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
all sins which by a wicked life they have added to that one Ignatius calleth it The ancient impietie Irenaeus stileth it The hand-writing written by Adam All in the singular number pointing at one man onely and at one sinne onely Two points are cleared We are appointed to die for one sinne onely We are appointed to die of one person onely It followeth by the native and genuine method This person was one man * Parvuli moriuntur soli peceato originali obnoxâ—i adulti omnibus peccatis quae malè vivendo addiderunt ad illud unum Enchir. cap. 43. This one man was Adam And so by consequent it was not Eves sinne for which death was appointed to us And first of the first part 4. That this person sinning was one man seemeth evidenced Rom. 5.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By one that sinned It is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Ignatius Epist ad Trallianos Yet if that proof reach not home but may suffer extension even to Angels or spirits others shall 1. Cor. 15.21 * Iren. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By man came death and by man the Resurrection of the dead You may as well deny the Resurrection by the Sonne of man as that sinne or death came not by man Again Rom. 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By one man sinne entred into the World and death by sinne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demonstrating the humane nature and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with it necessarily pointing and signing out the masculine and not the feminine Rom. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the disobedience of one man where most evidently not onely the humane nature is signed and marked out unto us but also the masculine sex the He and not the She. Having found that he was a Man for whose sinne death was appointed let us now follow the sent and we shall trace out who he was which is the main point of inquirie Searching the Scriptures even close to the former place occurreth this 1. Corint 15.22 As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive He who confesseth the quickning power of the second Adam unto Resurrection must also confesse the weaknes of the first Adam and that In him all men die Indeed it is said Eccl. 25.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Accusative Of the woman came the beginning of sin and through her we all die But of Adam the phrase is used in the Genitive Rom. 5 three severall times Per illam non in illa morimur The Divines distinguish them two We die by her and in Adam We also die by the Devill as he was the tempter of her as well as by her she being the tempter of Adam by them both occasionally by him and onely in him effectually So for the former part of the words it is true * Ab Eva initium peccati ab Adamo complementum Eve began sinne but Adam made it compleat She was principium but principium principiatum Satan was the principium principians the mover primo-primus He was a murderer from the beginning John 8.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from the first absolute beginning for then Satan had no being not from his own beginning for at his creation he was good as all things els were but so soon as ever man was he resolved to destroy man and with reference to that intention he was a man-slayer or a murderer of man from the beginning of man From Satan was the beginning of sin from Eve a seconding a middesse a continuation you may call it an other beginning secundo-primum But had not Adam sinned death had not reigned for in Adam all die it was never said of Eve in Eve we die Augustine saith * Aug. De Civit. 12.21 God made some certain creatures solitarias quodam modo solivagas solitarie and after a sort wandring alone as eagles kites lions wolves other creatures gregales that love to troupe fly shoal and herd together as pigeons stares fishes deere and made divers of them all at once of severall kindes and not onely two of each kinde by which the rest should be propagated but he made the man unum singulum one and single and would not create the woman when he created the man but made her of man himself * Vt omne ex homine vno diffunderetur genus humanum that all mankinde should be derived from one man He annexeth other where That originall sinne might come from one onely man The Apostle saith most divinely 1. Timoth. 