai said of him or as the Psalmographist I am a worm and no man a reproach of men and despised of the people Psal 22.6 But consider him before his Passion * In ejus facie syderéum quiddam illuxit Totum ejus corpus fuitspeciosum quia formatum virtute Spiritus Sancti in cujus opere non potest esse error aut defectus Lyran. in Ps 45. There shined some starrie thing in his face saith S. Hierome and his whole body was beautifull because formed by the power of the holy Ghost in whose work there can be no errour nor defect saith Lyranus Thou art fairer then the children of Adam so it is in the Originall Augustine Cassiodorus on the place and Chrysostom Homil. 18 on Matth expound it of Christs corporeall feature I think I may say if Christ exceeded not Adam yet he was equall to him The first Adam was made out of virginall dust the second out of virginal flesh and bloud both of them being framed by the miraculous hand of God but miracles do more exceed naturalls then naturalls do artificialls What is thy beloved more then another beloved O thou fairest among women say the daughters of Jerusalem to the Church their Mother Cant. 5.9 She answereth in the next verse My beloved is white and ruddy a goodly person as the Bishops Bible readeth it or as the late Translation hath it the chiefest among ten thousand * Partium congruentia cum quadam coloris suavitate Aug. De Civit. 22.19 Whether beautie be to be defined Aptnesse of parts with some pleasantnesse of colour as S. Augustine opineth or A convenient medly of white and red especially as from this place
wedlock and we are sure by a certaintie of faith that the lawfull use of marriage is no sinne To this let me superadde Rom. 5.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Per unam offensam as Montanus readeth it and this exposition is by our last Translation admitted into the margine But of this point more by and by Neither is it onely one but it is all alike not more in the evill not lesse in the good Rom. 3.9 Are we better then the Gentiles We have proved that Jews and Gentiles are all under sinne as it is written There is none righteous no not one Vers 19 All the world is become guilty or subject to the judgement of God Again vers 22. There is no difference for all have sinned and come short of the glorie of God And before he exactly describeth the corruption of every man Galat. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sinne Si parvuli nascuntur non propriè sed originaliter peccatores profectò eo modo quo sunt peccatores etiam praevaricatores legis illius quae in Paradiso data est agnoscuntur Augustine De Civitate Dei 16.27 If infants are born sinners not properly but originally certainly in the same manner that they are sinners they are acknowledged to be also transgressours of that law which was given in Paradise How could one infant transgresse the law in Paradise more then an other Genes 17.14 He hath broken my covenant Which words you are to interpret of breaking the covenant in Adam by originall sinne aswell as of breaking the covenant of circumcision Augustine in the place above cited when he had said * Cortum est de fide legitimum matrimonii usum non esse peccatum Aquin. Cont. Gert. lib. 4. cap. 50. Since it is not the fault of the infant whose soul God threatned to cut off neither hath he broken Gods covenant but his parents who took no care to circumcise him for such a childe discerneth not his right hand from his left Jonas 4.11 and such little ones have no knowledge between good and evil Deuter. 1.39 then he resolveth thus * Cùm haec nulla sit culpa parvuli cu us dixit animam perituram nec ipse dissipaverat Testamentum Dei sed majores qui eum circumcidere non curârunt Infants not in regard of their own life but in respect of the common source of mankinde have all broken Gods covenant in him in whom they have all sinned Again * Parvuli non secundum vitae suae proprietatem sed secundum communem generis humani originem omnes in ill o vno Testamentum Dei dissipaverunt in quo omnes peccaverunt In Adam he himself hath also sinned with all the rest My question here is Did not all children sinne alike in Paradise Aquinas answereth All are born equally sinners all equally obnoxious to originall sinne so that in them that die in originall sinne onely there is no difference in fault or punishment answering unto it See Estius 2. Sentent Distinct 33. Sect. 5. and before him Lumbard with his army of Schoolmen Three places there are most fully demonstrative both that it was one offence onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this offence was of one person onely Rom. 5.15 By the sinne the single singular sinne of one for none of it is in the plurall number many are dead Death crept not in by more sinnes or by more sinners but for one onely offence of one person onely It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per peccatum unius He might have said as easilie if he could have said it as truly by the sinne of two if by Eves sin properly we had died This is also excellently secondedin the next verse Rom. 5.16 And not as it was by ONE that sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is the singularitie of the person so is the gift for the judgement was of ONE to condemnation which you must not interpret of one Adam or one Person but of one sinne if you make the antithesis to have marrow and sinnews and so the Old Bishops Bible reades it but the free gift is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of many offences unto justification So to the singularitie of one person you see annexed the singularitie of one offence The same truth is confirmed and reiterated Rom. 5.17 18 19 every verse proving it was but one person and one sinne The Fathers joyn issue with us Chrysostom Homil. on 1. Corinth 9 Adam by one sinne did draw in death And again He by one onely sinne brought so much evil and death For if Adam had not sinned as he had not propagated his personall gifts graces acquisite vertues nor experimentall knowledge so after his first sinne which is derived to us his other sinnes were meerly personall and one onely is become naturall to all of us all his other sinnes were bound up in the sole reference unto himself none imputed or derived to his posteritie And therefore originall sinne hath no degrees nec suscipit magìs aut minùs or hath more branches or parts in any childe of Adam then in others but equally and alike extendeth unto all none free none more infected then others as I proved before Paulinus calleth it * In Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccavit Aquin. 1.2 q. 82. art 4. The fatherly poison by which the father having transgressed hath infected his whole kinde Others stile it The venime of the loyns Chrysostom on 1. Corinth 9. termeth it The radicall sinne Augustine saith * Virus paternum quo universitatem generis sui pater praevaricatus infecit Apud August Epist 106. There is one sinne in which all have sinned and therefore all men are said to have sinned in one Adam and by one sinne of Adam because all were that one man Item * Esse unum peccatum in quo omnes peccaverunt ideò dici omnes homines in uno Adamo uno Adae peccato peccâsse quia omnes ille unus homo fuerant De Peccat Merit Remis 1.10 That one sinne which is so great and was committed in a place and condition of so great happines that in one man originally and that I may say radically all mankinde should be damned is not done away but by Christ And often he beates on this point that it was one sinne which overthrew us * Illud unum peccatum quod tam magnum in loco habitu â—antae felicitatis admissum est ut in uno homine originaliter atque ut ità dixerim radicaliter totum genus hominum damnaretur non solvitur nisi per Christum Enchirid. cap. 48. One none but one transgression the Apostle will have to be understood saith he against Julian And again * Vnum non nisi unum delictum intelligi vult Apostolus Cont. Julian 1.6 Infants die guiltie onely of originall sinne men of yeares guiltie of
opineth * Tu es Diaboli janua tu es quae eum invasisti quem Diabolus aggredi non valuit Tert. lib. De Habitu muliebri That by that serpentine craft by which the woman was seduced Adam could not have been seduced Tertullian speaketh thus to womankinde * Probat quòd Diabolus non poterat seducere Adam sed Evam Hiero. lib. 1. adversus Jovinianum circa medium Thou art the Devils doore thou art she that hast invaded him whom the Devil could not set upon If he could not set upon him much lesse could he have overcom him Hierom saith * the Apostle doth prove that the Devil could not seduce Adam but Eve But then comes Eve in her simplicitie intending no hurt or deceit to her husband upon three other grounds specialized Genes 3.6 First she saw that the tree was good for food Secondly it was pleasant to the eyes Thirdly a tree to be desired to make one wise She I say upon these three motives did both eat and give Adam to eat So Adam was not deceived either first or immediately by the Serpent or serpentine deceit as Eve was neither doth Adam complain that the Serpent or Eve beguiled him but when he derived the fault from himself the worst that he said of Eve was this Genes 3.12 The woman whom thou gavest to be with me she gave me of the tree Neither doth the Scripture any where impute a malicious envious or guilefull intent to Eve in drawing Adam into the transgression Nor doth the Apostle say absolutely Adam was not in the transgression but Adam was not deceiv'd or brought into the transgression by fraud For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be deceived by art and craft so the Devill perswaded Eve That God of envy unto man forbad him that tree saith * Aug. De Gen. ad lit 11.30 Augustine and perhaps told her it was no sin for her to eat because she received no immediate commandement whereas Adam knew it was a sinne but therefore might think it easilie pardonable because he had formerly known no experience of Gods severitie saith the same * Aug. De Civit. 