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
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
CHAP. XXVIII To what end was Adam placed in Paradise CHAP. XXIX Whether the commandement of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill was giuen aswell to Eue as to Adam and how that was CHAP. XXX Why God commanded that Adam should not eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill CHAP. XXXI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created CHAP. XXXIV What sleepe that was which God caused to fall vpon Adam for the creation of Eue and whether it was a true sleepe or no CHAP. XXXV Why Eue was created of Adams ribbe and not immediately of the earth and how that could be without any griefe to Adam CHAP. XXXVI Why and how Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had persisted in Paradise CHAP. XXXIX Whether there should haue beene more men or women in the state of innocencie or rather an equalitie of both sexes and how there could haue beene any women seeing they are said to proceed out of the defect of nature CHAP. XL. Of the prerogatiues and excent gifts wherewith Adam was endued in the state of innocencie and first as touching his knowledge and naturall wisdome of naturall things CHAP. XLI Of the knowledge which Adam had of things aboue nature CHAP. XLII Whether Adam was created in the grace of God or no. CHAP. XLIII Whether if Adam had not fallen all his posteritie should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God and confirmed in the same CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall CHAP. XLV What kinde of Serpent that was which tempted Eue. CHAP. XLVI Whether that which Moses saith that the Serpent was craftier then all beasts of the earth is to be vnderstood of the true Serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. XLVII What was the reason why the woman was not afraid to speake with the Serpent CHAP. XLVIII Why the Deuill tooke the shape of a serpent rather then of any other creature and why Moses made no mention of the Deuill seeing he was the chiefe tempter CHAP. XLIX Whether when God cursed the serpent it is to be vnderstood of the true serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day he was created CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and Sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished Paradise wherein two ancient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne CHAP. LIII In which diuers other opinions touching originall sinne are refuted CHAP LIV. Whether originall sinne consist in any priuation or no CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is discussed and reiected and the true doctrine of originall sinne set downe CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. LVII Wherein diuers difficulties are solued against the former doctrine CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary there should be made any couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the body in the posteritie of Adam by his originall sinne CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in vs if either Adam only or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree CHAP. LXII What punishments bee due to originall sinne in this life CHAP. LXIII What punishment is due to originall sinne in the other life CHAP. LXIV The obiections of Simon Magus against the aforesaid doctrine of the creation of man and his being in Paradise CHAP. LXV In which the obiections of Manes are assoiled CHAP. LXVI The obiections of Theodorus and Nestorius against originall sinne are solued CHAP. I. Whether there was euer any such place as Paradise or rather the description of Moses is to be vnderstood Allegoricallie and so to be referred vnto the minde onely AS there is nothing in nature so plain which may not be contradicted neyther any thing so pure which may not be defiled so nothing so euident in Gods Worde which hath not beene opposed Such is our nature after our fall and such our daily most lamentable lapses after our first lapse and originall Fall Insomuch that ignoring the cause of our infinite misery we become desperately sicke and of our selues and nature without remedy Wherfore my intent beeing chiefly to shew vs our end and eternall felicity I will first shew the place and demonstrate the grace from which we fell that thereby knowing the infelicity of our fall and place from which we fel we may be more thankfull vnto God for that felicity place and grace vnto which we are exalted after our fall and so come to a more perfect blessednes after our fall then that which wee possessed before we fell or should haue possessed in Paradise if wee had not falne Now therefore as touching this place of our first happinesse and from whence our misery was first deriued I will begin with a worthy Prelate who though hee was one of the chiefest Doctors of the Church of God yet being to explicate these very difficulties of Paradise Ambrosius de Paradyso in principio capitis primi was not ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance De Paradiso adoriendus sermo non mediocrem nobis oestum videtur incutere quid nam sit Paradysus et vbi sit qualisue sit inuestigare explanare cupientibus maxime Apostolus siue in corpore siue extra corpus nesciat raptū se tamen dicat vsque ad tertiū coelū 2 Cor. 12. idemque testetur se ibi audiuisse arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui Being to speake saith this Father of Paradise it doth not a litle trouble me to search out and explane what Paradise is where it is what manner of place it is especially seeing the Apostle saith that he was rapt thither into the third heauen where hee heard such things as bee not lawfull for any mortall man to vtter By which words he signifieth two things the first that that place was Paradise vnto which S. Paul was carried the which opinion in what sense it may bee verified it shall afterward be explicated the second thing there to be noted is that it is impossible for man to declare what kinde of place that was vnto which the Apostle was carried vnlesse peraduenture it might haue been by him who had that speciall priuiledge to be carried thither Hence peraduenture it is that Origenes Philo the Hermetians and Seleucians were
