any stain, thou fenteft me thither. thither. Cum Cum ergo noveris neceffitatem quâ his oppreffus fum, quâ refpirare non potui, cui refiftere non potui, quid me accufas quafi peccantem ? fince then thou knoweft the neceffity with which I am oppreffed, from which I can have no refpite, and which I am not able to refift, why doft thou accufe me for fin? Some fmall refemblance of this mad doctrine of Manes was found in that opinion of (u) Orige Origen, that the fouls of men had finned in heaven (faid he, in Adam fay others) and therefore were united to fuch bodies as were the clog and prison of the foul, and that the flesh laid upon it a neceffity of finning; which he endeavored to prove from the fame fcriptures, which these men ufe to prove that man, fince the fall, lies under a neceffity of doing evil only. Now there be three advantageous differences betwixt this opinion of Origen, and that of these Decretalifts.

1ft. That he made the fouls to fuffer for their perfonal fin alone; they make them fuffer for another's fin, or for a thing impoffible, viz. a personal sin committed by them when they were no persons.

2dly. His punishments were medicinal and purgative, and fo defigned for their eternal good, whereas the punishment inflicted on the pofterity of Adam for his fall, are, in moft perfons, according to their doctrine, only a fad preface to eternal punishments.

3dly. He was fo merciful as to affert and believe that after thefe fouls had fuffered in thefe bodies for fome time, they fhould at laft be faved and admitted to the enjoyment of God, whilft these men leave the generality of them infallibly to fail of falvation, and obnoxious to eternal mifery. And yet against this and other doctrines of Origen allied to it, the fathers argue from thofe grounds which do as manifeftly detroy the neceffity of finning they affert, and the foundation of it, viz. the imputation of the fin of Adam to all his pofterity.

For ift.(v) Methodius fpeaks thus, If, as Origen faith, the Soul for Sin was united to the Body, πῶς διὰ τῦτο ἡμαρτανον ὅ μà v undénw, how did they fin by that which yet was not.

Anfwer. (w) Even as the wills of all men finned in Adam when as yet they were not? And becaufe Origen attempted to prove his doctrine from those words of the Apostle, I am carnal, fold under fin. He asks him how he could reconcile his fenfe of thefe words with the liberty of the will? ¿Q' ñuïv γὰρ καὶ τὸ πιςεύσαι κεῖται, καὶ τὸ μὴ πιςεύσαι, (x) for it lies in our power to believe or not; ¿Quïv, it is in our power to amend our actions or to fin; ¿Q' ñuïv, we are free to do good or fu) Section 3.(v) Apud Epiph. Hær. 64. n. 4. (4) N. 46.-. (*)ĺbid.

evil; for that which hath not olav autodécπorov, (y) a self commanding power of choofing what courfe of life it would Lead, iva idiws in Thnon exen, fo that it may be honored or blamed for what is properly its own, must neceffarily be exempted from all fault. 3dly. He adds, that according to the doctrine of Origen, neither foul nor body could be judged: for if the foul, faith he, be placed before the judgment feat, it will plead that fin proceedeth not from me, ἀλλ ̓ ἀπ' ἐκείνο το φθαρτᾶ καὶ γηίνε σώματος, but from that corruptible and earthly body to which thou didst unite me; and fince I quitted it, I neither whored, nor had any carnal luflings; and the Body might fay, or in ¿yw nμaρtòv, áλλà ʼn vyǹ, I finned not, but the foul, for fince that was feparated from me, I have done no evil; and he concludes that both thefe pleas were made, ¿úλóyes, rationally, and yet it is manifeft that all fouls united to bodies fince the fall of Adam, might plead thus.

