Miscellanies of divinitie divided into three books, wherein is explained at large the estate of the soul in her origination, separation, particular judgement, and conduct to eternall blisse or torment. By Edvvard Kellet Doctour in Divinitie, and one of the canons of the Cathedrall Church of Exon.

CHAP. IIII.

1. Adams perfection in Innocencie. Our imperfection after his fall, contrarie to his, both in understanding and will, and in the parts concupiscible and irascible.

2. Adam had other laws given him: but one above all, and one onely concerning posteritie.

3. What this Law was. Adam knew the danger to himself and his of spring. The first sinne was against this Law.

4. Eve sinned before. How she sinned the same, and not the same sinne with Adam.

5. Zeno, the Stoicks, and Jovinian confuted. Sinnes are not equally sinfull.

6 Adam sinned farre more and worse then Eve.

7 This sinne of Adam was not uxoriousnesse, as Scotus maintained, but disobedience or pride. The branches of Adams sinne.

1 LOmbard saith, Some are of opinion that Adam before the fall had no vertue. He had not ju∣stice (say they) because he despised Gods commandement; nor prudence, because he provided not for himself; nor temperance, for his appetite extended to the forbidden fruit; nor fortitude, for he yeelded to suggestion. We answer, saith Lombard, He had not these vertues when he sinned, but before, and in sinning losed them. For Augustine in a certain Homily saith, Adam was made accor∣ding to the Image of God, armed with shamefastnesse, composed with temperance, splendent with charitie. Otherwhere he saith, Adam was endued with a spirituall minde. Ambrose saith, He was most happy, and led an heavenly life; and addeth a good observation, When Adam was alone, he transgressed not. Which may teach us to fear the enticements of companie. This point deserveth not to be so speedily cast off: and therefore attend this further en∣largement.

Many, very many precepts were graven in the heart of Adam, and every branch of the naturall Law was there written by the finger of God, at his Creation; nor was he ignorant, what was to be done or omitted in any businesse. Eccl. 17.1. The Lord created man of the earth: and verse 2. he changeth the

singular into the plural, He gave them power over the things therein: and verse 3. He endued them with strength by themselves, and made them according to his image: And then followeth an ex∣cellent description of their gifts. I conceive, and explain the matter thus: Foure faculties he had, and we have of our souls,

• Two superior.
• Two inferior.

The two superior are understanding and will; The two infe∣rior, the part irascible and part concupiscible. First, the object of his understanding was truth, the perfection of it was know∣ledge: but now, as we are in the state decaied, this truth is darkned with ignorance, 1 Corinth. 2.14. The naturall man re∣ceiveth not, nor can know the things of the Spirit of God. Eph. 4.18. Their understanding is darkned, and their hearts are blinde. Psal. 49.20. Man in honour understandeth not. As Adam was in inno∣cencie, he was partaker of the truth. The Apostle, Ephes. 4.23, 24. saith, Be renewed in the spirit of your minde. New we were once in Adam, and in him also we grew old: we are commanded to be renewed as new as once we were; and put on that new man, which was created in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth; therefore the first Adam was created in truth. You have the object, Truth; the perfection was Knowledge, Ecclesiasticus 17.7. God filled them with knowledge and understanding: and this is seconded by the Apostle, Colos. 3.10. The new man is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him. Renovation necessarily im∣plieth precedent oldnes; and oldnes, precedent newnes of knowledge in the first Adam. Secondly, the object of mans will, was, and is, Goodnesse; the perfection, Love. In the decayed estate the will is infected with vanitie, Genes. 6.5. Every imagi∣nation of the thoughts of his heart was onely evill continually. Ephes. 4.17. We walk in the vanitie of our minde. In the state of integritie it was farre otherwise: Adam was new in his minde, and holy and righteous, as was proved before: in which regard Chrysostom saith, Adam was a terrestriall Angel. Basil rec∣koneth up, as Adams chief good in Paradise, His sitting with God, and conjunction by love. As all things els, so Adams will was good, and tended unto good; there is the object: his love in innocencie was entire, and united to God; there was his perfe∣ction. Thirdly, the object of his, and our part concupiscible, is moderate delight: the perfection and felicitie of it, was content∣ment. As now, this part is gauled with insatiable itchings, and given over to lasciviousnesse, to work all uncleannesse with greedines, Ephes. 4.19. But at the first Adam was free. Augustine saith, There the grace of God was great, where an earthy and sensuall body had no beastly lust. The place he was in, was a Paradise of pleasure, a garden of delight; nothing was wanting which might give true content. Fourthly, the object of his and our irascible part may in a sort be called Difficulty, or rather Con∣stancy;

whose glory of endeavours, end, and felicitie, was Vi∣ctorie. This part now is much weakned with infirmitie. In the best of us, the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and (alas!) we are often vanquished, as being weak by nature: But Adam was strong, and could have overcome any temptation. Augustine saith, Our first parents were happy, being neither shaken with any trouble of minde, nor hurt with any infirmitie of body. Adam had no need of that help which these crave, when they say, I see another law in my members, &c. Yea he is more bold there, saying, Adam in those good things wherein he was created, had no need of Christs death. He had, with libertie and will, grace sufficient, whereby he might have triumphed over all difficulties and temptations. Augustine thus, In Paradise before sinne although Adam could not do all things, yet he then would not do whatsoever he could not, and therefore could do all that he would. Adam ha∣ving these excellent endowments of nature and grace, had also necessarily certain objects, about which they should be con∣versant. These objects were, all the parts, and branches of the Law of nature, whereby he fully knew his dutie. And all and every one of these he did for a while, or at the least not break: and he and his posteritie should, and ought to fulfill, as they were private persons: and for the performance and non-per∣formance thereof, both he and we should, and shall answer unto God, at the high Throne and Tribunall of the just and righteous Judge.

2. But there was one precept, and onely one, given to Eve, (perhaps to all Adams posteritie, as private persons: who, if they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evill, can not be imagined, that they could have ruinated all mankinde:) but commanded to Adam onely, as the publick person, as the Idea of humane nature, as the stock and root, by whose obedience or disobedience all mankinde was to be hap∣pie or unhappie, as the figure of Christ to come. And this sin was not to be a sin of thought onely, as the sin of the Angels, who each of them sinned by his own expressed will; but such a sinne, as might bring a deserved blot, and punishment upon all his posteritie, who were in him: which could not be, unles it had been committed both by his soul and his body, and thereby had power to infect all the parts, and faculties both of souls and bodies. Again, the body of Adam could not sinne without the soul, neither could this be a sinne of the soul alone, without some concurrents of the bodily parts; for then Adams sinning soul should have been damned, and his innocent bodie saved: but it was to be a sinne compounded of inward aversion and outward transgression. So that if Adam had seen Eve eat, and had himself lusted after the fruit, and yet before the orall man∣ducation had disliked his liking, had feared the punishment,

and not proceeded to eat of it, or touch it, I do not think his po∣steritie had been engaged, as they are. Augustine citeth this out of S. Ambrose, and approveth it, If Adams soul had bridled the bodily appetite in the very beginning, the originall of sinne had been quenched.