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
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
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
in the liberty which he hath vnto whatsoeuer particular good Thirdly in his naturall propension vnto eternitie and immortalitie Plato in Alcib in Phaedone Porph. l. 1. ad Boet. vide Euseb lib. 11. de praepar euangelica the which euen Plato and Porphirius thought to be sufficient arguments of the soules immortalitie Yea the immortalitie of the soule is euidently proued in that as Moyses saith God constituted man supreme Lord ouer all inferiour creatures yea in that he breathed into him a reasonable soule with full liberty ouer all his naturall actions according vnto that of the fourth of Genesis the 7. verse where GOD saith thus vnto Cain that his desire shall be subiect vnto him and hee shall rule ouer it but more particularly this is demonstrated out of the third of Exodus where God saith vnto Moises that he is the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob and this not of the dead but of the liuing as our Sauiour added in the gospell Finally this may be deduced out of Deuteron 4 where it is said that God made the Sunne the Moone the starres and the planets for the seruice of man as for a more perfect creature and consequently participating a more perfect immortalitie then is the incorruption of those eternall globes and starres CHAP. XXVI Whether the soule of Adam was immortall by its owne nature or onely by grace SOphronius Ierome Sophronius in his 11. ep in the 6. Synode Hierom. l. 2. conâ—â— Pae. lag Damas l. 2. de fide orthod c. 3. 12. and Damascene are of opinion that the Angels and humane soules are not immortall of their owne nature but only by Gods grace To this also S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothie and his last chapter may seeme to incline where hee saith that God onely hath immortalitie Plato plainely insinuateth the same of Angells much more then of humane spirits Neuerthelesse it is most certaine that mans soule is immortall euen of its owne nature for which reason our Sauiour commandeth vs Math 10. not to feare them that kill the body Math. 10. ver 28. but are not able to kill the soule Wherefore as the body is mortall and corruptible it followeth by the antithesis that the soule is immortall and incorruptible Againe this is most plaine out of diuers other places of scripture Psalme 29 16. Ecclesiasticus 12 and the 9. Matth. 10. 2. Sam. 23. 32. Phil. 1.23 1. Pet. 3. 19. Apoc. 9.6 7.9 CHAP. XXVII That Adam was not created in Paradise and why not and by what meanes was he placed there after his creation AS touching the first point that he was not created in Paradise it is manifest that though the woman was created in paradise yet the man was not for so it is said of him Gen 2. the 15. verse Then the Lord tooke the man and put him in the garden of Eden that he might dresse it and keepe it therefore he was not there before at his first creation though Eue was for so it was conuenient that shee should be produced of Adam in his most perfect state and being according to both body soule and habitation which is the opinion of Basil Aquinas Basil homil de paradyso Aquinas 1. parte q. 102 ar 4 plures in 2. sententiarum distinct 18. and the most of the ancient Diuines against Tertullian Iosephus and Rupertus As touching the second point that God tooke man and put him into the garden of Eden This may be vnderstood three wayes first by inward inspiration by which God might shew him that it was his pleasure that hee should haue that for his habitation in which sense many vnderstand that of Math. 4. that our Sauiour was caried of the spirit into the wildernes to wit by the inward inspiration of the Holy Ghost though he went also voluntarily of himselfe Secondly we may vnderstand it that he was caried by the spirit of God or rather conveighed by the immediate power of the Almighty as we read of Henoch Habacuck and Philip. Or lastly that he was transported by some Angell in the shape and forme of man who shewing him the way did lead him into paradise as wee read of the Angell Raphael how he lead Tobias and to this last I incline the rather because it is the opinion of S. Austine But now it may be demanded why God would not create man in paradise the reason may be to the end that hee might more manifestly vnderstand his goodnes and liberality towards him and that that place was rather giuen vnto him of meere grace then any wise due by nature But why then may some say were the Angels created in heauen yea all other liuing creatures created each in their owne place I answer that neither the puritie of the empyreall heauen did exceed the Angelicall puritie neither the grosnesse of this inferiour globe of the earth did exceed the nature of corporall creatures there liuing and therefore these two places were most apt for the creation and habitation of Angels and these inferiour creatures But such was the perfection of paradise that it was in no wise to bee deemed a conuenient place for humane habitation mans nature I meane only considered not the grace and bounty of God thereby manifested CHAP. XXVIII To what end was Adam placed in Paradise MOyses answereth Gen 2. ver 15. that the Lord tooke the man and put him into the garden of Eden that he might dresse it and keepe it or as the vulgar hath that he might worke in it to giue vs to vnderstand how much God abhorreth idlenesse seeing that euen in that place where there was no neede of labour God would not haue man idle not an ill item for our lazie gallants who thinke their gentilitie to consist in idlenes and a point of honour to liue of other mens labour but euen in this I am of opinion that God doth punish them that they haue more griefes and more