had not eaten of the tree of life Againe if it was onely ad melius esse for a better preseruation of our immortalitie due vnto that estate and not absolutely necessary for that effect then consequently it was not the tree of life in the sense which the Scripture insinuateth but an antidote onely against death and not a necessary cause of eternall life I answer that though the argument of Nectar and Ambrosia doth euidently ouerthrow the deitie and immortalitie of the heathen gods yet doth not the simile or comparison any thing impeach the immortalitie and deitie of the true God as neither the immortalitie of our first parents due onely vnto them in their estate of innocencie and which did principally proceed from the true and only immortall God because that immortalitie of life proceeding from the fruit of life was to endure no longer with man then man perseuered in the grace of God which was giuen him as a pawne of eternall life Neither doth this contradict that of the Apostle the wages of sinne is death for though death be due vnto man euen without sinne according to nature yet this debt was to bee remitted by originall grace and the naturall pronenesse thereunto to be redressed by the fruit of life Wherefore though the immediate cause of our immortalitie in Paradise should haue beene the tree of life yet the primarie and principall of all to which the other was consequent was originall grace whose immediate effect was our spirituall life and thereto secondarily followed the freedome from any corporall harme or death yea and this for euer of his owne nature though wee had not beene translated thence to a better life for so it is said of Adam that therefore hee was banished out of Paradise and interdicted the entrance vnto the tree of life lest eating of it hee should liue for euer Genes 3. chap. 22. v. And the Lord God said behold the man is become as one of vs to know good and euill and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and liue for euer therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken Hence I conclude with Abulensis and others esum illius arboris sufficientem habuisse virtutem vt vitam homini praestaret aeternam that this tree of life had sufficient vertue to prolong a mans life for all eternitie The which also is the opinion of S. Austine Aug. li. 13. de â—iuitate Dei cap. 20. 23. Chrys hom â—3 in Gen. Rupertus â—ib 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. Chrysostome and Rupertus lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. where hee addeth this more then other Doctors quòd semel sumptus vitam praestitisset immortalem that this fruit of life had beene sufficient to haue caused immortalitie of its owne nature though it had beene but once receiued the which though it may seeme improbable to humane reason yet considering the omnipotence of God and his infinite loue to man in that estate it cannot at leastway appeare impossible CHAP. X. Whether the vertue of the tree of life to preserue man immortall was naturall vnto it or supernaturall LEst wee erre in the resolution of this question by any equiuocation of words as it falleth out often in the like difficulties of naturall and supernaturall obiects I will first declare how the Diuines vse this distinction and then how it is to be taken here Naturall as farre forth as is necessarie for our present purpose is that which floweth from the principles of nature to wit matter and forme of which as of their only compacts all naturall and corporal substances are composed Supernaturall is that which is aboue all nature or rather cannot in any wise proceed from the principles of nature but as it is aboue all nature so it floweth from that sole principle which is aboue all nature if not only yet principally Secondly naturall oftentimes is taken pro congenito for that which is originally produced with any other thing though it flow not in any wise from the principles of nature or bee not due thereunto so no doubt but if an Angel were created with the light of glory or beatificall vision of Gods essence both the light of glory and the vision of God should be in that sense naturall or rather connaturall vnto the Angell because it was produced together with his naturall substance or essence And the same oftentimes is auerred by the Fathers of man in regard of his originall iustice in which hee was created for though this original iustice did not flow from the principles of nature yet neuerthelesse because it was produced with nature by Almightie God and infused into mans nature as due vnto it in that happy estate therefore it is and may well be termed naturall though in its owne essence it was supernaturall Now by these two distinctions of things naturall wee may euidently inferre what is supernaturall namely that which is aboue both these kindes of acceptions or distinctions of naturall obiects that is which neither floweth from the principles of nature neither is any way due vnto nature as originall iustice was due vnto vs in Adam before our fall and corruption of nature This distinction presupposed the difficultie consisteth in this whether the vertue of the tree of life for to preserue man from corruption may bee called naturall or rather is to bee deemed supernaturall Strabo answereth Strabâ— in Gen. Lignum vitae hanc naturaliter habuisse virtutem that the tree of life had naturally this vertue that he who did eat of that fruit should be endued with perpetuall health neither should bee touched with any infirmitie wearinesse or irksomenesse which are wont to be the companions of age Hugo de Sancto Victore addeth Lignum vitae habuisse in se naturam vt perpetuaret homini vitam si competentèr ederetur that the tree of life had that vertue in it to perpetuate our life if it were taken competently For man saith he was made mortall and immortall immortall because hee could not die by reason of that immortall food mortall because he might haue died by outward violence But God had so inwardly fortified him by the tree of life and outwardly by his diuine power that hee could not die Againe because hee had shut vp within him the gate of negligence by the vigilance of humane reason outwardly also the gate of violence by the diuine protection insomuch that vnlesse man abusing his reason should open the gate of negligence neuer any harme should enter into him by the gate of violence But because hee was not carefull to keepe the charge committed vnto him God therefore forsooke the custodie and care he had ouer him S. Austine on the contrary side thinketh that the vertue of this tree of life was supernaturall for so he saith in his 8 booke de Gen ad literam cap. 5. That though
that meate was corporall yet was it of such vertue and nature that it did confirme man in perfect health not as other meates but by an occult vertue proceeding from aboue And this he confirmeth by two examples the first of Elias his cake the second of the flower and oyle of the widow of Sarepta which without all question were effected by supernaturall power Beda likewise affirmeth that therefore it was called the tree of life because it hath receiued from the diuine power that whosoeuer should eat thereof should be confirmed in perpetuall health Neither ought we to maruaile Bonauenâ—ure 2. lib. sent dist 17 as Bonauenture well noteth that a man might be disposed vnto immortalitie by the fruit of this tree seeing there be many other things as Myrrhe and Balme which doe preserue from corruption for a long time therefore as our Sacraments doe not really concurre vnto grace but the diuine power which alwaies is assistant vnto them so the fruit of that tree did not of his owne nature produce immortality but rather the diuine power did communicate it by the eating of that fruit Here wee may see these so opposite opinions with their reasons and authorities in which it may be free for euery one to follow as he liketh seing there is nothing in this point plainely expressed in the Scripture with me both the authoritie of S. Austin and reason doth sway most for this latter opinion because it seemeth not so probable that a naturall tree or fruit should haue of his owne virtue and substance so supernaturall a virtue and qualitie as to cause immortalitie But to conclude whether the virtue of this tree was naturall or supernaturall all is one in regard of our losse ingratitude and sinne our losse of both liues spirituall and corporall our ingratitude towards God to vs wards so infinitely good our sinne also being the same seeing that though it had beene onely a naturall virtue which was in that fruit of life yet it depriued vs not onely of our owne liues but also of the author of life What therefore remaineth but that now being redeemed from this sinne and raised againe from this death we blesse him perpetually with