Catharinus thinketh there was an expresse covenant be∣tween God and Adam, that Adam and his posteritie should be blessed or cursed, according to the breaking or keeping of that one law. What Catharinus saith is probable, and may be most true, though it be not so written. For first, if the prohibition had concerned Adams person onely, since the precept was gi∣ven before Eve was created, Adam onely should have tasted of death, and not Eve. Secondly, questionlesse that law and co∣venant included posteritie, as is verified in the event. When Morte Morieris was threatned unto Adam, he was then Rectus in Curia, and stood as a publique person, representing all his branches. If it concerned him, as a private person, he onely should personally have died, and we escaped: but our dying in him evinceth, that he was reputed (if I may so say) a generall, universall feoffee or person, to whose freewill the happie or unhappie future estate of all his descendants was intrusted; con∣ditionally, to live for ever, upon the observance of one law; or to die the death, for the breach of it. Life and death was pro∣pounded, Not to one man, but to all mankinde.

3. And this law is registred, and recorded, Genes. 2.17. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evill thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Which words I verily beleeve that Adam understood (either by his naturall wisedome, which was very great, or by divine conference or revelation, which to him was not unfrequent) to involve his po∣steritie as well as himself. For if immediatly upon the creation of woman, Adam could foresee and prophesie, Genes. 2.24. That a man shall leave his Father and Mother, and cleave to his wife; and they two shall be one flesh: and by the same words, per∣haps, understand Christ and his Church, and that mysterie ex∣plained by S. Paul, Ephes. 5.31, &c. (those being the words of Adam, as Epiphanius saith, of Adam speaking unto God, speaking the truth of God; and in this respect (as I conceive) Christ saith, Matth. 19.4, &c. these words are the words of God, of the Creator; as all light is from the Sunne, so all truth from God; as on the contrarie, all lies are from the Devill) I say, if Adam could foresee marriages, generations, cohabitations, mysteries, and future usances; he could not be ignorant, that that law was given him to keep to the blisse of all mankinde, and the contempt thereof would draw on the destruction of his posteritie. And (I think) I shall not erre, if I collect from the correlative correspondencie, which must be between the Type

and the Antitype, the shadow and the substance, That the first Adam knew his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or disobedience was sufficient to bring destruction on all mankinde, as the second Adam knew that his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or obedience, was a sufficient redemption for the sinnes of all the World. Durand foolishly presupposeth, that the will of Adam sinning was ours onely concomitativè & interpre∣tativè, because we lost originall justice, when Adam finned, beyond his thoughts or intentions. Stapleton saith truly, If Adam intended no such thing with an actuall intention, yet he did it with a virtuall intention. But I rather think, that the word If may be cut off, and we may say, Adam did, as Esau afterward, prefer temporals before spirituals, and as all the sonnes of Adam do at one time or other; for he was not ignorant of the danger, yet embraced it: and he might say within himself, — Video meliora, probóque, Deteriora sequor— Augustine hath this wittie Quaere, Whether Adam and Eve foreknew their fall? For if he did before hand know that he should sinne, and that God would revenge it, whence could he be happie? and so he was in Paradise, yet not happie. If he did not foreknow his fall; then by this ignorance he was either uncertain of that blessednesse; and how was he then truly blessed? or certain by a false hope, and not by a right knowledge; and then how was he not a fool? I answer, They did not know that they should fall, or sinne; for there was no necessitie laid upon them; and to know the unalterable certaintie of a thing contingent (as their future estate was) is to take away the nature of its contingencie, and to make it unavoidable. But for all this ignorance, they were certain enough of blessednesse, if they would themselves; and their wills and persons were in Paradise blessed, though changeable, though not so wholy blessed as good Angels are, or as the Saints shall be. For if we say, Nothing is blessed but what hath attained absolute certainty, and the height of bles∣sednesse; the very blessed Spirits of heaven shall not be said to be blessed, especially if they be compared with God, who onely is blessed. And so Adam and Eve were beati modo quodam in∣feriori, non tamen nullo, that I answer in Augustines words. Again, to the former part of this Question I answer, That they knew before hand that they could sinne, and that God would punish them, if they did sinne; and yet for all this, they had the grace given to stand, if they would, and so to avoid both sinne and punishment; and withall they knew that they had that grace. But if before hand they had known, or could have known that they should have sinned, they could not have been happie in Paradise, yet, as they were in Paradise, they were happie, though they knew not that they should fall. For if men on earth may be called Saints, Saints of light, Blessed, (as they are often) and Spirituall, Galat. 6.1, though they were in their

bodies to passe through both temptations and tribulations, and can not divers times but fall: much more Adam might be term∣ed Blessed in Paradise, who though he saw he might fall, yet he saw also he might have stood; and so rejoyced, saith Augustine himself, for the reward to come, that he endured no tribulation for the present. Lastly, to S. Augustines three-headed Dilemma I answer by distinguishing. There is a threefold ignorance. The first is pravae dispositionis, when one is prepossessed with a false opinion, excluding knowledge: this may be called positive igno∣rance, or plain errour. The second is ignorantia privationis, when a man knoweth not what he is bound to know: neither of these can consist with blessednesse, nor was in innocent Adam. But there is a third, viz. ignoratio simplicis nescientiae, when we know not such things as we need not to know. This was in Adam, and is in good Angels: yea Christ himself knew not some things. This ignorance is not sinfull, nor erronious, not making either imaginarily happie, or foolish.

This great law, in Tertullians phrase is stiled The Mother∣law, breeding all other laws: which had been sufficient for them, if they had kept it, saith he. Augustine and Chrysostom agree in this, That Adams first sinne onely maketh us culpable. Chryso∣stom calleth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The first sinne. Augustin saith that Onely the first transgression of Adam is passed upon the poste∣ritie, because the whole nature is corrupted by that first sinne. There∣fore when a childe is born, he hath originall sinne, and death the wages thereof annexed as due to it; not because he is a crea∣ture, not because he is a person, not because he is a person of mankinde or humane nature, not because he descended from his immediate or mediate parents, not because they came from Eve, not onely because he was in the loyns of Adam, of sinning or sinfull Adam; but because he was in Adam when he first sin∣ned, and implicitly gave his consent to the committing of that first transgression, and that primarie aversion which hath led us astray ever since.