2.14 Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression From whence though the ignorant may think that Eve was the sinner and Adam was not yet they erre not understanding the Apostle His main intent is to prove that a woman ought to be silent and subject and not usurp authoritie over the man as a talking woman doth and this he effecteth by two reasons First Adam was first formed then Eve The reason holds of things of the same species Otherwise beasts and birds were created before Adam Secondly Adam was not deceived but Eve not first deceived not deceived by a beast and one of the worst of them a serpent Therefore she is unfit to be any longer a teacher Chrysostom thus The woman taught once and marred all therefore let her teach no longer Hence it appeareth it was no part of the Apostles meaning to handle Whether the sinne of Adam or of Eve caused mankinde to fall which is our main point for the transgression here mentioned was not that sinne that great sin but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diverticulum transiens a peccadillo a little sinne in respect of that great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ingaged all mankinde much lesse did the Apostle intend to excuse Adam from that great presumptuous offence in which he onely was That sin of his being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.19 which must needs be a crying sin and almost infinite since it is opposed to Christs obedience called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam was not deceived because no man is properly deceived but of him who hath an intent to deceive now the Devil onely had such an intent and thereupon deceived Eve Wherefore she complaineth saying the Serpent beguiled me Genes 3.13 the Apostle ratifieth it 2. Corinth 11.3 The Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty And in this manner Eve onely being deceived was in the transgression For Satan set not upon Adam * Diabolus non est adorsus eum qui corà m acceperat coelesse mandatum sed eam quae à viro didicerat Ambr. lib. de Paradiso cap. 12. Dolo illo serpentino c Aug. De Gen. ad lit 11.42 The Devil set not upon him that had received in presence the heavenly commandment but upon her that had learned it of her husband saith Ambrose Yea S. Augustine
the branches being saved the root also should not be saved But in his book De praescript advers Haereticos as it is cited by Bellarmine there is no mention of Tatian in Rhenanus his Edition Augustine saith of the Tatians and Encratites * Quòd contradicunt primorum hominum saluti Aug. De Haeresib cap. 25. That they gainsay the salvation of the first men Where Bellarmine used another Edition then Erasmus his or was mistaken in the collation He who will see more into this point let him consult with Bellarmine in the place above cited and Salianus ad Annum Mundi 930. where he justly taxeth Rupert for saying in this third book on Genes chap. 31. * Salvationem Adami à multit liberè negari à nullo satìs firmiter defendi That the salvation of Adam is freely denied by many and by none strongly enough defended And he bringeth many authorities and proofs to the contrary From Irenaeus he bids them blush for saying Adam was not saved and more vehemently That by saying so they make themselves Hereticks and Apostates from the truth and Advocates for the Serpent and Death God cursed not Adam and Eve but the earth and the Serpent Yea before God pronounced any punishment against Eve or Adam even in the midst of his cursing of the Serpent with the same breath he both menaced Satan and comforted Adam and Eve with the gracious promise of the Messiah Genes 3.15 Now there was never any unto whom God vouchsafed a speciall promise of Christ but they were saved Indeed the Apostle reckoneth not Adam among the faithfull ones Hebr. 11. but one reason of this omission is because he entreateth of such faithfull ones onely as were much persecuted which Adam was not so farre as is recorded If it be further objected That God is called THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ISAAC AND JACOB Exod. 3.6 Matth. 22.32 and is no where called THE GOD OF ADAM let it be answered That Adam is called THE SONNE OF GOD Luke 3.38 And I think he is too severe a judge who saith a sonne of God is damned The Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase set forth by Rivius on the Canticles chap. 1. vers 1. saith * Et veuit dies Sabbati protexit eum aperuit os suum dixit Psalmum Cantici diei Sabbati That the first song that ever was made was indited by Adam in the time when his sinne was forgiven him Damianus à Goes De Moribus Aethiopum makes this the belief of Zagazabo and the Ethiopians for whom he negotiated That Christs soul descended into Hell for Adams soul pag. 93. and that Adam was redeemed by Christ from Hell pag. 55. How glorious was it for Christ to save his first sheep and how would the Devil glorie if it were otherwise Adams fig-leaves may be thought to be sharp afflictive and penitentiall Epiphanius Haeres 46. calleth Adam Holy and saith We beleeve he is among those Fathers whom Christ reckoneth alive not dead God is not the God of the dead but of the living Irenaeus saith Adam humbly bare the punishment laid upon him Can humility be damned then may pride be saved Josephus 1.2 recordeth That Adam foretold the universall destruction of the World one by the floud the other by fire And can the first of Mankinde the first