eternall God not carnally as carnall men dreame but spiritually in the bread of life as hee himselfe doth affirme of himselfe As therefore he who is the tree of life or rather the author of life or to speake more properly life it selfe euen as he is in the Sacrament of life doth heere truly in this miserable life produce in vs the life of grace as a present pawne of our future glory so it seemeth most probable that the other tree of life as a most perfect figure of this planted in the terrene Paradise had the like inherent vertue for to perpetuate or at least to prolong the liues of Adam and his posteritie as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradise But whether this fruit of the tree of life was sufficient to perpetuate our life or only to prolong it for some determinate time Abulensis super Genes c. 13. quaest 175. Scotus li. 2. sent dist 19 quaest 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7 art 4 Caiet ibid. many dispute probably for both opinions Tostatus vpon the 13. chapter of Genesis q. 175. is most peremptorie for this perpetuitie Scotus Thomas Caietan and Durand for a very long time but not for eternitie because that is the naturall measure of nature this the supernaturall of him who is aboue all nature Secondly seeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cause the effect could not bee supernaturall for though effects be often inferiour to their causes yet neuer the causes vnto the effects the reason because no cause can giue that which it hath not neither any effect haue any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cause wherefore if the tree of life was as without question it was a naturall tree as the Laurell Cypresse and other trees be it could not haue as connaturall the supernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philosophie that omne agens physicum in agendo patitur debilitatur that euery naturall cause doth suffer some detriment euen in and by his owne action consequently therefore though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conserued by the vertue of this excellent fruit yet at length it should haue failed and thence finally mortalitie should haue followed as a necessary effect of so forcible a cause Lastly it is not likely that God who is the author and first rule of nature doth produce any thing frustrate in nature seeing therefore the fall of man was patent vnto him euen from all eternitie to what end should he prouide an eternall cause for a temporary effect But if this argument had any force it should force also our aduersaries to the like if not a greater inconuenience for who doubteth but that God knew also the little time that man was to persist in his grace and yet neuerthelesse he gaue him that fruit which was sufficient for the preseruation of his life for many a yeere as our aduersaries hold why then might hee not likewise for all eternitie is it because of the impossibilitie at non impossibile Deo omne verbum to God nothing is impossible which doth not imply contradiction but what contradiction is in this is it that here naturall philosophie is contradicted omne agens in agendo patitur debilitatur euery agent doth decay euen by his owne action but seeing the author of nature is aboue nature why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature or though in the compasse of nature yet beyond our naturall capacitie which is so small that wee scarcely or very imperfectly vnderstand things of farre inferiour degree yea such as are within our selues why therefore shall wee deny vnto God that which we doe not vnderstand in our selues My resolution therefore is that of Abulensis Propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quòd fructus eius vim haberet seruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus faciendi eum immortalem that this tree was therefore called the tree of life because it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life and the vnion of the body and soule for euer if we had not lost the supernaturall grace which was the vnion of our soules with God but seeing wee wilfully separated our selues from our supernaturall life it was most iust that wee should also be depriued of the naturall hence therefore is that which Paul so often preacheth mortem in mundum intrasse propter peccatum that death entred into the world by the doore of sinne which doore if we had debarred to sinne the grace of God should haue beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vs and the tree of life should haue caused the like betweene our bodies and soules and this of his owne nature eternally though de facto wee needed it but only temporally both supposing our fall as likewise not supposing any at all for if we had not fallen or sinned in our first father wee should certainly after some number of yeeres haue been translated from that terrene Paradise which was our first though temporary habitation vnto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen and this should haue heene without any assault of death because we had alwaies liued in God who as hee would then haue preserued vs by his grace from the corruption of sinne would also haue preserued vs from this corruption which was only the effect of sinne according to that of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death the wager being the deuill our soules are bought and sold sold away for nothing sinne being nothing but a priuation of being but bought againe by the death of the most precious of mortall liues which in no wise should haue beene necessary if wee had not beene lost or fallen from our first grace and innocencie But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambrosia seemed to Aristotle of small ground so this for the like reason may seeme to bee as fabulous for as Aristotle argueth against the former either the Gods vsed this Ambrosia and Nectar for pleasure only or also for necessitie if only for pleasure how then could Ambrosia and Nectar be any necessary cause of their immortalitie againe if for necessitie certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature and consequently no Gods seeing that that which hath need of any thing for his preseruation must necessarily be mortall After the same manner we may argue against this fruit of this tree of life which is said to be sufficient to cause an eternitie of life à parte post as the Philosophers speake for if our immortalitie was onely to be from the tree of life then questionlesse without it wee had beene mortall and subiect to death contrary to that of the Apostle Stipendium peccati mors the wages of sinne is death for whether wee had sinned or persisted in our primatiue grace all had beene one wee should naturally haue tasted of death if wee