all the powers of our soules and all the daies of our liues who is the onely giuer of life and sole redeemer of our soules CHAP. XI Of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill to wit whether it was a true and naturall tree like vnto others And why it was so called NOthing can bee so plainely set downe in the holy scripture but there will be some idle braine or other who will so moralize or so wrest it to a spirituall sense though often-times without sense that they will not sticke to deny the truth of the history as it happeneth here in the first point of our question in which some haue not feared that name before but afterwards of the euent so that when God commanded our fore-fathers that they should not eate of that tree either he called it by some other name or he demonstrated it vnto them as it were with his finger Many other reasons do the Rabbins giue of the name of this tree but so farre from reason that they be not worthy the repeating I will onely touch one as most fabulous by which we may coniecture of the rest They say that our first Parents were created as infants in sense and reason though men in body strength and stature Now because this tree had a virtue of ripening mans iudgment witt and discretion of good from euill it was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because to know good and euill according to the Hebrue and scripture phrase is as much as to haue the vse of reason But this is not onely contrary to the text but also to reason for certaine it is that as man was created perfect in all the parts of his body so was hee no lesse in the powers of his soule Yea how is it likely that he was without reason who was created lord of all vnreasonable creatures who gaue them their names proper to their natures and was to gouerne all things according to their nature by his owne rule of reason yea with whom God the author of nature and chiefe rule of reason had made this couenant most conformable to reason that if he liued according to the law of nature and instinct of reason his reward should be aboue all nature and exceed the capacitie of humane reason wherefore who was both culpable in this pact and punishable for his transgression must in all reason haue then had the vse of reason Iosephus in his first booke of his Antiquities perceiuing well the absurditie of this opinion fell into another which Lyra deemeth not much lesse absurd to wit that this tree was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because it had virtue to sharpen the wit ripen the iudgment and to giue prudence and vnderstanding to all humane affaires Lyra his refutation is this because the fruit of that tree being corporall how could it saith he haue any spirituall effect wherefore the minde witt and iudgment of man being spirituall how could they be holpen by any corporall cause For though the superior cause and more perfect then his effect may haue influence into the inferiour and imperfect yet neuer the inferiour into the superiour Therefore though the spirituall causes be of such excellent perfection that they haue influence into our bodies yet neuer any corporall creature saith he is so perfect that it can inflow in the spirituall For what is that which any corporall thing may produce in the spirit not any thing corporall seeing that all that is in the spirit is spirituall neither againe can it be spirituall because nothing spirituall can bee contained in the vertue of a materiall or corporall cause It cannot be denied but that this discourse of Lyra might haue some force in those causes which as the Philosophers speake doe worke directè per se by themselues directly yet in those whose causaltie is altogether indirect true philosophy teacheth the contrary wherefore though it be most certaine that the body cannot directly haue any influence into the soule or spirit yet bicause the spirit whiles it is in this life dependeth in her operations of the body and the dispositions thereof according to the generally receiued philosophicall axiome the manner of the working followeth the manner of being it must necessarily follow that accordingly as the dispositions of the body are better or worse so may the operations of the minde be also more or lesse perfect Yea Aristotle teacheth vs in his 7. booke of his Politikes that though those men who are borne and brought vp in the Northerne parts of the world bee stronger then others in corporall forces yet that they bee of a much more slow and duller capacity contrariwise those who are borne in hotter climates of Affrica Spaine and Mauritania
and as a body without a head a common-wealth without a ruler or kingdome without a King confused imperfect without order or beautie But seeing that to bring man to this finall perfection and end many things were necessary each person of the blessed Trinitie did assume to himselfe diuers functions the Father to create because power and might doth especially appeare in the Father the Sonne did assume the reparation of man after his fall a worke of infinite wisdome and therfore it is particularly ascribed to this person and infinite wisdome finally the holy Ghost did particularly worke mans sanctification this therefore is likewise accommodated to this person together with all spirituall graces and finall glorification Neuerthelesse these offices operations and workes are so attributed to the three holy persons not that any one of them was effected alone by any one person for whatsoeuer is wrought out of the sacred Trinitie in or by any creature whatsoeuer is equally effected and wrought by all and euery person of the blessed Trinitie but because something doth appeare in euery of these workes which doth especially manifest the Father the Sonne or the holy Ghost the Fathers power the Sonnes wisdome the grace and sanctification of the holy Ghost therefore these and other the like attributes are particularly applied and attributed to each person of the blessed Trinitie Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate operibus â—ius This is the ground of Rupertus his discourse and reason why God created man to his likenesse and image why he changed his voice and altered his manner of speaking for whereas hee said in the creation of other creatures Fiat factum est Let it be done and it was done now as though hee had beene weary with going about the earth compassing the seas and measuring the amplitude of the heauens he sate him downe and as it were taking his breath hee called to minde that there was one thing as yet wanting which was no lesse necessary then fitting to be made then said he let vs make man to our owne image and likenesse Thus doest thou then thinke that a small matter which was intended by these words A great mysterie without doubt it was in that counsell of wisdome in that counsell of such persons the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Canst thou iudge that there was any thing wanting any thing superfluous either done or to be done in vs or about vs in that sacred Senate There doubtlesse was all our cause considered there our fall foreseene there our death and perdition foreknowne and determined vpon to wit that euery person should vndertake some part of the worke that as it is said before the Father should create the Sonne should redeeme and finally the holy Ghost should worke the remission of sinnes and the resurrection of the flesh But what should bee the reason why God deliberating about the creation of man should say Faciamus let vs make To whom did hee speake speaking in the plurall let vs make Shall we say to the earth as to a compart of man or to the Angels as the fellow-workers with God as though God had need either of the cooperation of the Angels or were so senselesse as thus to conferre with that his creature void of all reason and sense Ambrose in his seuenth chapter of the sixt booke of the Exameron answereth that God spake not to himselfe because hee speaketh not in the singular but in the plurall let vs make neither yet to the Angels as who are but his seruants therefore though the Iewes and Arrians doe neuer so much repugne these words without all question are spoken to his Sonne as who is the true and liuely similitude and likenesse of God the Father And this I deeme to be the truest opinion seeing that the eternall Sonne of God euen as hee is the Word and Sonne of God is a liuely and expresse similitude and likenesse not only of his eternall Father but also a most perfect Idea and exemplar according to which man was created Others not improbably doe interpret that God therefore spake in the plurall Faciamus let vs make as Princes and great persons are wont to doe to shew their authoritie and maiestie saying We will We command We decree c. yet of the two I deeme the first exposition to bee best and that