Page:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1609).djvu/29

8 Apostles time, praying and hearing the word of God read and expounded in the Sabboth day. Wherby we see that distinction of dayes pertayneth to Religion, the people of God thus obseruing the Sabboth in memorie of the Creation, & diuers other feastes in memorie of other benefites. And we now kepe the Sunday holie, in memorie of Christs Resurrection, and other feastes in gratful remembrance of other Mysteries of Christs Natiuitie, the coming of the Holie Ghost, and the like. Yea also feastes of his blessed Mother, and other Sainctes, for the benefites receiued from Christ by them, and for more honour to Christ in them. So this Catholique obseruation of feastes is neither Iudaical (which also in the law was good but now is abrogated) nor heathnish, for we honour not Iupiter, nor Iuno, noranie false god or goddesse, but our Lord God Creator & Redemer, & for his sake, his best seruants. Wherof see the Annotations in the English new Testament. 4. chap. to the Galathians. Wherto we here only adde these wordes of S. Basil. Which may serue for a general answer to the most common obiection. ''Honor seruorum redundat in communum Dominum. The honour of the seruantes redoundeth to the common Lord, or Maister''. So, saith he, the honour of Sainctes is the honour of Christ their Lord and ours.

17. Of the tree of knowledge.] Besides the law of nature, by which Man was bound to direct al his actions according to the rule of reason; and besides the supernatural diuine law, by which he was bound to beleue, and trust in God, and to loue him aboue al things, hauing receiued the giftes of faith, hope, and charitie: God gaue him an other particular law, that he should not eate of the tree of knowlege of good and euil. And that for two special reasons, which S. Augustin noteth vpon this place. First, that God might declare him selfe to be Lord of man. Which was absolutely necessarie for man, and nothing at al profitable to God, who nedeth not our seruice, but we without his dominion should vtterly fal to nothing. ''Nec enim ipso non creante, &c. For he not creating vs, neither could we haue bene, nor he not conseruing vs, could we remayne, nor he not gouerning vs, could we liue rightly. Wherfore he onlie is our true Lord, whom not for his, but for our owne profite and saluation we serue''. The other reason was, that God might geue man matter wherin to exercise the vertue of obedience, and to shew him selfe a subiect of God. Which could not be so properly and effectually declared by keping other lawes, nor the enormitie of disobedience appeare so euidently as by fulfilling of Gods wil commanding him, or by doing his owne wil, moued to the contrarie, in a thing of it selfe indifferent, & only made vnlawful, because it was forbid. But let vs heare S. Augustins owne wordes.Necporuit melius aut diligentius conimendari quantum malum sit sola inobedientia, &c. Neither could it (saith this great Doctor) be better, nor more exactly signified how bad a thing sole disobedience is, then where a man became guiltie of iniquitie, because he touched that thing contrarie to prohibition, which if he, not forbidden, had touched, he had not sinned at al. For he that saith, for example sake, Touch not this herbe, supposing it is poysenful, and doth forwarne one of death, if he touch it, death assuredly falleth on the contemner of the precept: yea though no man had prohibited, and he had touched, for he should dye because the same thing bereueth him of health and life, whether it had benne forbidden him or no. Also when one forbiddeth that thing to be touched, which would not in dede preiudice him that toucheth, but him that forbiddeth, as if one take an others money, being forbid by him whose the money is, it is a sinne in him that is forbidden, because it is iniurie to him that forbiddeth. But when that thing is touched which neither should hurt him that