infectious quality was naturally produced in our appetite and thence transfused into our wils or supernaturally the first is impossible because sinne had no such naturall force or power in Adam otherwise it should haue had the same effect likewise in all the posterity of Adam which euen our aduersaries doe deny seeing there is no reason why it should bee so auerred of one more then of all Or peraduenture this quality was not produced by naturall means but by supernaturall not by any naturall power of man but by the supernaturall of Almighty God and as some hath aduentured to pronounce ex sola Dëi voluntate meerly by the will of him to whom nothing is impossible cui non est impossibile omne verbum to whose will all doe obey But certainely if wee waigh this answer either in the naturall principles of true philosophy or supernaturall of grace we shall finde the aforesayd position and solution to bee most dissonant to both seeing that both doe euidently demonstrate vnto vs the repugnance and contradiction of this that hee who is the fountaine of all goodnesse or rather goodnesse it selfe should bee the particular and naturall efficient or morall cause of that which is summum malum the greatest euill nothing more distant then summum bonum and summum malum nothing so vnlike in their being so nothing so improportionate in their causalities and effects Wherfore as it is impossible for goodnesse it selfe not to be good so is it no lesse contradiction to the particular cause of euill and consequently seeing that sinne is summum malum the greatest euill possible and seeing likewise of all sinnes this in some sort is the greatest as which is the originall and fountaine of all other actual sinnes as it doth imply contradiction that God should be the particular cause of other actuall sinnes so it doth à fortiori imply the same that he should be in any wise of this originall yea euen natural reason was a sufficient light of this vnto the very Heathen Philosophers So Plato in his second booke De Republica saith Omnibus modis pugnandum est ne Deus qui bonus est dicatur esse malorum causa alioqui secum Deus pugnaret qui suis legibus contrarium fieri mandauit Wee must by all meanes endeauour saith this diuine Philosopher lest God who is altogether good be said to be the cause of euill otherwise God should bee contrary and repugnant vnto himselfe seeing that hee hath commanded the contrary in his lawes whose eyes as Abacuc saith are so dimme Abacuc 1. that they cannot see euill neither can they behold any iniquity Not that really hee doth not perfectly view and comprehend with his all-knowing science the secretest and most hidden and abhominable action or most inward cogitation and that from all eternity euen before it bee conceiued or thought of by the sinner himselfe but he is said not to see it or not to know it scientia approbationis that is he doth not approoue it but reprooue it not allow it but condemne it and in this sense that is to be vnderstood which the Gospell saith shall be pronounced vnto the vnrepenting sinners nescio vos I know you not not that our Sauiour either according to his humanity much lesse in his diuinity was or is ignorant of any good or bad action according to which hee is to reward in his iudgement but that he did not see or know them so as that hee did deeme them as worthy of the diuine knowledge and approbation or of any reward but onely of eternall fire prepared for the Diuell and his Angels Albertus Pighius Catharinus de originali peccato Albertus Pighius and Catharinus flying the inconueniences of the aforesayd opinions fell into another extreame to wit that there was no other originall sinne in Adams posterity then the sinne of Adam by which he first of all then all his discendence were reputed sinners hee inwardly they outwardly and as the Schooles terme it by an outward denomination to wit by Adams sinne inward to Adam imputed onely to them as though it had been really their own and actually committed by them whereas in very deede they had none proper or inherent but Adams onely by imputation not by reall appropriation Which opinion may fitly bee declared by the example of a man who being adopted by a King as his sonne and heire apparant to the Crowne should haue granted vnto him and to his posterity all the priuiledges annexed vnto his adoption and principality but yet with this condition that if this Prince so adopted should commit any treason against his father both he and his posterity should not onely lose the aforesayd titles and priuiledges but also should be accounted traytours vnto the Crowne In which cause although the posterity of this man had not committed any fault in themselues yet were they to be reputed morally as traytours and to haue committed high treason in their head and pregenitor After the same manner as the Doctors of this opinion auerre was the compact made betweene God and our first father Adam so that if hee had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator eating of the forbidden fruit he and his should haue beene translated out of the terrene Paradise vnto the kingdome of heauen But this compact being broken by our first father both he and wee lost our right vnto the blessednesse for which wee were created he in himselfe and we in him Not that as he had inherent in him the spot and blemish of originall sin wee also should haue it but only by an externe denomination as the Diuines terme it because we had really the effects thereof our first father in whom we were all contained had really both the cause effect the sin I meane of disobedience and the priuatiō of originall iustice together with all other effects therupon ensuing This opinion is gathered out of Paul Rom. 5. In whom to wit in Adam all haue sinned as who would say wee had not sinned originally but onely in Adam wee haue not therefore originally sinned in our selues consequently if wee haue not sinned in our selues but only in Adam our sin only is in Adam as it is only by Adam not in our selues as it was not committed by our selues in so much that it may only bee tearmed ours by imputation from our fore-fathers not by reall inhesion in our selues seeing we neuer gaue any consent by our owne willes vnto the foresaid disobedience but as wee were included in Adam as in our head wee are therefore said to be spotted with originall sinne in as much only as hee who was our head and in whose loines we were contained did really commit the said sinne and consequently as the foresaid Doctors inferre originall sinne in vs neither consisteth in any actuall or habituall transgression neither in concupiscence or in the priuation of originall iustice not in the first Vide Augustinum li. 1. retract
and as a body without a head a common-wealth without a ruler or kingdome without a King confused imperfect without order or beautie But seeing that to bring man to this finall perfection and end many things were necessary each person of the blessed Trinitie did assume to himselfe diuers functions the Father to create because power and might doth especially appeare in the Father the Sonne did assume the reparation of man after his fall a worke of infinite wisdome and therfore it is particularly ascribed to this person and infinite wisdome finally the holy Ghost did particularly worke mans sanctification this therefore is likewise accommodated to this person together with all spirituall graces and finall glorification Neuerthelesse these offices operations and workes are so attributed to the three holy persons not that any one of them was effected alone by any one person for whatsoeuer is wrought out of the sacred Trinitie in or by any creature whatsoeuer is equally effected and wrought by all and euery person of the blessed Trinitie but because something doth appeare in euery of these workes which doth especially manifest the Father the Sonne or the holy Ghost the Fathers power the Sonnes wisdome the grace and sanctification of the holy Ghost therefore these and other the like attributes are particularly applied and attributed to each person of the blessed Trinitie Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate operibus â—ius This is the ground of Rupertus his discourse and reason why God created man to his likenesse and image why he changed his voice and altered his manner of speaking for whereas hee said in the creation of other creatures Fiat factum est Let it be done and it was done now as though hee had beene weary with going about the earth compassing the seas and measuring the amplitude of the heauens he sate him downe and as it were taking his breath hee called to minde that there was one thing as yet wanting which was no lesse necessary then fitting to be made then said he let vs