14.11 Augustine And yet for all this Adam might be in a transgression in the transgression and the greatest transgression though not in that transgression of being seduc'd And for his transgression death is appointed for us For in Adam all die Abel was the first who died the bodily death yet Abel died in Adam and if for Adams sinne death had not been appointed to him first Abel had not died yet since Morte morieris was spoken to Adam alone before Eve was created and it may be it implieth that upon his sinne all that any way came of him either by avulsion of some part as Eve did or by propagation should die in him And so though Eve had eaten if Adam had not sinned neither Adam nor perhaps Eve herself had died And if Adam had eaten and Eve forborn yet perhaps Eve should have died for Eve was in Adam as well as we 1. Corinth 11.8 The man was not of the woman but the woman of the man And in him was she to stand or fall live or die as well as we In Adam all die and she among the rest since she was one and a part of that all If my above mentioned speculations require further proof consider Rom. 5.14 Death reigned from Adam where he is expresly mentioned as being in my interpretation the Idea of mankinde and we being in him tanquam in principio activo Satan sinned against God in tempting the woman the woman sinned against God in eating and offering the fruit unto the man If thou O Adam hadst not consented neither of these sinnes had hurt thee or mankinde * Adam erat nos omnes Adam was we all Give me leave to say so since S. Augustine saith * Omnes eramus ille unus Adam De peâ—cat Merit Remis 1.10 We all were that one Adam Nor did God first challenge Eve but Adam nor her so punctually as he did Adam Genes 3.9 And vers 22 it is not said of Eve but of Adam ironically Adam is become like one of us for he was the root of mankinde Eve was but a branch of Adam before or when she sinned and no root of mankinde actuall but potentiall for she sinned when she was a virgin Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Triphon thus Eve being an intemerated virgin and conceiving by the Serpent brought forth disobedience and by consequent death Theodoret on those words of the Psalmist Psal 51.1 c. The transgression of the commandment went before Eves conception for after the transgression and the divine sentence and the privation of Paradise Adam knew Eve his wife and she having conceived brought forth Cain Had Adam carnally known Eve before he sinned yea after herself sinned she had conceived and then the issue had had no originall sin yea he is no worse Divine then Aquinas who holdeth that at this instant if one by miracle were created an humane creature body soul he should not have originall sin 1.2 Quaest 18. Art 4. * Art sequenti And if Adam had sinned not Eve we had fallen into originall sin and if she had eaten and not he we had not been stain'd with originall sinne Scharpius saith * The cause of originall sinne was Adam not Eve and Adams sinne not Eves doth passe to the posteritie Tertullian proveth that Eve was neverthelesse a virgin because being in Paradise she was called a woman * A woman saith he pertains to the sex it self not to the degree of the sex One may be call'd a woman * Mulier ad sexum ipsum non ad gradum sexûs pertinet Tertull. lib. De velandis Virginibus though not a wife but a non-mulier a no-woman can not either be or be call'd a wife I adde she was a wife so called Genes 2.25 and yet till after Adam sinned she was a virgin espoused married yet not known carnally She was termed Isha or Issa Virago before the fall Genes 2.23 because she was taken out of Ish or Is out of man She was also stiled The female and wife but she was never called Eve during her creation and innocency or in the interim between her fall and Adams But after Adams sin he first called his wives name Eve Genes 3.20 because she was the mother of all living Not as if any did then live as from her or were born of her when Adam so called her but the great Calculator of natures the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Onomastick or exact and true Nomenclator of all things brought before him thought fit to name her Eve that is The mother of all living not before but after his fall because in my opinion she had not been Mater viventium if she alone had sinned Her sinne might have had other punishment her personall fault had ended
in her personall chastisement Eve was created in Paradise and for all her sin we had continued still in Paradise if Adam had kept in it but as Adam was made out of Paradise so out of it again by his fall he brought both himself us S. Ambrose saith * Fuit Adam in illo fuimus omnes periit Adam in eo perierunt omnes Ambr. in Lucam lib. 7. Adam was in him we were all he perished in him all perished Eve was onely a part of Adam till his fall he being till then the onely root after his sinne she is now also Eva mater viventium a root yet radix de radice we receive our sap bring forth fruit through both of them And for all this both Scripture and Fathers runne with a torrent ascribing that great sin which plunged mankinde into destruction not unto Eve save onely as the occasioner but unto Adam as the immediate causer And though Eve sinned before Adam and that in divers respects yet is he chiefly yea onely faultie for presenting vs by his fall to destruction Hosea 6.7 They like Adam have transgressed the covenant there or as the Vulgar hath it joyning Ibi to the latter clause Ibi praevaricati sunt in me Ibi saith Hierom that is in Paradise And Adam is excellently painted out Esai 43.27 Thy first father hath sinned Eve is not mentioned for her sinne considered by itself reached not to them nor hurt any but herself per se and us per accidens as Adam yeelded to her temptation When God had denounced severall punishments first to Eve then to Adam and proper to each by themselves he added this to Adam onely Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return For even in him and by him was Eve to return to dust and by his offence formally Death cometh on all And therefore not from Eve but from Adam doth S. Luke draw our pedegree Luke 3.38 Which was the sonne of Adam which was the sonne of God And therefore as the Genealogies were ever drawn from the males perchance to shew that the woman was but accidentall to our first making and the first sinne reducing all up to the Protoplast Adam who derived originall sinne both to Eve and all us though in different manner so when they had drawn their Genealogies down to Christ who had no man to be his father nor had originall sinne but satisfied for it all other sinnes all Genealogies are ceased yea counted by the Apostle as foolish and vain Titus 3.9 Against one of these passages if it be objected that Joab is not termed after his father but full often yea alwayes after his mother The sonne of Zeruiah for she was the sister of David 1. Chron. 2.16 I answer that Zeruiah the mother of the three famous brethren Joab Abishai Asahel was perhaps married to some base ignoble groom before David came to his greatnes or she herself was an extraordinary Virago active in State plotting and furthering the plots of her children though she crost her brother David and therefore as I take it she is named not so much in honour as in dislike These men the sonnes of Zeruiah be too hard for me 2. Sam. 3.39 Or lastly the father of Joab had committed such a sinne or sinnes that the remembrance of him was odious and might resemble Judas Iscariot who deserved that in the next generation his name should be blotted out Psal 109.13 When Adam transgressed my statutes 2. Esdras 7.11 12. then were the entrances of this world made narrow full of sorrow and travel And in reference it may be to Adams especiall sinning both a man-childe was born before a woman-childe and a man-childe died before a woman-childe the males onely were circumcised and Adam himself died ten yeares before Eve as Salianus out of Marianus Scotus Genebrard Fevardentius collecteth though never a woman els except Eve from the creation til the Law of Moses is recorded to have outlived their good husbands As for Er Onan they were wicked for their sin cut off shortly Genes 38.7 c. Sure I am he had an especiall manner of transgression since some are punished who have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Rom. 5.14 Other sinnes we sinned are like to Adam but herein we are unlike His sinne hurt us aswell as himself our sinnes hurt not him but ourselves Bellarmin hath brought unto my hand the thre following authorities Tertullian * Omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur Tert. lib. De Anima Every soul is counted in Adam untill it be reckoned in Christ Hierom * Vnusquisque nostrûm in Paradiso cum Adamo cecidit Hieron in Mich. 2. Every one of us fell in Paradise with Adam Cyprian derives the infants sin from Adam onely For we were in him tanquā in activo principio In him to stand or fall Adam is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 Was Eve a type of Christ was Christ ever resembled or compared or contra-opposed unto Eve The Apostle Rom. 5.15 16 * Cypr. lib. 3. Epist 8. Ad Fidum sheweth wherein Adam was like and unlike to Chirst of which hereafter And most divinely to our purpose verse 17 c. If by one mans offence death reigned by one much more the righteous shall reigne by one Iesus Christ No inkling no intimation of more sinnes then of one of more persons first sinning that one sinne then of one and that one was not Eve but Adam therefore as Christs Merits onely save us so Adams sinne onely did destroy us Cherubim faceth Cherubim Type and Antitype must agree When the Apostle saith of Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illius futuri as the Interlinearie reades it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not quae but qui proveth the exclusion of Eve But of the first man Adam and the last Adam is a noted sweet resemblance 1. Corinth 15.45 Where he holdeth it not enough to say The first Adam but lest Eve might seem to be included in the comparison he addeth The first man Adam and so compareth him to Christ Likewise verse 47 The first man is of the earth earthy the second man is the Lord from heaven Yet was not Christ the second man in number but in representation of mankinde being the substance of the first shadow Adam was the first the onely one who hurt us Christ is the second man the onely one who helpeth us Yea I think I may be bold to averre that Christ would have taken on him the feminine sex if by Eve we had fallen but since we fell by man by man onely therefore our Redeemer though he came of a woman yet was made a man And Christ having determined to be not a woman but a man I dare further avouch if he had been a stone cut out not * Et abscissus est
were begotten and conceived was an unclean thing saith Bishop Bilson as Job calleth it saying Who can make a clean thing of an unclean Job 14.4 It is also corruptible that is saith he full of corruption as Peter nameth it when he saith Born again not of corruptible seed 1 Peter 1.23 of which we were born of our parents Thirdly The Apostle calleth our flesh The flesh of sinne Rom. 8.3 If by these places he takes uncleannesse corruption and sinne improperly for such ill dispositions as seed bloud and livelesse flesh is capable of the Question is ended I confesse all But he understandeth uncleannesse corruption and sinne properly The title of his pages 174. and 175. is this Mans flesh is defiled in conception before the soul is created and infused And in the body of his Discourse he enlargeth it as in his Conclusion to the Reader at the end of his Sermons pag. 252. he first propoundeth it and citeth Ambrose to assist him saying * Priùs incipit inhomine macula quà m vita Amnr. Apolog. David cap. 11. Pollution sooner beginneth in man then life Now the soul is the life of the body then if pollution cleave to the flesh before life come and consequently before the soul come whencesoever it cometh it is evident that Adams flesh defileth and so condemneth us So farre he None of these proofs reach home to cleare this That sinne true sinne proper sinne originall sinne or actuall is in the seed or bloud or flesh before the reasonable soul be united Neither did that learned Bishop consider that it can not be called our originall uncleannesse pollution or sinne till we have originem that is till our soul hath its first being in the body He erreth to say Pollution cleaveth to the flesh before life cometh and more erreth saying Adams flesh defileth and condemneth us if he make the flesh subject to condemnation before its life and union of the soul For then many thousand abortions should be damned which never had rationall soul annexed to them As for Ambrose * Whitak De Origin Peccato 1.4 Whitaker thus citeth him from the same Book and Chapter * Antequam nafcimur maculamur contagio antequam usuram lucis originis ipsiut accipimus injuriam Before we be born we are stained with contagion before we enjoy the light we receive the injurie of our verie beginning Ambrose saith not We have sinne ere we have life but We are conceived in iniquity which is true and confest if we take conception largely so Ambrose taketh macula for such inclination to evill as is in the seed potentially maculative Concerning the place of Job First Job saith not The seed is unclean but Quis dabit mundum ex immundo Which may have reference to the person or the nature of the unclean father Secondly it may be a parallell with that of Job 25.4 How can he be clean that is born of awoman yea the starres are not pure in his sight vers 5. Lastly things may be said to be unclean that have no sinne Ask the unclean beasts and they will justifie it and the trees will send forth this truth as leaves Levit. 