King Priest and Prophet of the World be condemned Others probably conjecture that before his death he called the chief of his children grand-children and their descendants and gave them holy and ghostly counsel as Abraham did Genes 18.19 and Jacob Genes 49.1 c. and Moses Deuteron 31.1 c. Salianus fits him a particular speech at his death and a witty Epitaph Feuardentius on Irenaeus thus relateth Nicodemus Christs Disciple in the History ascribed to him OF THE PASSION AND RESVRRECTION OF THE LORD reporteth That our Lord Jesus Christ when he descended into Hell in his soul spake thus to Adam and held his hand PEACE BE VNTO THEE VVITH ALL THY SONNES MY IVST ONES But Adam falling on his knees such spirituall knees as before his spirituall hand which Christ held while both their bodies were in the grave weeping-ripe thus prayed with a loud voice * Exaltabo te Domine quoniam suscepisti me nec delectâsti inimicos meos super me Domine Deus clamavi ad te sanâsti me eduxisti ab inferis animam meam salvâstime à descendentibus in lacum I will magnifie thee Lord because thou hast received me and hast not made glad mine enemies over me Lord God I have cried unto thee and thou hast healed me Thou hast brought up my soul from Hell thou hast saved me from those that go down to the pit Thus Salianus in his Scholia ad Annum 930. Another ancient Apocryphal book affirmeth that Adam repented Didacus Vega in his second Sermon on the fifth penitentiall Psalme pag. 443. thus Leonardus de Vtino in his Book De Legibus Sermon de Poenitentia saith That Adam repented not of his sinne but remained obstinate till the death of Abel but when he saw him lye dead at his feet wallowed in his bloud and yet pale and as in a glasse saw the deformity of death he began to repent Strabo saith He was so sorrowfull that he vowed chastity for ever and would have performed it if an Angel had not injoyned him the contrary And from the authority of Josephus he saith Adam was so sorry for Abel that he wept an whole hundred yeares But I beleeve saith Vega He rather wept for the cause which was sinne then for the very death of Abel Ludovicus Vertomannus in his sixth Book fourth Chapter of his journey to India hath recorded that a Mahumetan Merchant told him that at the top of an high mountain in the Iland of Zaylon subject to the King of Narsinga there is a den in which Adam after his fall lived and continued very penitently And though their tradition rests on an idle conjecture because there is yet seen the print of the steps of his feet almost two spannes long for how should they know they were his feet rather then some giants and because how Adam should come to this Iland and why cannot be shewed yet so farre as is probable we will joyn issue with their beleef to wit That he was penitent and so saved Thus much be spoken concerning the salvation of Adams soul Concerning Adams actuall sinne though I said truly before That as it was private and personall it was not imputed to us yet I must needs say as it was ideall and representative it was and is imputed to us He who denieth this let him also deny that Christs active and passive Merits are imputed to us Neither can the Divine providence be taxed with rigour much lesse with injustice for imputing Adams sinne unto us For first he imputeth not our own actuall and personall iniquities but forgiveth us both this sinne of Adam and all manner of
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
desideramus or volumus for so must the Apostle be interpreted as appeareth vers 2 We grone earnestly desiring to be clothed upon Tertullian saith * Quiâ—uon desiderat adhuc in carne superinduere immortalitatem continuare vitam lucrifactam mortis vicariâ denuntiatione De Resur carnis Who desireth not being yet in the flesh to be clothed upon with immortalitie and to continue his life gained by a substituted denunciation of death Can so blessed a change be painfull or can we naturally desire pain shall we grone and grone earnestly that we may have pain Hierome in his Epistle to Minerius and Alexander saith thus of the word Rapiemur * Hoc verbo estendi puto subitum ad meliora transcensum ideirco raptum se voluisse dicere vt velocitas transcuntis sensum cogitantis excederet I think that this word sheweth a sudden passage to a better place and that he said he was caught up to signifie that his passing was swifter then his thinking not as if it were painfull to be taken as I imagine S. Paul speaketh of this translation and change as a matter worthie of thanks unto God 1. Corinth 15.51 c. Onely death of all other wayes by which God useth to call mankinde to glorie death onely is painfull Psal 116.3 The sorrows of death compassed me God loosed the pains of death Act. 2.24 and Hebr. 2.15 Some through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage And indeed this pain of death is part of the curse denounced But of this point more hereafter And thus do I make my