make man to our owne image and likenesse Thus doest thou then thinke that a small matter which was intended by these words A great mysterie without doubt it was in that counsell of wisdome in that counsell of such persons the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Canst thou iudge that there was any thing wanting any thing superfluous either done or to be done in vs or about vs in that sacred Senate There doubtlesse was all our cause considered there our fall foreseene there our death and perdition foreknowne and determined vpon to wit that euery person should vndertake some part of the worke that as it is said before the Father should create the Sonne should redeeme and finally the holy Ghost should worke the remission of sinnes and the resurrection of the flesh But what should bee the reason why God deliberating about the creation of man should say Faciamus let vs make To whom did hee speake speaking in the plurall let vs make Shall we say to the earth as to a compart of man or to the Angels as the fellow-workers with God as though God had need either of the cooperation of the Angels or were so senselesse as thus to conferre with that his creature void of all reason and sense Ambrose in his seuenth chapter of the sixt booke of the Exameron answereth that God spake not to himselfe because hee speaketh not in the singular but in the plurall let vs make neither yet to the Angels as who are but his seruants therefore though the Iewes and Arrians doe neuer so much repugne these words without all question are spoken to his Sonne as who is the true and liuely similitude and likenesse of God the Father And this I deeme to be the truest opinion seeing that the eternall Sonne of God euen as hee is the Word and Sonne of God is a liuely and expresse similitude and likenesse not only of his eternall Father but also a most perfect Idea and exemplar according to which man was created Others not improbably doe interpret that God therefore spake in the plurall Faciamus let vs make as Princes and great persons are wont to doe to shew their authoritie and maiestie saying We will We command We decree c. yet of the two I deeme the first exposition to bee best and that the text may admit them both CHAP. XIIII How man was made to the image and likenesse of God FOr the vnderstanding of this Sainctes Pagnines in the sauro linguae Hebraae wee must note the originall Hebrew words Selem and Demuth by Selem is properly signified a shadow or transitorie similitude Psalme 33. In imagine pertransit homo man passeth away like vnto a shadow Likewise Psalme 101. My dayes haue declined as a shadow The other word Demuth signifieth to cut downe to faile to fade to be silent to recogitate and to expect but most properly to assimulate or liken wherefore seeing euery similitude or likenesse is transitorie vanishing and quickly passing away the same word doth also signifie to vanish to passe away to faile and to fade Now therefore when God said that man was made to his image and likenesse it was to giue vs to vnderstand that such was the likenesse and so perfect the representation as could be betweene an inferiour creature and his Creator but because God is of infinite perfection it must necessarily follow that his similitude should bee infinitely inferiour and of lesse perfection then the prototypon or first type of his perfection Like as though the shadow be in some sort the similitude and representation of the body yet is it obscure and imperfect yea nothing in it selfe and in comparison of the body nothing Hence consequently wee may inferre a twofold interpretation of the said words adimaginem similitudinem nostram to our image and likenesse to wit of that image or similitude which is in God his diuine nature essence being or vnderstanding insomuch that the nature of God and his Ideall representation of his vnderstanding bee the exemplar and first type vnto whose similitude man was made Or againe that â—his be the meaning of Gods words let vs make man such a one as wee are or so like vnto vs that he may bee such an image forme and similitude as he may represent our nature power wisdome and prouidence yea and immortalitie in a body of its owne nature mortall For as S. Austine well noteth Aug. li. 83. quaest q. 51. diuers things doe diuersly represent Almighty God some doe participate of vertue and wisdome others only of life others of existence and being insomuch that those things which only haue existence and neither liue nor breathe are counted an imperfect similitude of God because they are good according to their kinde and flow from that infinite Ocean of goodnesse from whence all other goodnesse doth proceed Againe those things which doe liue and yet doe not vnderstand doe more perfectly participate
that Prophesie of the Patriarch Iacob of the tribe of Dan Ge. 39. ver 17. Dan shall be a serpent by the way an adder by the path biting the horse heeles so that the rider shall fall backward CHAP. XLVII What was the reason why the woman was not afraid of the speech and communication with the serpent Petr. Com ester in historia l. Gen. cap. 21. Bonan in 2. l senten dist 21. Dionysius Carth. in Gen. allegans Bedam authorem huius opinionis BOnauenture Dionysius Carthusianus Bede and Peter Comestor doe answere though not altogether approuing the opinion that the reason why our first mother was not afraid to approach and talke with the serpent was because the deuill had chosen such a serpent as which in face at leastway represented a woman yea and one most beautifull like vnto her selfe for as ordinarily in all his temptations hee doth craftily accommodate himselfe vnto the nature complexions and dispositions of the persons tempted so here hee deemed it most fit for the accomplishing of his desire in the temptation and fall of the woman to accommodate himselfe as much as possibly hee could to the feature and naturall disposition of the woman Yea Basil in his Treatise of Paradise and Ioseph in his first booke of Antiquities and first chapter doe not much disagree for so saith the first the serpent then was not horrible to man but gentle and tame neither did he creepe vpon the superficies of the earth but did goe vpright vpon his feet insomuch that as Damascene saith hee was more familiar vnto man then any other creature fawning often vpon him with pleasant circumuolutions of his body and this was the reason why the deuill tooke him for his instrument in the fall of our first parents Neuerthelesse it seemeth most agreeable to reason that which Chrysostome saith in his 16. homilie on Genesis to wit that therefore Eue did not feare to see and conuerse with the serpent because before the fall of our first Fathers all serpents and beasts were gentle meeke and subiect to mans command and gouernment so that as they had no power to doe any harme to man so neither did they appeare horrible in their aspect Hence ariseth a new difficultie for which though wee haue no authoritie out of the Scripture yet somewhat we may say out of naturall reason and discourse to wit what kinde of serpent that was that deceiued Eue to which Eugubinus answereth that it was the Basiliske who as he is the most venomous and king as it were of Serpents so therefore he may bee deemed to haue beene the most fit instrument of the Prince of darknesse for the ouerthrow of our first fathers But this seemeth not likely seeing that this serpent is so deformed pestiferous and noisome euen in the very aspect If therefore I may coniecture in a thing so doubtfull it seemeth more probable that because Eue was so delighted with the company of the serpent that it was that most beautifull serpent Scytile the which as Solinus in his 39. chapter saith is so glistering with varietie of spots vpon her backe that it maketh men stay to behold her beautie insomuch that whom she cannot ouertake by reason of her slow creeping she taketh them as amazed at her wonderfull beautie not vnlike vnto the common and powerfull temptation of women to whom nature hath denied the force of the body yet hath permitted her to ouercome by her beautie those who are most powerfull and vigorous in body whereby wee may see that which God doth so ordinarily execute by most iust prouidence in quo quisque mâ—â—nè excellit excellentia praesumit praesumptione peccans punitur maximè CHAP. XLVIII Why the deuill tooke the shape of a serpent rather then of any other creature and why Moses made no mention of the deuill seeing he was the chiefe author of the temptation SAint Austine in his 11. booke super Gen. ad lit cap. 3. answereth that wee are not to thinke that it was in the deuils choice to chuse the instrument of the temptation but that it was by Gods particular permission and designement that he made choice