the text may admit them both CHAP. XIIII How man was made to the image and likenesse of God FOr the vnderstanding of this Sainctes Pagnines in the sauro linguae Hebraae wee must note the originall Hebrew words Selem and Demuth by Selem is properly signified a shadow or transitorie similitude Psalme 33. In imagine pertransit homo man passeth away like vnto a shadow Likewise Psalme 101. My dayes haue declined as a shadow The other word Demuth signifieth to cut downe to faile to fade to be silent to recogitate and to expect but most properly to assimulate or liken wherefore seeing euery similitude or likenesse is transitorie vanishing and quickly passing away the same word doth also signifie to vanish to passe away to faile and to fade Now therefore when God said that man was made to his image and likenesse it was to giue vs to vnderstand that such was the likenesse and so perfect the representation as could be betweene an inferiour creature and his Creator but because God is of infinite perfection it must necessarily follow that his similitude should bee infinitely inferiour and of lesse perfection then the prototypon or first type of his perfection Like as though the shadow be in some sort the similitude and representation of the body yet is it obscure and imperfect yea nothing in it selfe and in comparison of the body nothing Hence consequently wee may inferre a twofold interpretation of the said words adimaginem similitudinem nostram to our image and likenesse to wit of that image or similitude which is in God his diuine nature essence being or vnderstanding insomuch that the nature of God and his Ideall representation of his vnderstanding bee the exemplar and first type vnto whose similitude man was made Or againe that â—his be the meaning of Gods words let vs make man such a one as wee are or so like vnto vs that he may bee such an image forme and similitude as he may represent our nature power wisdome and prouidence yea and immortalitie in a body of its owne nature mortall For as S. Austine well noteth Aug. li. 83. quaest q. 51. diuers things doe diuersly represent Almighty God some doe participate of vertue and wisdome others only of life others of existence and being insomuch that those things which only haue existence and neither liue nor breathe are counted an imperfect similitude of God because they are good according to their kinde and flow from that infinite Ocean of goodnesse from whence all other goodnesse doth proceed Againe those things which doe liue and yet doe not vnderstand doe more perfectly participate
of knowledge of good and euill especially seeing he fore-knew his fall THe answer is easie to wit that by the tryall of his obedience in this one commandment hee might subiect the whole man vnto himselfe in all things and that man by the breach or keeping of the said commandement might know by wofull experience as he truely did in his wofull fall the difference betweene good and euill so that whereas before hee knew it onely by contemplation now he should find it by a lamentable experience yea in this his sinne was the greater in that the obiect of his obedience was so facile and the commandement so easie to be kept Aug. li. 14. de ciu Dei cap. 15. For as S. Austine saith like as the obedience of Abraham is highly extolled because the slaying of his sonne with his owne hands was of such difficultie euen so the disobedience of Adam in Paradise was the more hainous by how much the precept which he had imposed was the more facile to haue beene fulfilled Againe as the obedience of the second Adam was so much the more admirable because hee was obedient euen vnto death so the disobedience of the first Adam was the more detestable by which he became disobedient euen vnto death for where the punishment of the disobedience is great and the thing commanded easie who can expresse how great an euill it is not to obey and how great an iniurie to so great a power especially threatning so great punishments Now as touching the second point I answer that therefore God as absolute in his will science and power would create Adam and giue him the aforesaid precept which hee knew neuerthelesse hee would so presently violate to the end that his vnhappy fall might bee an occasion of our most happy Redeemer for as the Schooles commonly hold if Adam had not sinned the Sonne of God had not beene incarnated so that as Gregory saith in regard of this it was a happy fall which deserued or rather required to haue such a Redeemer O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantum habere meruit Redemptorem in which I know not whether I should more admire the goodnesse of God in the creation and restauration of man or the ingratitude of man towards God in and after both his creation redemption and infinite offences and falles but that as it is the nature of that infinite goodnesse to effectuate the greatest good of the greatest euill so is it no lesse consequent to mans naturall propension and of himselfe as it were an infinite of euill of the greatest good to worke the greatest euill a thing not easily beleeued if our daily and wofull experience did not so manifestly proue it for as God by our greatest and originall euill did worke our greatest and originall good and this onely out of his infinite goodnesse the incarnation I meane of his eternall Sonne so man out of his infinite malice did by occasion of this so infinite a benefit worke the most wicked outrage that could bee imagined against his benefactour by seeking his dishonour and death who so abased himselfe to giue him life so that I know not whether I should more admire God shedding his bloud for man or man spilling the bloud of God mans ingratitude towards God or Gods infinite bountie towards man And hence it is that as faith teacheth vs this euill and sinne of Adam was foreseene and permitted of God so is it no lesse a blasphemous heresie to auerre that this or any other sinne is wrought by God wrought I meane by his particular command or concourse not by his vniuersall which is due vnto all entitie and being yet in some sense neither due vnto this of sinne as which in it selfe hath neither entitie nor being but rather if wee speake formally is a priuation of all rectitude goodnesse and being CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression AS it is certaine that the mortalitie of Adam and consequently of all mankinde did proceed of sinne so it hath no small difficultie to declare what instant death that was which God so instantly threatned should follow mans sinne for so saith the text Gen. 2. the 17. verse In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death What day is this what death is this seeing that he neither first sinned the last day of his life nor yet died the first day of his sinne true it is that as death was due at his last day for his first sinne so was it not inflicted in the first houre for his first dayes sinne Was this death peraduenture the priuation of grace by which his soule supernaturally liued for as the body liueth by the soule so Adams soule liued by grace consequently as the body is said to die by the absence of the soule so the soule spiritually by the priuation of grace but yet though this be true yet it cannot bee the sole meaning of the aforesaid words so that then no other death should haue beene due vnto man but only the death of the soule the separation from God who as he had sinned both in body and soule was iustly to be punished in body and soule which the effect afterward shewed that God had before accordingly decreed so that the sentence of his death as it was executed both in body and soule so it is to bee vnderstood to haue beene decreed as well in regard of the body as of the soule because the corporall death is a necessary consequent of the spirituall now then the spirituall being inflicted in the very instant of mans sinne how chanced it that the corporall also did not befall him in the day of his sinne especially seeing that though God threatned not death in the instant of his sinne for the instant of his sinne yet at least God saith that man shall die in the day of his sinne Is it peraduenture threatned and not truly decreed or if really decreed how is it not absolutely performed God threatned his death in the day of his eating Adam eateth and yet liueth long after his eating Could Adam change the decree of God or could God decree that hee meant not to performe Hee performed not therefore he decreed not if he decreed not how then was it said In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die the death not of the soule only for that was instantly but of the body principally seeing that is said to be in tempore in the day not in instanti or momentarily Was it a threat only as wee reade of the Niniuites but they changed their minde they repented their sinne therfore as the sentence was conditionall the condition being changed the sentence of God though eternall is said to be reuoked not changed in act but immuted in obiect the act being immutable the obiect mutable according to the decree of the immutable act But here in this of Adam the cause is altered God