4. Some have held, that Eve sinned before she talk∣ed with the Serpent. So Rupertus and Ferus. But certainly she sinned before Adam, & being carried headlong with the Bonū apparens, did little imagine to work so much mischief. Had she known that her husbands yeelding should necessarily and infal∣libly bring forth death to him and all his posteritie, and after that have offered him the forbidden fruit, she had been full of deceit, and her intentions had been stained with the just asper∣sion of seducement. But she might think her sinne was little or none, and perswade herself she should not die, and relate that perswasion to her husband; or think onely of Gods mercy, who had never tasted of his judgements. And, perhaps, he seeing that she had touched the fruit, and was not dead, sunk under

her enticements, and did eat. Before I part with this point, two questions more must needs be answered. First, Whe∣ther Eve sinned the same sinne with Adam? Secondly, Whe∣ther of their sinnes were the greatest? Concerning the first, I answer, In regard that both of them knew, that to eat of the forbidden fruit was unlawfull and displeasing to God, and yet did eat, they sinned the same sinne: but as the commandment was given to Adam before Eves creation, as Adam was the root of mankinde, and as his posterity was to stand or fall in him onely, and not in Eve, so she sinned not the same sinne with Adam. She sinned the same sinne, in respect of the outward eat∣ing, not in regard of the inward obligation: She sinned the same sin in se, so much as concerned her own person; she sinned not the same sinne extensivè erga alios. For as her good actions, con∣sidered by themselves, should not have been the rule or square according to which our humane natures should have been framed; (but for all her uprightnes, if Adam had sinned we had died) so her sinne or sinnes, setting Adam apart, had not ex∣tended to the corruption or destruction of mankinde.

Though in innocencie they did see much, yet they could then see no deformitie: nay, though Eve had sinned, and sinned divers sinnes before Adam sinned any; (for she beleeved the Serpent, distrusted God, fell to unlawfull desires, and did eat) yet they were both blinde: and neither Eve herself did consi∣der her own faults, as she should, nor Adam Eves faults; but immediately so soon as Adam had eaten, Genes. 3.7. The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. For their nakednes came by Adams sinne, and not by Eves; the same sinne of hers and his was not the same: neither Adam, nor we, nor she herself by her sinnes were bare and naked of good∣nes, or had lost Bonum naturae, but onely gratiae personalis: but when once he had sinned; he, she, and we were all naked, our natures corrupt and to be ashamed of; and both of them knew it. Their eyes opened themselves; so Tremellius hath it, differ∣ing from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The truth is, she sinned the same sinne twice; for she ate first by herself, and then her eyes were not opened. Neither was she spoiled of originall justice (saith Franciscus Aretinus) as it was gratia gratis data, nor did she feelthe motions of concupiscence, or knew her own nakednes, till Adam had sinned. For if she had been deprived of grace so soon as she sinned, she should have been ashamed of her nakednes; neither durst she to have gone naked to her husband, but for modestie would have sought some covering, or fled into corners. So farre Aretinus, or Cornelius à Lapide who citeth him. But after this her eat∣ing and this her sinne, she cometh to her husband, and offereth him some to eat, and eateth with him the second time; and perchance began to eat the second time ere he ate once, and

suffered him to see her eat. Sure I am, the Hebrew runneth thus, She did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat: but the 70 say of Eve first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. where they are peremptorie, that Adam and Eve, or rather Eve and Adam are both together. And Vatablus well expoundeth the SECVM, id est, vt unà cum ipsa ederet: and the proof is pertinent enough, though we do not reade with the Septuagint, They did eat, but with the Hebrew, He did eat, namely, with her, or, after he had seen her eat. The summe is, she ate first, she ate again with him, she sinned the same sinne. And further, though she sinned the same sinne the third time, in his eating and by it, aswell as we did, who also were in him ratione principii; yet was it not her sinne, but his sinne that overthrew both him, her, and us: and in this sense we may truly say, she sinned not the same sinne with Adam. So much for the first question. It cometh secondarilie to be enquired, Whether Adams or Eves sinne was the greater.

5. To say that no sinne is greater then other, is one of the grossest errors that have been. Me thinks a Stoick should be ashamed to say, that Nero, Heliogabalus, and the grand Epi∣cure sinned not worse, then Cato the Utican, Aristides the Just, or Zeno the Cittien of Cyprus, the great upholder of their own sect: or that unmatchable Titus the Emperour, who la∣mented the day in which he did not good to some man, was no better then Timon the Man-hater. No other Philosophers ever joyned hands with them in that folly. This of the equalitie of sinnes, the Stoicks onely have dared to dispute; for they did so against all the sense, feeling, and opinion of mankinde, saith S. Au∣gustin. Yet Jovinian sided with them; but S. Hierom confuted him, Which opinion of theirs in that Jovinian, who in this tenent was a Stoick, but in pursuing and defending pleasures an Epicure, out of the sacred Scriptures thou hast most clearely convinced, as S. Au∣gustine in the same place testifieth of S. Hierom, to S. Hierom. The same in effect saith S. Hierom himself of himself, against Jovinian. We have crusht both by common sense and by divine Scripture the error of Jovinian, who would prove that there is no dif∣ference between just and just, a sinner and a sinner; and also the old opi∣nion of Zeno. And indeed, so he did in the same book, both by answering all Jovinians objections, and overlaying him with sound proofs. I omit whatsoever S. Hierom hath laboriously, acutely, and truly collected against the Stoicall equalitie of sinnes, and against Jovinians wilde inferences. Let him that thirsteth, have recourse to the fountain, in the said second book of S. Hierom against Jovinian: Fons vincet sitientem. Yet suffer me to cast my mite into the Treasurie. First, Elencticè, upon the by, then Didacticè, on the main. Concerning the first; unto one of the witlesse positions of Jovinian, viz. We love equally all