of the serpent Yet in his 4. booke de ciu Dei 11. chap. hee answereth more probably that the reason was because this is animal lubricum tortuosis anfractibus mobile operi suo congruum because the serpent was a most deceitfull cunning and craftie creature for though as the master of the sentences saith l. 2 sent dist 21 â—he deuill would haue come in the shape of a doue that by her innocencie and simplicitie hee might more easily couer his owne craftinesse and subtiltie yet God would not permit this to the end that his malice might be detected with more facilitie and Eues sinne be lesse excusable Neither againe was it conuenient that this shape and type of puritie should be depraued by the impuritie of the deuill seeing the holy Ghost was afterwards to appeare vnto the Apostles in the forme of a doue Now as touching the second point why Moses made no mention of the deuill I answer that he relateth only that which was done not interpreting the meaning of the fact and therefore described that which did appeare outwardly to Eue. Like as in the 18. of Gen. the Scripture making mention of those three which Abraham did entertaine he called them men although they were not men but Angels As also in the 32. chapter the Angell which wrestled with Iacob is called a man because hee appeared in the likenesse of man Yea Paul in the 11. chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians imputeth this deceit of the deuill to the serpent and not to the deuill But I feare saith hee lest as the serpent beguiled Eue through his subtiltie so your mindes should be corrupt from the simplicitie that is in Christ CHAP. XLIX Whether when God cursed the serpent it is to be vnderstood of the true serpent or of the deuill MOses Barcephas Ephren with diuers other thinke that this curse is laid vpon the serpent although hee did not commit any crime at all his reason is because this narration of Moses being historicall it is to bee vnderstood simply as the words doe sound Now if it bee demanded how this standeth with naturall reason and the iustice of God which is neuer contrary to reason but is rather the rule of all reason that the serpent being innocent and not capable of reason neither consequently of sinne that hee should haue inflicted so great a punishment and curse as is denounced against him Gen. 3. vers 14. where God said to the serpent because thou hast done this thou art cursed aboue all cattell and aboue euery beast of the field vpon thy belly shalt thou goe and shalt eat dust all the dayes of thy life I answer with Barcephas and others aboue alledged that God did this principally as a punishment and in hatred of the principall agent the old serpent the deuill
and other more Southerne parts of the world though they be weaker in body and more debil of complexion yet that ordinarily they be more quicke of apprehension and more suttle in iudgment then the other of the Northerne parts of the world be Finally that those who liue neither in the extremitie of heate nor piercing cold doe commonly excell both the other A fortiori therefore may the qualities and dispositions of our foode especially that of the tree of good and euill haue had no small operation in the inward dispositions and powers of our soules for to make vs of a more ripe iudgment and quicker apprehension yea finally make vs more apt to discerne both good and euill at least way in morall and ciuill matters if not in supernaturall and things belonging vnto grace for so it was said of the Messias butyrum mel comedet vt sciat reprobare malum eligere bonum Isa 7.15 butter and hony shall he eate that he may know to refuse the euill and chuse the good the which though it be spoken more peraduenture for the mysticall meaning then for the literall or materiall yet no doubt but that the mysticall sense hath some ground euen in the materiall comparison of butter and honie But because it seemeth not so probable that God would hinder our spirituall good such as this was of the knowledge of good and euill who hath made vs perfect in all corporall powres and perfections therefore I deeme most probable in this point either the opinion of Rupertus aboue alleadged Aug. lib. 14 de ciuit Dei cap. 17. lib. 8. de Gen. ad literam cap. 6. 15. Lombardus cum scholasticis 2. lib. sen dist 17. or if that seeme to haue some inconvenience then that of S. Austin may be rather followed which now also is the common opinion of the schooles with the master of the sentences to wit that this tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and euill ab euentu from the euent for that which presently followed in the eating thereof which was that Adam then knew by woefull experience the difference betweene good and euill CHAP. XII Of the creation of man NOw all things being created and this inferiour world perfectly replenished there wanted only one who should be gouernour and lord ouer all other creatures Gen. 1.26 5.1 9.6 1. Cor. 11.7 Eph. 4.14 Col. 3.10 Faciamus therefore saith God hominem ad imaginem similitudinem nostram 1. cap. Gen. 26. let vs make man in our image after our likenes and let him haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea and ouer the fowle of the aire and ouer the cattell and ouer all the earth and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth But peraduenture some may demaund why man was created last of all creatures seeing that hee being the most perfect and modell of the rest hee should consequently haue beene created as prototypon and first type of the rest and therefore as he was the first in perfection he should also haue beene first in his being and production I answer that euen for the very same reason he was created last because in a certaine manner hee was the end and perfection of the rest and thus beside other interpretations this also may be admitted of the philosophicall axiome quod est primum in intentione est vltimū in executione that which is first or cheifest in the intention is last in the execution or production Secondly man being to be lord of all the maine Machina of this world it belonged vnto the diuine prouidence first to prouide the habitation and then to create him that was to inhabite Or thirdly because man had neede of all these things either for his corporall sustenance or for his spirituall exercise Or fourthly because it was conuenient first to create the great world containing euery thing in his due and distinct order then afterwards to consummate perfect and as it were to crowne the end of all his workes with one who was to be the crowne end and perfection of all corporall creatures yea containing in a more perfect manner and degree the perfection of all whatsoeuer he had created before Finally hauing created both corporall and spirituall things each separate and distinct in their proper natures it remained only to conioyne them both in one insomuch that as in all things whatsoeuer is composed of matter forme the parts haue their being prioritate naturae by prioritie of nature as the Philosophers say before the conioyning of both together because the parts are for the whole and not the whole ordained for the parts In like manner it was no lesse conuenient that man being composed of both corporall and spirituall substance hee should also be created after them both as who was to be the secondarie end of all other inferiour creatures CHAP. XIII Of the manner of the creation of Man THE manner of mans creation is described vnto vs in the aforesaid words Gen. 1.16 Let vs make man in our image after our likenes Now therefore it remaineth we explicate what diuine deliberation is this what image is this and in what likenes and similitude of God was man created And first of the first This word faciamus let vs make may be taken in three senses or significations for first it may signifie how the eternall wisdome of God proceeding with a certaine deliberation and counsell with himselfe the most holy Trinitie did goe about such an excellent worke as was the creation of man to the end that by that manner of proceeding hee might manifest the excellencie of man aboue all these inferiour creatures partaker of reason beautified with prudence perfect in wisdome and created to his owne image and likenes Secondly God is said to vse this manner of deliberation in the creation of man to manifest the weight of the businesse and worth of the worke which hee then intended to shew I say what a worke it was to create man with so great sanctitie grace and felicitie to conserue him in the same and being lost to restore him againe For God in his eternall wisdome foreseeing the frailtie of man did likewise foresee the act of his fall and finally that hee would perish he did likewise know before the difficultie in conseruing and restoring of man after his fall and finally how to bring him to the end for which he was created before his fall Wherefore if all these difficulties be duely considered in humane reason it might iustly be doubted according to our capacitie whether it were conuenient to create man or no wherefore the Scripture accommodating it selfe to humane sense and capacitie doth describe vnto vs God the Father as it were consulting with the Sonne and the holy Ghost of the creation of man Then how it was concluded in that diuine Consistorie how it was most conuenient to create such a creature without which all the rest had beene imperfect