2dly. Their fecond argument against this doctrine of Origen, is this, that whereas God bleffed man, created male and female, and faid unto them, increase and multiply, &c. This doctrine turns God's bleffing into a curse, (z) Jam enim non erit benedictio fed maledictio fecundum Origenem ; for, according to Origen's docrine, it will not be a bleffing, but a curfe, faith Epiphanius; for how, faith Theophilus of Alexandria, is the marriage bed undefiled, fi anima vitiis circundatur, if by it the foul is furrounded with vice? Then Mofes finned in praying that God would multiply the feed of Ifrael, and make them a thousand times more; Jeeing this was to pray, ut animarum Catervæ in Calo peccantes Ifraelitici populi gentem conderent, that the nation of the Jews Should be made up of fouls that had finned in heaven, and that they might increafe, animarum ruinis, by the ruin of fouls; whereas he ought rather to have prayed, ne propter vitia melioris fubftantiæ, vilior natura conderetur, out of regard to the corruption enfuing to the better part that the viler body might not be produced. Yea, why, faith he, doth David pray thus, the Lord bless thee out of Zion, that thou mayeft fee thy childrens chit. dren, Si animarum jactura jufti viri augetur genus, if the offspring of the just were to be increased by the loss of fouls? Or why doth God fay by his prophet, if thou hadst hearkened to my precepts, thy feed fhould have been as the fand, and as the duft of the earth? For they who obferve God's precepts, Non debent accipere præmium animarumi ruinas de Coelo quæ alligata corporibus fobolis eorum incrementum multiplicent, ought not to receive as their reward, the ruin of fouls to in

(3) N. 55. — (x; Apud Hieron. To. 2. Ep. ad Joh. Hierof. F. 57.

Lit. F.

reafe their offspring. And again, were this fo, increase and multiply would be no bleffing to Adam and Eve, Cum caufa peccati maledictionem potius mereretur, fince that which is the cause of fin ought rather to be deemed a cure. And if thefe things be fo, why doth St. Paul Jay, I will that the young women marry, and breed children; for then they must do this, not for the order of generation, fed propter poenas animarum, but for the punishment of fouls; which far be it from us to believe. Si enim propter peccata in Caelis præcedentia, ad terras miffæ funt animæ, ut corporibus ligarentur, for if fouls were fent from heaven to be united to bodies for their preceding fins, Paul lied when he said marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled; nor can the fame thing be a benediction, and a punishment. Now the fin of Adam being the caufe of all the fins of his pofterity, and they having all fouls fent pure from heaven into thole bodies, by the fole union to which they inflantly become finful and corrupted, and mostly lie under a neceffity of doing evil to their inevitable ruin, it may with much more truth and certainty be faid, that fuch a generation turas God's bleffing into a curfe, endangers fouls, and increafeth pofterity by the lofs and ruin of them. Cyril, the fucceffor of Theophilus, in his fee, and alfo in his attempts againft this doctrine of Origen, declares in his commentary on thofe words of St. John, (z)this is the true light.

ft. That according to his opinion, it would be unjust in God to require of the foul thus united to the body, that it fhould not fin, it being thereby placed, v boλwoel àμaprias, in the defilement of fin; which is more fadly the case of the pofterity of Adam, lying under a neceffity to do evil.

2dly. That (a) then God promifing to Abraham that his feed fhould be multiplied as the stars of heaven, promifed him only an ignoble rout of damned perfons, and alien from all virtue (as by these men the generality of the feed of Adam are fuppofed to be) καὶ ἐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐυλογίας μέτοχον σπέρμα, and not rather a feed partaking of a blessing.

3dly. That (b) according to St. Paul, we are only to be punifhed or rewarded for what we have done, dia r owμatos, by the body, αλλ' ἐδὲ πρεσβύτερον τῆς γενέσεως ἔγκλημα ζητηθήσεται, nor will any fault antecedent to the body, be charged upon it; and therefore not the fin of Adam.

4thly. That (c) St. Paul teacheth that death reigned over them who had not finned after the fimilitude of Adam's tranfgref fion; which, faith he, cannot be according to the opinion of Origen (much lefs according to them who fay that we all per

(*) P. 79. (a) P. sz. (b) P. 83. (c) P. 34.
79(a)

fonally finned in Adam ;) for then where will they be found who have not thus finned?

5thly. That Chrift by faying concerning the blind man, (d) neither hath this man finned, nor his fathers, faid what is to be interpreted of the time preceding their nativity, nal' ov æ γεγονότες ἐδέ ἡμάρτανον, when being not yet horn, they had not finned ; πῶς γὰρ ἡ μὴ ὑφεςῶσα καὶ ἁμαρτεῖν ἠδύνατο ; for how can the foul fin that did not exist? (Add, or that soul which had no being when Adam finned?)