our members, neither do we preferre the eye before the finger, nor the singer before the eare; by which he would inferre a parilitie of sinnes, (besides what S. Hierom excellently answereth) I can not chuse but oppose what Moses saith, Deuteron. 32.10. God kept the Israelites as the apple of his eye, it being more guard∣ed with the double coverlids of skins and hairs, and more cu∣riously then any other outward part: which proverbiall simi∣litude, being also taken up both by David, Psal. 17.8. and by the Prophet Zecharie 2.8. significantly intimateth, that one part of the body is more tender to us then any other. Neither needed there such exact retaliation as is required Exod. 21.24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, if all mem∣bers were of like worth: for a tooth might have been pluckt out for an eye, and the foot might have stood for the hand. Yea, whatsoever Jovinian opineth, or rather raveth, Dives being in torment had more regard to the cooling of his tongue, Luk. 16.24. then to the tip of his eare. Where sinne is, there is punish∣ment also, saith S. Chrysostom; and Dives his tongue spake many proud things, saith he: and Dives was full of loquacitie, as the In∣terlineary Glosse observeth even from his very speech to Abraham: and perchance his tongue was most tortured, as ha∣ving been most delighted and addulced with his daily delicious fare. If any of Zeno or Jovinian his partisans will not beleeve, that one bodily member is better then an other, I could wish it might be beaten into them, and that they might endure sound raps or blows on their heads, which any other man, yea na∣turall fools, by naturall instinct would rather beare off upon the arms, as objecting unto danger the member of lesse worth, to save and defend the part more principall; which hourely ex∣perience ratifieth. I passe by all other his objections, because I have stood too long on this, and I come to the main Question, Whether all sinnes are equall. The answer is plainly negative. Reasons are these. First, diversitie of sacrifices prove the ine∣qualitie of offences, the greater offence being usually expiated with the most costly sacrifice. The sinne of the Priest was, in the estimate of God, as the sinne of the whole congregation, and the offering of his sinne was a young bullock without blemish, Levit. 4.3. If a Magistrate sinned, he was to offer a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, vers. 23. If an ordinarie man of∣fended, a female served the turn, vers. 28. and 32. whether it were of goats or lambes. Where the best, greatest, and costliest of oblations doth not prove, that the estate, or the person of the Priest was better and more noble then the estate or person of the King, or supreme Civill Magistrate, (which the Papists impertinently would prove from thence) but the Priests greater sacrifice evinceth his sinne to be greater, by reason of his greater knowledge. For the Priests lips should keep knowledge,

and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hosts, Malachi 2.7. A second Reason may be this: Greater punishments, both criminall and capitall, are ordained by the Law, for some people more then for others: But this can not be justly appointed, unlesse there be degrees of sinne: Therefore sinnes are not equall. Concerning the Major, view it evinced in these instances: He that stealeth a man, shall die, Exod. 21.16. If he steal an ox, or a sheep, he shall restore five oxen for anox, and foure sheep for a sheep, Exod. 22.1. He that kills a man unwillingly, shall be protected, Exod. 21.13. if willingly, the very Sanctuarie, at the horns of the Altar, shall not save him; he shall die, vers. 14. The adulterie of common people was punished with common death, Levit. 20.10. But the daughter of any Priest, if she profane her self by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire, Levit. 21.9. that is, she shall be burnt alive. The Minor is proved, because God is just, and rewardeth every man according to his works, Revel. 22.12. Thirdly, the Scripture saith some are more wicked then others, Jerem. 3.11. The back-sliding Israel hath justified her self more then treacherous Judah. Aholibah was more corrupt in her inor∣dinate love then Aholah, Ezek. 23.11. And some shal have sorer pu∣nishment then others Heb. 10.29. There is a sin remissible, & a sin irremissible, Matth. 12.31. Tyre and Sidon were more inclining to repentance, then Chorazin and Bethsaida, Matth. 11.21. Ac∣cordingly, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, then for them, vers. 24. There are some sinnes of infirmitie, some of pre∣sumption, and great transgressions, Psal. 19.13. Reward Babylon even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double. How much she hath glorified her self, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her, Revel. 18.6, 7. Not, double asmuch as she hath deserved; that were injustice; but, double asmuch as others drink of the wrath of God. The proselyte of the Pharisees is twofold more the childe of hell then themselves, Matth. 23.15. and some shall re∣ceive greater damnation, vers. 14. Genes. 4.15. Vengeance shall be taken seven-fold on him who slayeth Cain: Not seven-fold more then such a deed as murder deserveth, but seven-fold more then is taken on some other men; perchance, seven-fold more then was taken on Cain himself. For though it be a greater sinne to kill an innocent, then a bloud-guilty wretch or mur∣derer; and more offensive to slay a brother then one of lesse kindred, or acquaintance, (which may seem to be the case be∣tween Cain and Abel on the one side, and Cain and his mur∣derer on the other side) yet if we consider, that God after an especiall manner forbad any man to kill Cain, that God or∣dained life as a punishment to Cain, that to kill Cain had been a courtesie, saith Hierom, that Cain was to live to be a terrifying

example to all murderers. Lastly, if we remember, that to de∣terre all men from the murder of Cain, God set a notorious mark upon him, such a oneas never any untill this day had the like, by reason of the extraordinarines thereof; whether it were a brand or stamp in his forehead, or that the earth quaked under him wheresoever he went, or a preternaturall and unu∣suall shaking of his head, or dreadfull tremors, or convulsions over all his body; of which the particular is as uncertain, as the generall can not be doubted of, namely, that unto his terrors of conscience, and a vagrant unsetled minde, some outward evi∣dent mark was annexed, distinguishing him from other men, and in a sort forbidding any to murder him: I say, he that now should have killed Cain, might justly seven-fold deserve Cains punishment, and an other may rightfully incurre punishment seventy times seven-fold, as it is, if not in truth, yet at the least in the swasive of Lamech to his wives, Genes. 4.24. There is a mote, and there is a beam, Matth. 7.3. This beam may be sawed into many boards or rafters; and there is no verture nor vice but hath its latitude and degrees partaking of majus and minus. There are funiculi vanitatis, Esai. 5.18. cords of vanity. There are funes peccatorum, ropes of sinnes, Proverb. 5.22. And there are funes plaustri, as Vatablus rendereth it, according to the Hebrew, cart-ropes or vinculum plaustri, according to the Vulgat, the wain-rope, Esai 5.18. differencing sinnes, and being indebted to divers kindes of punishments. Every sinne causeth a blot on the soul: the greater sinne, the greater blot. A frequent sinner is compared to a spotted leopard, Jerem. 13.23. and some notorious sinners are called spots in the abstract, Jude, vers. 12. More testimonies I could heap, but the point is cleared, and the enquiry, Wheter Adam or Eve sinned most, is yet unanswered.