because as the schoole Diuines well note the fault as it is a fault deserueth punishment so that the worthinesse or debt of the punishment doth follow the fault as a proper passion thereof as intense heare followeth the fire and light necessarily proceedeth from the Sunne CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is refuted and the truth set downe in what consisted the sinne of our first father and ours contracted from him WE may easily perceiue by the opinions refuted in the precedent Chapters how easie it is euen for the greatest witts to erre in supernaturall matters without the assistance of Gods supernaturall grace and illumination seeing that those who were accounted the very mirrours of wisdome in their time haue beene so hoodwinked and blinded in the cause and first fountaine of their felicitie insomuch that though they knew that they were conceiued as Dauid saith in iniquitie and sinne yet they were not able to declare sufficiently in what consisted that iniquitie and originall sinne much lesse to demonstrate with any certainety that which S. Austine almost in one word doth declare so euidently libro q o de nuptijs concupiscentijs cap. 23 26. where hee expresly holdeth that our originall sin consisteth in concupiscence which though it remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed to them in ijs ergo qui regenerantur in Christo in those therefore who are regenerated in Christ when they receiue the remission of all their sinnes it is necessarie that the guiltinesse of this as yet remaining concupiscence be remitted So that as I haue already said it be not imputed to sin for as the guiltinesse of those sinnes which cannot remaine because they passe when they are committed remaineth neuerthelesse which if it be not remitted will remaine for euer so the guiltinesse of the foresaid concupiscence when it is remitted is quite taken away Calvin lib. 2. Instit c. 1. Melancth in colloqâ—io Wormatien apologia confessionis A gustanae So that here we see auerred and proued that which many learned late writers doe auouch as a matter of faith euidently deducing it out of the 6 7 8. chap. of the Apostle to the Romanes and the 11 to the Hebrues to wit that our originall iniustice consisteth in concupiscence the which though it doth remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed vnto them so that as diuers learned men doe declare themselues in this matter tegitur non tollitur raditur non eradicatur it is couered not rooted out it remaineth but is not imputed For proofe of which Rom. 7. verse 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. sequentibus I will only ponder the example of Paul who no doubt was regenerate at least after he was called an Apostle and yet he could finde this sinne of concupiscence within himselfe striuing against the spirit yea hee did acknowledge it to be his originall sinne the fountaine of all actuall sinnes and therefore hee addeth Wee know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne for I allow not that which I doe for what I would that doe I not but what I hate that doe I now then it is no more I that doth it but sinne that dwelleth in mee Now what sinne is this the Apostle speaketh of but originall or concupiscence remaining as yet euen after his regeneration drawing him vnto that which he would not and therefore afterward in the same chapter opposing it to the right inclination of the minde hee calleth it another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde and leading him captiue vnto the law of sinne which was in his members and hence he concludeth O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the body of this death that is from originall sinne the which as it is the death of the soule so likewise it causeth the death of the body CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed THe first heretickes who after the preaching of the Gospell denied originall sinne were Pelagius and Coelestius as S. Austine writeth lib. de peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 1. 2. 3. 9. 19. whom Iulian the Pelagian followed in his fourth booke which hee wrote against originall sinne yea this is attributed vnto the Armenians to Faber Stapulensis and others The first argument of this heresie is that which Iulian the Pelagian vsed against S. Austine because it is essentiall to all sinnes to be voluntary but nothing can be voluntary vnto infants before the vse of reason seeing that as the Philosophers say and proue nihil concupitum quin praecognitum nothing is willed desired or sought after which is not first knowne infants therefore who haue no vse of reason can haue no abuse of will by consent vnto a foreknowne euill and where there can be no sufficient foreknowledge or distinction of good from euill there questionlesse can be no sinne Yea this seemeth to be confirmed by S. Austine himselfe lib. 3. de libero arbitrio cap. 13. where hee confesseth that sinne is so voluntary an euill that nothing can be sinne which is not