the likenesse of God but those things lastly which doe vnderstand doe come so neere vnto the likenesse of God that nothing created can come more neere Wherefore seeing that man may participate of the wisdome of the diuine nature yea euen according to hiâ— owne nature hence it is that hee is so framed to the image of God that nothing can be more like in his being and nature vnto God he liueth he breatheth he vnderstandeth he hath existence and being and is in all these as a perfect patterne of his Creator and God CHAP. XV. What is the difference betweene the image and the similitude of God according to which man is said to be created SAint Austine in his questions vpon Deuteronomie thinketh it no lesse then blasphemie to auerre any thing to be superfluous in the sacred text wherefore lest we be enforced to contradict this so receiued a principle Orig. lib. 3. Periâ—rchon cap. 6. Basil hom 6. in Gen. in hunc locum Ambros li. 6. Exameron c. 6. 8 Nicenus homil de creat hom Eucher li. 1. commen in Gen. in hunc locum Victorin in dispâ—t quam scripsit aduersus Arrium Theodoret. in quaest in Gen. q. 20. Rupert li. 2. de Trinitate operibus eius c. 3. et 5 Aquin. prima parte quaest 93. Magister sent lib. 2. distinct 26. ibidem Scholastici and manifest truth wee are to search what difference is betweene the image and likenesse of God according to which man was created Origenes Basil Nicenus Eucherius Victorinus Theodoretus Rupertus Aquinas the master of the sentences with many others both moderne and ancient Writers are of opinion that man is said to be made to the image of God according to his nature and properties consequent vnto nature as vnderstanding memorie and free will which he exerciseth in his naturall actions and in which he exceedeth all other inferiour creatures the which image though it may be and is in some sort defaced by sinne yet is it in no wise fully lost and blotted out because as it is wholly of God so it dependeth only of God and therefore can be taken away only by God himselfe nay not euen by God himselfe man remaining a reasonable creature or man For though he may haue his senses and other spirituall powers depraued yea though he may also be depriued of the exercise of them all yet in no wise can they be vtterly extinguished man as I said remaining man Now as touching the similitude of God according vnto which man was created wee are to consider him not according vnto the naturall gifts which are necessarily consequent vnto nature but according vnto iustice sanctitie and innocencie and grace which are gifts infused into nature though aboue nature the which as they are independent of nature so also may they bee and are separate from nature according to the free disposition and order of God the Author of nature but this certainly is alway for some sinne which in this sense may be said to be a deprauation of nature seeing it depriueth nature not only of these supernaturall gifts which are the chiefe ornaments and helpes of nature but also because it depraueth nature herselfe euen in her selfe and hindereth the due exercise of her naturall powers Rupertus in his second booke of the Trinitie and second chapter discourseth very acutely of this point of the difference betweene the image and similitude vnto which man was created giuing also the reason why the word image is prefixed before the word similitude in a word his resolution is this that the Sonne of God is signified by the word image and the holy Ghost by the word similitude for saith he the difference betweene similitude and image is this that the image is in regard of one only but a similitude is at least of two now the eternall Sonne of the eternall Father is the image of God according to that of the Apostle 1. Coloss who is the image of the inuisible God The Sonne I say is the image of the inuisible God equally inuisible For the vnderstanding of which we must presuppose that there bee many kindes of images as the image of man of a horse a picture in the wall an image grauen in stone or wood yea wee see euen the images of the Sunne and Moone in the water yet wee may not thinke that the Sonne of God is so to be called the image of God but rather as the Apostle writeth in another place Heb. 2. the figure of his substance because as euery substance is knowne by his figure or shape so God the Father by his word Againe the image of man is said to be a propertie of his substance in which sense the sacred text saith that Adam begat his sonne to his image and likenesse Gen. 5. and called his name Seth. Hence wee may vnderstand how the eternall Sonne is the image of his eternall Father and the holy Ghost the similitude and likenesse of the Father and Sonne seeing the goodnesse and loue of the Father and Sonne is common to both Father and Sonne Hence it is that it could not rightly be said in regard of the Sonne only let vs make man to our image and likenesse for as the Sonne is Sonne in regard only of the Father not of the Father and the holy Ghost iointly so also is hee not the image of the Father and of the holy Ghost iointly but of the Father onely But it is rightly said in regard of the holy Ghost to our image and likenesse because as the holy Ghost is the infinite goodnesse of the Father and Sonne so is he likewise the infinite similitude and likenesse common to both Father and Sonne But this not by the force of his particular proceeding as is the Sonne Others are of opinion that this word ad imaginem to our image doth signifie vnto vs the second person of the blessed Trinitie as he was to be incarnate or to take our nature vpon him But if we marke the phrase of the sacred text we shall easily finde that the Sonne of God was incarnate rather according to the similitude of man then that man was created according to his similitude Rom. 8. Philip. 1. Heb. 2. Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia and Oleaster vpon the first of Genesis are of opinion that God therefore said let vs make man to our image and likenesse because when hee created man hee tooke vpon him the shape and forme of man to the end that he might the better conuerse with man But this seemeth rather to bee an inuention of their owne then grounded in Scripture because it is most probable that which the Schoolemen doe commonly hold with Dionysius that all those apparitions which we reade in the old Testament were not immediately of God or by God himselfe but by the mediation of Angels who taking vpon them airie or other apparant bodies appeared vnto men in the shape and forme of men but so neuerthelesse that
cap. 15. in epistola 3. ad Hillarium quae est 80. in Encherridio cap. 36. seeing that was not ours but Adams not in the habit because this should proceed only from the precedent act and finally neither in the two last because these are rather effects proceeding from our originall iustice then the crime and sinne it selfe This may also seeme the opinion of S. Austine in his 3. booke de libero arbitrio cap. 20. where he saith that we are all inquinati peccato primi parentis defiled with the sinne of our first father the which sinne could neither bee inherent in vs as actually proceeding from him neither as habitually inherent in his soule or priuatiuely adherent to his forme It was therefore in vs by an externe denomination inwardly affecting him but outwardly onely denominating vs. But if it bee so as Austine saith that wee were all originally defiled with the sinne of our first father if wee had also besides this some other inherent originall sinne wee should haue two kindes of originall sinnes the one by imputation the other by inhesion the one inherent in Adam only the other in vs deriued from Adam which is to speake without ground of Scripture which onely maketh mention of one originall sinne by which all bee truly called sinners according to that of the Apostle Omnes peccauerunt in Adamo all haue sinned in Adam in Adam hee saith not in themselues and consequently none such did truly possesse them By this wee may see what colour of truth may be giuen to falsitie yea euen vnto heresie such as this seemeth to be for if originall