Moreover they condemn Origen's opinion concerning the refurrection, not of the fame body, on this fcore, (e) that it was unjust that one body finning another fhould be punished; and muft it not be more unjust that one Adam finning all mankind fhould be punished? Against his other opinion, (f) St. Jerome thus difputes; if it be an offence to be born of humane bodies, quomodo Ifaac, Sampfon et Johannes Baptifta de repromiffione nafcuntur, how were Ifaac, Sampson and John the Baptift born by promife? And if it be no offence to be thus born, it can be no offence to be born of lapsed Adam ; if the cause of vice and virtue be not, as he faith, (g) in the feed, but in the will of him that is born. If he could not fin by the body, as Methodius faith, who yet was not; neither could men fin by the foul which yet was not. If, as he faith, they who act intemperately cannot be worthy of reprehenfion by a juft judge, αδυνάτως ἐχέσης τῆς σαρκὸς ὑποτάσσεσθαι τῷ νόμῳ To bee, if the flesh could not be fubject to the divine law, nei. ther can the fons of Adam, lying under the fame difability by reafon of the flesh, be subject to reprehenfion. In a word, (h) Epiphanius truly blames Origen and John of Jerufalem, for saying that the image and fimilitude of God was loft in man after the expulfion of Adam out of paradife; and yet according to the doctrine of these men this must be a moft certain article of faith.

SECTION IV.-Now be it fo that St. Auflin, to defend himself against himself, renounced in his difcourfes against the Pelagians moft of those things which he had faid in confutation of the Manichees; yet feeing the things he had then faid were evidently the voice of nature and by his own confeffion the voice of every man's confcience, and that which learned and unlearned poets and orators and civilians,heathens and chriftians did unanimoufly own; feeing the chriftian fathers who lived before him, in his time, and after him, and equalled or much excelled him in learning and judgment, faid conftantly the fame things,

(d)Ibid. -(e) Hieron. ad Pam. Tom. 2. t. 62. E. (f) Hieron. ad Pam. Tom. 2.1.61. K.(g) lbid.(b) Apud Hieron. Tom. 2 f. 5.7, 58, 59.

and never thought fit to renounce one tittle of any thing they had thus faid, or ever excepted, as he did afterwards, the cafe of infants, or original fin; it is manifeft that his innovations and difcord from his former, and better self in this manner, ought not to be regarded in oppofition to the conftant fenfe, and the concurring judgment of all these fathers of the church; efpecially if we confider,

1. That he hath been able to say nothing in answer to fome of the arguments produced by him in confutation of the Manichees, viz. (1) To the arguments taken from the divine precepts, the Mofaical precepts, do this and do not that, being given to fallen man, and therefore if it be, as he faith, folly and injuftice to lay them upon him who hath no power to do what is commanded or omit what is forbidden, it cannot confift with divine equity, to lay thefe precepts upon fallen man, had he no power of himself, and no affurance of divine affiftance to enable him to do them. Such, 2dly is his argument taken from the duty of repentance; for if that teftifies that the penitent hath done ill when he might have done well, when was it that the pofterity of Adam might have done well before they were sup.2 his pofterity? But then they were not; if after, then if they contracted the guilt of original fin, they had done ill, when they were not able to do well.

2dly. That the exceptions which he makes to fome of his own rules, and the answers he attempts to make to fome of his own arguments are vain, false and abfurd.

Thus when in defenfe of his definition of fin, that it is the will to do that from which we have the power to abftain; he faith, that he defined that which was only fin, and not that which is also, pœna peccati the punishment of fin. He speaks a contradiction to himfelf, and to the plaineft reafon, it being evident that what is properly fin, can never be the punishment of fin; for (i) all punishment, faith he, being from God, muft be juft; et bonum eft omne quod et juftum, peccatum ergo quod eft poena peccati erit peccatum et bonum et juftum, and whatfoever is juft is good; that fin therefore which is the punishment of fin, must be a good and a just fin. Moreover, all punishment inflicted by God, is the action of a just judge, proceeding from his holy will; whereas fin can never be the action of God, or iffue from his holy will. By fin all men are worthy of punishment; but no man can deserve punifhment for being punished. By punishment fome fatisfaction is made for fin; but no man can make fatisfaction for a past fin by another fin. 2dly. Whereas he adds, that this penal neceffity of finning confifts well with the nature of original fin;

(i) L. Retract, c. 26,