« AnteriorContinuar »
& dixxioy, 'not just.' And this they prove from Deut. xxiv. 16. Ezek. xvui, and xxxii. The Marcionites and Cerdonians endeavoured to prove that the God of the Old Testament, though he were just, could not be good, because he threatened to “punish the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation." Origen answers, “That it was as little consistent with justice, as with goodness, that one man sinning, another should be punished." St. Jerom owns, f“That there is matter of scandal in the second commandment, it being unjust to punish one for the sin of anot' r; but that which follows," saith he, “solves the difficulty, it being only the generation of those that hate God, as their fathers did, and who were co-partners with them in their iniquity, who are thus threatened.” Theodoret saith g“ It would be duosebês, a wicked thing,' to adhere to the letter, God himself having pronounced that 'the son should not die for the iniquity of the father; but every one should die for his own sins"." And Cyril, of Alexandria, saith, h« This punishmerit would much exceed, τον το δικαία θεσμών, “the law of
e Solent nos Hæretici sugillare, quod non sit boni Dei sermo, qui pro peccatis alterius alium plecti dicat, sed secundum ipsorum rationem qui dum legis mandatum, licet non bonum, justum tamen dicunt, ne ipsi quidem possunt offendere quómodo secundum sénsum suum justitiæ suæ convenire videtur, si klius, alio peccante, puniatur. (Hom. 8. in Exod. *. 44. lit. f.) Ovde yap en ipagtávolos ετέρο κολαζεσθαι ετερον. (Chrys. ibid.) Ουδε, δίκαιόν εςι αμαρτίας των παTEPWY TECIOU fundêy adex@oty Editidsoba(Theophylact. ibid.) Similia habet Cyrillus in locum
• The Heretics are in the habit of calumniating us, by asserting that it cannot be the word of a good God which says, "one man must be punished for the offences of another;" but even according to the reasoning of those persons, who, while they allow the terms of the law to be just, will not call them good, they cæmot discover how; in their notion, it is in accordance with God's justice that one man sinning, another should be punished for it.' (FIom. 8. on Excdus.) “Neither is it to be suffered that, on account of one man's sin, another be punished.” (Chrysostom on the same text.) Nor is it just for the sins of the fathers to be imposed on their children who had not committed any offence.' (Theophylact on the same.) Cyril, on this passage, expresses himself in a similar manner:'-ED.
of Injustum videtur ut alius peccet, et alius puniatur, sed illud quod sequitur His qui me oderunt, scandalum solvit, non enim ideo puniuntur quia deliquerunt patres eorum-sed quia patrụm extiterunt æmulatores, et oderunt Deum hereditario malo, et impietate ad ramos quoque de radice crescente. Hieron. in Ezek. f. 194. lit. i.)
• It appears unjust that when one man sins, another should be punished for it. But /.on them that hate me;") the expression which immediately follows,:solves the objection: for they are not punished for the delinquency of their fathers, but because they have stood forth as the rivals of their fathers' evil actions, and have hated God with a hereditary viciousness, and an impiety which has increased from the root to the branches." (Jeroine on Ezekiel.) ED.
4 "Οτι γαρ τα γυμνά προσέχειν τα γραμματι δυσσεβές: ο Θεος διδάσκει ταναντία νομοθετών. (In «Εχολ. τμ. 402)
• Because it is an impious thing to adhere to the bare letter; God, who is himself the Lawgiver, Beaches sentim puts contrary to thesei' (Theodoret on Exodus.) ED.
h Com. in John ix. 1, 2. 3.
justice'.” And hence they both agree in this sense of the commande ment, “That though God long deferred the parent's punishment, yet would he do it in the third and fourth generation.”
And on these words, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set an edge, St. Jerom taking notice of the objection of the Marcionites and Cerdonians against God's goodness and justice, in that he, “winking at the sins of the fathers, punish, ed them in the children,” he answers * that “the sense of these words is this: That as it is ridiculous and inconsequent to say, 'The fa. thers have eaten sour grapes, therefore the children's teeth are set on edge; so is it unjust and perverse to say, “The fathers sinning, the children should be punished'."