sinne bee nothing else in our posteritie but the punishment and sinne of our first father Adam for which all his posteritie is punished certainly after the same manner the sonnes also of any other of his posteritie who as the Scripture witnesseth are iustly punished for their fathers offences might rightly be said to haue contracted so many originall sinnes as bee sinnes punishable in them by reason of their fathers transgressions which without all question were most absurd and yet the consequence seemeth most euident For if originall sinne according to this last opinion bee nothing else but the sinne of our first father Adam as it is punishable in vs no question but by the same reason as many sinnes of our fore-fathers as are punishable in vs euen vnto the third or fourth generation may as well bee called originall sinnes in vs though they bee not really inherent in our soules or powers thereof but onely are said to be in vs by an externe denomination or name proceeding from our parents Moreouer if our sinne bee nothing else but the sinne of our first parent as it is imputed vnto vs from him as our head certainly as that is blotted in him by his repentance so it should also bee blotted in vs by the same repentance for if his sinne could be sufficient for the condemnation of all why should not his repentance be sufficient for all especially it being nothing in vs but an externe denomination or bare name taken from his sinne which now being washed away in him should of necessitie be likewise blotted in vs nulla siquidem forma siue interna siue externa potest denominare nisi eo modo quo est for questionlesse no forme being taken away can denominate as when it was present This forme therefore being an externe forme which neuer had any vnion in our soules or powers thereof could neuer euen when it was present denominate our soules inwardly sinful much lesse now when it is altogether blotted out of the first subiect wherein it was really inherent but rather now it should giue no denomination at all and consequently none of the sons of Adam should truly be said to bee borne in originall sinne seeing that forme from which they were said to bee borne in sinne is quite abolished and blotted out euen in the first subiect from whence it should proceed vnto all Finally as Dauid witnesseth wee are all borne in iniquitie and our mother conceiued vs in sinne and S. Paul All haue sinned in Adam but this could not be true if so be that wee were onely to bee tearmed originally sinners in that our first father Adam sinned for his sinne being blotted out the denomination also proceeding from it should be taken away seeing that no forme can any longer denominate then whiles it is present and after the manner that it is so Therefore as it could not really and intrinsecally denominate the posteritie of Adam sinners euen when it was present according to the foresaid doctrine so now when it is altogether taken away in his root and first origine it cannot in any wise denominate vs sinners which is euidently against the Scriptures which repeat so often that all mankinde was conceiued in sinne and to haue sinned in Adam hee onely excepted who as goodnesse it selfe in no wise could bee subiect to this so great euill and as man was hypostatically vnited with the second person of the blessed Trinitie and predestinated to bee the generall redemption of the world from this generall deluge of sinne and therefore could not be defiled with any sinne CHAP. LIIII Whether originall sinne consisteth in any priuation or no. MAny seeing the inconueniences of the former opinions not finding in what positiue act or habit they might constitute the essence of our originall iniustice at length haue beene driuen to say that it was not essentially and formally in any positiue act or habit but that it consisted rather in some priuation The reason of this may bee because the essence of sinne according to his nature common to all sinnes both actuall habituall and originall is as the Fathers doe often insinuate non natura aliqua sed negatio not any nature but a negation of nature and consequently the same must be here in originall sinne So Dionysius 4. cap. de diuinis nominibus speaking of the euill and malice of sinne saith neither this euill of sinne is the appetite it selfe but the declination of the appetite from good to euill and more plainly afterward calleth it a priuation atque vt summatim dicam malum quemadmodum saepe diximus infirmitas imbecillitásque ac priuatio est aut scientiae aut fidei aut appetitus aut actionis bonae Euill or sinne as I haue often said is a certaine infirmitie and imbecillitie and a priuation either of knowledge or of faith or of the appetite or of the doing of that which is good Iustine also in his booke of the questions which were proposed by the Gentiles vnto the Christians amongst other things resolueth this difficultie 46. q. 73. that euill or sinne is nothing else but the corruption of goodnesse so that it is not any positiue entitie or being but rather a priuation of entitie or being or as Basil describeth it Basil hom 9. priuatio boni the priuation of good and Athanasius more plainly saith
originall commeth only by Adams sinne and transgression and thereby is transfused and passed into vs. Wherefore God speaking not of the former but of the latter Ezechiel chap. 18. saith The soule that hath sinned shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither the father the sonnes iniquitie the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the impietie of the wicked vpon him On the contrary side originall sinne being the sinne of nature requireth only the free libertie of the first and principall head of nature because his will is reputed as the vniuersall will of all whence it is that wee must not thinke that when the childe is first conceiued and the soule first infused into the body that then I say it may bee deemed to sinne but rather that then it is conceiued in sinne so Dauid saith that he was conceiued in sinne not that he sinned in his conception For though both insinuate a true sinne in vs yet the one that is originall sinne is thereby signified to be deriued from Adam vnto vs yea also to be inherent in vs the other that is actuall sinne is from our selues and of our selues whence it is that the person of Adam was first infected with this originall contagion and then his nature but in vs contrariwise first the nature is infected then the person depraued These things presupposed my first conclusion is that it is a point of catholike faith that all those who descend of the seede of Adam by ordinary meanes are infected with this generall maladie of originall sinne Wherefore God threatneth Gen. 13. that he whose flesh is not circumcised shall be blotted out of the booke of God Aug. lib. 3 de peccato originali cap. 30. 35. li. â— dâ— nupt ijs â— concupiscentijs cap. 17 because hee hath made frustrate his couenant out of which testimonie S. Austine thus argueth against the Pelagians The infants did not frustrate this couenant made with God by any actuall sinne seeing they could not commit any actually therefore they contracted originally by originall sinne deriued from Adam The second testimonie which proueth this point is out of the 51. Psalme where Dauid saith Behold I am conceiued in iniquities and my mother conceiued mee in sinne Out of which place almost all the Greeke and Latine Fathers doe inferre the foresaid conclusion especially Origenes Basil and Chrysostome who in his 3. booke in Leuiticum cap. 12. noteth that Dauid doth not by these words accuse any sinne of his mothers but that he calleth nature his mother signifying thereby that the filth and impuritie of Adams sinne hath descended vpon all his posteritie Yea this is also the exposition of Eutimius Hilarius Ruffinus Innocentius tertius Beda Gregory Ambrose and Hierome who also alleage for the same conclusion Eccles cap. 4. a heauie yoake vpon the sonnes of Adam from the day of their birth vnto the day of their death which place S. Austine thus explicateth Quid est graue iugum nisi peccatum What is this heauie yoake but sinne And why is it called a yoake but because it proceedeth from two the male and the female of the good and of the bad and because it is a yoake in both the sexes therefore it is said to bee a heauie yoake vpon the children of Adam therefore in that he said vpon the sonnes of Adam he made no difference of ages no distinction of sexes and by the comparing of sinne vnto a yoake hee made all men equall Christ only excepted who was not borne as others were of corruption and sinne Many of the Fathers August lib. 6 contra Donatistas cap. 12. lib. 1 de piccatorum me ritis remissione cap. 17. 20. 29. 