discontent in their idle pleasures then others in their most wearisome toiles and labours which though it be a most voluntary bondage yet is it likewise the most base and cruell slauerie to the base appetites a tyranny of Satan a double bondage to a double tyrant to Satan to sinne for as S. Paul saith who committeth sinne is the slaue to sinne so who subiecteth himselfe to the suggestions of Satan is a slaue to Satan an intolerable slauery and an infinite misery the beginning miserable the proceedings damnable the end as which hath no end intolerable Now therefore lest Adam or his posteritie should by alluring idlenes come to this endles paine God of his mercy placed Adam in paradise vt operaretur custodiret illum that he might worke and keepe it to wit that hee working might keepe paradise and paradise by the same worke might keepe him from idlenes from sinne because that is the ordinarie cause of sinne for as it is
threatneth the sinne is committed why then is not the sentence presently executed In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die the death Iustinus the Martyr Iustinus in dialogo cum Triphone Iren. lib. 5. aduersus haereticos in this more acute then Catholike answereth that euen the very same day that Adam was depriued of the spirituall life of his soule he was no lesse also of the other of his body for though he died not the same day according to the naturall reuolution of the heauen yet seeing that a thousand yeeres as Dauid and Peter speake are but as one day in regard of Gods eternitie Adams death being within the compasse of the thousand yeeres may well be said according to Gods and the Scriptures phrase to haue died euen the same day that he was created But seeing true histories doe seldome admit any such subtilities I rather incline to the interpretation of Ierome and S. Austine who vnderstand that sentence of death not of death then instantly inflicted but of the necessitie of death then forthwith contracted Ierome therefore commendeth Symmacus who for that which our translation hath morieris thou shalt die translateth mortalis eris thou shalt become mortall so that whereas hee had beene created to an eternitie of life now he is made subiect to the penaltie of death or as our interpretation seemeth to insinuate euen to death it selfe seeing that euen from thenceforth hee began to be mortall who by grace before was altogether immortall So that as according to true Philosophie wee may say that the alteration of qualities or the dispositions vnto generation are in some sort generation so likewise by this phrase of Scripture that Adam should die in the day of his sinne we may well vnderstand that he began to die dispositiuè by way of disposition in the day of his sinne seeing sinne was the immediate disposition or cause of his mortalitie and death sinne I say being the cause of his mortalitie his mortalitie consequently prepared forthwith the way vnto death For so it is said in the second booke of the Kings We all die and slide away as water for though at the present while we liue we be not iointly dead yet because wee slide away towards death as the flouds towards the Ocean wee are all said to die instantly because our life euen from the first instant thereof is nothing else but a swift sliding towards death yea our temporall life as Gregory the great well noteth compared to the eternall is rather to be called a present death then a continued life seeing that our continuall corruption and declining towards death may rather be tearmed a long or continuall death then euen a very momentarie life CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created AS it is most certaine that the principal end of the creation of Adam was to serue loue honour and obey his Lord and maker so the same likewise was the womans principal end Againe as Adams secondary end was to bee the father of mankinde so was it also Eues to be the mother of all and to bee a comfort and helpe vnto her husband Gen. 2. vers 18. It is not good that man should be alone I will make him an helper meet for him good neither in regard of God of man nor of the world of God for his seruice of man for his helpe of the world for procreation for though this was not absolutely necessary neither in regard of God man or the world yet supposing the decree of God that hee would be preserued by the beautifull disposition and order of this world it was not only most conuenient but in some sort necessary that he should make man a helper and a helper meet for him for though hee could otherwise haue disposed of things by immediate creation yet was it more agreeable to the nature of things and for the sweeter disposition of the course of nature that mankinde should rather be multiplied by naturall course of generation then by supernaturall power and immediate creation Hence peraduenture it may be inferred that seeing God saith it is not good that the man should be himselfe alone that consequently it must be euill if hee bee alone and therefore as by this sentence lawfull matrimonie is confirmed so virginitie by the contrary consequence is condemned for whatsoeuer is opposite to that which is good must necessarily bee condemned as bad as which is nothing else but the priuation of good To this I answer as our Sauiour did to the Sadduces in their obiection touching mariage Matth. the 22.29 verse Yee are deceiued not knowing the Scriptures for as Christ is not against Moses neither the new Testament contrary to the old neither the greater perfection to the lesse so neither is virginitie contrary to matrimonie both are laudable both in their degree excellent but virginitie more laudable more excellent most admirable as by which wee rather imitate the angelicall state and perfection then follow our owne depraued nature and corruption This is the definition of Paul not any humane inuention for thus doth Paul determine this controuersie the 1. to the Corinthians ch 7. vers 25. Now concerning virgins I haue no command of the Lord but I giue mine aduice