19.23 24. The fruit of the trees planted shall be as uncircumcised or unclean unto you three yeares it shall not be eaten of but in the fourth yeare it shall be holy to praise the Lord withall yet was not the fruit sinfull it self but quoadusum The place of S. Peter is answered by the same Apostle 1 Pet. 1.18 Silver and gold are things corruptible yet these creatures as creatures are good in themselves though they are causes of most sinnes yet have no sinne many other corruptible things as heaven earth are void of all sinne As concerning the place of the Apostle S. Paul I answer it is apparent he speaketh of flesh after the soul is united which is nothing to our Question and therefore a most impertinent proof of the Bishop Lastly the Reverend Bishop bringeth this objection against himself How could David say he was conceived in sinne when at the conception he had neither soul nor body His main answer is With God nothing is more frequent then to call those things that are not as though they were Rom. 4.17 and speaketh in Scriptures of things to come as if they were past or present David and Job call that seed which was prepared to be the matter of their bodies by the names of themselves because it could not be altered what God had appointed But the void conceptions of women which miscarry before the body be framed never had either life or soul and so neither name nor kinde but perish as other superfluous burdens and repletions of the body So he I reply that I may not question the worthy Bishop about the meaning of that place Rom. 4.17 He hath made a great stirre to little purpose since he maketh many conceptions void of finne or punishment like superfluous burdens and repletions of the body which none ever said to have sinned Secondly which is the better answer to the place of the Psalmist to say as the Bishop doth Conceptions which come to nothing are not sinfull but such as may have souls are sinfull before they have souls whereby he splitteth himself on this rock That a perfect conception susceptible of a soul and aborsed casually before the unition with the soul is sinfull and liable to account or to answer with me That sinne and iniquity in the place of the Psalmist is taken for the aptitude to sinne which is in the matter or els conception is taken in its latitude for our time in the mothers wombe and so true original sinne not to be in the body without a soul Aquine saith * Quum sola creatura rationalis sit susceptiva culpae ante infusionem animae rationalis proles concepta non est peccato obnoxia Aquin. part 3. Quaest 27. art 2. in corp art Sith none but the reasonable creature is susceptible of fault the childe conceived is not subject to sinne before the infusion of a reasonable soul Whitaker saith well * Carnem nihil concupiscere sine anima nec doctus nec doctus dubitat ut loquar cum Augustino Quid enim caro iâ—animis a trunco differt Whitak De Origin Peccato 3.1 That the flesh covets nothing without the soul neither the learned nor the unlearned doubts that I may speak with Augustine For what doth the inanimate flesh differ from a stock And I hope the Bishop will not say A block or a stock hath sinne Moreover after thousands of sinnes committed in the body and by and with the body yet the body separated from the soul hath no sinne is not sinfull much lesse is sinne and shall the seed in the wombe be called sinfull or sinne as Kemnitius or Luther calleth it before it is warmed with life or enlivened with a soul Lastly in our very Creed conception is used with libertie and
yet his repentance could not wipe out the sinne of his posteritie because his repentance was by an act personall which could not extend it self beyond his person So farre Aquinas But let discourse give way to Scripture Jer. 31.29 30. They shall say no more The fathers have eaten a sowre grape and the childrens teeth are set on edge but every one shall die for his own iniquitie every man that eateth the sowre grape his teeth shall be set on edge They had occasion to use this proverb in reference to Adam who ate one sowre grape in whom we sinned and are punished But as I live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel Ezek. 18.3 Behold all souls are mine as the soul of the father so also the soul of the sonne is mine the soul that sinneth it shall die vers 4. And when God said Exod. 20.5 I visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me I answer First the place speaketh not of the sinnes of children for the fathers personall iniquitie maketh not the sonne inique or wicked it is onely spoken of punishments Secondly even punishment eternall doth not reach from the father to the sonne unlesse the sonne communicate with the sinne of the father for if a wicked father beget a sonne that seeth all his fathers sinnes which he hath done and considereth and doth not such like he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father he shall surely live Ezek. 18.14 17. In this sort you may object A man shall not be punished at all for the sinnes of his forefathers but for his own sinnes onely I answer He may be punished temporally but not eternally for in temporall chastisements as there be many causes producing one effect so many sinnes even of diverse men may be corrected by one punishment and the father is often more grievously punished in his sonne then in himself Now having spoken what I thought convenient concerning the propagation of originall corruption unto all the posteritie of Adam I am in the last place to shew the just consequent That as he did die for that his sinne so we his offspring for having that sinne should die and in regard of this sinne It is appointed for men to die and to undergo that punishment For original sinne is in one regard a fault of transgression and the same originall sinne in a different respect is also a punishment b Aug. de baptismo parvulorum As every man was in Adam and his corrupted nature was propagated to us it is a sinne as originall sinne is considerable in every man without reflecting on the common nature it is a punishment It is so a sinne or such a sinne that it is also a punishment and we have spoken of it as a sinne let us now descend to handle it as it is a punishment MOst Prepotent Eternall and onely Wise God I a poore dejected sinner with an humble and contrite soul devoutly beg pardon at thy Mercie-seat confessing from the bottome of my heart my manifold personall and actuall sinnes from all which if thy Grace had prevented me yet my offence in Adam and with him had justly condemned me But I meekly beseech thy Divine Majestie that I may be one of those many to whom the bloud of thy deare Sonne shall do more good then the fault of Adam did hurt Grant this I beseech Thee for the Al-sufficient merit of thy onely Sonne our onely deare and gracious redeemer Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. VII 1. A review of the last point Zanchius not against it Bucer and Martyr are but faint and rather negative then positive 2. Bucer and Martyr make the state of the question to be voluble not fixt and setled Their objections answered The place of Exodus 20.5 examined 3. S. Augustine appealed unto and defended 4. God justly may and doth punish with any temporall punishment any children like or unlike unto their parents for their parents personall sinnes 5. God doth and may justly punish some children eternally and all temporally for originall sinne whether they be like their parents in actuall aversion yea or no. 6. God justly punisheth even eternally wicked children if they resemble wicked parents 7. God oftentimes punisheth one sinne with an other 8. The personall holinesse of the parent never conveyed grace or salvation to the sonne 9. God never punished eternally the reall iniquities of the fathers upon their children if the children were holy 10. No personall sinnes can be communicated The point handled at large against the errour of Bucer and Martyr 11. The arguments or authorities for my opinion The new Writers not to be overvalued Zanchius himself is against Bucer and Martyr 1. HAving thus farre proceeded and as I thought without the contradiction of any I found by the discourse of a loving learned friend that diverse late Writers were otherwise minded in the point last handled in the former chapter whereupon I betook my self to review it Zanchius in locis commun Theolog. upon the second chapter of the Ephes loc prim toward the end bringeth this objection against one part of his definition of originall sinne Some say that if therefore Adams sinne was transferred to posteritie because we were in his loyns by the same reason the other sinnes of Adam and our other parents should be likewise traducted which is absurd and cometh not alwayes to passe since of evil parents oftentimes the best children are born He answereth first The reason is not alike for the first sinne was not so proper and personall to Adam as common to humane nature his other sinnes and others after him are truely personall Which answer is excellent and he confirmeth it at large Then cometh he to a second answer which is not his own but onely barely related without his approving or open disproving of it a Deinde negant multi viri docti absurdum esse si dicatur peccata pronimorum parentum communicari liberis ità ut similes parentibus nascantur filii vitiosi vitiosis Besides many learned men denie that it is absurd to say that the sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children so that sonnes are born like their parents vicious and perverse sonnes of vicious and perverse parents which they confirm by experience by examples of Scripture by Exod. 20.5 And Augustine truely in Enchirid. cap. 46. saith it is probable for that place of Exodus For saith he if the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father but the soul that sinneth shall die and yet God visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children it seemeth to follow that the sinnes of the parents passe over to the sonnes and the sonnes follow the sinnes of the parents that those sinnes may be justly punished in them which are not so proper to the parents as common both to parents and children And for this