voluntary and in another place he auoucheth that neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent Wherefore Doctor Bishop against M. Perkins out of those words doubteth not to vpbraid the Church of Englands doctrine about this point saying What vnlearned learned men are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too To this argument of Iulian peraduenture some will say that originall sinne is voluntary in the infants not by their owne proper actuall will as who can haue none such but by the will of their first father Adam which after a sort may be said to be the will of all his posteritie seeing he was the head of them all and therefore that by his voluntary transgression all Adams posteritie may bee said to haue sinned in him But this seemeth not to satisfie for originall sinne if wee will consider well the nature of it and as all the aduerse part doth hold verè auertit à Deo parvuli voluntatem cam conuertit ad bonum mutabile it doth truly auert the will of the infants from God vnto an apparant and mutable good yea euen to the deuill therefore the will of our parent and his sinne is in no wise to cause originall sinne in vs. Secondly as true Philosophie teacheth no cause can produce that which it hath not in it selfe either virtually or formally neither doth any cause produce any thing but after the manner that it containeth the thing which is to bee produced either formally if so bee that it hath the same forme species or kinde which the effect hath or virtually if it containe it in a more perfect degree and measure But certainly neither our first
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
any thing that hee performeth it actually by some externall operation and worke either actually produced or to be produced The other kinde of will which the Diuines distinguish in God in regard of some obiects which he doth not really produce is called inefficax voluntas a kinde of propension or inclination of his diuine will to the effectuating of any good effect which might redound to the felicitie of man yet for the attaining of the end which out of his vnsearchable wisdome hee hath prefixed hee oftentimes permitteth the contrary to this his diuine inclination and will the which therefore is called Gods permissiue will As for example God would that all men should bee saued according to that of the Apostle Deus vult omnes homines saluos fieri to wit in his vniuersall grace calling and inspirations and other generall meanes offered to all so that out of his infinite goodnesse hee wisheth and willeth in this sort all to bee saued and that hee might the more manifest his infinite mercy by the efficacie of his working will he actually saueth some euen so to manifest his iustice by his other permissiue decree he permitteth others to worke their owne ruine and eternall damnation So that according to this distinction it may truly be said that the transgression of Adam was in some sort contrary to the will of God in some againe agreeable to the same for first in that it was permitted by God it was for the further benefit vnto mankinde and the greater glory of God by which hee wrought that miraculous effect of the hypostaticall vnion betweene the second person of the blessed Trinitie and our nature taking occasion of the greatest euill to worke our greatest good insomuch that it may well bee deemed as Gregory tearmeth it foelix culpa quae talem tantum habere meruit Redemptorem a happy fall in regard of the issue not as it was a sinne but as an occasion of a more perfect abolishing of sinne neither as willed by God but permitted foreseene by Gods wisdome effected by mans wickednesse yea in some sort effected by God to wit by Gods vniuersall concourse but determined by mans depraued will Gods action being indifferent or rather of its owne nature and as Gods ordained to good but by mans depraued will determined to euill which yet againe by the infinite goodnesse of God is made an occasion of our greatest good So that if it bee demanded whether God would that Adam should eat of the forbidden tree or no and if hee would why did hee forbid it if he would not why did he not hinder it The answer is that in some sort hee would it and againe after some sort he would it not hee would it not as a sinne hee would it neuerthelesse as a meane or rather as an occasion of a greater good Wherefore he forbad it as a sinne he concurred with it as vniuersall cause of all things being not as a particular cause or agent in sinne as it was sinne though in some sense hee would it as hath beene said as a meane of an infinite greater good and as the greatest occasion of shewing his infinite wisdome and goodnesse of his wisdome because he knew to produce such an excellent effect of so infinite an euill of his goodnesse likewise in that being moued onely by it and for it he was pleased to effect our greatest good of the greatest euill a worke so excellent and admirable as which could onely proceede and flow from that onely infinite ocean of goodnesse Yea Adams eating of the forbidden fruit was an euident argument that hee remained free to sinne euen after his sinne according to the pleasure and will of God for such was his diuine will that Adam should be endued with free will that it might be in his power to chuse the good and eschew the euill not of himselfe but by grace so that thus sinning he shewed his power and consequently by the same sinne hee shewed in some sort himself to remaine according to Gods diuine will and pleasure with freedome to sinne for seeing that no sinne can be committed without some actuall exercise of free will and that by the same exercise the precedent power is manifested it followeth that by this exercise and action of Adams free will I meane his transgression it was made manifest that hee was created and alwaies preserued according to his diuine will in that he was