30. lib. 2. cap. 27. and principally S. Austine doth deduce this our conclusion out of the 3. of Iohn where our Sauiour saith that vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen out of which place though Bellarmine with most of the Doctors of the church of Rome doe inferre an absolute necessitie of baptisme by reason of the generall exception made by our Sauiour that vnlesse a man be borne of water he cannot be saued yet neuerthelesse this is not so to bee vnderstood of the materiall water but of the grace of God purging and cleansing vs as water doth as a reuerend Author of this age doth wel expound Attersol in his 2 book of the sacrament of baptisme chap. 5. which interpretation may be gathered by conference of a like place Matth. 3. vers 11. hee shall baptise with the holy Ghost and with fire that is by the spirit of God which is as it were fire lightning our hearts with the knowledge of God enflaming them with his loue and purging them from all euill affections So when wee are said to bee borne againe by water and the spirit he meaneth by the spirit shewing forth in vs the force power and propertie of water as if he should say we are borne of water which is the spirit as Iohn 7.38.39 and 4.21 Againe if it were meant of water in baptisme it must bee vnderstood according to a like sentence Iohn 6.53 Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you which must bee vnderstood of such as are of yeeres according to the exposition of Innocentius 3. Decret Gregor lib. 3. tit 42. cap. 3 Lumbardus lib 4. sent distinct 4. and Peter Lumbard the master of the sentences But to leaue the confirmation of this point as touching the saluation of infants vnbaptised S. Chrysostome Theodoretus S. Austine with many other Doctors doe euidently deduce the foresaid conclusion out of the 5. to the Romans Rom. 5. where Paul saith that by one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne death passed vnto all men in which all haue sinned Irencus l. 5. cap. 17. 19. Athan. de iâ—carnatione verbi Bâ—siâ— super Psalmos 32. 50. Concilium MilevitanuÌ„ Araustâ—anum Jâ—stinus Martir Greg Nazian oratione 42. in sanctum Pascha oratione 38 in Christi nattuttate Chrysâ—stomus de Adamo Eua. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 1. in Gen. Theodoretus in Psalmum 50. Damascenus lib 2 fâ—leâ— Orthodoxae Origines super epistolam ad Romanos c. 6. Cyprian epistola 59. Hilarius Pictariensis ad Psalmum 18. Ambros l. de Tobia c. 9. ad Psal 48. l. 1. de poenitentia c. 2. Hierom ad cap. 42. Zech Fulgentius de gratia Jesu Chrsti cap. 31. Bernard seria 4. hebdomadae paenosae de passione Domini Yea this is plainely the opinion of the Milevitan and Arausican Councels of Iustine Martyr Ireneus Athanasius Cirillus Nazianzen Chrysostome Cirillus Alexandrinus Theodoretus Damascenus Origenes Cyprianus Hilarius Pictaviensis Ambrose Ierome Fulgentius Bernard and many others Now it remained that I should haue answered to all and euery of the
saith hee dare not define how great this punishment of fire shall be in regard of them who depart with the guilt onely of originall sinne The like also is not improbably gathered out of Gregory the great in his 9. booke of his morals the 12. chapter vpon those words in turbine conteret me where he seemeth plainly to insinuate the said sensible punishment of the infants by fire ac si apertè humani generis damna considerans dicat as if considering the losses of mankinde he should plainly say with what punishment will that most iust and rigorous Iudge punish those who are condemned for their owne fault if he also eternally smite those whom the guiltinesse of their owne will doth not condemne by which word of smiting he seemeth to insinuate the punishment of sense which is by fire Again he declareth his mind himself touching this sensible punishment vpon those words of the same chap. multiplicabit vulnera mea hee shall multiplie my wounds where speaking of the foresaid infants he saith that perpetua tormenta percipiunt qui nihil ex propria voluntate peecarunt that those who haue sinned in nothing by their owne proper will receiue perpetuall torments which words of perpetuall torments must needs import a sensible punishment Yea this was the opinion of the Bishops of Africa in Fulgentius his time as is plainly out of him aboue alleaged and more plainly in his booke of the incarnation which booke hee wrote not onely by the approbation of all the Bishops of Africa but also in their names as may be euidently seene by the beginning of the first chapter of that booke Finally this seemeth to be the sense of the Scripture Matth. the third chapter verse 12. and Marke also the third chapter verse 14. where S. Iohn Baptist speaking of our Sauiour saith that he will come with his fanne in his hand and will make cleane the floore and gather his wheat into his garner but will burne vp the chaffe with vnquenchable fire where as wee see all mankinde is but onely of two sorts the good and the bad the wheat and the chaffe wherof the wheat only is for the garner that is the good for heauen the chaffe for the fire the bad for those intolerable torments of hell here is no meane all is either good or bad all either for eternall blesse both sensible and spirituall or eternall curse and punishment both sensible and spirituall and consequently there is no other place or manner of punishment for those who die with originall sinne innocent in their owne actions though eternally sequestred from the sight of God for Adams sinne and corruption Secondly it is said in the same chapter that euery tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewen downe and cast in the fire Wherefore seeing those that depart out of this world with the guilt only of originall sinne are vnfruitfull trees consequently they are to bee cast into euerlasting fire Thirdly when our blessed Sauiour shall come to giue euery man according to his deeds hee will only separate two sorts of people one of the right hand another of the left the good of the right the bad of the left those for eternall blesse in the kingdome of heauen these for an eternall curse in the vnquenchable fire of hell Matth. 25. chap. vers 31. And when the sonne of man commeth in his glory and all the holy Angels with him then shall he sit vpon the throne of his glory and before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate one from another as a shepheard separateth the sheepe from the goats and hee shall set the sheepe on the right hand and the goats on the left Loe here bee two sorts of people signified by those two kindes of beasts the sheepe and the goats the good and the bad the sheepe on the right hand the goats on the left according vnto the two sorts of sentences pronounced vers 34. and 41. Then shall the King say to them on his right hand come yee blessed of my Father possesse the inheritance of the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world Againe to the cursed hee saith vers 41. Depart from me yee cursed vnto euerlasting fire which is prepared for the Deuill and his angels Hence therefore it must needs follow that seeing those who died in originall sinne imputed vnto them as who were not in any wise ingraffed in the body of Christ that these I say must needs according vnto the opinion of the aforesaid Fathers bee condemned vnto vnquenchable fire though certaine it is as God willing shall bee demonstrated in another place that those who are in any wise ingraffed in Christ either by the baptisme of water of bloud or of the holy Ghost by reason of originall sinne only shall neuer taste of those eternall torments prepared for the deuill and his angels CHAP. LXIIII. The obiections of Simon Magus against the aforesaid doctrine of the creation of man and his placing in Paradise AS there is nothing so manifest vnto reason but hath beene oppugned by reason so neither hath there beene any thing so euident in Scripture but hath beene oppugned with Scripture So the Pharisees resisted the Messias and Simon Magus the doctrine of Moses especially about the creation For either saith hee the God which created man was omnipotent or not if omnipotent how is it that hee would that Adam should not fall who neuerthelesse did fall if he was not omnipotent how can he be God To this wee answer that though Adam sinned and by his sinne did contrary to the will of God neuerthelesse hee remained in some sort conformable to the will of God for as hee created him endued with vnderstanding that thereby hee might discerne good from euill so was hee also created with free will whereby hee might embrace the good and eschew the euill obey or disobey his Lord and maker this was the perfection in which he excelled the beasts of the earth paulò minor factus Angelis in this he resembled the purest Angels yea in this hee is said to bee made to the image of God himselfe But God saith Simon Magus would not that Adam should haue eaten of the forbidden fruit who neuerthelesse did eat of that fruit it followeth therefore that hee remained not as his Creator would haue had him to haue remained how then can God be omnipotent or his will alwayes fulfilled It were necessary if we should fully satisfie this argument to intreat more largely of the will of God then were conuenient for this place wherefore that wee may briefly answer this obiection wee must presuppose with the Schoole-Diuines a threefold distinction of the will of God Aquinas 1. n.i. te quaestione 19. Ibidem Molina VasqueZ Suarius Sumel Bannesius alij plures according to the diuersitie of their proper obiects the first they call his efficient effectuall or working will by which God doth so effectually intend
