of all As the King represents the Kingdome and the chief Magistrate the Citie and the Master of the house the houshold so did Adam represent us and in him and with him we sinned 4. I can not part with this second point till I answer the objection Whether Christ were in Adam The doubt will be cleared by these two Positions First Christ may be said to be in Adam some kinde of way Therefore the Evangelist derives Christs Genealogie from him and he is said to be The Sonne of Adam Luke 3.38 And if he be called The Sonne of David as often he is Matth. 21.9 Mark 10.47 Rom. 1.3 He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh if he took on him the seed of Abraham as he did Hebr. 2.16 and is flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones and we of his Ephes 5.30 it must needs be confessed He was in Adam Paracelsus talketh of Non-Adami such as descended not from Adams loyns these if such are monsters in nature and as great a monster in Divinitie is it to say that Christ was no way in Adam I will enlarge this by a distinction Christ was not in Adam no nor we neither so that our substances or any part thereof were really or materially in him Yet both Christ and we were in him First because mediatly we were born of him and because he was the efficient cause of generation not the immediate propinque and proximous cause thereof which necessarily communicateth some matter to that which is begotten but he was the remote mediate yea the furthest and most distant efficient naturall cause of all from which it is not necessary that its matter reach to the hindermost effects Secondly be cause if he had not begotten children neither Christ in his humane nature nor we now long after him had ever been born Thirdly Christ took flesh of the thrice-blessed Virgin Mary and she was in Adam as all others are except Christ she was begotten by the concurrence and cooperation both of man and woman and so inasmuch as his holy Mother was in Adam Christ in a sort may be said to be in Adam * Christus fuit de genere Adae Holâ—â—t De Imputabintate peccati Christ was of Adams kindred saith Holcot The second Position is this Christ was not in Adam every manner of way as we were For we differed in this peculiar sort and manner because we were in Adam secundum seminalem rationem quâ per communionem vtriusque sexûs fit generatio For Adam could beget no childe without a femal sex which was one main reason of Eves creation neither did ever daughter of Eve conceive without a different sex except onely that stupendious miracle of our Saviours Incarnation And after this manner Christ was not in Adam He had true flesh from Adam but it was onely the listenes or similitude of sinfull flesh that he had Rom. 8.3 All other flesh except his is the flesh of sinne Had he come from Adam every way exactly as wee do he had had not onely true flesh as he had but true sinne also but because he had not Patrem naturalem as Scotus phraseth it therefore neither did he sinne in Adam nor was in Adam as we were Lombard * Lomb. lib. 3. dist 3. enquireth Why Levi was tithed in Abraham and not Christ when each of them was in the loyns of Abraham in regard of the matter He answereth * Leviticus ordo qui in Abraham secundum rationem seminalem erat ex eo per concupiscentiam caruis descendiâ— Sed Christ us non descendit secundum lâ—gem communem aut carâ—is libidinem The Leviticall order which was in Abraham according to the seed descends from him by the concupiscence of the flesh But Christ came not according to the common law or lust of the flesh And he resolveth thus When Levi and Christ according to the flesh were in the loyns of Abraham when he was tithed therefore was Levi tithed and not Christ because Christ was not in the loyns of Abraham after some manner or other that Levi was Moreover how could Christ be tithed to Christ how could the same in the same regard both pay and take Melchisedec was a figure of Christ and tithes by an everlasting law were due to the priesthood of Melchisedec as is unanswerably proved by my reverend friend now a blessed Saint Doctor Sclater against all sacrilegious Church-robbers Therefore Christ was not to be tithed in Abraham though Levi was Yea if Aaron or Melchisedec himself had lived till Christ had come in the flesh and lived with him perhaps they would have resigned up as it were their Office and no more have taken tithes or continuing in Office Sacerdotall under him they would have taken tithes in his name and for him Aquine out of Augustine thus * Quomodocunque Christus fuit in Adam Abraham in aliis Patribus alii homines etiam ibi fuerunt Aquin part 3. quaest 31. art 6. ex Aug. De Gen. ad lit 10.19 After what manner soever Christ was in Adam and Abraham and in other Fathers other men were there also but not contrariwise And Aquine himself setteth his conclusion When the body of Christ windeth up to the Fathers and so to Adam mediante Matris suae corpore Christ was not in them secundum aliquid signatum determinatum sed secundum originem Which I imagine he establisheth against such as