6. And here both ancient and modern Divines do much varie. Chrysostom saith expresly, Eve sinned more then Adam: and elsewhere to this effect, Eve was more punished then Adam: but the punishment is answerable to the fault. Therefore her sinne was greater. Rupert followeth him, The woman is pu∣nished by a threefold punishment, because her sinne was three times greater then Adams. Hugo and Lombard, untruly supposing, that Eve onely beleeved the Serpents words promising them to be like unto God, do rather think Eve sinned most. The Shoolmen by troups follow them. Cajetan is dubious: com∣menting on Aquinas he would not differ from his Master, the great Summist, but condemneth the woman more then the man; yet expounding the third of Gensis, he brings five rea∣sons to excuse Eve more then Adam. S. Aug. is by both sides, sometimes ascribing more fault to the man then to the woman, sometimes to the woman rather then to the man: and twice he seemeth to hold, That they sinned equally. On the other side,

Ambrose saith, Adams sinne was greater. And again, Eve sin∣ned more by unstablenes of minde then by perversenes. Isdore saith, It is more hainous to sinne of set purpose, as Adam; then out of igno∣rance, as Eve. This point needing to be distinguished upon, Aquine telleth us, The greatnes of a sinne is two wayes considered; either exipsa specie peccati, from the especiall kinde of the sinne, or according to the circumstances of place or person: and he resolveth thus; In regard of the kinde of sinne, the sinne of them both is said to be equall. Pride was in both: but if we look ad speciem super∣biae, Eve sinned more, for these three regards; She was more proud then the man: She not onely sinned herself, but made her husband sinne: Thirdly, Adams sinne was lessened by the love he bore unto his wife. Which last reason is grounded on the words of S. Augustine, Adam sinned not being overcome by carnall concupiscence, but being constrained by some friendly affection; by which it cometh often to passe that God is offended, lest a friend should be offended. Yea the same S. Augustine is cited thus, After the seduced woman had eaten, and had given him that they should eat together, he was loth to grieve her whom he thought ready to pine away without his com∣fort, and altogether to die being estranged from him. Lastly, A∣quine saith, If we weigh the condition of both persons, the mans sinne was greater, because he was perfecter then the woman. So Aquine 2.2. Quaest. 163. Art. 4.

7. Scotus thus opineth, Because Adam was more circum∣spect, more noble, more strong to resist; therefore by accident his sinne was more great: Yet formally, in it self, and precisely, the sinne of Eve was greater. But the learned Estius, on the same distin∣ction, Paragraphe 7, thus,

The greatnes of sinne cometh many wayes; principally from the object and the end, then from the cir∣cumstances either of the person or the intent of him, or of the fre∣quencie of the act, or the greatnes of harm that cometh by the sinne, or of the ignorance or infirmitie or industrie of the person. If we lay Adams and Eves sinne in the ballance, respecting the object and the end, it weighed alike; both of them beleeved the Serpent, both would be like God, both ate of the fruit forbidden, both excused their faults: but weigh the circumstances (saith he) the mans sinne was simply greater. First, he had more power to resist. Secondly, he dealt with a lesse subtile enemy, a simple wo∣man; but she had to do with an evill Angel, of an higher nature then herself. Thirdly, he had the precept from God himself; she but from her husband. Fourthly, he was to be head over his wife, and not she over him; and he was to reduce her into the right way, when she strayed. Fifthly, his excuse cast part of the fault, as it were, upon God himself. Sixthly, indeed he was worse punished, and so saith Augustine truly. Seventhly, the better things are the worst in their corruption: The best wine turnes to the sharpest vineger, the best of government, a Monarchie, proves the worst, if it dege∣nerate

into a Tyranny. But the man exceeded the woman as well in naturals as in gratuitous.

So farre in effect Estius.

Bellarmine compareth their acts and per sons together, and concludeth, that both in regard of acts and persons, Eve sinned least, Adam worst. His observations are not onely passable, but commendable, save in two things. First, that he makes the excu∣sation of their sinne, to be one act of the seven in Adam and Eves sinne; when as in truth, their excuse was no part or branch of their first sinne, but a distinct and severall sinne by it self. For having ended their first sinne, they were ashamed, and had time to gather figleaves and sew them, and make them∣selves aprons, or things to gird about them: after this, they heard God speak, and hid themselves: after this, was their exa∣mination de facto, and their confession: after all this, begins Adams excuse, Genes. 3.12. and Eves, vers. 13. The diversitie of these severall actions, and the distance of time interceding, shew it was no part of their first sinne to excuse themselves. An other especiall sinne it was, aggravating the former: and in this sinne Adam sinned worst, as accusing God, indirectly, for gi∣ving such an helper to him as had hurt him. Who will see things more at large, let him consult with Estius and Bellarmine, unto whom, for the main, I do subscribe; though I make the last part, and act of Adam and Eves sinne, to be their reall orall manducation. The second scape of Bellarmine is, that whereas in true Divinitie, the fall of mankinde is a consequent of our first parents transgression; Bellarmine makes it one of the seven acts of their sinne, confounding the cause with the effect, and not sufficiently distinguishing the fault from the punishment. May I adde these things: Out of the words of Scotus, I thus argue, Originall justice was given to Adam, as to the worthier, abler, and wiser person; yea, it was so given, that if he lost it, he was to lose it for himself and his whole posteritie. But it was not so given, or infeoffeed to Eve; therefore since he failed, when the trust of the whole World was reposed on him, his sinne must needs be much more hainous then hers. If the first sinning Angel was the greatest delinquent, though none of the other Angels sinned in him, but each of himself, by his own proper will; then Adam certainly sinned worse, who bare our persons, and being the Referre, to whom our blessednesse or cursednesse was intrusted, drew us all into unhappinesse. For the woman was but the incompleat principle of offending, saith Gorran: But by Adams first sinne we lost the good of nature, which was to be trans∣mitted by the spring of nature, saith Aquine. By Adams other transgressions the good of personall grace was diminished, and might be recovered, but the Naturall good traducible could not be regained by any repentance. The greatnesse of Adams sinne appeared in that he might so easily have kept the precept,