the principall lest shee should be too impudent neither of the baser lest shee should be too much debased shee was therefore created of the ribbe and of that ribbe which was next to the heart the one to signifie the mediocritie of her condition the other to insinuate the esteeme and respect which both shee should haue towards Adam and Adam towards her as also to signifie the heart loue and fidelitie which he should beare vnto her who had her being from so neere his heart Now the difficultie is how Eue being of so perfect stature as she was created could be created out of a ribbe of so little quantitie seeing either shee was equall in stature with the man or not farre inferiour in greatnes vnto him was there any matter added vnto the ribbe or was the same matter of the ribbe multiplied surely it might be as Lombard and Gabriel said by the multiplication of the same matter or by rarefaction of the same ribbe or rather which I deeme more probable by addition of new matter as the Diuines hold it happened in the multiplication of the fiue barly loaues of which wee read in the gospell Neither may it be inferred hence that then it should rather haue beene said that the woman was framed of other matter then of the ribbe of Adam because the more principall part beareth the name not alwaies the greater especially when the principall part is not only the principall but also the first of the whole compound or worke Wherefore seeing the ribbe of Adam was the first and principall matter of which the woman was created and vnto the which the other was but an addition it is therefore rightly and absolutely said that Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam without the expressing of any other matter because though the new assumed matter was the greater in quantitie yet lesse in perfection so likewise in the muitiplication of the fiue loaues though that which was added was much more then the precedent quantitie of bread yet because it was but an addition vnto the former therefore the name was deriued of the more principall part according to the common axiome of the Philosophers denominatio sequitur principaliorem partem the name must follow the more principall part CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. BOth the Phisitians and Philosophers doe agree in this that euery man according to his naturall constitution and perfection hath 24 ribbes twelue of each side wherefore if our first father had thirteene on the leaft it may bee thought that this was rather monstrous then agreeable to nature which neither admitteth want nor superfluitie either therefore this ribbe was super-abundant in him and so he monstrous by super-abundance or it is wanting in vs and so we monstrous by defect I answer that though it were monstrous in any of vs to haue 13 ribbes yet was it in no wise in respect of Adam it were in regard of vs because none is to be created of vs but in regard of him the defect were rather monstrous because Eue was to be created of it so that neither was Adam a monster when he had that which we haue not neither yet deficient when he wanted that of which Eue was created because the name of monster is not so much in regard of superabundance or want as in regard of the ends and purposes intended by the author of nature grounded in that which is most connaturall Wherefore though in regard of the particular nature of Adam as hee was but one particular man this ribbe was superfluous and so consequently in an other person might be thought monstrous yet in regard of him of whom the rest of mankinde was to proceed it was most naturall Neither doe these two sorts of considerations imply contradiction seeing that euen in nature we haue infinite examples of this for so the heauiest drosse and massiest matter hath a naturall and particular inclination to descend to the center which neuerthelesse will ascend for the preseruation of the course of nature ne detur vacuum when there is any danger of vacuitie of aire or want of any other body which naturally should fill all places so that as to descend is proper to heauy things considering their particular inclination and nature so to ascend is no lesse agreeable vnto their nature considering their vniuersall propension for the preseruation of the vniuersall good of nature In like manner if we consider Adam as one particular man not as first parent of our humane nature it were monstrous that hee should haue more ribbs on the leaft side then on the right or more then any of his posteritie haue but if we consider him as he was to be the first father of mankinde after that particular manner that God hath determined it was most necessarie and agreeable to his nature that hee should haue more ribbs then any other of the same specificall nature seeing that our first mother Eue was to haue her being of this ribbe of his and we all ours by her CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had not sinned GRegory Nisene Damascene Chrysostome Procopius Gazeus and diuers others were of opinion that if Adam had not sinned there should haue beene no such naturall generation of mankinde as is now but rather an immediate multiplication and production of men by the immediate power of God So that as we shall be like vnto the Angels in the coelestiall Paradise through our vnion vnto Christ so wee should not haue beene vnlike vnto them in the terrestriall by the immediate production of God wherefore as sinne was the cause of our dissimilitude from the Angelicall life so was it according to these Fathers the cause also of the dissimilitude of our production the Angells being by creation immediately from God wee not immediately but by mediate generation and hence it is that Austine saith that consanguinities and affinities proceed of sinne not of nature The ground peraduenture of these Doctors may be the impure and corrupt manner of our generation and the deformitie of lust together with the immoderate pleasure thereof proceeding the which our first fathers as S. Austine saith presently vpon their sinne experimented and thence were ashamed and couered themselues Neuerthelesse I cannot but deeme it most certaine but that so long as mans superiour powers were subiect to God so long also should mans inferiour powers haue beene obedient to man wherefore whiles there was no deformitie by sin in the will neither should there haue beene any filthines or abomination in the actions of nature But as our eyes and other senses be as yet subiect to our will so also all other now rebelling inferiour powers should haue beene subiect to their superiour lastly as all deformities and disorder should haue beene taken away so all conformitie and order should haue beene left The sensitiue appetite should haue been subiect to the
parent Adam neither our immediate parents now regenerated in Christ haue in any wise the guiltinesse of originall sinne at the time of our generation how can it therefore possibly come to passe that any such guilt of originall sinne should proceed from them vnto vs Certainly this could not proceed from any matrimoniall act seeing that was and is lawfull in all lawes both of nature Moses and grace how therefore could that which is a sinne and consequently vnlawfull proceed from that which is altogether lawfull Thirdly the actions of our externall powers as of seeing smelling tasting and the like are in no wise voluntary or so tearmed but outwardly only or as the Philosophers tearme is by an extrinsecall denomination or name deriued from our will and this because they haue no freedome or libertie in themselues inwardly but only as they are directed from the inward facultie of the will and therefore as they haue no libertie or free will but only by an externe denomination so neither haue they any sinne inwardly inherent but onely as they are commanded or proceed from the will Therefore after the same manner seeing the soules and willes of the infants haue no libertie or freedome of choice but only by an externe denomination outwardly deriued from the will of Adam now altogether past and of his sinne now forgiuen it must needs follow that they cannot in any wise bee said to haue contracted any sin but only by an externe denomination proceeding from the sin of Adam Fourthly that which in it selfe is according to Gods law neither in any wise contradicting the same cannot be the cause of that which is against the law of God wherefore seeing that matrimonie or the matrimoniall act is according