Lombard saith did hold That from Adam descended by way of generation some such part or parcell as of it Christ was made Against which Aquine argueth thus whether modestly enough and truly let others judge The matter of Christs body was not the flesh and bone or any other actuall part of the Ever-blessed Virgin but onely her bloud which was potentiâ caro * Corpus Christi non seminaliter conceptum est sed ex castissimis purissimis sanguinibus Aquinas ex Damasceno But what she received from her parents was actually part of her but not part of Christs body Nor was Christs body in Adam and the other Fathers secundum aliquid signatum so that any part of Adams body or of the other Fathers could determinatly be pointed out and be said to be the very exact individuall matter out of which Christs body was framed but Christ was in Adam secundum originem as others were Whil'st Christ was in the wombe of the most happy Virgin Mary even many moneths before her delivery she was called Luke 1.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mother of my Lord which words in part Elisabeth took from Davids speculation Psal 110.1 The Lord said unto my Lord. Never woman was truly called or to be called a Mother before she were delivered except onely the Al-gracious Virgin Mary who could not possibly suffer abortion nor lose that Blessed Fruit of her wombe by the sinne of man or the punishment of mankinde for sinne which was conceived
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
tree and now they all perish that never were acquainted with Paradise and let me adde They are most justly punished Neither let man cavill or cast aspersion of unrighteousnes upon God For though men be but of yesterday yea though the childe be born but this minute yet by reason of their originall sinne in Adam and with him they were justly sentenced in Adam unto death almost six thousand yeares ago For though God needeth no defence from the actions and behaviour of men yet from their usances and customes generally received from their right and equitie daily practised let us ascend to behold the blamelesse course in the like of the Almightie Do we finde a young snake viper or other venemous or hurtfull beasts birds or the egges of a cocatrice we destroy them not for the harm which they have done but for the kinde sake and for the spoil which they may do Do not prodigall great heirs waste and scatter abroad estates ensured to posteritie Do they not cut off intailes annihilate and void perpetuities draw inheritances drie in smoke and consume them wholly on gut or groin to the everlasting prejudice of their issues Did not the disobedience of Queen Vashti unto her husband do a wrong not to the King Ahasuerus onely but to all the princes and all the people Esther 1.16 and as being exemplarie was punished accordingly If the whordome of the High-priests daughter be a profanation of her father Levit. 21.9 and therefore she was to be burnt alive though other whores were put to milder deaths if an evil done to a brother striketh up to the abuse of the father as it doth for God rendered the wickednesse of Abimelech which he did unto his father in flaying his seventie brethren Judges 9.56 then why might not the wickednesse of a father descend in some sort upon the children in a storm of wrath and punishment 3. The husband representeth the wife what bargain he maketh she maketh they are one flesh The great commandment to keep the sabbath was given to sonne and daughter to servants and to strangers but not to the wife She was forbidden in her husband which the rest were not but dividedly so was Eve forbid in Adam not inhibited her self but in him who represented her The men of Israel represented the women and the women had good by the actions or passions of the men The females were redeemed in the males every male gave a ransome for his soul unto the Lord all and every one rich and poore alike even half a shekel and they gave this offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls Exod. 30.15 Women were partakers of this benefit and in the mens atonement was the womans comprized Neither were the females presented to the Lord but the males the males onely and the women in them and by them but not in their own persons In Gods due claim to the beasts these three conditions were to be observed First that the beasts should be clean and so not swine not horses camels dromedaries elephants or the like but onely these three kindes sheep ruther-beasts and goats were the Lords unlesse you will make up the number foure with an asse which was to be redeemed with a lambe or his neck to be broken Exod. 13.13 For though it be said Exod. 13.2 Sanctifie unto me all the first-born whatsoever openeth the wombe among the children of Israel both of man and beast it is mine Yet you must not extend the words to dogs or cats or things unclean but onely to such clean beasts as God hath appointed for sacrifices Yea though it be said Numb 18.15 The firstling of unclean beasts thou shalt redeem You must know there is a double uncleannesse First that which is unclean throughout all its species as swine and horses and the like Secondly that which is unclean by accident and is contra-opposed to perfect and unblemished Levit. 