mans fall and his perseuerance in grace for so small a space or hee fore-knew it not if not how was hee God if hee fore-knew it how is hee so presently changed and consequently also no God Againe if we were depriued of the gift of immortalitie bestowed vpon Adam and in him vpon all his posteritie how may it stand with the iustice of God and much more with his infinite mercy that wee should be punished for Adams iniustice the innocent for the guiltie the iust for the vniust Yea how standeth this euen with the word of God and his complaint by Ezechiel chapter 18. verse 2. where God complaineth of this as it seemeth blasphemie of his people What meane you that you vse this prouerbe concerning the land of Israel saying The fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge which is as much as to say our fore-fathers haue sinned and wee are punished for their sinnes How may this stand with the iustice of God seeing God himselfe taxeth this as vniust and as vniustly obiected against him in the third verse of the same chapter where contesting against mans vnrighteousnesse hee protesteth and proueth his owne righteousnesse and iust dealing insinuating thereby yea detesting the contrary as iniustice verse 3. As I liue saith the Lord yee shall not haue occasion any more to vse this prouerbe in Israel to wit that the fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that is that their fathers haue sinned and they were punished against which hee contesteth and that by an oath euen by himselfe in the latter end of the fourth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die that is all that sinne shall die and none shall die but those which sinne hee giueth the reason in the beginning of the verse and that with an ecce behold because he would haue all to acknowledge his iustice with man and how hee vseth equalitie with all men the father as the sonne and the sonne as the father euery one according to his deeds in Christ because all are equally his who saith Behold all soules are mine as the soule of the father so also the soule of the sonne is mine the soule that sinneth it shall die as who would say and none else shall die but who sinneth which may bee proued by the opposite iustice and is exemplified euen by the Prophet as that none shall bee rewarded for anothers righteousnesse so none shall bee punished for anothers vnrighteousnesse for so the Prophet prosecuteth in the fift verse But if a man bee iust and doe that which is lawfull and right and hath not eaten vpon the mountaines neither lift vp his eyes vnto idols of the house of Israel neither hath defiled his neighbours wife neither hath come neere a menstruous woman and hath not oppressed any but hath restored to the debter his pledge hath spoiled none by violence hath giuen his bread to the hungrie and hath couered the naked with a garment he that hath not giuen forth vpon vsurie neither hath taken any increase that hath withdrawne his hand from iniquitie hath executed true iudgement betweene man and man hath walked in my statutes and kept my iudgements to deale truly he is iust he shall surely liue saith the Lord God How then can it bee true that Adams posteritie should bee punished for his sinne or depriued of immortalitie which God had decreed vnto them for Adams transgression Or otherwise how can that bee true which the same Prophet prosecuteth in the twentieth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the wickednesse of the wicked shall bee vpon him Where hee prosecuteth throughout all the chapter prouing and approuing the iustice of God together with the reproofe of mans vnrighteousnesse and iniustice especially from the 29. verse to the end where hee propoundeth and answereth the obiections of his people Yet saith the house of Israel the way of the Lord is not equall O house of Israel are not my wayes equall are not your wayes vnequall Therefore I will iudge you O house of Israel euery one according to his wayes saith the Lord God repent and turne your selues from all your transgression so iniquitie shall not bee your ruine cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you haue transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit for why will you die O house of Israel for I haue no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God wherefore turne your selues and liue Now then if God haue no pleasure in the death of a sinner how hath hee pleasure in his mortalitie hauing created him immortall or how hath hee not pleasure in his death whom for so small a matter as the eating of an apple or some other such like fruit hee depriueth of immortalitie yea contradicteth his owne decree for the fulfilling of the aforesaid reuenge of sinne Againe though wee grant that Adam died for his sinne and iniustice why should wee not likewise say that Noe Melchisedech Abraham and others of the Patriarkes and Prophets were restored vnto immortalitie for their iustice and righteousnesse Wee know that God is alwayes more prone to shew his mercy then to execute his iustice how then may it bee said that here he so withdraweth his mercy and extendeth his iustice Hee often pardoneth the wicked for the godly mens sake and neuer punisheth the iust for the wickeds sinne from whence then is this his crueltie and vniust dealing against those which neuer committed any iniustice Moreouer the sonne of God was incarnate for Adams sinne we ought to bee thankfull euen to the deuill to our selues and to sinne it selfe as occasion of so great good as was the restoring of mankinde to a more blessed estate Lastly if Adams sinne was cause of his death why did not the deuils also die seeing they sinned much more grieuously If you say they died spiritually in that they were depriued of the grace of God why might not the like death suffice also for Adams sinne the death I meane of the soule his body remaining as it was created not subiect to death How did God iustly execute his iustice inflicting a greater punishment vpon Adam for a smaller offence then vpon the deuils for a greater depriuing them only of their spirituall life but Adam both of spirituall and corporall These are the arguments of these heretickes against the iust punishment which God did inflict vpon our first father for his first offence of disobedience by which they would conclude that whether Adam had sinned or remained in his former righteousnesse whether hee had eaten of the forbidden fruit or abstained from it hee had neuerthelesse beene subiect to death because hee was created of his owne nature mortall which nature neither the eating of the