to Gods law it cannot bee the cause or occasion of originall sinne in the infant which is against Gods law Fiftly originall sinne cannot proceed from Adam vnto his posteritie neither as from the morall cause thereof neither as from a physicall naturall or reall cause not morally because as death did proceed from sinne so life if he had perseuered should haue proceeded from grace and originall iustice which was a gift giuen vnto all our nature in Adam not per modum meriti by way of merit as some haue dreamed but gratis otherwise as the Apostle argueth Romans the 11. chapter grace should haue been no grace Now therefore consequently neither doth originall sinne passe vnto vs his posteritie by way of demerit or as a morall effect of sinne seeing that the same reason which doth vrge for the transfusion of this demerit or sinne vnto vs doth also vrge for the transfusion of grace Wherefore seeing he could not be the meritorious cause of our grace because it doth implie contradiction to be deserued and yet to be grace a free gift and graciously giuen neither can he be consequently the morall cause of our originall sinne Neither finally can the sinne of Adam bee the reall or physicall cause of our sinne seeing that his sinne whereof ours should proceed is now neither actuall nor virtuall not actuall because it is forgiuen not virtuall for that then it should be latent in the generatiue power or seed which cannot possibly bee because then it should be attributed to God who is cause of the generatiue power seeing as the Philosophers say causa causae est causa effectus illius secundae causae the cause of any second cause is the cause of the effect proceeding from the second cause Lastly there cannot bee assigned any time or moment in which the sonnes of Adam doe or can contract this originall sinne therefore both according to true Diuinitie and Philosophie it cannot be that we doe really and inwardly in our soules contract any such sinne but rather wee are called sinners in Adam and are said by the Apostle to haue sinned in Adam by reason onely of his fall who was our head The antecedent seemeth certaine because this sinne can neither infect our soules in the first instant of their creation or infusion otherwise the soule should haue it from her creation and consequently it might bee attributed to Almightie God as to the author thereof seeing that as true Philosophie teacheth operatio quae simul incipit cum esse rei est illi ab agente à quo habet esse the action which beginneth iointly with the being of the effect is from that cause from which it hath being And hence Aquinas holdeth as impossible Aquinas 1 parte q. 63. art 15 in corpore Angelum in primo instante creationis suae peccasse quoniam peccatum illud tribueretur Deo that Lucifer sinned in the first instant of his creation because that sinne should haue beene attributed to God which were blasphemous Neither could this sinne bee contracted by vs in the instant in which our soules were infused into our bodies seeing that the immediate subiect of sinne is not the body but the soule or some of the powers of the soule seeing therefore no instant can be assigned in which the sonnes of Adam are infected with this originall crime it followeth necessarily both according to the grounds of reason and Scripture that there is no such infection or corruption inherent in our soules For the better vnderstanding of this fundamentall point so controuerted in all ages we must note first that originall sinne is called peccatum naturae the sinne of nature according to that of Paul Ephesians 2. Wee were by nature the sonnes of wrath because sinne did spot defile or rather corrupt the whole masse of humane nature in our first father Adam from whom as first head and fountaine it hath beene and is deriued Secondly this sinne is called the sinne of the world Iohn chap. 1. Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinne of the world because all men were defiled with this one onely excepted God and man by whom al others were redeemed Thirdly it is also tearmed peccatum humanae conditionis the sinne common to all humane nature because there is not any Christ only excepted which doth not vndergoe this yoke So Ierome explicating that of the 50. Psalme Behold I am conceiued in iniquities saith Hieron super cap. 4. Ezechiel not in the iniquities of my mother but in the iniquities of humane nature which are generall to all humane nature or which hath defiled all mankinde Fourthly the sinne of Adam is called peccatum radicale the radicall sinne or root of sinne because wee being now depriued by it of originall iustice which as it was in Adam so should it also haue beene in vs an antidote against all inordinate desires but now our inordinate appetite and concupiscence which is the root of all euill is let loose to the ouerthrow of all true libertie Lastly wee must note this difference betweene the originall and the actuall sinne of euery particular man besides Adam that the actuall sinne is committed by the actuall will and consent of euery sinner but the
be past yet that this might be imputed vnto vs his posteritie onely by reason of the relation which we might haue from his act and this without any other priuation negation or concupiscence remaining in vs. I answer that although this be the opinion of Albertus and Catharinus yet that in no wise it may be admitted for so we are not really and internally sinners in Adam but onely by an externe denomination of his sinne which as wee haue already showne is most erroneous CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie THere hath beene three distinct heresies about this point the first which making no difference betweene the soules of men and other liuing creatures held that as the soules of all other creatures compounded of matter and forme are produced with dependencie of their subiect and materiall substance so likewise the soules of men And that therefore they were infected and polluted by the coniunction with the body The second opinion no lesse absurd in Philosophy then erroneous in Diuinitie is that one soule doth concurre vnto the generation of another as the whole man wholy to the production of another The third and worst opinion of all doth attribute the production of originall sinne in our soules vnto the absolute power of God spotting thereby his infinite goodnesse by the too much extending of his omnipotence euen vnto that which rather argueth impotencie then omnipotencie Now therefore the true cause of originall sinne in vs as the Scripture often witnesseth was our first father Adam by reason of his transgression of the commandement of God but this not by reall influx and concourse but by morall first because hee could not of himselfe and by his owne nature passe vnto his posteritie any such effect especially seeing that that sinne now is altogether past yea at least way according to the guiltinesse thereof it is washed away by the blood of Christ but according to the decree of Almighty God he was the morall cause insomuch as the infusion of originall iustice into vs depended vpon his will by not sinning according to the compact made betweene him and God hee therefore eating of the forbidden fruit there followed necessarily priuation of originall iustice in our soules and consequently originall sinne in it selfe CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary that there should be made a couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CAtharinus aboue alleadged thinketh it altogether necessary that there should bee such a pact betweene God and man vt in posteros peccatum deriuari possit that so Adams sinne might be deriued vnto his posteritie and that the said pact was included in these words in quacunque hora comederis morte morieris in what houre soeuer thou shalt eat thou shalt die Gen. 2. 3. Sotus on the contrary side in his first booke de natura gratia cap. 10. thinketh it friuolous to admit any such pact which opinion many more moderne writers doe the rather follow because the law of nature did oblige man to the preseruing of iustice But certainely no man can deny but that originall grace and iustice should haue beene transfused to Adams posteritie if hee who was our head and had receiued it for vs all had perseuered and this by the sole will and ordinance of God for certainely this was not required by the nature of originall iustice and consequently it onely required the decree of God about this matter which might haue beene otherwise But that there was the said pact betweene God and Adam himselfe for himselfe it seemeth euident out of the aforesaid text of Gen. as Athanasius well noteth CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the flesh I Answer that this infection is not because the soule receiueth any reall influx from the body for without question the body can in no wise as an efficient cause maculate or spot the soule but this is because as soone as euer the soule is created and in the very same instant that shee is infused into the body shee wanteth that gift of originall iustice which shee ought to haue had and therefore concupiscence is imputed vnto her as sinne which should haue been healed or not imputed by originall iustice if Adam had not lost it for vs all and this is the meaning of venerable Bede tomo 8. in lib. quaestionum 4. 