22.22 23. as blinde or broken or maimed or having a wen or scurvie or scabbed or which hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts such beasts even of clean beasts as sheep goats c. the Lord counted unclean and claimed them not Those that were thus unclean by accident were to be redeemed and so that place of Numb is to be understood and not to be wire-drawn as if God did claim the unclean beasts to be his The second condition That those clean beasts should be first-born Thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix and every firstling that cometh of a beast Exod. 13.12 Thirdly these clean first-born or sirstlings must not be the females though they first open the matrix but the males 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuagints have it Exod. 13.12 The males shall be the Lords Semblably in the case of mankinde women were not the Lords claim but the men onely and the women included in the men For though it be said in generall terms Exod. 13.13 All the first-born among thy children thou shalt redeem yet the women were not redeemed but in the men and the men onely were offered Luke 2.23 Every male that openeth the wombe shall be holy Openeth the wombe by extramission and ejection not by intromission and injection as the Hebrew phrase importeth the Greek is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnis masculus primogenitus as Beza reads it Omne masculinum as the Vulgat hath it according to that Exod. 22.29 The first-born of thy sonnes thou shalt give unto me From whence let me inferre this conclusion That the first-born had his denomination from the mothers first birth or parturition as well as from the fathers first generation Exod. 11.5 From the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the maid-servant that is behinde the mill The Septuagints stile the first-born not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with reference to the fathers act but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the mother and Christ is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a carnall father for he had none or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 1.18 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 2.7 her first-born sonne Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ill interpreted by the old Bishops bibles Mat. 1.25 first-begotten and by the Genevean translation as ill rendered Luke 2.7 forsaking their good rendering of it Mat. 1.25 But our late translation in both places aptly hath it the first-born and not first-begotten Though Jacob saith Genes 49.3 Reuben thou art my first-born yet Leah might have said the same words as well for he was the first-born of both Yea I dare say if a man had more wives at once as Jacob had or successively as many others the first male childe of each of these women by the same man may justly be called his first-born and every one of these first-born children if they had lived under the Leviticall law had been consecrated to God And therefore Reuben having lost his birth-right the double
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-man-childe was born before a woman-childe and a man-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
lapis Dontinus Salvator sine manibus id est absque coitu humano semine de utero virginali Hâ—eron in Dan. 2.34 Quid est Praecisus de monte sine manibus Natus de Gente Judaeorum sine opere hominum Omnes enim qui nascuntur de opere maritali nascuntur ille de Virgine natus sine manibus natus est per manus enim opus humanum significatur quò manus humanae non accesserunt ubi maritalis amplexus non fuit foetus tamen fuit Aug. in Psal 99.5 ipsi 70 secuto 98 sub finem a stone cut out without hands Daniel 2.34 without the help of man as he was if he had not been conceived by the Holy Ghost if the Blessed Virgin had not been over-shadowed by the power of God onely if Christ had been begotten by one of the sonnes of Adam with an ordinarie and naturall generation even Christ himself had had both originall and actuall sinne and had died for himself by and through Adam and had wanted a Redeemer for himself much lesse could he be our Redeemer But Christ was that STONE This Stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner Psal 118.22 A tried stone a precious corner-stone asure foundation Esai 28.26 Let me adde a little Since Adam was made without the help of man or woman and Eve came of man without woman since all the whole world of rationall people proceed from both man and woman it was convenient enough that there should be a miraculous and fourth kinde of generation different from all the rest namely that Christ should come of a woman alone without the assistance of man that he might be free from originall sinne which was first committed by Adam and his masculine brood and not without his seed and the artifex spiritus in it