approach towards it 2. * Aug. De. peccat Merit Remis 1.16 Augustine saith When disobedient Adam sinned then did his body lose the grace of being obedient to his soul Then arose that bestiall motion to be ashamed of by men which he blusht at in his nakednes Then also by a certain sicknes taken by a sudden and contagious corruption it came to passe that the stabilitie of age being lost in which they were created by the changes of ages they made a progresse to death For though they lived many yeares after yet they began to die the same day when they received the law of death by which they were to grow old For whatsoever by a continuall change and degrees runneth unto an end not perfecting or consummating stands not a moment but decayes without intermission Thus was fulfilled what God said Genes 2.17 In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die So he Let me adde my conjecture First if God had not called Adam and Eve so sensibly to an account yet had they died by vertue of the former sentence For the later sentence inflicts not death which was then entred on them but labour and pain In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the dayes of thy life Genes 3.17 And though it be said vers 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground for out of it wast thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return Yet this is but an explication of the former sentence shewing that the manner of the death shall be by incineration which was not so exactly speciallized before Secondly the same instant that Adam had eaten I make no doubt but both their eyes were opened and they knew their nakednes which was the first sensible degree towards death and corruption For though the Scripture doth not say expressely Immediately their eyes were opened yet it implieth so much as may appeare by the implicative particle and Genes 3.6 c. Eve did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat and the eyes of them both were opened c. S. Augustine thus * Quomodo corpus nostrum dicit Apostolus mortuum Rom 8.10 cùm adhuc de viventibus loqueretur nisi quia jam ipsa conditio moriendi ex peccato parentum haesit in prole De Gen. ad lit 6.26 How doth the Apostle say that our body is dead Rom. 8.10 when he speaks of the living but because the condition of dying arising from the sinne of the parents sticks to the posteritie So we also die or are dying the first houre of our being And again * Corpus mortuum est propter peccatum Nec ibi ait Mortale sed Mortuum quamvis vtique mortale quia moriturum mox vbi praeceptum transgressi sunt ecrum membris velut aliqua aegritudo lethalis mors ipsa concepta est Quid enimaliud non dicam nati sed omnino concepti nisi aegritudinem quandam inchoavimus quâ sumus sine dubis morituri Ibid. 9 10 The body is dead because of sinne He saith not there It is mortall but dead albeit it is truely mortall because it shall die So soon as they transgressed the commandment death like some deadly disease was conceived in their members For as soon as we were I will not say born but even conceived what did weels but begin a certain sicknes by which we shall undoubtedly die IN THE MIDST OF LIFE WE ARE IN DEATH and now non vitam vivimus sed mortem which was toucht at before and must be handled again God who drew light out of darknes yea all things out of the unformed TOHV-BOHV and that masse or rude lump out of nothing is so good a God and so divine a goodnes that he would never have suffered sinne in this world but that he knew how to extract good out of evill and to turn mans sinne to his benefit Neither would he have permitted death to enter upon man but that he knew how to use the sting of death to mans greater happines and how to bring forth meat out of the eater and sweetnes out of the strong Judg. 14.14 As of the vipers flesh is made a preservative against the poison of the viper so from this bitter cup of death ariseth health joy and salvation to mankinde * Aug. De Civit. Dei 9.10 Augustine hath a witty collection from Plato and his follower Plotinus Plato in Timaeo writeth * Hominum animos mortalibus vinculis esse à dâ—is minoribus illigatos that the spirits of men are tied with mortall bands by the lesser gods So Vives on the place citeth Plato but Plotinus in lib. de dubijs Animae as he is also cited by Vives on that place of Augustine thus * Jupiter Pater laborantaâ— animas misâ—ratus earum vincula quibus laborant solubilia fabriâ—avit Father Jupiter having compassion of the afflicted souls hath made their bands soluble wherewith they are wearied These quotations at large give light to S. Augustines meaning which is subobscure for he saith * Plotinus Platenem prae caeteris intellexisse laudatur Is cùm de humanis animis ageret Pater in â—uit misericors mortalia illis vincula saciebat Plotinus is commended for having understood Plato above the rest He treating
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