contracting of sinnes and undergoing punishment for them Fourthly weigh this strong inconvenience which he toucheth at That the latter born in time is still the worse in nature worse then any that went before as followeth necessarily if the sinnes of our forefathers are communicated to us Fifthly he seemeth to conclude the unreasonablenesse That they who were never regenerated should be overburdened with eternall damnation if they should be compelled from the beginning of mankinde to contract the sinnes of all their progenitours and be punished for them And therefore he questioneth Whether it reacheth onely to the third and fourth generation I would also question Whether if the threat reach onely to the third and fourth generation upon supposall that from Adam all the predecessours of a man were wicked till the fourth generation that man shall have none of those sinnes imputed to him before his progenitours in a fourth ascent Or if an others progenitours were all good from Adam till the foure last generations and from it all and every of his parents in a lineall descent were stark-naught till we come to himself who is good Whether he shall have communicated to him the sinnes of these foure last progenitours and no goodnesse for a thousand generations of holy and repentant forefathers himself also being a holy man since God sheweth mercy unto thousands that love him that is more mercy to more good men then severitie which extendeth even towards his haters but to the third and fourth generation which number is short of thousands The last objection from the place of Exodus is this q Consequi videtur Deum permittere ut pâ—ccata parentum in filios transeant It seems to follow that God doth permit that the sinnes of parents passe unto their children and the sonnes imitate the sinnes of their fathers that God may justly punish sinnes which are not so proper to the parent as to the parent and childe I answer He doth well to mince it with It seems to follow But Quaedam videntur non sunt Some things seem to be and are not Bucer and Martyr do float too much in generalities they neither mention what sinnes all or some neither what parents good bad or all nor what they mean by passing when they say r Peccata parentum in filios transeunt The sinnes of parents passe unto the children There are also nets and ginns in these their words Å¿ Peccatorum labes cou contegium redundat in patris corpus per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The spot and as it were contagion of sinne overspreadeth the fathers body and by his bloud and seed redoundeth upon the children Before they said sinnes now the spot of sinnes though there be a great difference between them two for the sinne is past before the spot cometh and the latter is the effect of the former Again because it is easie to prove that t Macula patris non redundat in filios the stain of the father redoundeth not on the children it is added u Labes ceu contagium the spot and as it were contagion Moreover how unaptly do they bring the place of Exodus to prove the sinnes of the next parents to be communicated if by them they understand onely the immediate father and mother when in that place there is expresse mention of the third and fourth generation If they stretch the words of the next parents to the third and fourth generation onely why not to the fifth sixth and so upward Sixteen generations since Christs time are the next parents if you compare them to the thirty nine generations which in the law of Nature and of Moses preceded Christ Lastly note their wilde inference God permits the fathers sinne to passe unto the childe and the childe to imitate the father that he may punish as if God could not justly punish the sinnes of the fathers in the children unlesse they be like them in personall transgressions as if the communication of original sinne onely were not cause enough to punish children for the sinnes of their parents as if the evil of sinne were ordained to justifie the evil of punishment Away then with this fishing in troubled waters this delighting in amphibolous terms Which censure that I may the rather justifie I will endeavour to explain all things necessary to the knowledge of this point to salve all doubts to unfold all intricacies in these seven propositions 4. God justly may and doth punish with any temporall punishment any children like or unlike to their parents for their fathers personall sinnes Horat. Epod. 7. Immerentis fluxit in terram Remi Sacer nepotibus cruor And Carminum 3. Ode 6. Delicta majorum immeritus lues Romane For the children are a part of the fathers and in the childes punishment the father himself is punished For as a sonne receiveth under God life and the things of this life by the father so it is no injustice if he lose the same for him The widow of Zarephath her sonne was in her apprehension dead for her sinne 1. King 17.18 So 2. Sam. 12.15 God stroke the childe that Uriahs wife bare to David and it was sick and died Both father and childe endured a punishment of seven dayes the father in sorrow fasting a fast lying on the earth in a holy sordiditie weeping and praying the childe by sicknesse tormenting him to death Ahabs children were punished for his offence 1. King 21.21 and among the rest Jehoram his sonne who although he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord yet was not so bad as his father or mother 2. Kings 3.2 The passage is very observable Jer. 16.3 4. For thus saith the Lord concerning the sonnes and daughters that are born in this place and concerning their mothers and fathers They shall die of grievous deaths Both the great and small shall die vers 6. The punishment of Gehazi his posterity is more exemplarie for though they sinned not nor could sinne the sinne of Gehazi yet the leprosie of Naaman did cleave unto him for that his personall simonie and unto his seed for ever 2. Kings 5.27 The case of Jobs children surpasseth this for they were not stricken with death for their own sinnes or the sinnes of their father Job so much as for the triall of his patience and for the experimentall confutation of Satan yet was it not unjust that they should lose their lives for their fathers good which they had by him since he also suffered in their sufferings and might easily see Gods especiall hand against himself For the greatest winde in the world naturally cannot smite the foure corners of an house and if it should yet one corner would uphold the other but this whirlwinde did so and the house fell Job 1.19 1. Sam. 15.6 the Kenites are spared because they shewed kindenesse to the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt but because Amalek had fought with
be a change of number as Vatablus stileth it And though the Interlinearie bible readeth it patrum eorum and Vatablus so expounds it but reads it patrum ejus why may it not be expounded patris ejus being accordant to that following peccatum matris ejus and whether it be patrum eorum or patrum ejus or patris ejus I see not but originall sinne may be meant in both places as being expressed onely in the singular rather then the many actuall transgressions especially since our singular originall sinne came to him by many fathers and it was not the intent of Gods Spirit in this Psalme to extenuate the sinnes of the wicked one's forefathers and to plaister this over with the title of one single iniquitie Indeed Theodoret on the place saith thus a Paterna virtus saepe siliis peccantibus prosuit ut fides Abrahae Judaeis Davidis pietas Solomoni The fathers vertue hath often profited the transgressing children as Abrahams faith did the Jews and Davids pietie Solomon So Cesar at his pardoning of those in Marseil and in Athens who took part with Pompey in the civill warres said They were excused for their ancestours sake as contrarily b Pravitas pattum filiis similibus poenam adauget The wickednesse of parents increaseth the punishment of like children saith Theodoret. I answer That all this speaketh of temporal chastisements none of eternall horrour infligible upon good children for the sinnes of their parents When God saith I will visit the sinnes of the parents if it implyed the visiting them with like sinnes as it doth not yet it is of them that hated him also and by their personall hating him deserved to have one sinne punished with an other for the hatred of the sonnes is meant as annexed to the sinnes of the fathers This any one may see that will read Ezekiel 18.14 Lo if a wicked man beget a sonne that doth not like his father he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father he shall surely live vers 17. God hath no pleasure that the wicked should die vers 23. And hath he delight that the righteous shall perish eternally for his wicked ancestours The drift of the whole chapter is against it and proveth his wayes to be equall because a wicked man repenting shall not die for his own transgressions vers 25. c. And shall a righteous man die or be condemned for he meaneth the death of the soul for the offences of others Who ever perished being innocent Even as I have seen they that plow iniquitie and sow wickednesse reap the same Job 4.7 8. and God rewardeth every man according not to the works of his forefathers but according to his own works Rom. 2.6 Mat. 16.27 which seemeth to be taken from the Psalmograph who ascribeth to the Lord not injustice not severitie but grace and mercie in his judicature Vnto thee O Lord belongeth mercy for thou rewardest every man according to his work Psal 62.12 And Every one shall give account of himself Rom. 14.12 Every one shall receive the things done in his bodie according to that he hath done whether it be good or evil 2. Cor. 5.10 If this be not enough more may be added with an easie hand to the strengthening of this sixth Proposition now chiefly questioned God never damned a good childe for the fathers personall wickednesse I now come to the seventh Proposition 10. No personall sinnes can be communicated Indeed they who maintain the traduction of souls may if that be granted better defend the propagation of actuall iniquities But that opinion being false ridiculous exploded and hereticall of which otherwhere in this Tractate the superstructive is founded on slippery ice and these terms To propagate communicate derive transmit and transfuse sinnes personall are meerly amphibologicall and dubious phrases If they mean as the words do signifie let them say that the matter of sinne actuall is transfused or the form or both The matter is the action the form is the obliquitie thereof both these do vanish Doth the guilt of punishment passe over c Reatus est vinculum inter poenam peccatum quasi medium interjectum Guilt is a band joyning punishment sin as a thing coming between them And this band is rather in God then in man to tie or untie at his pleasure d Actus qui jam transiit dicitur manere quoad reatum non quia rectus sit aliquid sed quia à tali actu denominatur quis reus Reatus peccati non est aliqua res cùm non sit substantia vel accidens sed solùm maneat in occultis legibus Dei mentibus Angelorum An act that is past already is said to remain in regard of the guilt not that the guilt is any thing but because a man is denominated guiltie from such an act The guilt of sinne is not any thing since it is neither a substance nor an accident but onely remains in the secret laws of God and mindes of Angels as Holcot De Imputab pec truely gathereth from S. Augustine The guilt is not the personall sinne it self but the effect thereof and our question is not now of the descent of punishments Doth the guilt of sinne take hold of the childe they cannot say so unlesse here also they confound the effect with the cause and this is but Petitio principii in other terms Again how heterodoxall is it to say A man begetteth a sonne guiltie of all his actuall iniquities For then though the father may be saved by his after-repentance yet the sonne who knoweth not perchance nor ever heard inckling of his fathers horrid and secret sinnes according to their position may be damned for them Do they mean the stain and spot is communicated I answer The stain and spot is not the actuall sinne but the fruit of it inherent in the soul of the offender and not transmissible by the bodie and is onely metaphorically termed the stain having no positive realitie transmissible Zanchius himself relates their opinion thus e Peccatorum quae aliquis parens committit labem ceu contagium justo Dei judicio redundare in ejus corpus sanguinem per ejus porrò sanguinem semen in filios quos ex illo semine it à vitiosè affecto gignit transfundi That the spot and as it were contagion of the sinnes which any parent committeth doth redound by Gods just judgement upon his bodie and bloud and is further transfused by his bloud and seed into the sonnes whom he begets of that seed thus viciously affected I answer That justo Dei judicio is brought in tanquam Deus aliquis è machina to make things vast improbable seem likely passable but the vain impertinencie of these words is easily observable by any who knoweth that no manner of Gods judgements are any way unjust Secondly are not sinnes of omission personall sinnes and are they communicated