In which regard without derogation to the thrice-blessed Mother of our Lord that holy-aeviternally Virgin Mary now next to her Sonne the greatest Saint in heaven and placed deservedly above Angels and Archangels Cherubims and Seraphims great Divines do make this difference She who was not begotten but by man was subject to originall sinne but her sonne the Sonne of God was free even in his humane Nature from all infection originall and actuall because in his framing there was no admisture of virile and masculine cooperation For the poisoning of our nature arose from Adams sinne and not from Eves Moreover if by miracle God should preserve a man from any touch or tickling smach of lustfull sinne in the act of generation the fathers personall holines should not discharge his childe from originall mire for the traducted nature is corrupt * Bell. De Amiss gratiae Statu peccati 4.12 Bellarmine goes one step further thus If both man and woman the children of Adam by Gods singular priviledge were exempted from lust in the generation of their children yet should they transmit sinne to their ofspring For though S. Augustine saith expresly * Non generationem sed libidinem esse quae propriè peccatum traducit De peecat Merit Remis 1.9 that it is not the generation but the lust which properly transmits sinne yet S. Augustine may be interpreted to speak of generations meerly usuall and wholy naturall not priviledged or extraordinarie Cursed therefore are the Pelagians who say Sinne and death entred by Eve Sinne personall did but not originall nor death Grosse is the ignorance of the Pelagians who when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 think to delude it with this silly shift that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either man or woman and say it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needs have been understood of Adam onely I answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fully equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not and can not be understood of the feminine Secondly the Apostle maketh the Antithesis between that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ which can not be between Eve and Christ Thirdly a little after the Apostle twice expresseth Adam but never nameth or meaneth Eve Lastly it is said remarkably concerning Abraham Hebr. 11.12 There sprang even of one and him as good as dead many And more approaching to our purpose Act. 17.26 God made all mankinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one bloud with apparent reference to Adam onely Therefore as the naturall generation is ascribed to Adam and Abraham onely though Eve and Sara in their sort concurre to the materiall part of the embryon because the Men do conferre the formall so the degenerating unto vice is justly imputed to Adam onely though Eve did minister the occasion because his consent and action onely could give form and shape to that prodigious sinne which overthrew mankinde 5. From this point more questions may yet arise First If Adam Eve had not sinned but Cain or some other of their children whether that sinne had been derived to their posteritie * Aquin. quaest 5. De Malo art 4. Aquinas is for the affirmative others for the negative Because the first man onely represented our whole nature all other mens sinnes are particular and personall can not infect others Thus farre Scharpius I make a second Question If Adam and Eve had continued in innocencie and had been confirmed in grace whether any of their children could have sinned Augustine embraceth the affirmative of this Question saying * Aug. De Civit. 14.10 As happie as Adam and Eve were so happie had been the whole companie of mankinde if they nor no stirp of them committed sinne which should receive damnation The same * De Gen. ad lit 9.3 elsewhere The children which should have been begotten of innocent Adam and Eve * Ad eundem perducerentur statum si omnes justè obedienterque vixissent had been led to the same state if they all had lived justly and obediently * Est in 2. Sent. dist 20. paragr 5. Estius seconds him alledging these reasons First Adam and Eve had not begotten children in better condition then themselves were created of God therefore they should have begot just children but not confirmed in justice Secondly Angels were not ordained to blessednes but by the merit of their free-will to good or evill and we are to think the like of men * Non priùs erantin termino constituendi quà m viae hujus curriculum quod est tempus merendi peregissent They were not to be settled in the end till they had finished the course of this way which is the time of meriting Thirdly Hugo and Lumbard say God propounded to Adam and Eve invisible goods and eternall to be sought by their merits and ordained that by merit they might come to reward Aquinas * Aquin. part 1. quaest 100. art â— determineth That children born in the state of innocencie had not been confirmed in justice yae * Non videtur possibile