in her without the help of man or sinne and was even then Lord of all things 5 Another point followeth towit We sinned that sinne in Adam not by imitation onely For Adam sinned and in a sort imitated Eve who sinned first and ate of the forbidden fruit before him yet it is not said That in Eve Adam died or many died in Eve or Adam sinned through Eve So likewise the Devill offended before Adam was and Adams sinne did nearly in many particulars resemble the Devils yet Adam died not by the sin of the Devil though after a fashion he did imitate it But it is said Rom. 5.15 Through the offence of Adam many be dead and thereabouts In Adam all die Therefore this sinne of ours must needs be more then by imitation And this is S. Augustines argument against Pelagius If it had been by imitation onely * Apostolus peccati principium non fecisset Adamum sed Diabolum The Apostle had not made Adam the beginning of sinne but the Devill Against Julian 6.10 he useth this other argument in effect Who almost yea who at all thinketh of Adam when he sinneth whereas the imitator propoundeth himself a pattern to follow and imitate Or what is Adams eating of an apple like unto witchery blasphemy murder lying or the like and how there have been yea are yet many millions in the world who never heard of Adam much lesse of his sinne and did they intend to imitate or did they imitate him Thirdly * De Peccat Merit Remiss 1.9 Augustine thus argueth As the second Adam besides this that we are to follow him and imitate him giveth hidden grace unto the faithfull so contrarily we are faulty and die not by the imitation onely of the first Adam but by the secret blot and spot by which he hath infected us Fourthly he thus disputeth in his 89 Epistle to Hierome The Apostle saith Rom. 5.16 The fault is of ONE offence to condemnation but he must have said It had been of MANY offences and not of ONE if all are condemned for their actuall personall imitation of Adam since the offences of many men must needs be more then the ONE offence spoken of by the Apostle Lastly let me reason thus Rom. 5.14 Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression But death was the wages of sinne Therefore some died who did not resemble Adam in finning And there is a sinne not like to his for Adams sinne was actuall most voluntary and personall Children in sinning of originall sinne do not imitate Adam for their sinne was onely implicit in and with him and they have not that absolute freedome of will that he had and their sinne is rather naturall then personall Yet children die for sinne and for such a sinne as is not after the similitude of Adams transgression and so originall sinne cleaveth unto us not by imitation onely * Aug. De Peccat Merit Remiss 1.15 Augustine thus If imitation onely make sinners by Adam onely imitation should make us just by Christ and then not Adam and Christ but Adam and Abel should be compared For Adam was the first wicked man and just Abel Hebr. 11.4 the first just man But these things are not thus Therefore we sinned not onely by imitation of Adam 6 I come to a new point namely to prove That this sinne of Adam is not ours by imputation onely as if Adam alone had offended and we were wholly cleare from that great sinne Indeed Adams actuall first sinne or his other sinnes after his repentance as they were personall and private are not imputed to us For he was to answer for himself as well as we are If we repent what doth our repentance help him If he had not changed his minde and turned to God himself alone should have been condemned as himself alone was saved by his own repentance That Adam was by divine wisdome brought out of his fall is said Wisd 10.1 * Veniae redditus est He hath been restored to pardon saith S. August And in the Tribe of Judah there is to this day a den or hole called Spelunca Adam The Cave of Adam in it a rock in which are two stony beds of Adam Eves and here they mourned as is delivered by Tradition saith Adrichomius an hundred yeares for the murdered Abel why not rather for their own sinnes say I This place is not farre from either Ager Damascenus where they say Adam was made of that Red earth which is mire tractabilis saith Adrichomius or from that place which to this day is shewen and recorded to be the plat of ground which drank up Abels bloud when Cain slew him And though I deny not but they might mourn for the death of Abel yet they were more bound to mourn for that sinne of theirs which brought death both upon Abel and themselves and all their posterity That Adam was a Type of Christ is expressed Rom. 5.15 and unfolded in many excellent particulars by * Sal. Ad annum 930◠Salianus That the more eminent Types of Christ should be saved is evinced because of their resemblance and conformitie unto the Antitype nor can it be proved that ever any of his figures were condemned For the shadow must follow the substance and Christ that Proto-type being not onely saved but called Jesus because he shall save his people from their sinnes Matth. 