A14350:930
The Common Places
The common places of the most famous and renowned divine Doctor Peter Martyr divided into four principal parts: with a large addition of many theological and necessary discourses, some never extant before. Translated and partly gathered by Anthony Marten, one of the sewers of her Majesties most honourable chamber.The common places of the most famous and renowmed diuine Doctor Peter Martyr diuided into foure principall parts: with a large addition of manie theologicall and necessarie discourses, some neuer extant before. Translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten, one of the sewers of hir Maiesties most honourable chamber.
Imprinted at London : In Pater noster Rowe, by Henry Denham and Henry Middleton at the costs and charges of Henry Denham, Thomas Chard, William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583Imprinted at London : In Pater noster Rovve, by Henry Denham and Henry Middleton at the costs and charges of Henrie Denham, Thomas Chard, VVilliam Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583
No title page in the transcription: set from the catalogue record.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
13 Now it is expedient to see, what others have said concerning this matter: for, besides this, there is also another opinion of them, which say that original sin is a lack of original righteousness. 1Which thing Anshelmus affirmed in his book De partu virginis; and he drew many other scholastical authors into his opinion. And these men mean no other thing by original justice, or righteousness, but the right institution of man, when as the body obeyeth the mind, and the inferior parts of the mind are subject to the superior; & [when] the mind is subject unto God, and to his law. In this righteousness was Adam created; and if he had so continued, all we should have lived in it: but seeing he fell, all we were deprived thereof. And they would have the lack of this righteousness to be original sin. 2But that they may show their opinion the better, they say that every defect is not evil; for although a stone do lack righteousness, yet it shall not be said that a stone is unrighteous or evil; but when as a thing shall be fit and meet to possess that whereof it is destitute; then such a defect is said to be evil: as it happeneth in the eye, when it is bereft of ability to see well; we do not say therefore, that there is a fault or blame in the eye. For then sin cometh, when by reason of such a lack, there followeth a contending and wrestling against the law of God. 3And this opinion is also condemned by Pighius; for he saith, that It is no sin, if one keep not the gift which he hath received. For it may be, that one which is borne in perfect health, and in a good state of the body, 4may fall into a disease, or be maimed in some member, or else become lame; yet there is none that will call those defects offences or sins. But this similitude is not agreeable to the purpose; for a disease or maim of the body, doth not make either to the performing or violating of Gods law: but that which they call a want of original righteousness, doth of necessity bring with it the breach of Gods law. Moreover, he laboureth to prove, that the loss of original righteousness in young children is not sin; because the same was not foregone by their fault: but this again is to call God to an account.