forbidden fruit could make mortall nor the abstinence from it immortall Hence therefore they are imboldned to affirme that wheresoeuer the Scripture maketh mention of Adams sinne as cause of his corporall death that it is to bee vnderstood figuratiuely not that Adams sinne was properly the cause or the occasion of his death but that the Scripture vseth this phrase to the end that when Adam should heare of so seuere a punishment as the death of both body and soule he might bee terrified thereby from the committing of sinne The Scripture vseth the like manner of speech in diuers occasions as in the 22. chapter of Genesis God tempted or tried Abraham which place must needs be vnderstood figuratiuely for God who seeth all things as well future as present or past hath no need of any triall or experience The like kinde of threatning wee haue in the fourth chapter of Exodus where it is said that God would haue slaine Moses which places are not to bee interpreted literally as they sound but figuratiuely as all other places of Scripture according to the rule of S. Austine when otherwise they signifie any absurditie as this of the death of Adam doth because it contradicteth the decree of God concerning his immortalitie Neuerthelesse the contrary exposition is most firmly to bee holden as concerning the immortalitie of man before his fall and mortalitie after and by his transgression not that there was any mutation in God but transgression in man God predetermined according to his foresight man sinned according to that foresight not that the foresight was cause of mans fall but rather mans fall was the obiect of Gods foresight insomuch that God had not foreseene mans fall if man had not beene to fall neither man had fallen if God had not foreseene his fall so that though it bee necessary that God foresee that which is future yet that is not necessarily future which God doth foresee for so seeth hee things future as they are future not imposing any necessitie in things not necessarily future by his foresight which as it is necessary in regard of things necessary so is it contingent in regard of things contingent contingent I say in respect of the obiect though necessary in respect of his owne entitie and being or as the Schoole-Diuines doe explicate it ad intra necessary ad extra contingent insomuch that all the mutation is in the outward and created obiects nothing at all can reflect or redound vnto God Wherefore though Almighty God had eternally decreed the immortalitie of man in his first creation yet was there no mutation in God because vpon his transgression he made him mortall and subiect to death for as both the degrees were eternall so the foresight of the euent of both was likewise eternall the mutation issued onely from the obiect and remained in the same immutabilitie was alwayes and remaineth in God because as hee had foreseene so he determined and as he determined so likewise he foresaw Lege ad Rom. cap. 5. 7. Hence it is is that seeing the Scripture so often witnesseth that death was the effect of sinne and that if sinne had not raigned in our soules neither should death haue destroied our mortall bodies questionlesse though man was created immortall by grace yet is hee iustly depriued of that immortalitie and become subiect to death through his transgression Now as touching the absurdities so ignorantly if not blasphemously inferred vpon the foresaid doctrine I answer that though God doe reproue that ancient prouerbe of the Iewes and their comparison of the sowre grape with other the like contestations of sillie wormes with their Creator that these I say are principally to bee vnderstood in regard of actuall sinne as is plaine out of the text it selfe and not habituall or originall of which the text speaketh not But if it bee referred as some haue done euen vnto originall sinne yet neither can the iustice of God bee any whit impeached thereby for though wee eat not the sowre grape neither taste the forbidden fruit in our selues yet did we both taste and eat in Adam who was our head yea though wee tasted not the fruit it selfe in our selues yet we contracted the sowrenesse thereof and the effect of the sinne yea the sinne it selfe in our soules for though the action was onely in our head yet the passion and effect was in all the members as is more largely explicated aboue in the question of the manner nature and essence of this sinne in which all the difficulties concerning this and the like points are answered Neither can it bee inferred hence that God doth punish the iust for the vniust or reuenge the fathers wickednesse in the sonnes which neuerthelesse were no iniustice seeing the sonnes are in some sort deemed as parts of the fathers and consequently may iustly be punished for their fathers offences but rather that euery man is punished for his owne originall sinne which though it bee contracted from Adam yet it is inherent in euery mans owne nature Againe seeing Adam of his owne nature was created mortall and by grace onely was to bee preserued immortall there was no iniustice in God towards Adams posteritie in that they were depriued of originall iustice but this proceeded from Adams demerit for himselfe and his posteritie Especially seeing that the couenant was so concluded betweene GOD and Adam that qua die comederet moriretur that his eating should be his death his abstinence life with this difference that death should be onely from himselfe as sinne had beene onely from his will but life should haue beene onely from God and the preseruation from sinne from Gods grace onely Hence wee may vnderstand how there is no iniustice or vnrighteousnesse in God that although Adam was created immortall yet we should be borne of Adam mortall and subiect to death seeing hee was iustly depriued of immortalitie by his sin and we by him Lastly if we read the sacred text we shall finde it neither to be iniustice or any nouelty that the sonnes be punished for their fathers offences for so it is in the 1. of Samuel the 15. because I remember that which Amalech did vnto Israel going out of Aegypt goe thou Saul and fight against Agag and his people and the 2. of Samuel 18 it is said that the wiues of Dauid should be defiled for Dauids sinne againe in the 2 of Samuel the 21 it is written how Dauid hanged the sonnes of Resphe for the Gabaonites sake Moreouer if it were true that which the Poet sang vnto his friend delicta maiorum immeritus lues thou shalt beare the offences of thy fore-fathers without thine owne deseruings then certainely the question B. King vpon Ionas cap. 1. v. 7. as a reuerend and learned Prelate well noteth were more difficult but who is able to say my heart is cleane though I came from an vncleane seede though I were borne of a Morian I haue not his sinne though an Amorite were my father and my mother a Hittite I haue not their nature though I haue touched pitch I am not defiled I can wash my hands in innocencie and say with a cleare conscience I haue not sinned but if this be the cause of all that there is not a soule in the whole cluster of mankinde that hath not offended though not as principall as Achan in taking the cursed thing Choran in rebelling Dauid in numbring the people yet as accessarie in consenting and concealing if neither principall nor accessarie in that one sinne yet culpable in a thousand others committed in our life time perhaps not open to the world but in the eyes of God as bright as the Sunne in the firmament for the Scorpion hath a sting though hee hath not thrust it out to wound vs and man hath malice though hee hath not outwardly shewed it it may be some sinnes to come which God fore-seeth and some past which he recounteth shall we stand in argument with God as man would plead with man and charge the iudge of the quicke and the dead with iniurious exactions I haue paied the things that I neuer tooke I haue borne the price of sinne which I neuer committed You see already the ground of mine answere We haue all sinned father and sonne rush and branch and deseruedly are to expect that wages from the hands of God which to our sinne appertaineth Besides it cannot be denied but those things which we part in our conceipts by reason that distance of time and place haue sundered them some being done of old some of late some in one quarter of the world some in another those doth the God of knowledge vnite and view them at once as if they were done together out of all which conceiued together as the all-vnderstanding wisdome of God doth conceiue and vnite them we may well inferre that the iudgements of God bee as iust and his waies as right as his mercy and goodnesse and prouidence extended to all that as there is no worke of man not fully recompenced or rewarded with ouerplus so there is no sinne whether actuall or originall not iustly punished citra as the Diuines hold but neuer vltra condignum lesse I meane then the sinne doth deserue neuer more then the fact doth require Gods mercy being as the Scripture witnesseth ouer all his workes and alwaies in some sort more extended then his iustice for though it be true that as his iustice is included in his mercy euen formally as most Diuines hold so like wise his mercy is included in his iustice and so both equall in nature and being yet such is the goodnes of our infinite good God that in the execution ad extra as the Diuines tearme it his mercy should alwaies be extended further then his iustice and his iust iudgements alwaies in somewhat at least deteined or after a sort restrained by his mercy Wherefore as we are wont to say of famous worthy and excellent men in caeteris vicit omnes in hoc seipsum in other things hee exceeded all men in this hee ouercame himselfe The like wee may affirme of God that hee is incomparable in all attributes and workes but in this hee exceedeth himselfe To him therefore as infinite mercifull and euerliuing God three persons and one indivisible deitie bee ascribed all honor power maiestie and dominion now and for euermore AMEN FINIS