How great iniquitie was there in sinning, where such facilitie was of not sinning! saith Augustine. Indeed to eat of the apple see∣meth a small matter to the carnall eyes of men, but in the least thing to be disobedient is not the least offence; for as to obey is better then sacrifice, so disobedience is as the sinne of witchcraft, and transgression is wickednesse and idolatrie, 1 Sam. 15.22, 23. Naaman, who would have performed a greater matter, should much more willingly have been ruled by the Prophet in a trifle: it was the well-poised argument of his servants, 2. Kings 5.13. and his correspondent obedience was justly rewarded with health. But Adam, besides the smallnes of the matter it self, erred grosly in the manner: for God did not appoint him any hard work, no laborious task to perform. Omission is of an easie and pliable nature: more facile it is for one not to wash a thousand times, then to wash once. Now, the precept unto Adam was inhibitive, meerly of omission, negation, or prete∣rition, easier to be kept then broken; and therefore to break it was a sinne of an high hand, a presumptuous sinne, which may be aggravated in him by this circumstance, that he received the restraint from God, which Eve did not. They who think other∣wise of Adams sinne, do judge of it as the common people do of the fixed starres, who imagine them to be no greater then a candle. But if you truly take the height and breadth of Adams sinne, it will be found, as the starres in heaven, of greatnes almost incredible; divers of them, in their severall stations, being greater then the whole earth. Perhaps one of the reasons, why the Apostle, Heb. 11. nameth not Adam among the old faithfull Heroes, was this, because he committed a greater sinne then any of them. For his offence hath been the cause of death, of sicknes, of all punishments inflicted on men, in this life or in the life to come. Not Satans temptation, not Eves seduction, but Adams wilfull disobedience cost the bloud of the Sonne of God. And all the despighteous sinnes of mankinde, wherewith the Father blessed for ever, the gracious Redeemer, and the sanctifying Spirit are grieved, and do as it were grone under, and at which the holy Angels are offended, and do in their sort mourn, proceed originally from that sinne of Adam, and but for that had never been. Therefore was his offence greater then Eves. Moreover, God first summoned Adam, though Eve sinned first, and questioned Adam particularly for that sin, and not Eve, Genes. 3.9. and at the censure (perchance with an em∣phasis) God said unto Adam (which he did not unto Eve) Gen. 3.17. Thou hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded THEE, saying, THOƲ shalt not eat of it; and denounced more punish∣ments against him then against Eve, and worse; and this among the rest, ratifying the former threatning, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return; inflicting death on Adam, on Eve, on us

for Adams sinne, and not for Eves. Lastly, the Spirit of God seemeth to derive the fault from Eve unto the Serpent, 2 Cor. 11.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in astutia sua: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his craft, and her simplicitie, he deceived her. Now let Scotus lessen Adams offence as much as he can, let him say, The eating of the forbidden tree was no sinne, but because it was for∣bidden; and he might well and lawfully have eaten of it, if he had not been forbidden; and he erred not against any naturall law, but a law positive, and in a thing otherwise indifferent. I answer, The same and more excuses are for Eve. Again, in regard of its spreading infection, and the myriads of evils thence ensuing, & the blessed estate of many millions by him betrayed to the lake of fire and brimstone, which never shall be quenched, contrarie to the trust to him concredited, I shall alwayes think Adams sinne the worst of all sinnes that ever any one of mankinde committed, not excepting the sinne of Judas, or the sinne against the Holy Ghost. For these hurt but few; and if they were worse inten∣sively, they were not so bad extensively: and therefore I must account it one of Scotus his errours, when he saith, The greatest punishment was not due to Adams sinne; yea, if he had been damned himself for that sinne, he had not been so grievously punished for it as many others. The ancient Fathers did not so lightly prize the first sinne of Adam. Augustine saith, A Precept so light for keeping, so short for remembring, was broken by so much greater in∣justice, by how much more easily it might have been kept. And though Scotus holdeth, it did consist in immoderate love and friendship to his wife; yet I say, his uxoriousnesse was but a branch, a piece, a quarter, a rafter of that beam, a part, a member of that body of sinne. Tertull. doubts not to call Adams sinne, Heresie, and Adam, a very rude Heretick. Ambrose on Rom. 5.14. Adams sinne is not farre from idolatrie. And in his 33. Epistle to his sister Marcellina, he findes infidelitie in Adam, for not beleeving in Gods word. Augustine in his Enchirid. chap. 45. imputes unto him Pride, & Sacriledge; for it was sacri∣legious pride, to impropriate & usurp the fruit separated from common use. He was a murderer, destroying himself & all man∣kinde: guiltie he was of spirituall fornication committed with the Serpent. He may be further charged for felony, in stealing the fruit which was not his. Rupertus on Genes. 2.39. saith, Ingratitude was his first sinne. He fell by covetousnes, saith Augu∣stine; for God could not suffice him; and having much more then he needed, yet he would need more then he had. Any one may blot him with curiositie, for seeking to know what did him hurt. His gluttony was manifest, in loosing the reins to his beastly appetite. His want of naturall affection toward his posteritie by him decaying, is justly blameable. Brentius hath one new∣fangle on John 8; That Adams sinne was rebellion or defection, be∣cause

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

he would not be subject to Christ. He might rather have ac∣cused him for contempt of his Creator, for his folly in ventu∣ring the losse of heaven for an apple, for his credulity in belee∣ving Satan before God. The Apostle chargeth him with diso∣bedience, Rom. 5.19. Bellarmine saith, The first act of pride is to refuse to be subject to the command and precepts of another, which properly is called disobedience: as contrarily, the first of humility is to be subject to another. But Scotus doth better set down the order of the acts of our will: There is commonly a double act of the will, LIKING and DISLIKING;—and every disliking pre∣supposeth some liking: — and no disliking is the first inordinate act of the will, because it could not have a disliking, but in regard or by vertue of some liking. In this I preferre Scotus before Bellar∣mine and Estius, because the first act of pride or disobedience is self-complacencie, from whence issueth the dislike, or nolle of subjection; as in humilitie, the first act is Velle placere alteri, whence ariseth the groundwork of obedience. Secondly, Au∣gustine saith, They began in secret to be evil: the ill will pre∣ceded the ill work; self-love was the bait; the Devil could not have caught Adam, unles he had begun alreadie to be self pleased: they were tickled with those words, YE SHALLBE LIKE GODS Gen. 3.5 From whence I marvel Bellarmine observed not, that Velle sibi placere is the first step of pride, and therefore the Nolle subjici is the second act, or act concomitant. Thirdly, Bellarmine himself interfeering saith, The pride of our parents began not from this act, I VVILL NOT BE UNDER THE POVVER OF GOD, but after the hearing of these words, YE SHALL BE LIKE GODS, they began to consider within themselves, it was a goodly thing not to de∣pend of an other; and at the same time they began to be delighted with their own power, and to desire it, and vehemently to please themselves. Here he maketh three or foure acts to beginne together, and maketh some ill act or acts precede this, I will not be under the power of God. Lastly, Bellarmine hath it thus, The first ill act in the sinne of the man was pride, by which he loved to be in his own power rather then in Gods. And he citeth Augustine in Enchirid. chap. 45. Therefore the beginning of Adams iniquitie consisted in a VELLE, rather then in a NOLLE. Now, though Scotus his Discourse and Philosophie sideth thus farre with truth, that an evil Nolle necessarily presupposeth an evil Velle, (which is expressely against the opinion of Bellarmine and Estius) yet it crawleth on lamely towards Scotus his conclusion, That Adam did first sinne in inordinate love of friendship towards his wife for I will place in Adam another Velle, a former Velle, a malum Velle, and a pejus Velle before his uxoriousnesse. Augustine in his 21 Sermon upon Psal. 118. (which we account the 119 Psal.) saith thus, That man would be his own, that is the first and greatest evil of disobedience. And elsewhere he takes pride and diso∣bedience