fell he had been in some degree Comprehensor so had we and yet both he and we should have been in some sort Viatores in termino incompleto as not having obtained life unchangeable and bodies spirituall which was to be the compleatorie perfection of humane blisse More arguments might I use but they may be gathered in the answers unto the objections before cited And first the great S. Augustine hath many observable passages to this point First That onely Adam was made of earth that this gradation is not required namely that he should be first created a childe then become a youth then a man De Genes ad literam 6.13 And in the Chapter following * Creditur factus Adam virili aetate sine ullo progrâ—ssu incrementorum Adam is thought to have been made in mans age without any growth or further increase And more resolvedly De peccatorum Merit Remiss 2.27 * Quod pertinet ad corporis quantitatem Adam non factus est pâ—rvulus sed perfectâ mole membrorum As for the quantitie of body Adam was not made little but of a perfect bignesse of members Secondly in the last cited place Augustine maketh this Quaere If Adam and Eve had not sinned Whether their young children should have been able to go speak or the like And he answereth Perhaps it was necessaric they should be born little according to the capacitie of the wombe but as God made Eve no little woman of a little rib so the omnipotent Creator might have made their little children newly born presently to be great Even many beasts a while after they are born runne and follow after their dammes much more might he have done for men and given them even present use of their members Thirdly though Lombard rather inclineth to them who say that the new-born children of innocent Adam should have growen by degrees and not have been presently able to exercise their limmes though accordingly he inclineth to them who think that those innocent infants upon their birth should have had little sense or understanding but by time should acquire proficiencie and perfection yet I rather imagine they should presently upon their birth have had perfect use of body and minde though I deny not experimentall augmentations both because there is a nearer resemblance unto Adam who was so created and a further distance dissimilitude from the estate of our corrupted nature which creepeth sensim pedetentim gradatim by little and little and is incompetent to the perfection of innocencie Yea Estius himself fighteth against Lombards discourse and saith Innocent Adams children should have had use of reason from their very nativitie and perhaps even in their mothers wombe should have had some small knowledge of God and confirmeth his opinion by Augustine De peccat Merit Remiss lib. 1. Cap. 36. lib. 2. Cap. 29. and Confess 1.7 and De Civit. 22.22 Where saith he Augustine speaketh not of an habituall knowledge onely but of the act and use of knowledge Therefore if Augustine were not to be expounded as he is by Halensis of confirmation in obedience upon the first temptation yet they will get little footing by that learned Fathers authoritie if they wil weigh one place with an other which are hereafter to be cited out of him to which that I may shorteÌ„ this point I refer you I come now unto Estius who had his first reason from Aquine Scotus Adam Eve say they had not begotten children in a better condition then themselves were created by God therefore they should have begot just children but not confirmed in grace First I answer that though God made all things very good at the creation yet he might after if he would and may yet if he will make things better then they were at the creation Secondly * Stapl. De Peccato Originali lib. 1. cap. 15. Stapleton quoteth this from Augustine * Primus homo laetiorem nos potentiorem gratiam accepimus The first man did receive a more pleasant grace we a more powerfull Neither doth Whitaker dislike this though he confute much of that Chap. of Stapleton Now if we in this forlorn estate have more powerfull grace then Adam why not in that estate Thirdly though the children of innocent Adam might have more grace intensively then he yet Adam had had more extensively for his righteousnes had benefitted the whole World theirs had redounded but to their own persons Fourthly let us take a more distinct view of their severall gifts Adam receiveth originall justice to stand if he would for himself and the whole World his issue receive by his standing this grace more then he had at first though he had it before he begot them that they cannot fall by themselves as he might As for this that their children should not fall but that all their generation should have been confirmed in grace it proceedeth not from their immediate parents but from Adam as the root Now then weigh in a balance these two graces together which the Schoolmen neglected certainly the grace given unto Adam was all things considered more powerfull more abundant As if God should give in present possession unto one man enough of worldly wealth to serve sufficiently yea abundantly for himself and his seed for ever if he would husband it well Secondly if after