1.21 They are his people especially who in principal things resembled him and wherein can they better resemble him then in being blessed and saved as he was But I return to Adam Concerning Adam Augustine saith thus * De illo quidem primo homine patre generis humani quòd eum ibidem solverit Ecclesia ferè tota conseutit Aug. Epist 99. Ad Euodium As for that first man the father of mankinde almost the whole Church agreeth that Christ being in hell he there delivered him Concerning his body that it arose if other Saints of the Old Testament arose and that it was besprinkled with the bloud of Christ dying shall be shewed hereafter And if God had such care of Adams body or part of it he shall be impudently unreasonable that shall say his soul is not in blessednesse Now as his personall repentance saved himself onely and not one of his ofspring so if he had died unrepentant his sinne or sinnes as they were personall should not have prejudiced one of his posterities salvation Bellarmine * Bell. De Amiss Gratiae 3.12 saith It was one of Tatianus his errours That our first parents were damned Indeed Irenaeus 1.30 ascribes this opinion to Saturninus and Marcion and chap. 31. to Tatianus the first founder of it Tertullian in his book De Haeresib towards the end taxeth Tatian for the same opinion and confuteth him thus * Quasi non si rami salvi fiunt radix salva sit As if
first parent before the soul be united is not sinne but a punishment of sinne a debilitie of nature an effect of sinne For if the Embryo should die or suffer abortion before the infusion and unition of the reasonable soul as such a time there is such a thing may be it must appeare in judgement and without extraordinarie mercy be damned if there were sinne in it but that a lump of flesh which onely lived the life of a plant at the utmost the life of a brute creature for indeed some abortions seeming livelesse lumps being pricked have contracted themselves and shewed they had sense which never had reasonable soul or spirit or life of man for those three severall lives are not onely virtually but really distinguished I say that such a rude masse of flesh should be lyable to account and capable of eternall either joy or pain is strange Divinitie which yet followeth necessarily if sinne be in the seed or unformed Embryo But you may ask When sinne beginneth I answer So soon as the soul is united * Subest rationale peccati susceptibile There is a reasonable subject susceptible of sinne and then sinne entreth Original sinne is in the reasonable soul as in the proper subject and is there formally the fleshly seed is the instrumentall means of traduction both of humane nature and originall sinne Originall sinne in a large sense may be said to be in the flesh and fleshly seed virtually as in the cause instrumental and to be in it originally causally materially and in such sort to be sooner in the body then in the soul by the order of generation and time but exactly and in most proper terms sinne is sooner in the soul by the order of nature and hath its first residence in the substance of the soul then in the faculties of it and last of all in the body 2 In Bishop Bilsons Survey pag. 173. this Position following is produced and maintained against him by his opposers Pollution that is sinne and reall iniquity is not in our flesh without the soul The Bishop answereth very copiously The soul cometh not to the body presently with the conception Mothers and Midwives do certainly distinguish the time of quickning from the time of conceiving neither doth the childe quicken presently upon conception That the body is not straightway framed upon the conception many thousand scapes in all females and namely women do prove Physicians and Philosophers interpose many moneths between the conception and the perfection of the body Job saith we were first as milk then condensed as cruds after clothed with skinne and flesh lastly compacted with bones and sinews before we received life and soul from God Job 10.10 The New Testament noteth three degrees in framing our bodies Seed bloud flesh Upon the premisses he thus argueth If nothing can be defiled with sinne as by your doctrine you resolve except it have a reasonable soul of necessitie we either had reasonable souls at the instant of our conception which is a most famous falshood repugnant to all learning experience and to the words of Job or els we were not conceived in sinne which is a flat heresie dissenting from the plain words of the Sacred Scriptures and from the Christian Faith So farre Bishop Bilson If company may excuse his opinion I adde these First Mollerus accordeth with him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be referred to the time of conception so soon as ever it was conceived in the wombe and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the time that