to the bodie Thirdly what say you to pride of heart and secret Atheisme Is the proud mans and Atheists bodie and bloud infected with these prodigies Again If such people be wholly forgiven and their sinnes by repentance blotted out are they now in their bodie seed and bloud which are wiped out of their soul and suppose he beget a sonne between the Atheisme and repentance shall his childe be damned while the repentant Atheist is saved should not he rather communicate his later repentance then his former Atheisme But let us weigh the words a little nearer f Peccatorum quae aliquis parens committit labes ceu contagium redundat in ejus corpus sanguinem per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The blot and as it were contagion of sinnes which the father commits redounds upon his bodie and bloud and by his bloud and seed to the sonnes What bloud is corrupted all or onely that which was made seed and of seed what seed all seed or onely that which is fruitfull Suppose a father begets a sonne with the seed which was in his bodie yer his sinne was committed how doth his sinne viciate his bloud or his bloud the preformed seed If seed and bloud be properly vicious then any ejaculation of seed or letting of bloud should emptie people of their sinnes or stains in them inherent and sinne should no longer be a privation but a positive thing Moreover when they say That by the fathers bloud and seed the blot and as it were contagion is transfused into the sonnes they speak without reason or sense For the blot and as it were contagion are transfused if transfused at all into the wombe of their mother which hath a preexistence and not into the children themselves who have no preexistence The vessell is before any thing can be poured into it how then can sinne be yoted by the fathers bloud seed into the childe that had no being The last passage is this The childrens bodies are first infected by these stains or actuall sinnes their souls after defiled by their bodies If by the word infected they mean really truly properly and actually infected I remit them to the place where I have proved that the Embryo without a reasonable soul is not cannot be sinfull If they would be expounded of a pronitude to evil or inclinations tending that way when the soul is united they have made much ado about nothing a meer logomachy retaining the old sense and using noveltie of terms Again if I should yeeld That the seed of one man is proner to one vice then an other according to the vivid strength and able disposition of the parents as they say bastards are more healthie and more salacious then other people as retaining part of that spiritfull vigour in which they were begotten yet is originall sinne the same in every one alike in all parts and every way and the likenesse to the parents in wickednes is most remotely ascribed to the seed but properly to originall sinne as to the inward cause and to the parents ill breeding them or to bad companie or custome or to the remembrance of their parents sinne which is a powerfull president in corrupt nature as to the outward cause For a wicked childe is as like a thousand other wicked men if not more like in behaviour then to his father yet this proceedeth not from their seed but from originall sinne But to the more distinct handling of this point this seventh and last Proposition First I will prove That the personall sinnes of all our forefathers are not derived to us Secondly That not the sinnes from the third and fourth generation are propagated Thirdly That the personall sinnes of our immediate parents are not transfused And so it will arise of it self that no personall sinnes are communicated In the second place I shall bring to light the authorities on our side But before I begin either let me briefly remove an objection Bucer and Martyr teach saith Zanchius that by this doctrine the transfusion of originall sinne is more confirmed I answer That Gods truth hath no need of mans lie to uphold it Cicero said well g Perspicuitas argumentatione elevatur Perspicuitie is lessened by argumentation For what is more beleeved more known to Christians then that originall sinne is traduced Weak arguments do often prejudice a good cause and while Bucer and Martyr would seem to confirm that truth which neither Jew Turk nor Christian doubt of let them take heed lest when they say actuall sinnes are traduced they give occasion to the world to think that humane souls are not created but traducted so by consequent bring in the mortalitie of the soul For it hath been confidently averred by learned men That if the souls be traducted they are mortall But of this hereafter Concerning the first branch these arguments confirm it If the actuall sinnes of all our forefathers be communicated to their posteritie then they that are the more ancient are still the better and the last people of this world shall absolutely by nature be worst But it is not so for Pagans and Infidels now should be many thousand times worse then the first infidels which is not so as is seen by experience Secondly then we might truely say O happy Cain happier by nature then Abel the righteous since Adam and Eve did manifoldly sinne between Cains and Abels generations yea happier then Abraham and the Patriarchs just Job and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists since thou hast fewer sinnes to answer for then any in the world Happier is all the drowned world in this regard then the dayes since Christ But to say so is new Divinity Therefore all sinnes of actually transgressing parents are not communicated Secondly God dealeth not so rigourously with mankinde as he did with the devils Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 whereby he magnifieth Gods mercy to man above that to the rebellious spirits but he should or did deal worse with mankinde at least with the damned then with them if all the personall sinnes of our progenitours be communicated to all us For each of them bare onely but their own sinnes and none did beare one anothers sinne further then they actually partaked with it And this can not be otherwise for both their sinne was pride and their nature uncapable of propagation or communication of sinne unlesse it be by reall and present consenting or partaking Lastly They all fell together the second or third instant of their creation saith the School Suddenly the devil of Lucifer became Coluber of Oriens Occidens of Hesperus Vesper He abode not in the truth Joh. 8.44 Satan fell from heaven like lightning where lightning is not said to fall from heaven but he saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 10.18 Satan falling as suddenly from heaven as
nec ipse Cain peccasse dicendus est qui eundem patrem suum noverat Therefore neither can Cain himself though he knew his father Adam be said to have sinned because his father sinned And more fully De peccat Meritis Remiss 1.13 q Ab Adam in quo omnes peccavimus non omnia nostra peccata sed tautùm originale traduximus We have not derived from Adam in whom we all sinned all our sinnes but onely originall Thus much be said to prove the divine S. Augustine to be of our side Onely Vorstius of all the canvasers of Bellarmine that I have met with differeth from him and us and maketh a double propagation Generall and Speciall and saith If Bellarmines drift be against the generall propagation it is false because nature teacheth and experience witnesseth r Corruptiores ex corruptioribus ordinariè generari that ordinarily worse children are begotten of worse men If he speak of the speciall traduction our men easily assent unto him saith Vorstius I reply on Vorstius First who ever before him talked of a double propagation Not Scriptures nor Fathers nor Councels Secondly is this generall propagation done at the same time that the speciall is accomplished Is this general propagation better or worse then originall sinne Is this generall propagation of all sinnes and of all parents up to Adam and of sinnes repented of and of sinnes of omission and of transient sinnes or of such as Atheisme in the soul which hath small or no participation with the bodie Let him define or describe this trimtram of generall propagation contra-opposed to the propagation of sinne originall But saith he Nature and experience say Worse children are begotten of worse men I answer I never knew any worse then some children of some good men Secondly he puts non causam pro causa ascribing the wickednesse of children to the propagation of actuall sinne of their immediate parents when he may better impute it to their hearing or beholding of their parents wickednesse or to ill breeding and ill custome Thirdly the vices of the immediate parents and of the remoter yea of the remotest even from Adam yea all the sinnes that ever were committed yea which yet never were committed but shall be or may be hereafter differing either in kinde or number from all sinnes precedent all have been are shall be in regard of the beginning root and fountain in originall sinne Fourthly none ever that handled this controversie as Augustine or the School did ever take actuall sinnes for inclinations to sinnes Fifthly in Vorstius his distinction there is a fallacie viz. Petitio principii while he without good proof taketh that for granted which is the onely thing denied namely That there is an other propagation besides the propagation of sinne originall Sixthly how inconsequentiall is this Wicked men have ordinarily wicked children Therefore personall sinnes are propagated But indeed we denie the antecedent and say The sonnes of the wicked are as righteous by naturall generation as the sonnes of the righteous If Vorstius reply that every age groweth worse and worse and Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit Nos nequiores mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem And again Aurea prima sata est aetas subiÃtque argentea proles Auro deterior fulvo pretiosior aere Tertia post illam successit ahenea proles de duro est ultima ferro The answer is expedite These are but poeticall fictions fictions of those who knew no propagation of originall sinne and ascribed this growing worse and worse to the depravation of manners then present in use and to evil customes rather then to the propagation of personall iniquities Laudamus veteres sed nostris utimur annis Much there is to the like purpose in heathen authours Lastly Vorstius himself after his seeking to finde a knot in a bulrush after his needlesse opposition in this point concludeth thus Hoc transeat quia parvi momenti est Let this passe because it is of small moment So that even in his judgement this controversie is small and indeed I think it not worth the name of a controversie When I had come thus farre labouring to prove that no actuall or personall sinnes are propagated I casually again conferred with that learned loving friend of mine who formerly brought to my hand the opinions of the new Writers and upon some discourse he setled on this exposition which otherwise he gave over as indefensible That they do mean by actuall sinnes that inclinations unto sinnes are communicated I answered That I used to gather mens meanings by their words and that neither their words nor the words of Zanchius the relatour do incline to these inclinations Again never did any authour of any time before