this God should superadde unto his sonne this gift more then he gave unto the father at first namely this grace that he should not have power to diminish this wealth for so much as concerned his own person which of these two the father or the sonne had the greater gift I doubt not but Calculator would hold that the father had Again if AdaÌ„ had begot children beforeever he had seen the tree of good and evill as was possible he had begot children as himself was created just but unconfirmed The conclusion of * Aquin part 1. quaest 100. art 2. In corpore articuli Aquine or extracted out of Aquine is unworthie of him and so are his own words * Parentes quandiu generâssent non fuissent confirmati in just it ia ex hoc enim creatura rationalis in justitia confirmatur quòd efficitur beata per apertam Dei visionem So long as the parents had begotten they had not been confirmed in justice for hence is a reasonable creature confirmed in justice that it is made happy by the open sight of God I answer that the beatificall vision is the complement perfection and boundarie of all confirmation in justice but there may be a kinde of confirmation in justice without the beatificall present apert vision of God or such as shall be in the state glorified For since Aquine there confesseth That the thrice holy Mother of our Holiest All-holy Saviour might by especiall priviledge generate and yet enjoy the apert vision of God I see not why Adam and Eve continuing innocent might not do the like or beget
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
communicateth sinnes actuall to the third and fourth generation because God punisheth the sinnes of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation unlesse they can prove Whatsoever God punisheth man doth communicate unto man which is impossible for God sometimes punisheth such sinnes of the childe as the father never had and of such a childe as never had childe after to whom he might communicate them The third and last branch of the seventh and last Proposition is this That the immediate parents personall transgressions are not communicated to us They may by way of punishment by way of offence or sinne they cannot No one sinne actuall is traducted propagated transfused communicated If any one actuall sinne be derived why not more why not all and every one Why should the communication of sinnes rest in the father and mother ascendendo when many children are liker their grand-fathers both in shape and feature and in minde and in vices then to their father and mother who were void of such personall transgressions Thirdly it is a true and old distinction That original sinne viciateth our whole nature and actuall sinnes infect the person But this distinction is taken away and removed if actuall sinnes do viciate our nature and are propagated by the seed which is proper to sinne-originall It is not called originall sinne for being the root of all sinne for Satan sinned first but as it is in our nature originally In this point Whitaker agreeth with Stapleton De originali peccato 1.4 And there Stapleton worthily observes that l Originale peccatum differentiam specificam notat quae opponitur personali designans causam peccati naturam esse non personam Original sinne noteth a specificall difference which is opposed to personal intimating that the cause of sinne is the nature not the person As when we mention actuall sinnes we make an opposition to sinnes habituall or to sinnes of omission or to sinne original If personall sinnes do passe over unto the children then Adams sinne did so to his children But not so For it is but one single singular sinne which we sinned in Adam If Adams personall vices were propagated to Cain were all or part propagated if part what were those and why those above others if all what did Adam traduce to Abel Seth c. Did he propagate onely those sinnes which were committed between the generation of one and the other And what sinnes did Seth propagate to his posteritie Are personall sinnes propagated alike to all the children How is it that of one mans children I have known one naturally exceeding angry an other naturally stupid Again if a naturall fool begetteth one wise what sinnes doth he communicate or on the contrary a Machiavel begetteth a naturall fool shall the fool be damned for his politick fathers malengin If actuall sinne be traduced then is it in the seed ere the soul come in the seed in the fathers bodie in the seed at the emission at the reception and retention Then millions of seeds spent in lawfull matrimonie when women do not conceive or what they have conceived yet having no soul shall have sinne actuall and if they have sinne they must come to account But such fruitlesse disburdenings do not appeare in judgement Again if personall sinnes be propagated are they remitted in Baptisme or not if remitted how are they so like their parents afterwards How can the seed which is not so much as an humane body actually but onely potentially be actually sinfull If personall sinne be communicated from the next