endued and afterward remained with free will sufficient to sinne though insufficient in it selfe to the actions of grace In this sense then wee see that although Adam sinned yet remained he according to Gods will because hee remained alwaies endued with free will Likewise we may vnderstand in an other sense how Adam remained according to Gods will yea and this euen in regard of his sinne I meane according to his permissiue will for Almighty God as we haue said before out of his incomprehensible wisdome foreseeing the infinite good which might proceed from thence to wit the hypostaticall vnion and being determined by his absolute and secret will to effectuate the same hee permitted this sinne of Adam as a negatiue meanes or rather occasion of so excellent an end But God saith this heretike would haue had man to haue persisted in that blessed estate from which neuerthelesse hee fell how then was not Gods will more then his power seeing hee obtained not that which he would But here we may see both the malice and ignorance of this heretike which both are the rootes and springs of all heresies his malice in that hee presumed against God himselfe his ignorance in that hee taxeth that hee vnderstandeth not for if he had vnderstood either what belongeth to the free will of man or rightly apprehended the power wisdom of the omnipotent he might easily haue perceiued that the fall of our first father did rather demonstrate the wisdome of God then contradict his omnipotence and will for seeing it pleased his diuine maiestie to giue vs free will and to place vs in such estate in which by his grace we might persist and which being rejected we might fall of our selues what can bee more euident but as that our perseuerance should haue beene attributed to God and to the right use of his grace so our fall onely vnto our selues and the want of our concourse with his grace the which in that estate was not onely sufficient but very abundant Seeing therefore it was once in the power of our first father to haue withstood the temptation of Satan and not to haue cast off so easie a yoke as was imposed him with so abundant grace he deserued no doubt to bee depriued of that grace thrust out of Paradise yea finally to bee disrobed of the beautifull robe of immortalitie In the combination of which we may magnifie and admire the omnipotent wisdome and infinite wise power of God in that hee knew and could so excellently combine iustice with mercy the
is common to all the blessed Spirits and Saints of heauen to euery one according to their degree of glory correspondent vnto the measure of their faith heard here in earth or while they were in the way to this supernaturall blessednesse CHAP. VIII Whether there was euer any such tree in Paradise as the tree of life or rather that which is written of it in the Scripture is onely to be vnderstood spiritually or figuratiuely AS now in this deluge of miseries which haue ouerflowne the world there be many which in outward shew and words pretend so much spirit that they leaue nothing for the inward but acts of carnalitie so there wanted not these kindes of monsters in former ages who though they were neuer so farre plunged in the depth of hell as ours be yet were they not farre inferiour in the fictitious morallizing of Scripture or rather wresting from the true sense the word of God such were Origines and his fellowes Allegorici so tearmed because they wrested the Scripture beyond all truth and sense only to a spiritual and allegorical sense especially those places which speake of Paradise and the tree of life some thinking it to bee our Sauiour Christ or word of God incarnate others the sole attribute of the eternall wisdome of God some againe our euerlasting happinesse in the kingdome of heauen according to that of S. Iohn Reu cha 2. vers 2. To him that ouercommeth will I giue to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of my God that is as Eugobinus in his Cosmopoeia holdeth not our essentiall blessednesse in the sight of God as the former opinion is but a proprietie necessarily annexed thereunto to wit immortalitie which God had promised to Adam and his posteritie if they had persisted in their first state of innocencie wherein Adam was first created Here be many fictitious propositions ill grounded and which of themselues are sufficient to ouerthrow themselues the truth and the common opinion as well of Schoole Diuines as of Expositours of the holy Scriptures and Fathers is that as the historie of the tree of life and the rest of Paradise may well be interpreted in an Allegoricall sense without any contradiction to the true meaning of the historie so to vnderstand it only thus excluding the historie is a manifest iniurie done to the Scripture So S. Austine in his 13. booke of the city of God chap. 21. saith that we may vnderstand by Paradise the blessed life of the Saints of God likewise by the foure riuers of Paradise the foure cardinall vertues prudence fortitude temperance iustice by the trees all profitable Arts and disciplines by the fruit of the tree the good workes of the godly by the tree of life wisdome the mother of all goodnesse finally by the tree of knowledge of good and euill the experience of the commandement transgressed These things likewise may be vnderstood of the Church as prophesies proper vnto her future estate So that by Paradise wee may vnderstand the Church according to that which wee reade of her in the Canticles Moreouer by the foure flouds the foure Gospels by the fruitfull trees the Saints whose fruits bee their workes by the tree of life the Saint of Saints Christ our Sauiour lastly by the tree of the knowledge of good and euill our owne morall and ciuill actions not the supernaturall in which wee are more passiue then actiue These and the like of Origenes and others of the Fathers are questionlesse most excellent