expound personalia and actualia peccata for of these must the question be necessarily understood by the inclinations unto sinne Moreover if by peccata they did mean the pronenesse unto sinne to avoid doubtfulnesse they should and as readily and easily they could if they would have written peccatorum inclinationes as peccata in generall or might have signified in some other words and in some other passages that they had meant so This I know They talk of peccata peccata proximorum parentum of labes peccatorum ceu contagium they have words enow doubtfull and obscure enough which I dare say themselves understood not when they writ viz. peccatorum labes ceu contagium yet make they no mention of inclinations But I would further know whether their inclinations are derived unto their children and punished in them which rest onely as inclinations and never come into act Or such inclinations as begin to come into act but are resisted and overcome by Gods grace Or onely such inclinations as breed actuall and personall iniquitie If thus then the inclinations are not punished but the actuall aversions Or are no inclinations derived from grand-father c I but since originall sinne is alike in all and some are more like to parents whence doth this likenesse to them proceed more then to others I answer A drunkards childe is as like in that sinne to all other drunkards as to his father But why hath a drunken father more commonly a drunken sonne then a sober man First that is not yet proved Object Secondly parents sinnes seen or heard of easily invite the children to do the same Thirdly too many parents bring up their children to do as themselves do Fourthly if a most drunken sonne hath most sober parents then it comes from sinne originall Why not so also from drunken parents If inclination of drunkennesse be more in the seed of drunken men then of sober then the children of drunkards should naturally be more drunk and deeper drunk then any other drunkards whose parents were temperate But that is not so at least not so naturally because not alwayes no nor perchance commonly Let me once more repeat That all possible inclinations unto sinne are inveloped
7.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Totum hominem sanum feci I made a man every whit whole Healed a man wholly say the Rhemists Perhaps I may adde that Christ never healed the body of any but he healed his soul likewise at least for the instant time I am sure Chrysostom Augustine and Beda to this purpose say The same man was healed by Christ Joh. 5.14 Qui foris ab infirmitate ipse etiam intus salvavit à scelere He saved the man from outward infirmitie and inward sinne He healed as I may comment on the words his body at the pool of Bethesda his soul in the Temple Christ himself said Totum hominem sanum feci I have healed the whole man and Beza on Joh. 7.23 saith He was healed both soul and body Corporaliter spiritualiter Both bodily and ghostly saith Hugo Cardinalis Even he who was impotent and had an infirmity thirty eight yeares upon Christs command immediately was made whole and took up his bed and walked Joh. 5.9 and immediately upon Christs word the blinde received his sight Mark 10.52 the deaf and ill-speaking man after Christ had said EPHPHATHA his eares were straightway opened and the string of his tongue was loosed and he spake plain Mark 7.35 The fever immediately left Simons wives mother after Christ took her by the hand and lift her up and she ministred unto them Mark 1.31 Christ left no relique of any old disease and whom he healed of any one infirmitie we never read that he complained of any other So though Lazarus before his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Languens longâ infirmitate fractus actu aegrotus Pining feeble sick saith Salmeron yet was he immediately and perfectly cured and as I imagine he was upon his resuscitation not onely in latitudine sanitatis Void of all weaknesse so that no part was sick or mis-affected by any dyscrasie but in perfectione salutis In full compleat health and had obtained by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The height and fulnesse of health a constant setled habituall soundnesse in each part of his body For as art is but the ape of nature and naturall things are farre more absolute and perfect then artificiall so things miraculous as much exceed things naturall in perfection So that no naturall crasis no temper or temperature no health is so pure and exact as that which is wrought immediately by a divine finger In the vigour and strength whereof Lazarus might have lived as Adam and Eve did a long time 6. What do I speak of likelihoods or possibilities when we have good Authours which give us more light concerning Lazarus his life and concerning his death There is a manuscript of the English historie in the Vatican at Rome testifying That about the 35 yeare of Christ saith Baronius on the same yeare Lazarus Marie Magdalene and Martha with Marcella their waiting-woman with Maximinus their disciple with Joseph of Arimathea their companion e Imponebantur navi absque remigio were put into a little sciph or great boat without oares or fit tackling and so were in great danger at the sea but by Gods providence f Massiliam appulerunt they arrived at Marsillis a citie of Provance in France Tostatus upon 1. King 17. saith Lazarus was a Bishop and an holy Martyr Epiphanius in the catalogue of Manichaeus his assertions saith he hath it by tradition that Lazarus was thirty yeares old when he was raised up and that he lived afterward other thirty yeares See the same Epiphanius Haeres 66. Gregory the great Dialog lib. 4.28 addeth that Lazarus never laught after he was raised and he did so tame himself with fastings watchings and labours that his very conversation did seem to speak though he held his tongue that he had seen the infernall torments So farre Gregorie Yet under his correction he might as well and as much bring his bodie under and flee from the verie inclination to sinne because he had tasted of the joyes celestiall and peace unconceiveable Thus have you the life and death of Lazarus O Thou who art the Resurrection and the Life quicken me with thy Spirit lead me by thy grace and crown me with thy glory for thy tender mercy O my sweet Saviour my joy and delight the life of my soul my Mediatour and Advocate Jesu Christ Amen CHAP. IIII. 1. Tabitha died again 2. So did Eutychus 3. They who were raised about the Passion of Christ died not again as many ancient and late Writers do imagine Mr. Montague is more reserved 1. NOw am I come to speak of those who after Christs ascension were raised For though in his life time none of Christs inwardest disciples or friends raised any as Elisha's servant could not raise the Shunammites sonne but Elisha himself must do it and did it 2. King 4.31 c. And Elisha himself raised none while his master Elijah lived but Elijah himself did it 1. King 17.22 yet after Christs ascension by his power communicated to them the beleever shall do the works that I do and greater works then these shall he do saith Christ Joh. 14.12 One was raised by S. Peter an other by S. Paul You shall finde the first Act. 9.40 When Peter had kneeled and prayed and turned him to Tabitha her body and said Tabitha arise she opened her eyes and when she saw Peter she sat up Yet was she dead before and washt and laid in an upper chamber vers 37. 2. And for the other the storie is this Act. 20.9 As Paul was long preaching Eutychus sunk down with sleep and fell down from the third loft and was taken up dead perchance broken in some parts of his bodie bruised certainly him S. Paul raised and they brought the young man alive and were not a little comforted vers 12. Of these two as well as of the rest there is no doubt but that they lived again again to die So thinks Aquinas 3. part Summ. Quaest 53. Artic. 3. and the whole School following him agree with us in this So Suarez Lorinus who not Take one of the ancients for all Cyprian reckoneth up those who were raised in the Old Testament and others raised by Christs command and saith of these h Aliquo tempore beneficio vitae usi iterum ad funera rediêre Pag. 523. de Resur Christi paragr 8. They lived a while and died again and a little before of them in the Old Testament i Ad mortem quam gustaverunt iterum redierunt They tasted of death the second time And therefore it needs the lesse proof because none denieth it and the contrary needeth the lesse disproof because none hath averred it 3. Now it is time to come to the third and last part of my main first division and to speak of them who arose about the time that Christ died for of them there is a deep and intricate question and the historie of them is set down at large
justly suspected saith the worthy Estius the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so easily turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a little dash And he findeth just fault with Acacius in Hierom for saying it was so read in most Greek copies when as certainly it was read so but in verie few copies whereof there is scarce one now extant and not many proofs that ever there were many copies of that extant Neither indeed doth the reading stand with sense For the Apostle solemnly premizeth Behold I shew you a mysterie and then subjoyneth immediately according to this new-fangled mis-writing We shall all therefore sleep or die Is this a mysterie that all shall sleep or all die Doth he promise mountains and bring forth a molehill Every Heathen knows that we shall die every Christian Turk and Jew that we shall be raised again But when God justly for sinne sentenced man to death with a morte morieris That some sinfull men should be excepted is a mysterie deserving such a watchword as Behold Behold I shew you a mysterie we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed Secondly from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I thus argue That death if such a death there be any which is so speedily begun by separation of the soul from the bodie and ended as I may so say by the swift and momentanie reuniting of the same soul to the same bodie cannot handsomely be called a sleep Doth he sleep who in the twinkling of an eye is changed from mortalitie to immortalitie yea from being alive is made dead and from being dead is made alive and that incorruptibly Was ever sleep confined to an instant till now or may one be said to sleep in the midst of these great works It is not so much as Analogicall sleep The greatest sleepers have more then an instant ere they can begin to sleep Sleep creepeth or falleth on men by degrees heavinesse and dulnesse usher it and the spirits have a time to retire to their forts and cittadels the senses are not locked up nor do they deposite the use of their faculties in a moment And may that be called properly rest or sleep which resteth not above an instant and is as quick as thought Rest and sleep do couch upon the bed of time likewise it is as much as possibly can be done if so much can be done to awake one in an instant The Scripture useth the phrase of sleeping towards them who rest as it were in death in the earth in the grave Our friend Lazarus sleepeth saith Christ John 11.11 when indeed he was buried Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake Dan. 12.2 Let one place of holy Writ be produced where one and the same instant beginneth sleep and endeth awaking and then I may say there may be some shadow for that reading But here is no pause no rest no quiet therefore no sleep therefore the word sleep in this place is applied to such as died before and not to such as are alive and shall die as the second lection implieth Thirdly it wanteth force to