parents how is it that experience teacheth us that very godly mens children are given to such enormities as their parents in their youth middle-age and old age have detested It cannot come by communication of actuall sinnes You will say it doth arise from sinne original So we say and so do all sinnes whatsoever arise from that corrupted fountain that ever-bubbling wel-spring of evil and not from a phantasticall communication of actuall transgressions If a meer Pagan and heathen an idolatrous worshipper of devils beget two twinnes shall they be alike wicked We have heard and known the contrary Gods discriminating saving grace doth not difference them as you may say it doth in Christians Lot committed actuall sinne and knew it not was that sinne propagated to his sonnes That actuall sinne should be in the seed which is but a superfluity of nature is very strange If Job had presently after that God had commended him to Satan saying There is none like him in the earth a perfect and upright man one that feareth God and escheweth evil Job 1.8 betook himself to the act of generation or David at those times when he was a man according to Gods own heart what personall iniquities had they propagated Isa 56.5 unto holy eunuchs God will give a place better and name better then of sonnes and daughters yet by this opinion they of all other are most miserable for they receive all the actuall sinnes of their fathers and cannot waft-over either them or their own sinnes into their children by their feed for they have none but all must rest in their souls in their bodies in their bloud and upon themselves onely If God should miraculously create a man and woman not of the seed of Adam and they blaspheme God and beget children shall they transfuse actuall sinne which have not original sinne or shall their children blaspheme naturally Or if they be innocent themselves from that great offence shall they be damned for their parents blasphemy If personall sinne be propagated then the habits or acts But neither Not acts for they are transient and glide away Not habits for then first why should not habits of knowledge or goodnesse or the like be transfused as well as of evil especially the habits of knowledge of evil Secondly then a childe is not onely originally sinfull by froward inclinations but habitually by multiplied actions Thirdly habits belong to the person individuall not to him as he is a species of mankinde but propagation is according to the kinde or species not according to the individuals If ye object Ezek. 16.3 God chargeth them of Jerusalem thus Thy father was an Amorite thy mother an Hittite whereby he upbraideth them with their fathers sinnes I answer These words are not spoken of naturall descent but of parents and children by imitation For the Amorites and Hittites were idolaters and the Israelites who succeeded them in their inheritance as children do fathers inherited also their sinnes as appeareth in the whole chapter especially vers 44. Behold every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee saying As is the mother so is her daughter Thou art thy mothers daughter that loatheth her husband and her children and thou art the sister of thy sisters which loathed their husbands and their children your mother was an Hittite and your father an Amorite And thine elder sister is Samaria she and her daughters that
portion which had been due to him and was due to the first-born under the law Deut. 21.17 and was part of those Jura primo-geniturae and one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 12.16 was by Gods appointment and Jacobs just allotment bequeathed to Joseph Genes 48.5 And of him were two tribes Ephraim and Manasseh whereas no other of the children of Israel had more then one tribe For Judah prevailed above his brethren and of him came the chief ruler but the birth-right was Josephs 1. Chron. 5.2 and not Judahs For Joseph was the first-born of Rachel the first-love of Jacob the first wife in the light in right and in intention And so her eldest sonne Joseph was in right to be the first-born of Jacob and her self is prefer'd in place not onely by Jacobs affection but long after by the Spirit of God Ruth 4.11 The Lord make the woman like Rachel and Leah Shall I step one step further I may say That if the willing and witting act of Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger sonne of Joseph before his first-born Manasseh did onely signifie that Gods blessing went not alwaies hand in hand by the prioritie of birth and that God makes birth-rights according to his pleasure and not according to mans reckoning Yet three other passages reach more home to prove That Joseph was the first-born First because Jacob blessed Joseph two severall times Genes 48.16 and 49.22 which he did unto none of his other children besides and withall he gave him one portion above his brethren which he took out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and with his bow vers 22. besides the parcell of ground in Shechem where Joseph was buried And