14 a little before the end where he saith animā ex vnione cum carne peccato maculatā esse that our soules are maculated by the vnion with the body CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in 〈◊〉 if either Adam or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree THe reason of this doubt is because as the preacher saith a muliere initium peccati sinne had his beginning from the woman and through her all doe die it seemeth therfore that though shee onely had sinned the same sinne should haue beene imputed vnto vs all yea all should haue contracted that sin in her and by hers Secondly S. Hierome S. Ambrose explicating these words ad Rom 5. per vnum hominem c. through one man sinne entred into the world in whom all haue sinned doe vnderstand that one to be Eue if therefore shee was the first cause of this sinne it seemeth that though shee onely had sinned neuerthelesse sinne should haue beene deriued vnto her posteritie though Adam had not sinned seeing that these words in whom all haue sinned according to the interpretation of S. Hierome and S. Ambrose are to be applied vnto the woman as who was the first cause of mans woe Although I can gather nothing altogether certaine about this point either out of the holy Scriptures or Fathers yet neuerthelesse it seemeth more probable that the whole cause of originall sinne in vs ought to bee reduced vnto Adam so that by Adams consent onely and not by Eues we were to be borne in originall iniustice The reason is for that all the Fathers S. Hierome and S. Ambrose only excepted who doe interpret the aforesaid place doe vnderstand it of Adam and not of Eue yea it seemeth that this may be gathered out of the words of S. Paul 1. Corinth 15. As in Adam all do die so all shall be reviued in Christ wherfore venerable Bede is plainely of this opinion in the 14 of his questions tomo 8 where he saith originale peccatum trahere originem ex Adamo non ex diabolo quia ex diabolo non propagamur non ab Eua quia vir id est Adam non est à muliere sed mulier a viro ex quo sequitur Adamo non peccante etiamsi Eua peccasset non futurum in nobis peccatum That originall sinne hath his beginning from Adam onely not from the Deuill because wee are not begot by the Deuill neither of Eue because the man to wit Adam is not of the woman but the woman of the man
forbidden fruit could make mortall nor the abstinence from it immortall Hence therefore they are imboldned to affirme that wheresoeuer the Scripture maketh mention of Adams sinne as cause of his corporall death that it is to bee vnderstood figuratiuely not that Adams sinne was properly the cause or the occasion of his death but that the Scripture vseth this phrase to the end that when Adam should heare of so seuere a punishment as the death of both body and soule he might bee terrified thereby from the committing of sinne The Scripture vseth the like manner of speech in diuers occasions as in the 22. chapter of Genesis God tempted or tried Abraham which place must needs be vnderstood figuratiuely for God who seeth all things as well future as present or past hath no need of any triall or experience The like kinde of threatning wee haue in the fourth chapter of Exodus where it is said that God would haue slaine Moses which places are not to bee interpreted literally as they sound but figuratiuely as all other places of Scripture according to the rule of S. Austine when otherwise they signifie any absurditie as this of the death of Adam doth because it contradicteth the decree of God concerning his immortalitie Neuerthelesse the contrary exposition is most firmly to bee holden as concerning the immortalitie of man before his fall and mortalitie after and by his transgression not that there was any mutation in God but transgression in man God predetermined according to his foresight man sinned according to that foresight not that the foresight was cause of mans fall but rather mans fall was the obiect of Gods foresight insomuch that God had not foreseene mans fall if man had not beene to fall neither man had fallen if God had not foreseene his fall so that though it bee necessary that God foresee that which is future yet that is not necessarily future which God doth foresee for so seeth hee things future as they are future not imposing any necessitie in things not necessarily future by his foresight which as it is necessary in regard of things necessary so is it contingent in regard of things contingent contingent I say in respect of the obiect though necessary in respect of his owne entitie and being or as the Schoole-Diuines doe explicate it ad intra necessary ad extra contingent insomuch that all the mutation is in the outward and created obiects nothing at all can reflect or redound vnto God Wherefore though Almighty God had eternally decreed the immortalitie of man in his first creation yet was there no mutation in God because vpon his transgression he made him mortall and subiect to death for as both the degrees were eternall so the foresight of the euent of both was likewise eternall the mutation issued onely from the obiect and remained in the same immutabilitie was alwayes and remaineth in God because as hee had foreseene so he determined and as he determined so likewise he foresaw Lege ad Rom. cap. 5. 7. Hence it is is that seeing the Scripture so often witnesseth that death was the effect of sinne and that if sinne had not raigned in our soules neither should death haue destroied our mortall bodies questionlesse though man was created immortall by grace yet is hee iustly depriued of that immortalitie and become subiect to death through his transgression Now as touching the absurdities so ignorantly if not blasphemously inferred vpon the foresaid doctrine I answer that though God doe reproue that ancient prouerbe of the Iewes and their comparison of the sowre grape with other the like contestations of sillie wormes with their Creator that these I say are principally to bee vnderstood in regard of actuall sinne as is plaine out of the text it selfe and not habituall or originall of which the text speaketh not But if it bee referred as some haue done euen vnto originall sinne yet neither can the iustice of God bee any whit impeached thereby for though wee eat not the sowre grape neither taste the forbidden fruit in our selues yet did we both taste and eat in Adam who was our head yea though wee tasted not the fruit it selfe in our selues yet we contracted the sowrenesse thereof and the effect of the sinne yea the sinne it selfe in our soules for though the action was onely in our head yet the passion and effect was in all the members as is more largely explicated aboue in the question of the manner nature and essence of this sinne in which all the difficulties concerning this and the like points are answered Neither can it bee inferred hence that God doth punish the iust for the vniust or reuenge the fathers wickednesse in the sonnes which neuerthelesse were no iniustice seeing the sonnes are in some sort deemed as parts of the fathers and consequently may iustly be punished for their fathers offences but rather that euery man is punished for his owne originall sinne which though it bee contracted from Adam yet it is inherent in euery mans owne nature Againe seeing Adam of his owne nature was created mortall and by grace onely was to bee preserued immortall there was no iniustice in God towards Adams posteritie in that they were depriued of originall iustice but this proceeded from Adams demerit for himselfe and his posteritie Especially seeing that the couenant was so concluded betweene GOD and Adam that qua die comederet moriretur that his eating should be his death his abstinence life with this difference that death should be onely from himselfe as sinne had beene onely from his will but life should haue beene onely from God and the preseruation from sinne from Gods grace onely Hence wee may vnderstand how there is no iniustice or vnrighteousnesse in God that although Adam was created immortall yet we should be borne of Adam mortall and subiect to death seeing hee was iustly depriued of immortalitie by his sin and we by him Lastly if we read the sacred text we shall finde it neither to be iniustice or any nouelty that the sonnes be punished for