for all one. Again, Manbeing lift up with pride, obeying the persuasion of the Serpent despised Gods precepts. And, In the will of man there goes before some desire of his own power, to be made dis∣obedient through pride. Eves pride, out of doubt, arose from those words, Genes. 3.5. Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods. Where the hint was given to the Velle, before the Nolle; and the first motion was to the unlawfull love of himself. Now, what the Serpent said to Eve, questionlesse she related to Adam. And her pride also might first arise from the said foun∣tain: and his uxoriousnesse followed thereupon; and the im∣moderate love of himself was before the immoderate love unto his wife. I say questionles, because it is both true in it self, and others yeeld unto it, and S. Augustine observeth it, What Adam received from God, he told to Eve; what Eve heard from Satan, she told to Adam. To conclude, Augustine saith, Adam and Eve were first turned from God to please themselves, and thence and after that to grow cold and dull; that she either beleeved the Serpent, or he preferd his wives will before the will of God. Where he maketh both Adams and Eves sinne to be the same inordinate love to themselves; and this is against Scotus. Prosper in the 358 Sen∣tence, picked out of Augustine, saith, concerning Adam, The first vice of the reasonable soul is the will of doing those things which the supreme and most intimate truth forbids. Neither hath Scotus his argutation, rather then argumentation, his usuall subtiltie in it. There is a twofold will: either that will by which one desires a thing with the love of friendship, which is for himself or for the thing loved; or that will by which one desires a thing with the love of profit, which is for another. The first sinne of Adam was not out of an im∣moderate love of himself, as the first sinne of Angels, neither could be; because the Angels know themselves first, by their own essence; but man knowes other things before himself. For did not Adam know himself ere he knew Eve or Angels? or hath it any necessarie consequence, if he knew her first, that therefore he must love her content first, rather then please himself? Yea, if he had a desire to please her, might not this arise out of a desire to please himself? Lastly, did the Angels and Eve sinne out of an immoderate desire of love toward themselves? Then how saith Scotus, that Adams first sinne neither was, nor could be an immoderate and inordinate love of himself? What was in Eve, could and might have been and was in Adam. The discourse of Aquinas in this point seemes more agreeable to Scripture, and Fathers, then that of Scotus. And this it is. That unto one sinne many motions do concurre, amongst which that is to be accounted the first sinne, in which first of all, inordination, de∣viation, disorder, or aberration from the Law is found. Now it is apparent, that exorbitancy or deordination is sooner in the inward motion of the soul, then it is in the bodie; and among

the interiour motions of the soul, the appetite is first moved toward the end it self, then toward the means leading toward the end: and therefore there was the first sinne of Adam, where was the first desire of an unlawfull and disordered end. The summe is, Man desired an illicit seeming spirituall good; na∣mely, to subsist of himself, as God doth. Which first act or mo∣tion of pride, or inward disobedience, being all one with the first inclination to break the Law of God and to eat the for∣bidden fruit, and being accompanied with that chain of other evill motions & actions before mentioned, was consummated by the outward disobedience in the orall eating the food inhi∣bited. And the time was so short between the sinfull motus primo-primus in the soul, and the various continued difformitie of other ebullitions, which were coherent and bound up in that unhappie knot of outward disobedience, that we may safely say, it was one sinne aggregativè; and every particular evill thought, act, or motion, from his fare-well given unto inno∣cency, unto his plain down-fall; from the last of his inward obedience, unto his first outward disobedience, compleat and ended, was a parcell or branch of that one great sinne which was against that Law divine, Genes. 2.17. As our Saviour saith, Matth. 5.28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adulterie with her already in his heart: So, so soon as ever Adam looked on the apple to lust after it, the first inward motion, tending to this lust of pride or disobedience, was averse from the Law, though the externall trespasse made the sinne to be full, and the breach to be palpable and evident. And as it is but one consummate adulterie, though divers evil thoughts, & multae morosae cogitationes, many wilde motions con∣curre unto it: so may Adams sinne be said to be but one, though consisting of divers parts and branches, from the primative spi∣rituall inclination of aversion, to the hindmost bodily forma∣litie, or cōsummation of his disobedience. Estius hath these ar∣guments, to evidence that pride (which is unseparably annexed to disobedience) was the first sinne of man. First, our parents, Adam and Eve, were first tempted with the sinne of pride, by these words, Ye shall be like Gods; therefore by that they fell first. Secondly, the Devil would draw man to perdition, by the same sinne by which he fell: But he fell by pride, 1 Tim. 3.6. Lastly, Christ by humilitie and obedience recovered us; there∣fore Adam by pride and disobedience hurt us. And this is Augustines reason, De Civit. 14.13. If any man desire more cu∣riosities trenching upon this point, let him consult with Do∣ctor Estius, in the place above cited, who hath handled such things apertissimè & satiatissimè, most plainly and fully, as Augu∣stine said of Ambrose, against Julian the Pelagian.

And now at length I am come to that second position which

I resolved to unfold and handle, in giving answer unto the first Question, How and why death was appointed unto us. The first part of the answer is already handled, (& here I considered ori∣ginall sinne principally, as it was acted by Adam) That Adam for sinne was appointed to die. The second now followeth, towit, Adams sinne was propagated to us; and so by just consequent, We shall die for this sinne. And first, concerning the propagation of his sinne, of originall sinne, as it was an emanation from A∣dam, and as it lodgeth and abideth in us.

ALmightie, and most Gracious Father, grant unto us, that we which fell by pride, may be hu∣militie and obedience be raised up, through Jesus Christ, our onely Advocate and Redeemer. Amen.