Allegories yet not such as may be taken for sole verities excluding the plaine historie of Moses and literall sense which is the second part of my assertion deduced also out of S. Austine in the place aboue alleaged where he concludeth thus Haec siquae alia These and the like may be spiritually applied vnto Paradise so that the truth of the historie be faithfully kept and no iniurie offered to the word of God for if once we giue a sole and generall passage to this kinde of Allegoricall exposition wee shall soone bee brought to many fond definitions in matters of faith CHAP. IX Why the tree of life was so called and whether it had truly the propertie of making a man immortall AS it is truly said of the bread of life the Sacrament I meane of the Lords Supper that it doth not concurre physically with any real influence vnto the grace of God inherent in our soules in this life or to the eternitie of blessednesse in the life to come but that it is only a signe of the one and a pawne and pledge of the other to wit of grace in this life of an eternall poies of glory in the other so many holding the tree of life to be a figure or type of the bread of life haue with proportion held of them both to wit that neither of them were physicall and reall causes of their effects but onely morall Hence it is that Eugubinus aboue alleaged in his Cosmopoeia thinketh that it was called the tree of life non effectiuè quòd vitam faceret immortalem not because it did really cause or should haue caused immortalitie in man sed significatiue tantùm because it should haue beene a signe and token only of immortalitie if he had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator a probable opinion certainly or which cannot easily bee refuted for although all almost Writers and Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church doe agree that the effect of this fruit was immortalitie yet in the manner how they doe not agree So therefore if wee agree of the thing it is not materiall how wee hold of the manner of concourse As in like manner wee doubt not to say of the bread of life the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that certainly it containeth the cause of life Christ but how it containeth him who can expresse This exceedeth the naturall capacitie of Angels the other of the type also the reach of man Agreeing therefore about the things why should wee so contend to expresse the manner which in no wise can be expressed because it is not expressed in the booke of life and therefore cannot be necessary to eternall life Neuerthelesse if I may coniecture in things so hidden I deeme the contrary much more probable to wit that this tree of life was not onely a type or token of immortalitie but that really it was a cause sufficient to haue produced immortalitie my reason or rather congruence because no concludent reason can be giuen in this point is because it was the most perfect figure as the Fathers affirme of that most excellent tree which for all eternitie is planted in the celestiall Paradise to wit of Christ who saith of himselfe Apoc. 2. cap. Vincenti dabo edere to him that ouercommeth to wit himselfe I will giue to eat what will he giue himselfe to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of the
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
nature it cannot be denied but that it was grace as which was not consequent vnto nature but aboue all nature Wherefore as now in the law of grace all that are regenerated by baptisme in Christ doe in and by baptisme according to the opinion of many Diuines receiue the grace of Christ so likewise in the state of innocency all that should haue been borne of the loines of Adam should in and at the very instant of their naturall conception and first moment of naturall life haue receiued the first influence of their spirituall birth and supernaturall life Now the difficultie is whether if Adam had persisted in the state of innocencie all we his posteritie should then haue beene confirmed in grace insomuch that as wee should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God so wee should neuer haue fallen from the same Anselmus lib. 1. Cur Deus home cap. 38. Gregorius lib. 4. Moraliū c. 36. Anselmus and Gregorie the great answer that if Adam had not sinned then all his posteritie should haue beene confirmed in the grace and fauour of God for who saith Anselmus dare presume to affirme plus valere iniustitiam that iniustice should haue beene of more force to binde vnto bondage in mans first perswasion then his iustice to confirme him in liberty if he had persisted in his first temptation for euen as all humane nature was ouercome by Adams sinne so by him all should haue ouercome if he had not sinned Neuerthelesse I resolue with S. Austine that the posteritie of Adam should not at least way in the instant of their generation beene confirmed in grace though Adam had persisted in his originall iustice for how is it credible that they should haue receiued more abundant grace then their first head and father at his first creation Wherefore like as Adam though created in grace could fall from that happy estate of grace so it seemeth most probable that his posteritie might also seeing that wee read of no particular prouidence grace promised to them which was not profferd to their first father For though Adam could as many Diuines hold haue increased in grace yet none but Paelagians hold that hee could merit vnto himselfe the infusion of the first grace much lesse vnto others CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall SAint Austine in his 7. booke de Gen. ad lit cap. 25. answereth most excellently that the body of Adam before his sinne was both mortall and immortall mortall because he could die immortall beause hee could not haue died For it is one thing not to be able to dye another to be able not to dye that belongeth