their fathers offences for so it is in the 1. of Samuel the 15. because I remember that which Amalech did vnto Israel going out of Aegypt goe thou Saul and fight against Agag and his people and the 2. of Samuel 18 it is said that the wiues of Dauid should be defiled for Dauids sinne againe in the 2 of Samuel the 21 it is written how Dauid hanged the sonnes of Resphe for the Gabaonites sake Moreouer if it were true that which the Poet sang vnto his friend delicta maiorum immeritus lues thou shalt beare the offences of thy fore-fathers without thine owne deseruings then certainely the question B. King vpon Ionas cap. 1. v. 7. as a reuerend and learned Prelate well noteth were more difficult but who is able to say my heart is cleane though I came from an vncleane seede though I were borne of a Morian I haue not his sinne though an Amorite were my father and my mother a Hittite I haue not their nature though I haue touched pitch I am not defiled I can wash my hands in innocencie and say with a cleare conscience I haue not sinned but if this be the cause of all that there is not a soule in the whole cluster of mankinde that hath not offended though not as principall as Achan in taking the cursed thing Choran in rebelling Dauid in numbring the people yet as accessarie in consenting and concealing if neither principall nor accessarie in that one sinne yet culpable in a thousand others committed in our life time perhaps not open to the world but in the eyes of God as bright as the Sunne in the firmament for the Scorpion hath a sting though hee hath not thrust it out to wound vs and man hath malice though hee hath not outwardly shewed it it may be some sinnes to come which God fore-seeth and some past which he recounteth shall we stand in argument with God as man would plead with man and charge the iudge of the quicke and the dead with iniurious exactions I haue paied the things that I neuer tooke I haue borne the price of sinne which I neuer committed You see already the ground of mine answere We haue all sinned father and sonne rush and branch and deseruedly are to expect that wages from the hands of God which to our sinne appertaineth Besides it cannot be denied but those things which we part in our conceipts by reason that distance of time and place haue sundered them some being done of old some of late some in one quarter of the world some in another those doth the God of knowledge vnite and view them at once as if they were done together out of all which conceiued together as the all-vnderstanding wisdome of God doth conceiue and vnite them we may well inferre that the iudgements of God bee as iust and his waies as right as his mercy and goodnesse and prouidence extended to all that as there is no worke of man not fully recompenced or rewarded with ouerplus so there is no sinne whether actuall or originall not iustly punished citra as the Diuines hold but neuer vltra condignum lesse I meane then the sinne doth deserue neuer more then the fact doth require Gods mercy being as the Scripture witnesseth ouer all his workes and alwaies in some sort more extended then his iustice for though it be true that as his iustice is included in his mercy euen formally as most Diuines hold so like wise his mercy is included in his iustice and so both equall in nature and being yet such is the goodnes of our infinite good God that in the execution ad extra as the Diuines tearme it his mercy should alwaies be extended further then his iustice and his iust iudgements alwaies in somewhat at least deteined or after a sort restrained by his mercy Wherefore as we are wont to say of famous worthy and excellent men in caeteris vicit omnes in hoc seipsum in other things hee exceeded all men in this hee ouercame himselfe The like wee may affirme of God that hee is incomparable in all attributes and workes but in this hee exceedeth himselfe To him therefore as infinite mercifull and euerliuing God three persons and one indivisible deitie bee ascribed all honor power maiestie and dominion now and for euermore AMEN FINIS
not inhabitable by reason of the neerenesse of the Sunne and other Planets and stars To which I cannot denie but some shew of answere may be made as that neither Sunne nor any of the Planets are as the Philosophers say formally but onely virtually hot that is though they haue the vertue to produce heate in these inferiour things yet that they be not in themselues hot neither are they capable of heate because as they neither agree in matter nor forme as many Philosophers hold with these inferiour creatures so neither can they haue the same kinde of qualities that our Elements haue But this answer is easily confuted because as the virtuall heate of the sun is sufficient to make inhabitable some places of the world as diuers graue Writers affirme by reason of the neernesse vnto it why might it not also cause the like effect in Paradise vnlesse wee will flie vnto the omnipotence of God and miracles the onely refuge of ill grounded Philosophie and ignorance Or say as some haue fondly fained that Paradise being of another kinde of matter then the rest of the earth or of the same Species and purity that the heauens are as these bee incorruptible by reason of their most pure matter or incorruptible vnion so likewise Paradise and the thinges there onely man being of the same nature that now he is was by the particular prouidence of the omnipotent power kept from mortalitie or corruption as long as hee preserued himselfe from the corruption of sin But these and such like solutions as they are forged without any ground so they may easily be denied without any more reason this onely being added to the former proofe that so high a place as the Spheare of the Moone was altogether vnfit for the situation of Paradise by reason of the perpetual agitation and motion of that place which is so continually rapt and carried about with the most violent and swift course of the heauen Many other reasons I confesse might bee giuen but which rather appertain vnto Mathematikes and longer discourses then the breuity which wee haue here taken vpon vs will permit Now therefore onely remaineth that by the consideration of the excellencies of this place wherein we were before our sinne we gather the hatred God beareth to sinne seeing that for the sinne of one yea and that but one only God who is so good yea infinite goodnesse and mercie would punish with so long a punishment and with so great punishments for so long a time so infinite a number as is and shall be the whole posteritie of Adam euen vnto the worlds end And that sinne certainly hath a kinde of infinitie of malice which could deserue so infinite a punishment yea so much prouoke the infinite goodnesse and mercy of him who is infinitely good and mercifull And lastly we may inferre what sinne iustly deserueth if it should not be punished more according to the rule of mercy then according to that which the rigor of iustice requireth seeing that nothing was or could bee sufficient to blot or wash it away but onely the bloud of the lambe of God which onely washeth away the sinnes of the world by which we are to be restored not onely into a more high participation of God and his grace then we possessed before our fall but also into a more perfect Paradise then that was from which we were banished for our first sinne and fall And this only by his merits bloud and passion who could in no wise either slippe or fall So that wee may well exclaime with Saint Austine August in meditationibus O strange iudgement ô vnspeakable disposi ion of the diuine mysteries the sinner offendeth the iust is punished the guiltie transgresseth the innocent is beaten the wicked sinneth the godly is condemned that which the euill deserueth the good suffereth the seruant doth amisse the master maketh amends man committeth sinne God beareth the punishment O Sonne of God how hast thou debased thy selfe how hast thou burned in affection How farre is thy mercie stretched whither is thy compassion come Adam did wickedly thou was punished man sinned thou wast afflicted Eue offended thou wast tormented we were disobedient but thou obediently bearest the punishment of our disobedience we serued our concupiscence but thou enduredst hunger the tree allured vs vnto an vnlawfull desire but perfect charitie ledde thee vnto the Crosse wee tasted presumptuously the forbidden fruite but thou sufferedst torments for our presumption and momentarie delight We enioyed the pleasure but thou wast peirced with nailes wee delighted in the sweetnesse of the apple but thou therefore didst tast the bitternesse of the gall Here astonished I know not what to say nay I am so amazed I knowe not what to thinke onely I can exclaime with the Apostle O altitudo sapientiae scientiae Dei O deapth of the wisedom