the Foetus lieth hid is carried in the wombe signifying the seed was impure the conception was not without the flames of concupiscence and all the masse of bloud that nourisheth the Embryo was defiled with vices in the wombe and lastly the masse of the Embryo when in the first ardor of conception it first began to be warmed by the wombe was contaminated with sinne Enough of Mollerus Kemnitius in his Examen de Peccato Originali pag. 167. thus * Cùm mossa Embryonis in primo ardore conceptionis primùm inciperet uteri calore foveri jam erat peccato contaminata quae contaminatio juxta Davidis confessionem habebat veram rationem peccati cùm nondum formata essent vel mentis vel voluntatis vel cordis organa When the masse of the Embryo in the first ardor of conception began to be warmed and cherished by the heat of the wombe it was already defiled with sinne which defilement according to Davids confession was truly a sinne when the instruments of the minde or of the will or of the heart were not yet framed Luther on the words In iniquitatibus conceptus sum thus * Non loquitur David de ullis operibus sed simpliciter de materia ipso esse dicit Semen humanum id est massa ex qua conceptus sum tota est vitio peccato corrupta Materia ipsa vitiata est lutum illud ex quo vasculum bee fingi coepit damnabile est foetus in utero antequam nascimur homines esse incipimus peccatum est David speaks not of any works but simply of the matter and being and he saith The humane seed of which I have been conceived is all corrupted with vice and sinne The matter it self is infected that clay of which this little vessel hath begun to be fashioned is damnable the fruit in the wombe before we be born and beginne to be men is sinne Hierom in his Commentary on the words * Concipitur nascitur in originali peccato quod ex Adam trahitâ—r Whatsoever is drawn and derived from Adam is conceived and born in originall sinne Cajetan thus * Hic est textus unde trâ—kitur originale peccatum quo scilicet ex commixtione maris foeminae conceptus dicitur in originali peccato This is the Text from which originall sinne is deduced wherein every one is said to be conceived in originall sinne by the conjunction of male and female All this shall not make me beleeve that there is sinne and real iniquity without a reasonable soul Illyricus is justly deserted for saying The very substance of the soul is sinfull And these deserve as few followers who say That the substantiall bodily soul-wanting masse is sinfull And I professe in this latter to take part with others rather then with the otherwise most Reverend and learned Bishop For * Culpa non potest esse in re irrationali There can be no sinne in a thing reasonles Unto Bishop Bilson I thus answer That all his premisses are true that I subscribe to his opinion in the first member of his disjunction The second part of it I do wholy deny nor do I fear his aspersion of heresie To the place of the Psalmograph I answer with reverence by distinguishing First that the words sinne and iniquitie are taken rather for inclinations to sinne then for sinne
opinion he citeth Bucer and Martyr All this cloud for it is but a cloud and an empty one also will quickly be dispersed First in the generall replication observe that Zanchius himself never specializeth this as his own judgement Secondly note how cautelously Bucer and Martyr carry it on the negative Many learned men denie that it is absurd to say c. Themselves see no convincing demonstration but are content if their opinion be not absurd Errours there are that are absurd if this be not absurd all is well Thirdly of those many are but two named by him Bucer and Martyr learned men indeed yet not more learned then many that herein differed from them Fourthly many words are homonymous and they themselves slide back from them by varying the state of the question as will appeare by and by Lastly let the grounds by me set down in the last chapter be well weighed and the truth will appeare on my side 2. Now let me descend to the matter of their objections b Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis The sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children say they Here they should have been punctuall and I desire to be satisfied what they mean Whether the sinnes of the father and mother be transfused into all the sonnes and daughters and into all of them alike or not alike And if the father be vertuous and the mother wicked or contrariwise the mother vertuous and the father wicked what is communicated to the childe Secondly what sinnes be communicated all or some Whether Atheisme and profanenesse of thoughts or onely such sinnes as the bodie is much imployed in performance of Thirdly whether the sinnes of grand-fathers and grand-mothers be derived and if so whether if there be a good grand-father and a good grand-mother and a good father the children shall inherit no goodnesse but the sinne of their wicked