only to the Angells this is agreable euen vnto man not by the constitution of his nature but by the benefit of the tree of life from which tree hee was banished as soone as hee sinned that hee might dye who if he had not sinned might not haue died wherefore he was mortall by the nature of his corruptible body but yet immortall by the benefit of his Creator for if the body was mortall because it could dye by the like reason it was immortall because it could not haue died for that is not immortall onely which cannot dye at all vnlesse it be spirituall which is promised to vs in our resurrection Now therefore the difficultie is whether this gift of immortalitie due to the perfect state of Paradise was due also and connaturall vnto man persisting there Many of the best learned of this age are of opinion that this originall iustice which did bring with it a power of immortalitie and a perfect subiection of the flesh and senses vnto the rule of reason was a gift due euen vnto nature granted vnto man as not only agreable but likewise belonging and consequent vnto his naturall integritie and perfection insomuch that mans nature being now depriued thereof may iustly bee deemed in a manner maimed imperfect and monstrous especially seeing it was to proceed of naturall causes such as was the eating of the tree of life Againe euen naturall reason doth require that the minde and reason should rule and gouerne the whole man and consequently that the flesh and senses should be ruled by reason and obey the superiour power wherefore as it is without all question that the rebellion of the flesh against reason is contrary to mans nature so originall iustice which did restraine the rebellion did questionlesse pertaine to the naturall state integritie and perfection of man yea how were it otherwise agreable to the diuine wisdome to make a creature partly immortall and incorruptible partly againe mortall and corruptible Neuerthelesse vnlesse the question be more de nomine then dere I deeme it most certaine and out of all question that that gift of immortalitie was supernaturall as which was in no wise due or consequent to nature for neither this immortalitie could proceed of the qualities proportionate to the body seeing these tend rather to corruption then immortalitie as which are each contrary to other and after a sort consuming one another and these tending to the disvniting of the body and soule neither could this immortalitie be ab externo agente from some outward principle and cause for then if it were so it were rather to bee deemed in some sort opposite to the inclination of nature the which of it selfe as we haue already said tendeth to corruption yet as that which is congenitum or produced ioyntly with nature may in some sort be said to be naturall or rather connaturall so I will not deny of this quality of immortalitie though of it selfe it be altogether aboue nature yet respectiuely and in regard of the first infusion into nature I will not I say deny but that it may be deemed naturall CHAP. XLV What kinde of serpent that was which tempted Eue. IOsephus in his first booke of Antiq. chap. 1 holdeth that as it was a true and naturall serpent which tempted our first fathers so it was naturall vnto it to speake vnderstand yea and to goe vpright like vnto man and that vnderstanding mans felicitie moued with enuie hee sought his ouerthrow maliciose persuadens mulieri vt de arbore scientiae gustaret maliciously perswading the woman that shee should taste of the tree of knowledge Ephraim the Syrian as Barsalas relateth in his booke of Paradise the 27. chap. held that the serpent which spake with Eue was a true corporall serpent and that Satan had obtained of God the facultie of speech to be giuen vnto the serpent for a time so that as in Balaams reprehension God gaue the vse of speach vnto the Asse for his iust reprehension and punishment so likewise here saith Ephraim God gaue not only speach but euen intellectuall power and vnderstanding vnto the serpent for a tryall of our first fathers obedience Cyrillus in his third booke against Iulian the apostata and Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia are of opinion that this was not
arguments of the contrary opinion but seeing they may be easily answered with one and the same distinction I will onely expresse that and so conclude this question which hath so troubled the Church of God in former ages The distinction is this that wee must vnderstand the difference and distinction of a twofold sinne the first is actuall the second originall the first from our selues the second from Adam though in our selues the first we grant could neuer be in the afore-said infants as which neuer came to the vse of reason and consequently neither could euer abuse it the second which is originall sinne might be and was in them as is manifest by the authorities and reasons aboue alleadged both of Scripture and Fathers and by this distinction we may vnderstand all those authorities which seeme in any sort to fauour the Pelagians in this point which therefore I conclude with S. Austine serm 7. de verbis Apostoli circa finem Ecce infantes in suis vtique operibus innocentes sunt nihil secum nisi quod de primo homine traxerunt habentes quibus propterea est Christi gratia necessaria vt in Christo viuificentur qui in Adamo mortui sunt vt quia inquinati sunt generatione purgentur regeneratione behold saith he the infants be innocent in their owne workes hauing no sinne but that which they haue by descent from their first father to whom notwithstanding the grace of Christ is therefore necessarie that they may be receiued in Christ who died in Adam to the end that being defiled by generation they might be purged by regeneration in his blood who died for all CHAP. LVII Wherein are solued diuers difficulties against the former doctrine MAny obiections are wont