Notes

• Quibusdam videtur quòd Adam ante lapsum non habuerit virtutem. Lomb. Sent 2. dist. 29. lit. B.
• Beatissimus erat, & auram carpebat aethere∣am.
• Quando Adam solus erat, non est praevarica∣tus.
• Chrys. Hom. 16. in Gen.
• Bas. Homil. Quòd Deus non sit author malorum.
• Gratia Dei ibi magna er••t, vbi terrenum & animale corpus bes••ia∣lem libidinem non habe∣bat.
• Felices erant primi homines, nullis agita∣bantur perturbatio, ibus animorum, nullis corpo∣ris laedebantur incom∣modis. De Civit. 14.10.
• Adam non opus habe∣bat eo adjutorio quod implorant isti, cùm di∣cunt, Video aliam le∣gem in membris meis, &c. Lib. De Corrept. & Gratia.
• Adam in illis bonis, in quibus creatus est Christ morte non ••guit. Ibid.
• In Paradiso etiamsi omnia non poterat A∣dam ante peccatum, quicquid tum non pote∣rat non volebat, & ideo poterat omnia quae vo∣lebat. De Civit. 14.15.
• Si anima Adami appe∣tentiam corporis refra∣nâsset in ipso ortu, ex∣tincta esset origo peccati. Cont. Julian. Pelag. lib. 2.
• † Non uni, sed universi∣tati.
• † Epiph. Contr a Ptole∣maîtas.
• Stap. De Originali Peccato 1.9.
• Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 11.18.
• Lex primordialis, ge∣neralis, & quasi matrix omnium praeceptorum Dei.
• Aug. De Civit. 14.12
• Chrys. Homil. 41. in Acta Apost.
• † Chrys. in Ephes. 6.
• Prima duntaxat Adae transgressio transit in posteros, quia illo primo peccato universa naturae corrupta est. Cont. Ju∣lian. 3.6.
• Rup. lib. 3. De Ope∣rib. Trinit. in Gen. cap. 5.
• Ferus in Gen. 3.
• Hoc de parilitate pec∣catorum soli Sioici ausi sunt disput are; nam sic fecerunt contra emnem sensam generis humani. Aug. Epist. 29. Ad Hieronymum.
• Quam corum vanita∣tem, in Joviniano illo, qui in hac sententia Stoicus erat, in au••u∣pandis autem & defen∣sand is voluptatibus Epi∣cur••us, de Scripturis Sanct•••• diiucidissimè convicisi••.
• Nullam inter justum & justum, peccatorem & peccato em esse distanti∣am; veterém{que} Zenenis sententiam tam com∣muni sensa quàm divi∣nâ lectionecontrivim us Hieron. Cont. Jovin. lib. 2.
• Omnia membra aequa∣liter diligimus, nec oculum praeponimus di∣gite, nec digitum auri∣culae.
• Chrys. Hom. 7. ad Pop. Ant.
• In Rom. Homil. 25. in Morali.
• Triplicipoená mulier punitur, quia triplo ma∣jus peccatum fuit ejus quàm Adami. Rup. in Gen. lib. 3. cap. 22.
• De Gen. ad. lit. 11.35. & De Civit. 14 11.
• Ambr. De Instit. vir∣ginis cap. 4.
• Eva magis mobilitate animi, quàm pravitate peccavit. Comment. in Luc. 4.38.
• Gravius est de indu∣stria peccare, quo modo peccavit Adam, quàm ignorantiâ, quo modo peccavit Eva. Isid. De Summo Bono 2.17.
• Quantum adgenus pec∣cati, vtrius{que} peccatum aequale dicitur.
• Adam non carnalicon∣cupiscentiâ victus, sed amicabili quâdam com∣pulsus benevolentiâ, quâ plerun{que} fit ut of∣fendatur Deus, nè of∣fendatur amicus, pec∣cavit. De Gen. ad lit. 12. ult.
• Postquam mulier se∣ducta manducavit, eí{que} dedit ut simul ederent, noluit eam contristari, quam credebat sine suo solatio contabescere, & à se alienatam omnino interire.
• Formaliter tamen, per se merè, & praecisè inse, peccatum Evae fuit gravius. Scotus in 2. Sent. dist. 27. quaest. 2.
• Bell. De Amis. Gratiae & Statu Peccati 3.9.
• Bonum naturae, quod erat per originem natu∣rae traducendum. Aquin in Rom. 5. Lect. 3.
• Quanta erat iniquitas in peceando, vbi tanta eratnon peceandi facili∣tas! Aug. De Civit. 14.15.
• Esus ligni vetiti non fuit piccatum, nisi quia prohibitum.
• Peccato Adae non de∣bebatur maxima poena; imò si ipse damnatus fuisset pro illo peccato, non fuisset itá graviter punitus pro isto peccato, sicut multi alii.
• Tam leve praeceptum ad observandum, tam breve ad memoriâ reti∣nendum, tantò majore injustitiâ violatum est, quantò faciliori possit ob∣servantiâ custodiri. De Civit. 14.12.
• Tert. Cont. Mar∣cion. lib. 2.
• Peccatum Adae non longè est ab idololatria.
• Actu primus superbiae est, ••olle subjici imperio & praeceptis alterius, quae proprie dicitur i••n∣bedientia. Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 3.4.
• Est in communi du∣plex actus voluntatis, VELLE & NOLLE — & omne nolle praesuppo∣nit aliquod velle — & nullum nolle est primus actus deordinatus vo∣luntatis, quia non posset habere nolle, nist respe∣ctu, vel in virtute alicu∣jus velle. Scot. i•••• 2. Sent. dist. 6. quaest. 2.
• In occulto mali esse coeperunt. Aug. De Ci∣vit. 14.13.
• Nisi jam illo sibi pla∣cere coepisset.
• Bellarm, ibid. cap. 5.
• Bell. De Amiss. Gra∣tiae 3.9.
• Primus actus malus in peccato viri superbia fuit, quâ in sua potiùs essc, quàm in Dei pote∣state dilexit.
• Scot. Dist. 22.
• Quòd homo suu•• esse voluit, id est inobedi∣entiae primum & maxi∣mum malum.
• De Civit. 14.13. & d•• Gen. ad lit. 8.14.
• Homo clatus superbiâ, suasioni Serpentis obe∣diens praecepta Dei con∣tempsit. Ep. st. Ad Oro∣sium.
• Praecedit in voluntate hominis appetitus qui∣dam propriae potestatis, vt fiat inobediens per superbiam. De peccat. Meri••. & Rem. 2.19.
• Aug. De Gen. ad ••t. 11.34.
• De Civit. 14.13.
• Primum animae ratio∣nalis vitium est, volun∣tas ea faciendi quae ve∣tat summa & intima veritas.
• Duplexest Velle: aut est Velle aliquid amore amicitiae, qui est prop∣ter se, vel propter ama∣tum; velamore commo∣di, qui est propter aliud. Primum peccatum Adae non fuit ex immoderato amore sui, sicut fuit primum peccatum An∣geli, nec potuit esse; quia Angelus intelligit seprimò, per suam es∣sentiam; & homo intel∣ligit alia priùs quàm se.
• Est. Dist. 22 Paragr. 1.