say in the whole conjoyned sentence We shall therefore all sleep or die but we shall all be changed If the Apostle had intended any such thing he would not have used the adversative particle But but the implicative word And We shall all therefore sleep AND we shall all be changed This had been sense if thus it had been but not being so we may the more confidently shake off the second lection of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as abhorrent from reason and cleave to the first of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnes quidem non dormiemus c. All we shall not die but all we shall be changed And so from the varietie of Greek copies I come to the Vulgat the Translation in Latine Omnes quidem resurgemus sed non omnes immutabimur Truely we shall all of us arise but we shall not all of us be changed First I say this differeth from all Greek copies whereas if it had been according to any sort of them it might have swayed us much that way Secondly the same argument toucht at before may also give a side-blow to this translation The Apostle raiseth up their considerations by promising to tell them a mysterie But it was no mysterie to tell them that they should all be raised when he had told it so pithily so divinely and so often beat upon it before by so many kindes of arguments as he did Thirdly where the Vulgat saith Non omnes immutabimur it is not true for Omnes immutabimur We shall all be changed from mortalitie to immortalitie from naturall bodies to spirituall If you say We shall not be all changed to glorie I say so with you I adde That is no mysterie all know that Therefore the Apostle speaketh not of a change to glorie eternall in the heavens whereunto some onely shall be changed but he speaketh of a change from mortalitie to immortalitie from corruptible bodies to incorruptible which even the wickedest men shall have And perhaps he meaneth that this generall immutation shall be made sine media morte without intercurrent or intercedent death even in the wicked that shall be then alive yet in the change you must alwaies make this diversitie The wicked shall be singled out to shame to losse to punishment eternall with their raised or changed bodies for even in their raising also there is a change from corruption to incorruption but in the change of the godly there is glorious incorruption joyfull immortalitie pleasurable eternitie The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a change of a thing from place to place as when we take a piece of wood from the earth and cast it into the water Thus the wicked shall be hurried from their graves to the judgement seat and shall be placed on the left hand of our Saviour and after sentence shall be haled and cast from earth into hell On the other side the righteous in their change shall be mounted up from their graves or from the earth into the aire to meet Christ and shall be at his right hand and after sentence be carried or ascend up into heaven in most glorious manner to live with Christ eternally Fourthly if we reade it with the Vulgat We shall all arise but we shall not all be changed we must also immediately annex the words In a moment in the twinkling of an eie at the last trump for there is the pause and stay to be made there is the full sentence The Vulgat hath done very ill to make the stay and full point at immutabimur for then the words following bear no construction at all if they be considered by themselves In a moment in the twinkling of an eie at the last trump For then cometh in new matter For the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be
that have offered him the forbidden fruit she had been full of deceit and her intentions had been stained with the just aspersion of seducement But she might think her sinne was little or none and perswade herself she should not die and relate that perswasion to her husband or think onely of Gods mercy who had never tasted of his judgements And perhaps he seeing that she had touched the fruit and was not dead sunk under her enticements and did eat Before I part with this point two questions more must needs be answered First Whether Eve sinned the same sinne with Adam Secondly Whether of their sinnes were the greatest Concerning the first I answer In regard that both of them knew that to eat of the forbidden fruit was unlawfull and displeasing to God and yet did eat they sinned the same sinne but as the commandment was given to Adam before Eves creation as Adam was the root of mankinde and as his posterity was to stand or fall in him onely and not in Eve so she sinned not the same sinne with Adam She sinned the same sinne in respect of the outward eating not in regard of the inward obligation She sinned the same sin in se so much as concerned her own person she sinned not the same sinne extensivè erga alios For as her good actions considered by themselves should not have been the rule or square according to which our humane natures should have been framed but for all her uprightnes if Adam had sinned we had died so her sinne or sinnes setting Adam apart had not extended to the corruption or destruction of mankinde Though in innocencie they did see much yet they could then see no deformitie nay though Eve had sinned and sinned divers sinnes before Adam sinned any for she beleeved the Serpent distrusted God fell to unlawfull desires and did eat yet they were both blinde and neither Eve herself did consider her own faults as she should nor Adam Eves faults but immediately so soon as Adam had eaten Genes 3.7 The eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked For their nakednes came by Adams sinne and not by Eves the same sinne of hers and his was not the same neither Adam nor we nor she herself by her sinnes were bare and naked of goodnes or had lost Bonum naturae but onely gratiae personalis but when once he had sinned he she and we were all naked our natures corrupt and to be ashamed of and both of them knew it Their eyes opened themselves so Tremellius hath it differing from the Hebrew and the Septuagint The truth is she sinned the same sinne twice for she ate first by herself and then her eyes were not opened Neither was she spoiled of originall justice saith Franciscus Aretinus as it was gratia gratis data nor did she feelthe motions of concupiscence or knew her own nakednes till Adam had sinned For if she had been deprived of grace so soon as she sinned she should have been ashamed of her nakednes neither durst she to have gone naked to her husband but for modestie would have sought some covering or fled into corners So farre Aretinus or Cornelius à Lapide who citeth him But after this her eating and this her sinne she cometh to her husband and offereth him some to eat and eateth with him the second time and perchance began to eat the second time ere he ate once and suffered him to see her eat Sure I am the Hebrew runneth thus She did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat but the 70 say of Eve first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where they are peremptorie that Adam and Eve or rather Eve and Adam are both together And Vatablus well expoundeth the SECVM id est vt unà cum ipsa ederet and the proof is pertinent enough though we do not reade with the Septuagint They did eat but with the Hebrew He did eat namely with her or after he had seen her eat The summe is she ate first she ate again with him she sinned the same sinne And further though she sinned the same sinne the third time in his eating and by it aswell as we did who also were in him ratione principii yet was it not her sinne but his sinne that overthrew both him her and us and in this sense we may truly say she sinned not the same sinne with Adam So much for the first question It cometh secondarilie to be enquired Whether Adams or Eves sinne was the greater 5. To say that no sinne is greater then other is one of the grossest errors that have been Me thinks a Stoick should be ashamed to say that Nero Heliogabalus and the grand Epicure sinned not worse then Cato the Utican Aristides the Just or Zeno the Cittien of Cyprus the great upholder of their own sect or that unmatchable Titus the Emperour who lamented the day in which he did not good to some man was no better then Timon the Man-hater No other Philosophers ever joyned hands with them in that folly * Hoc de parilitate peccatorum soli Sioici ausi sunt disput are nam sic fecerunt contra emnem sensam generis humani Aug. Epist 29. Ad Hieronymum This of the equalitie of sinnes the Stoicks onely have dared to dispute for they did so against all the sense feeling and opinion of mankinde saith S. Augustin Yet Jovinian sided with them but S. Hierom confuted him * Quam corum vanitatem in Joviniano illo qui in hac sententia Stoicus erat in auâ—upandis autem defensand is voluptatibus Epicurâ—us de Scripturis Sanctâ—â— diiucidissimè convicisiâ— Which opinion of theirs in that Jovinian who in this tenent was a Stoick but in pursuing and defending pleasures an Epicure out of the sacred Scriptures thou hast most clearely convinced as S. Augustine in the same place testifieth of S. Hierom to S. Hierom. The same in effect saith S. Hierom himself of himself against Jovinian * Nullam inter justum justum peccatorem peccato em esse distantiam veterémque Zenenis sententiam tam communi sensa quà m divinâ lectionecontrivim us Hieron Cont. Jovin lib. 2. We have crusht both by common sense and by divine Scripture the error of Jovinian who would prove that there is no difference between just and just a sinner and a sinner and also the old opinion of Zeno. And indeed so he did in the same book both by answering all Jovinians objections and overlaying him with sound proofs I omit whatsoever S. Hierom hath laboriously acutely and truly collected against the Stoicall equalitie of sinnes and against Jovinians wilde inferences Let him that thirsteth have recourse to the fountain in the said second book of S. Hierom against Jovinian Fons vincet sitientem Yet suffer me to cast my mite into the Treasurie First Elencticè upon the by then Didacticè on the main Concerning the first unto one of the