to bee made against the doctrine of the precedent Chapters of which these following are the principall yea all may be reduced vnto them First that if the concupiscence or fomes peccati which is left after our baptisme in vs were sinne it would follow that God were the author of sinne seeing he is the author of our nature and therefore hee must needs be the author of that which necessarily followeth nature as who is the cause of the fire is also of the heat proceeding from the fire wherefore seeing that God was the author of nature hee must also be the author of this fomes peccati and concupiscence which necessarily floweth from the same nature if therefore our originall sinne consist in this concupiscence which floweth from nature he who is the author and cause of nature must also be of the sinne which floweth from nature which both seeme no lesse blasphemous then absurd I answer that this fomes peccati or concupiscence with which Adam was created and wee all borne was first in him and should also haue beene in vs though we had persisted in originall iustice yet had it not beene any sinne in any of vs if Adam had not sinned and we in him because this was as it were extinguished and ouercome by original iustice in Adam and should haue beene in vs also by reason that the like grace and iustice which was infused into Adam should also haue beene deriued vnto vs by Adam But seeing Adam lost this grace both for vs and himselfe both this priuation of grace is attributed vnto vs as also the concupiscence reviued in vs by reason of Adams sinn true it is that the guilt thereof is taken away in the regenerate by baptisme and so it is not imputed by reason of our regeneration But hence peraduenture it may bee further vrged that though God be not the author of this concupiscence as it hath the force and malice of sinne yet that he is the author of the same thing that is originall sinne to wit of that fomes peccati fewell of sinne concupiscence or inclination vnto sinne which also is no small absurditie I answer that this is no absurditie but necessarie no heresie but catholique doctrine so that it be not granted that he is author of it as it is sinne but of that materiall or thing which by mans wickednesse is made sinne yea which is good as proceeding from God though euill and wicked as flowing from man Gods concourse being altogether good mans determination euill as detorting it to euill as the light of the Sunne of it self pure and good is oftentimes vsed and abused to euill yea of this we haue infinite examples in which our aduersaries are driuen to auerre the like For who doubteth but that Almighty God qui operatur omnia in omnibus who worketh all reall actions in all things whatsoeuer is also the vniuersall cause of euery reall action and habit of sinne and yet neuerthelesse no man will be so blinde and blasphemous therefore to attribute to his infinite goodnes that which hath infinite malice in it as it is against that infinite goodnes The reason therefore why it is rather to be attributed vnto man as second cause of it then vnto God who is the vniuersall cause of all is because man hauing the vniuersall concourse of God vnto good determineth it according to his euill inclination vnto naught and so committeth that nothing which in it selfe is sin and priuation of good Secondly it may be obiected against originall sinne that if that priuation of originall iustice which ought to haue beene in vs and of which we were depriued by Adams fall were in any wise to be tearmed originall sinne it would follow that there were not one onely originall sinne in euery one of vs but many for seeing that there is not one onely culpable priuation of that originall iustice which Adam had in Paradise but also of faith hope charitie and of all other graces consequent vnto the fore-said originall iustice why should there not be by the like reason as many originall sinnes as there bee priuations of supernaturall gifts and graces The answer is easie for that all these depriuations of graces are deriued of one which is of our originall iustice which should haue beene the roote and fountaine of them all The third obiection may be that seeing that it is not in the power of any to attaine to the grace of God being in originall sinne consequently the formall of originall sinne cannot be any priuation of grace but rather a negation I answer that because once it was in the power of Adam supposing the couenant made by Almighty God with him that the said supernaturall forme of originall iustice should haue beene by his perseuerance passed vnto his posteritie hence it is that this absence of originall iustice in Adam and his posteritie is rather a priuation then negation Fourthly it may be obiected that as in the opinion of Scotus whensoeuer the act of sinne is past the sinner may truly be called a sinner only by reason of the relation of the act past which is not as yet forgiuen so it seemeth that the same might be said in originall sin that though the act of Adam