it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph Josh 24.32 which was also a prerogative above his other brethren Secondly because Jacob blessed Josephs children before he blessed his own children Genes 48.16 c. Thirdly because Jacob blessed both Joseph in his children and his children in his blessing and blessed none of his childrens children by name separately and particularly but Josephs children onely though divers of them had little ones before Jacob went into Egypt Genes 46.5 and Joseph himself Jacob blessed with the blessings of the breasts and of the wombe Genes 49.25 Which words as they do promise a kinde of fruitfulnesse which was taken from Ephraim by barrennesse when it was said Hosea 9.14 Give them a miscarrying wombe and drie breasts so I remember not that ever the posteritie of Joseph had extraordinarie number of issue above other tribes answerable to Jacobs extraordinarie blessing but Judah and his ofspring onely had more men of warre from twentie yeares old and upward then both the tribes of Ephraim and Manassch Num. 1.26 33 35. and therefore in all likelihood had more children from twentie yeares downward Which words I say viz. The blessings of the breasts and of the wombe as they may in a second sense imply a numerous ofspring so in the first sense I conjecture they pointed at the primo-geniture of Joseph and his children Sure I am the birth-right was given to the sonnes of Joseph 1. Chron. 5.1 and the birth-right was Josephs vers 2. and perhaps even in this point Jacobs blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitours Genes 49.26 For Abraham prayed once that his first-born sonne by his concubine might be blessed O that Ishmael might live before thee saith he to God Gen. 17.18 and Isaac would have blessed his first-born Esau Make me savourie meat such as I love and bring it to me that I may eat that my soul may blesse thee before I die saith Isaac to Esau Genes 27.4 though before-hand Esau had sold his birth-right unto Jacob Genes 25.33 Neither Abraham nor Isaac prevailed in their wishes but Jacobs blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitours because whom he desired to blesse God blessed and he gave by Gods allowance the primo-geniture to Joseph whom he loved and to whom in some regard it was due before Reuben I return to the old matter and opine That when a batcheler marrieth with a widow which had had a sonne by her former husband her first man-man-childe by the second husband was not a first-born nor so accounted in the law And if after a woman had had seven husbands and daughters onely by each of these she had been married also unto the eighth husband and should have a sonne by him though he had had divers sonnes before by other women yet this his sonne by this woman is in the eye of the law a right first-born childe and sacred to the Lord and to be redeemed not with the generall redemption of every male half a shekel of which I spake before but with the particular redemptions of the first-born Redemptions were of two sorts the first is expressed Numb 3.45 where the Levites are taken in stead of all the first-born and the cattell of the Levites in stead of their cattell And because there were two hundred and seventy more of the first-born sonnes of the Israelites then all the male Levites came unto every one of those odde 270 paid five shekels to the Lord for their redemption which summe of five shekels was ever after during the Law the price of the redemption of the first-born sonne Numbers 18.16 which was the second kinde of redemption I cannot omit to shew the means which God used to prevent the cosenage about things consecrated They were to do no work with the first-born bullock nor to shear their first-born sheep Deuter. 15.19 It is also remarkable first that Pharaoh commanded the midwives of the Hebrews Exod. 1.16 If it be a sonne ye shall kill him and gave in charge after to all the Egyptians his subjects Every sonne that is born ye shall cast into the river and every daughter ye shall save alive vers 22. Secondly that Moses was the sonne of a Levite exposed to the danger of the water and therefore called Moses because he was drawn forth Exod. 2. and after called by God to revenge this wrong and others upon Pharaoh Among which plagues this was a great one to slay their first-born and as the just retaliation used by God in other things yea in this was not to destroy their daughters but their sonnes so in his mercy he would not destroy all their males but the first-born onely which you must not understand of their daughters though they were first-born but onely of their males For when it is said Psal 78.51 He smote all the first-born in Egypt the chief of their strength you cannot imagine that women were the chief of their strength but the men onely And God taught the people to say Exod. 13.15 The Lord slew all the first-born c. therefore I sacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix being males And as the first-born males onely were sacrificed so onely were the first-born males redeemed And accordingly all