is an obscure point The errors of the Schoolmen concerning it The oversight of Bellarmine 2. Originall sinne described by its causes Distinguished from Adams actuall sinne 3. In what sense Adam had and his posteritie hath originall sinne We were in Adam He stood for us idealiter Every one of us would have done exactly as Adam did VVe did sinne in Adam and how 4. VVhether Christ was in Adam and how 5. VVe sinned not that sinne in Adam by imitation 6. Adams sinne as personall was not imputed Adam is saved Adams actuall sinne as it was ideall and representative is imputed to us 1 COncerning originall sinne though it be most true what S. Augustine saith de Morib Eccl. 1.22 * Nihil est peccato originali ad praedicandum notius nihil ad intelligendum secretius There is nothing to preach of more known nothing to understand more hidden then originall sinne And * Vltra radicem nihil quaerere oportet De lib. Arbitrio 3.17 We ought to seek nothing beyond the root Yet let us search till we finde this root And since the Apostle hath broken the ground and opened the way let us joyfully follow so blessed a guide S. Paul Rom. 5.12 hath a large Tractate of originall sinne as it is propagated unto us by Adam and Rom. 6. he speaketh of it as it is in the Regenerate The present questioned point hath nothing to do with this latter consideration and it is pertinently excluded from this discourse But of originall sinne as it is conveyed unto us by Adam divers things must be explained First you are to know that the Schoolmen are blindly led in this point You may see it at large in Beatissimo * Whitak De Originali Peccato lib. 1. cap. â— Whitakero for even that title is given to him by the learned Albericus Gentilis in the tenth Chapter of his Disputation on the first Book of the Maccabees And certainly none of late time hath so tripped them up as he hath done in his canvasse of Stapleton The errors of singular Schoolmen are various too many to be here confuted severally yet not so many as are imagined Holcot in his Question Whether every sin be imputable to the will proveth out of Augustines Book De Haeresibus Chap. 8. that some Hereticks have denied originall sinne or that there is any such thing But he resolveth That the Church hath determined the opinion to be erroneous And Augustine Gregorie Bede and all Authentick Doctors have spoken fully and expresly hereof and I saith he presuppose it as one Article of Faith Then cometh he to the diversitie of opinions Some saith he have held that originall sinne is not culpa but poena or obligatio ad poenam Anselm and Lombard dislike this saith he And indeed * Lomb. 2. Sent. dist 3. lit E F. Lombard proveth soundly both that according to this opinion originall sinne is neither culpa no nor poena and by excellent arguments establisheth that it is culpa Some saith Holcot who say it is culpa hold it is nothing els but the actuall sinne of our first parent imputed to us and this Tenet Anselm disliketh But Anselms dislike hath not hindered Catharinus and Pighius from embracing that error Yea Stapleton himself acknowledgeth three great errors in this by-path of Pighius First That he makes originall sinne no sinne but an obnoxietie to punishment Secondly That children want all sinne and yet are by him made sinners Thirdly That he makes no inherent originall sinne in every one Whitaker addeth a fourth absurdity That he teacheth children are damned who yet have no sinne I return to Holcot who addeth Others say Originall sinne is the pure privation of justice originall or injustice which is nothing in nature but a pure privation and want of justice in subjecto apto nato Yet saith Holcot as I have said otherwhere it appeareth not to me that any such pure privation is either originall or actuall sinne At last Holcot professeth to follow Lombard holding that originall sinne is an evill habit with which we are born and which we contract from the beginning of our nativitie This habit is concupiscence this concupiscence is a vice quod parvulum habilem concupiscere facit adultum verò concupiscentem reddit and this he fathereth on Augustine But this opinion is no better then the rest if by concupiscence they mean as they do onely the sensuality lust and brutish appetite of things sensitive You shall see it further confuted when I have disclosed the erronious doctrine which Lombard and his partisans hold to uphold this That originall sinne is the vice of concupiscence * Lomb. 2. Sent. dist 30. lit N. Lombard maintaineth that every one of our bodies were in Adam and whereas it was before objected That all flesh which descended from Adam could not be at once and together in him because it is farre greater then the body of Adam in which there were not so many as it were motes of flesh as men who have descended from him Lombard answereth All flesh was in him materially and causally though not formally and all that is in humane bodies naturally descendeth from Adam and in it self is increased and multiplied and this is that which shall arise at the Resurrection That no outward substance doth passe into that substance That it is fomented by meats but no meats are turned into that substance humane which by propagation descended from Adam For Adam transmitted a little of his substance into the bodies of his children when he begat them that is a little MODICVM was divided from the masse of his substance and thereof was the body of his sonne formed and by multiplication of it self is increased without the adjection of any outward thing And of that Modicum being augmented somewhat is separated whereby the bodies of posterities are in the like sort still formed His proofs were easie to be answered but there is a veru or an obelisk set on that opinion in the margin Magister hîc non approbatur And more at large among the errors condemned in England and in Paris for so go the words of the Preface not in England and France not alone in Oxford and Paris but in both the Universities of England and in that of Paris you shall finde him forsaken in these opinions pag. 985. 1 Quòd in veritatem humâ—nae naturae nihil transit extrinsecum That no externall thing passeth into the truth of humane nature 2 Quod ab Adam descendit per propagationem auctum multipliâ—atum resurget in judicio pag. 985. That which descendeth from Adam and is increased and multiplied by propagation shall arise in the day of judgement These singular opinions being now rejected and confuted by Estius Sentent 2. Distinct 30. Paragraph 13. and whatsoever Lombard bringeth for himself answered in his next Paragraph let us grapple with Holcot who is a second unto Lombard and let
us prove That originall sinne is not the concupiscence of the flesh See this confuted by * Bell. De Amiss Gratiae 4.12 Bellarmine by this argument If LVST were the cause of originall sinne he should have the greater sinne who was conceived in greater LVST which is manifestly false since originall sinne is equall in all men See other arguments well used to that purpose by Bellarmine in that place yet is he amisse * De Sacramento Baptismi 1.9 elsewhere in the answer unto the tenth argument of the Anabaptists For saith he * Originale peccatum non est materia poeniten tiae nemo enim rectè poe uitentiam agit ejus peccati quod ipse non commisit quod in ejus potestate non suit Originale autem peccatum non ipsi commisimus sed trahimus ab Adam per naturalem propagationem undâ— diâ—itur de insantibus Rom. 9 11. Originall sinne is no matter of repentance for a man doth not well repent of that sinne which he hath not committed himself and which was not in his power Now we have not our selves committed originall sinne but we draw it from Adam by naturall propagation whereupon it is said Rom. 9.11 of Esau and Jacob THEY HAD DONE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL First I answer to the place of Scripture confessing it is spoken of Esau wicked Esau that he had done no evill and of Jacob good Jacob that he had done no good Again it is spoken of both of them before they were born But secondly it is spoken of actuall sinnes and actuall goodnes that neither did Jacob good actuall good any good in the wombe nor Esau any actuall evil For the bodily organs are not so fitted that they exercise such actions as produce good or evil The words do evince so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 practically working no good nor evil Yet though God depended not upon their works as the Apostle there argueth for all that they might and did commit originall sinne and in it were conceived and the promise was made to Rebecca after she conceived Genes 25.23 It being then manifest that the place of the Apostle affordeth no patrociny to Bellarmine I say originall sinne is in part the matter of Repentance otherwise David in his chiefest penitentiall Psalme 51.5 would not have charged himself with that sinne nor needed not so vehemently to call for mercy Again we may be said to commit originall sinne and originall sinne to have been in our power as we were in Adam as we would have done the like and the like against Adam as Adam did against us if we had stood in Adams place as he did stand in our stead Thirdly our will was in his will what he did we did Bellarmines Philosophie here swalloweth up his Divinitie Fourthly he must not take committere strictly for a full free deliberate action of commission nor trahere strictly for a meer passion but as I shall make it appear there is some little inclination from the matter to the form of the body to the soul as also of the soul to the body and that the soul is neither as a block or stone on the one side to receive durt and be integrally passive nor yet so active as to make the originall sinne to be actuall So that it neither properly committeth nor properly contracteth draweth or receiveth originall sinne and yet in a large sense may be said both to commit and to receive Fifthly if Bellarmine be punctilious for the terms himself is faultie For he saith * Trahimus ab Adam originale peccatum We do attract originall sinne from Adam Is there any attraction on our part if there be no action Or is action or attraction without some kinde of commission Sixthly hath the whole Church of God prayed for the remission aswell of originall sinne as of actuall if it be not the matter of repentance Or needeth not one unbaptized till he come of age repent before Baptisme for his originall sinne Lastly why are children baptized but that originall sinne is matter of repentance To set all things better in order and to cleare all mists you are to know that there is wonderfull mistaking and ambiguitie whil'st originall sinne is confounded with Adams actuall sinne and one taken for another whil'st the cause is undistinguished from the effect when indeed there is a great traverse between them 2 Somewhat according to the new Masters of method the efficient cause of Adams sinne was both outward and inward Outward Remote Outward Propinque Remote Principall Satan Remote Instrumentall the Serpent Outward propinque was Eve the principall Outward propinque was The apple was the instrumentall cause The inward efficient cause was first the faculties of the soul which we may terme the principium activum and was more remote then the ill use of these faculties the misimploying of his free-will which you may stile principium actuale and was the more propinque cause But the cause efficient of originall sinne was outwardly the actuall sinne of Adam inwardly the conjunction of the soul after the propagation of nature The matter of Adams sinne subjectivè was the whole person and nature of Adam and his posteritie descending from him per viam seminalem objectivè the liking touching and eating of the forbidden fruit The matter of originall sinne subjectivè is all of our nature and every one of mankinde secundum se totum totum sui coming the ordinarie way of generation in so much that all and every of the faculties of the soul and bodie of all and every one of us is subject to all and every sinne which hath been or may ever hereafter be committed and this cometh onely from this originall sinne and the inclination wrapped up in it The matter objectivè is both carentia justitiae originalis debitae inesse and the vices contrarie unto it now filling up its room and stead Formalis ratio of Adams first sinne was aversion from God the ratio materialis was his conversion to a changeable good saith * Stapl. De Originali Peccato 1.12 Stapleton both these are knit up in one disobedience And so the formall cause of Adams sinne was disobedience the formall cause of our originall sinne is the deformitie and corruption of nature falne and propagated inclining to sinne so soon as is possible and without a divine hand of restraint as much as is possible The end of Adams sinne was in his intention primarily To know good and evill secundarily to prefer temporals before spirituals whil'st indeed he esteemed the Bonum apparens before the Bonum verum revera or reale In mankinde after him no end can be found of originall sinne since we contract it when we have nullum verum aspectum respectum intuitum vel-sinem For Finis bonum convertuntur There is no end of evill per se sed ex accidenti and so Gods Glory is the supreme end of all sinne The effects of Adams actuall