which two attributes as they are to be found in all his workes so without all question most admirable in this his iustice in not leauing vnpunished so foule a fact as originall sinne his mercy in the mercifull manner of the punishment his iustice againe in that he depriued man of the vesture of immortalitie his mercy euen in the same penalty and depriuation of immortalitie least as Moyses Barsephas doth most excellently answer in this point ne ipsius prauitas foret immortalis qualis est diaboli least his wickednes should become immortall such as the Diuels is following the nature of the subiect to which it is adherent Furthermore God therefore punisheth man with this mercifull punishment of death that thereby hee considering the effect might eschew the cause or lastly because out of this mortalitie of man he would produce a more perfect immortalitie in the same man for God fore-seeing that out of Adams posterity should come an infinite multitude of martyrs the sentence of death was pronounced against Adam to the end that many of his posteritie suffering death for the Redeemers sake might supply the places of falne spirits But that we may returne from whence we digressed if God were therefore to be counted deficient in power because he created Adam with such liberty that he could contradict the commandment of his Creator after the same manner might likewise be inferred that now also he hath the like defect or impotencie seeing that now also man hath the like liberty to transgresse because as hee commanded Adam that he should not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and euill so likewise hath hee commanded vs his posteritie that wee should follow the good and eschew the contrary euill now therefore if we do transgresse this law it must needs bee God either allowing or contradicting this transgression if it be by Gods approbation why doth hee prohibite it if contrary to his will why doth he permit it or if hee permit that which is against his will how can such a God bee called omnipotent or lastly if he can hinder that which is euill and doth not how is he good who consenteth and concurreth so euill To these I answer out of the former principles that euen this permission of sinne doth most manifestly demonstrate the infinite wisdome power and goodnesse of God his wisdome in that out of this in a manner so infinite euill hee did worke such an infinite good as is the manifestation of his glory and the incarnation of his Sonne his power in that he could his goodnesse in that hee would But why saith the aduersarie did God prohibite Adam the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill what else could bee his meaning but least he should be able to iudge betweene good and euill and consequently least hee should eschew the euill and prosecute the good how then is not God enuious or how can hee be God who enuieth and prohibiteth that which is good I answer that God did neither absolutely decree that Adam should eat of this fruit neither that he should not eat though he did command him that hee should not eat but left him to his owne free will to eat or not eat hee did forbid him to eat not because the fruit was morally or of it selfe good or euill but in the issue good if he had abstained euill if hee abstained not good by obedience euill by disobedience where fore God did intend in this prohibition to try his obedience and that only was respected in this commandement so that if Adam had obeyed God accordingly as was in his power by the grace of God hee should for a time haue enioyed that terrene Paradise in which he was created and afterward haue beene partaker of the celestiall eternally with his Creator Hence wee see how impiously God is accused of wickednesse and enuie in the forbidding of our first fathers the eating of the tree of good and euill seeing that the eating of this fruit was indifferent of its owne nature as out of which neither good nor euill could proceed but that which God did regard in this commandment was our obedience or disobedience in respect of which hee was after a manner indifferent neither absolutely decreeing the one neither effectually willing the other onely this wee may adde that God did desire and will our first fathers abstinence and therein required his obedience but as this his diuine will had not his efficacie so did hee and might permit the contrary for other respects worthy his diuine prouidence and infinite wisdome which haue been already touched Not of enuie as some haue blasphemously imagined least Adam become immortall for if this blasphemie were consequent to the fore-said prohibition certainely God who foresaw all future euents either would not haue created man or hauing created him would not haue placed him in Paradise so neere vnto the tree of life or at least way hee might either haue hidden or not haue created the tree of life Wherefore the true reason why he forbad him the tree of life was as Moyses Barsephas well noteth ne perpetuò viueret in peccato least he should liue in perpetuall death of sinne as the Deuill doth euer liuing euer dying Lastly the aduersarie obiecteth against the curse of the Serpent for why saith he did God curse the Serpent if hee cursed him as the author of the euill committed why did he not hinder it least it should be committed but if he cursed him as author of that good which was consequent vnto the euill how is that God called good and not rather enuious and wicked who punisheth yea enuieth the author of such an excellent effect Againe if neither of these was the cause of the Serpents curse how may God bee excused of wilfull maliciousnesse or malicious foolishnes The answer to this blasphemy is patent out of that which hath beene already said out of the former obiections to wit that God did therefore curse the Serpent as author of euill neither did hinder him pretending the euill to the intent that he might out of so infinite an euill as was the transgression of the first Adam worke that infinite good of the incarnation of his Sonne and birth of the second Adam for though it be an argument both of his power and goodnesse ex bono efficere melius of good to make better yet it seemeth much more excellent and conuincing euen our naturall capacitie that hee is infinitely potent and good who can ex nihilo perfectissimum producere effectū vel ex pessimo efficere optimum who can I say produce the most perfect good and most excellent effect yea farre exceeding all other created perfection and excellencie of nothing yea euen of that nothing which is most remote from any goodnesse yea is the very priuation of all goodnesse and excellencie CHAP. LXV In which the obiections of Manes are assoiled MAnes that wicked heretike with the rest of his sect