(3.) Lastly. Whereas the heretics objected, “That it was cruel for the eating of a little meat to inflict such punishment, not only upon Adam and Eve, ατοϊς ημαρτηκόσι μόνον, αλλά και τους εξ εκείνων Bebaasnuósi, but on those also who proceeded from their loins';" the fathers (who generally held, that the punishment of that sin was only mortality, and the want of that which Adam having lost, could not derive on his posterity,) declare that “God subjected them to this mortality, not out of anger, but out of wisdom and clemency, to beget in them a hatred of sin, and that sin might not be eternal in them." Against the doctrine of the Valentinian and Basilidian heretics, that “ some men weré cóớel Davaoi, evil by nature,'" or that matrimony was evil, because it produceth seed polluted, exyeveris, ‘from the birth,'” we have produced the testimonies of * Irenæus,
Estque loci istius is sensus quomodo si quis velit dicere 'Patres uvam acerbam comcderunt, et dentes filiorum obstupuerunt, ridiculum esset, et nullam habens consequentiam, sic iniquum est et perverse, "peccare patres, et filios nepotesque cruciari.” (Hieron. in Ezek.f. 194.)
Όυ τοίνυν οργής ή τιμωρία αλλ' οικονομία σοφίας μεγίστης: ένα γαρ μισή την αμαρτιαν των ανθρώπων το γένος ως αιτίαν θανάτο γεγενημένην μεία της παράβασιν της εντολής, επιφέρει το θανάτο την ψήφον ο πανgopos. (Theodoret. in Gep. qu. 37.)
* It was not then a punishment dictated by anger, but an appointment of the most profound wisdom. He who is all-wise, subjected the race of men to the sentence of death, that they might hate sin, which, through breach of the commandment, was the cause of death.' (Theodoret on Genesis.) ED.
k"Ejecit eum de Paradiso, et a ligno vitæ longe transtulit, non invidens ei lignum vitæ, quemadmo. dum quidam dicunt, sed miserans ejus, ut non perseveraret ser:1per transgressor neque immortale esset quod esset circa cum peccatum, .et malum interminabile, et insanabile, prohibuit autem ejus transgressionem, interponens-mortem, et cessarerfaciens peccatum. (Ireni l. 3. .C.37:) O JEOs queryday ευεργεσίαν σάρεσχε τα ανθρώπω το μή διαμειναι αυτον εις τον αιώνα
Clemens of Alexandria, and others. To which add, that the doe-
a foolish question grounded upon error,’ it being therefore not to be
easy to discern any advantageous difference betwixt the doctrine of these decretalists, and those condemned heretics;
εν αμαρτία όντα. (Τheophyl. ad Autol. 1. 2. p. 105.) Τον θάνατον ο θεός προς αναίρεσιν της αμαρτίας υπέρ ημών έυρατο, ίνα μη εν αθανάτοις ημίν avateinaos á Ivalos . (Method. apud Epiph. Hær. 64. sec. 69.) "I ve us a Jáveτον ή το κακον. (Naz. Orat. 38. p. 169.) Basil. Hom. Quod Deus non sit Author Mali. (To. 1. p. 368.)
“He cast him out of Paradise, and removed him to a great distance from the tree of life; not because He envied him the enjoyment of the tree of life, (as certain people have asserted,) but because He had pity on him: and that man might not always persevere in transgression, and that sin, with which he was encompassed, might not be an immortal, endless, and incurable evil, God prohibited its commission, proposing death as its punishment, and thus causing it to cease.' (Irenæus.) ‘God manifested great beneficence to man,in not permitting him to remain for ever in sin.' (Theophylact.)
God found out death in our behalf, for the abolishing of sin, that when sin sprung up in us who are endued with immortality, it also might not continue immortal.' (Methodius.)
That this evil might not be immortal.' (Gregory Nazianzen.) That God might not be the author of sin.' (Basil.) ED. ''Oude
ένι αμαρτάνον7ος ετέρο κολάζεσθαι έτερον, επει ει τέτο δώσομεν, κάκεινο δώσομεν, ότι σρο γενέσεως ήμαρτεν, ώσπερ εν ειπών δτι ότε 87ος ήμαρτεν ο τε7ο λέγει ότι ένα εκ γενετής αμαρτειν, ΕΊως, εισών ότε οι γονεις αυτό και τύτο ειπεν ότι ένι δια γονεας κολαoonvor. (Chrysost. ibid.)