mother onely Or if two of them be good and two bad the males good and the females bad or contrariwise what sinne shall be communicated to their children Fourthly whether the sinnes of the great-grand-father and of his parents our more remote progenitours be derived and where beginneth the derivation of these sinnes and why from such determinate persons and generations rather then from others Or whether they must reach up from all the descendants of Adam to his actuall and personall sinnes Fifthly whether such actuall and personall sinnes as are repented of by our parents and all our forefathers be derived unto us or onely such as they were not repentant of or both sorts of them Sixthly let noveltie know Peccata proximorum communicantur liberis in stead of Propagantur ad liberos is an unknown phrase to antiquitie and it is better to speak plainly according to the dayes of the Fathers then in terms covert and dubious and then in defence of such riddles to say no more then the old Tenet c In universalibus latet dolus Deceit lieth hidden in universals The second branch of pendulous new-fanglednesse is this d Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis ità ut similes parentibus nascantur liberi vitiosi vitiosis The sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children so that children are born like unto their parents vicious of vicious First it is petitio principii that the vicious childe being like to his vicious father proceedeth from the fathers multiplied transgressions for if he be like to his father in sinne he is also in that regard as like and more like to many other actuall sinners from whom there could proceed no generative communication of iniquitie Secondly what is naturall is ordinary is oftenest is alwayes so without some notable hinderance but the childrens being like the parents are not thus therefore the communication is not naturall Thirdly suppose a wicked sonne curseth his father or wisheth him dead or mocks at him he also begetteth a sonne which sonne doth the like to him as he did to his father shall we say if the generation had descended after many from Cham who laught or mockt at his father Gen. 9.22 that this sinne of Cham was traduced derived or did passe over to this last mocker or shall we say it was derived unto him from the personall sinne of his immediate last father No we must rather say it was derived unto him from his last parents in and by that originall sinne onely which was traduced That this may the better be manifested consider these points First that Adams first sinne though it were one onely yet more sinnes were involved in it Augustine saith e In illo uno peccato quod per unum hominem intravit in muâ—dum in omnes homines pertransâ—it possunt intelligi plurapeccata si unum ipsum in sua quasi membra dividatur singula Aug. Enchir. cap. 43. In that one sinne which by one man entred into the world and passed over to all men more sinnes may be understood if that one sinne be divided into all its parts or members And he found there many branches of Adams sinne and denieth not but more may be found in hoâ— uno admisso in that one committed Secondly he maketh that one to be transfused unto all mankinde Thirdly none in the world were ever more eager then some of these latter times to aggravate the greatnesse of original sinne Illyricus is almost frantick on the point Zanchius and others are truely peremptory that all faculties of body and soul are infected Let me adde There never was sinne nor can be but the seed of it was couched in the sinne originall So that every man hath just cause to blesse God for withholding him from every sinne great or small since every man hath a naturall inclination to every sinne even unto that sinne which by Gods grace he most detesteth Therefore if wicked children be like their parents it proceedeth not from their parents personall transgressions but from that one infectious root of the first sinne of Adam strengthened by connivence ill breeding or custome or ill company Fourthly an holy man and woman who never mocked their parents have a sonne who mocks at them shall his mocking proceed from his parents or his parents parents who never personally did the like or shall Chams sinne be communicated to him Then why do they instance in this sinne of the next parents If they mean it is communicated in originall sinne they mean what I say and contrary to their own words Lastly sinne originall is alike in all and every one and alike remitted in Baptisme of infants yea though the parents should be infidels and send their childe for fashion-sake or by way of jesting to be baptized if the Church know not so much and if the childe be offered unto God by the wel-meaning devotion and faith of Priest and people present and be baptized with true matter and form it receiveth spirituall regeneration as I read long since if my memory
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