of God! ô mercy of the omnipotent without measure quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae tribuit mihi What shall I giue vnto God again who hath giuen himselfe so often for mee vnto hunger for my riot vnto nakednesse for my pride vnto dishonour for my honour vnto humilitie for my ambition vnto mortalitie for my immortalitie And finally vnto the ignominious torments of a thorny crowne and other of his sacred passion and vitall death for to crowne mee with an eternall crowne of glory in the life to come in that euerlasting Paradise vnto which no mutability no mortality and much lesse any impuritie can ascend vbi non est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis adumbratio whither not euen the very shaddow of change can approach CHAP. III. Of the compasse and greatnesse of Paradise and why it was so beautified seeing God fore-knew for how short a time it was to serue for the vse of man WHere there is lesse certainty in the conclusion there I meane to spend lesse time in the resolution as in this of the compasse of Paradise a question of more difficultie then necessitie yet neuerthelesse because it is vrged by some I will endeauour to giue some satisfaction in it such as may be in so vncertaine a point at least way as far as other principles of Philosophy or Diuinitie or finally as the graue expositours of the sacred text will giue me any firme ground of discourse Amongst whom Ephren aboue alledged answereth to this question that Paradise was greater then all the earth now inhabited Ephren lib de Paradiso The reason may be because as the inhabitants were to bee more in number then the earthly and more worthy so their habitation according to the wisdome bountie of their Creatour should haue beene more magnificent and far more capable of the beautie and magnificence no man can doubt who doubteth not of the history of Genesis Why then should we doubt of the other seeing the same reason vrgeth in both yea if we may discourse according to reason in these things which depend only vpon the free
disposition of the sole independent cause certainely as this cause of causes hath created all other things pondere mensura with due poise and measure of beauty magnificence and all other proprieties according as the nature of the things required and their finall ends for which they were created à fortiori or much more it ought likewise to bee inferred of the greatnesse and magnificence of Paradise wherefore seeing that the seede of man if he had not sinned had beene more multiplied then now it is because sinne as true Philosophy teacheth is no small impediment vnto generation it must needes follow that as the Inhabitants should haue beene more in number the place of their habitation more magnificent so likewise the capacitie of the same place where all should haue dwelt to wit of Paradise should haue beene greater then now the habitation of man is in all the world now inhabited I know well what is wont to be answered to wit that if Adam had not tasted of the forbidden fruite there should haue beene none in Paradise but onely those which should haue supplied the seates of the lapsed Angells and consequently they should haue been but few in number according to that of the Gospell pauci electi few be the chosen To what end then should their habitation haue beene of so great compasse as is the worlds now inhabited Againe if we acknowledge God to be conscious of all future euents and that this fore-knowledge is as it were according to our base maner of conceiuing so high mysteries a direction vnto the free disposition of his Diuine will and prouidence to what end should he create so mighty huge and so magnificent a place for so few and for so short a time as hee knew our forefathers should be there The answere vnto both is easie but first vnto the first I grant that if wee had not sinned onely the elect should haue beene created and placed in paradise whence without any subiection to mortalitie or other things now necessarily annexed thereunto they should haue been translated vnto their supernaturall felicity in heauen but it followeth not hence that they could be so few in number as might well be contained in so little a compasse as Paradise is imagined to be Neither because it is said that small is the number of the elect for though they be so in comparison of the reprobate in which sense the fathers interpret that place yet absolutely they be many yea without question more then euer there were men liuing in the world together For so it is euidently gathered out of the Apocalypse where the beloued Apostle after that he had made mention of twelue thousand in euery Tribe sealed and signed hee concludeth with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And after these things I saw Apoc. 7.9 and behold a great multitude which none could number of all nations and Tribes and people and tongues standing before the throne and in the sight of the Lambe couered with white stoles and with palmes in their hands Now if these be the elected as without doubt they bee how could they all haue dwelt together at one and the same time in Paradise how could they I say haue beene contained in so little a space or garden as Paradise is imagined to haue beene True it is that man was created to supply and replenish the seates of the fallen Angels but hence we are rather to inferre the contrary of that which was pretended in the obiection because the badde Angels as the Fathers say and hath been proued in our Treatise of Angels were almost innumerable wherefore if the blessed men be to supply their places as indeede they bee they must necessarily be more in number then could conueniently inhabite so little a place as Paradise is imagined to haue beene seeing that if not all yet infinite more should haue concurred together then now possibly can after our exile out of Paradise whence all occasions of mortalitie should haue beene remooued and where the tree of life should haue beene sufficient for the preseruation of mans life if not for all eternitie as many haue said yet for many thousands of yeeres or at least for a farre longer space then now the life of man can naturally bee prolonged for besides the naturall causes which then were more forcible or of more vertue for mans preseruation and none nociue to man as long as hee was not hurtfull vnto himselfe the supernaturall cause of causes did particularly concurre in this as well by his particular prouidence as by the vertue of the tree of life Now to the second obiection which presumeth to demand a reason of Gods secret decrees and iudgements to wit why God foreseeing mans sinne and that from all eternity would create for mans habitation a place so spacious excellent and capable which he knew was to be enioyed for so short a time I answere with the like obiection why also did he create so infinite a number of Angells with so many excellent gifts as well of grace as nature and both gratis yea and heauen so beautifull and admirable a place for them whom hee knew would so soone praeuaricate and fall from that felicitie into the other extreame of infelicitie yea the like I aske of Adam why would God so adorne him with all kinde of gifts both naturall and supernaturall whom hee knew ab aeterno from all eternitie was presently to be so vngratefull and wilfully to fall from his grace if these things be not vnbeseeming his goodnesse neither contradict his prouidence and fore-knowledge of future euent neither doth this other of creating Paradise so beautifull spacious and capable of so great a number whereas God knew from all eternitie that Adam by his fall was to loose that place both for himselfe and all his posteritie The onely reason of the question propounded may bee and the same may be applied with proportion vnto the rest because as we finde by ordinarie experience that God doth not ordinarily deale with man according to future euents and his diuine prescience thereof but according to his owne science of things as present Aquinas prima parte quaest 14. Molina Suarius Valentia Vasquez alij scholastici which the Diuines call scientiam visionis or intuitiue knowledge Hence it is that God seeing man not vnworthy of that place persisting in the grace in which he was created according to the present estate hee had created him in therefore I say not respecting mans future demerits but his owne present grace as he bestowed originall Iustice vpon him to be translated vnto his posteritie so likewise hee gaue this so excellent and capable a place as a sufficient and apte habitation for him and his posteritie if they had not falne from his grace These bee the groundes of Ephrens opinion which to mee is altogether improbable Wherefore my iudgement in this so vncertaine a point is that though Paradise was not so ample as the