Neither is it proper, that on account of one man's sin another should be punished; since if we allow this, we must admit the following,--tha: he sinned before his birth. As therefore by saying “ Neither hath this man sinned,” he does not assert that it is lawful to sin after the birth; so by saying, “ Nor have his parents sinned,” he does not knowledge that it is right for a man to be punished on account of (through) his parents." (Chrysostom.) ED.
or how it would be worse with those who lie under their absolute decree of reprobation, if it indeed were with them, according to the doctrine of those heretics. For,
(i.) Are they not as certainly wicked by the fall of Adam, and as certainly damned after God's decree, de non dando auxilium necessarium ad vilandum peccatum, 'of not affording to them the help necessary to avoid that sin to which he hath threatened damnation, as they would be by being left under the power of the heathen Arimanius, or of the anti-god of Manes, which by the fathers are pronounced blasphemous doctrines ?
(ii.) Are they not as certainly wicked, and de massa perdita, by being born of Adam, and being left remedilessly in that state of perdition, as they would be according to the doctrine of the Stoics and Origenists, the Marcionites and Valentinians, by being compounded of that flesh or matter which did necessitate them to sin? Or is there any great difference betwixt being Quosi paūhoe, 'naturally evil,' which was the doctrine condemned by the fathers in those heretics, and being Qúsal Téxvo ópris, 'by nature children of eternal wrath,' as being born of human nature lapsed, which is their sense of the apostle's words?
III. It also may deserve to be considered, that the most stiff and eager patrons of these doctrines laid the foundation of them not in holy scripture, which is our only rule of faith, or in the doctrine of Christ, our only teacher and our guide in matters of faith; but rather in those impure streams of the scholastical divines, (who had but little knowledge of the text, and less of the sense of scripture,) or in the doctrine of St. Austin, who writ inuch and fast, and oft against his former and his better self.
Of this (not to mention Doctor Twiss and Rutherford,) the good Bishop Davenant is a remarkable instance; for when he comes to lay down the imputation of original sin, we hear of little or nothing from the holy scriptures, but his whole scheme is borrowed from the schools.
(1.) Thus when he tells us of God's imaginary compact with Adam, that “ if he prevaricated, he should procure, not only to himself but to all his posterity, the death both to the body and soul,” as he attempts not to prove this from scripture, so doth he in it mani
m Animadv. upon Hoard. from page 244 to 248, and from page 294 to 298.
festly contradiet the express words of God, in the day that thore eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death;' for that phrase, thou shalt die the death,' frequently occurs in the law of Moses, and always signifies death temporal, as the places below cited" shew. Moreover God gives this reason of that threat, 'For dust thou art, and *unto dust shalt thou return; which cannot in the least relate unto the soul. I conclude then with Origen, that, “that sentence, ouatos Katadixny šubaival sai Ergeñas, imports the condemnation not of the soul, but of the body only'."
(2.) When he adds, that "Adam sinning, gessit personam generis humani ex Dei decreto, sustained the person of all mankind by the decree of God!;" as he cites this from the school-men, so the plain import of it is, that all mankind were made sinners, not by any action of their own, but purely by God's decree.
(3.) When he adds from the same school-men, that “ the pose terity of Adam are guilty of his first sin, Ex arbitrario Dei decreto, * by the arbitrary decree of God, but not of his other sins, nor were they interested in his repentance, because God's decree extended not to those sins or that repentance;" he in effect affirms that his posterity, who had no more hand in his first, than in his following sins, were, by God's arbitrary decree, made guilty of that sin alone, from which they would otherwise have been as free as from his other sins; and who then was the Author of that sin, since Adam was only personally the author of his own sin, and it was God's decree only which made him the author of our sin, or rather as the author of his sin. And,
(4.) From the same school-men he adds, that, an infant may be properly guilty of sin, and so obnoxious to damnation, because voluntas Adami quodammodo est voluntas parvuli ex Dei decreto, the will of Adam is in some sort the will of the infant by virtue of God's decree;"" and so the poor innocent is sent to hell by the arbitrary decree of God alone which made Adam's will his will, when otherwise Adam might have sinned on to the day of his death, and the poor child might have died, as he was born, an innocent. That the school-men are his only warrant for all these fond and horrible imaginations, you may see in the places cited. The 5th of the Romans, v. 12, 19, being so far from proving any of these notions, that they
» Genesis xvi, 2. Exodus ii, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20. Lev. ii, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15. 1 Samuel xiv,
24. o Dial. contra Marcion page 51.