as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull Loe here virginitie is not commanded but commended not exacted by force but commended through grace neither counselled to all because it cannot be performed of all counselled therefore onely to some and those but few seeing few can attaine to this perfection 1. Cor. c 7. vers 27. My counsell therefore is that of Saint Paul Art thou bound vnto a wife seeke not to be loosed lest loosing the knot which God hath knit thou loose thy selfe Art thou loosed from a wife seeke not a wife here Paul counselleth hee commandeth not neither is his counsell extended to all seeing all cannot be capable of this counsell not onely by nature because this is not any gift of nature but also euen by a lesser measure of grace for though the Sunne of iustice doth shine ouer the iust and vniust and send downe the dew of his grace vnto all yet not with equalitie vnto all but according vnto his good pleasure and will Wherefore as S. Paul prosecuteth If thou takest a wife thou sinnest not and if a Virgin marie she sinneth not verse 37. He that standeth firme in his heart that he hath not neede but hath power ouer his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virgin he doth well so then hee that giueth her to mariage doth well but he that giueth her not to mariage doth better the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liueth but if her husband be dead she is at libertie to marie with whom she will only in the Lord but she is more blessed if she abide in my iudgement and I thinke
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
proceeding from Adams and giue humble and hearty thankes for the infinite mercies receiued by Christ CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise THe Originists doe vnderstand this allegorically so that by this kinde of custodie is meant nothing else but the particular prouidence of God by which our first parents were depriued of all hope of returning to Paradise Others thinke that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is mystically vnderstood a twofold impediment or means by which we be now debarred from the celestiall Paradise the first inuisible of the inuisible spirits and deuils according to that of Paul to the Ephesians the last chapter verse 12. For we wrestle not against flesh and bloud but against principalities against powers and against the gouernours of this world the Princes of darknesse against spirituall wickednesses which are in high places The second impediment as these Authors say mystically signified by the fiery sword is the perpetuall fight of flesh and bloud in our spirituall battell as well in prosperitie as aduersitie according to our Sauiours words Matth. 11. chap. 12. verse The kingdome of heauen suffereth violence and the violent take it by force and that of Iob Militia est vita hominis super terram Or rather as other doe interpret we may vnderstand by these lets of accesse to Paradise three principall hinderances of accesse to the celestiall Paradise by the Cherubin which is interpreted the fulnesse of science wisdome and knowledge may be vnderstood too much curiositie of science and spirituall pride oftentimes contained therein much repugnant to the simplicitie and puritie of Christian faith By the fiery sword may bee vnderstood as some Authors doe allegorize all enflaming lusts and vices proceeding from the sensitiue appetite the which as it is twofold concupiscible and irascible so is it signified by the fire and sword or fiery sword the which being voluble or as it were wheeling about and alwayes in a perpetuall motion doth plainly expresse the perpetuall inconstancie volubilitie and motion of humane matters Aquinas and Tertullian thinke Aquinas 2. 2 ae quaest 165. ar vlt. that by the Cherubin and fierie sword is vnderstood the place and situation of Paradise vnder the aequinoctiall line or Torrida Zona the firest Climate of the world But certainely the heat of this place is naturall vnto it and proceeding from the neerenesse of the Sunne as the Mathematicians doe demonstrate and therefore could not bee occasioned by the sinne of man much lesse proceede thereof as a naturall effect of sin which in it selfe hath no reall being but is rather the priuation of goodnesse according to its formall essence and being Lyra. in Genesim Lyranus thinketh that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is vnderstood a mighty and flaming fire issuing out of the mountaine of Paradise defending and compassing it round about in the manner of a wall Ambros of in Psalm 118. Ambrose vpon the Psalme 118. thinketh the fore-sayd flaming sword to be the fire of Purgatory by which the soules that depart our of the world not altogether purified are cleansed before their entrance into Heauen But to omit the controuersie of Purgatory this cannot bee seeing that the sword and Cherubin were placed at the entrance of Paradise as is manifest in the Text lest Adam should enter into Paradise and participate of the tree of life for so saith the Text Gen. 3 ver 24. Thus he cast out man and at the East side of the garden of Eden he set the Cherubins and the blade of a sword shaken to keepe the way of the tree of life That therefore which seemeth most probable in this poynt is that the words of the aforesayd text are to be vnderstood literally of a true Angelicall custody of Paradise and fiery swords the first against the infernall spirits the second for to terrifie man The Diuels were repelled and kept from this place of Paradise lest they should deceiue man by the tree of life promising him thereby a perpetuity of life such as he should haue enioyed if he had not falne man also was banished out of the same place not onely by the iust iudgment of Almighty God executed vpon him for his disobedience but also by a fatherly diuine prouidence and tender loue towards mankinde lest eating of the forbidden fruit which was of immortality a sufficient cause I meane to make him immortall he should liue an immortall life in this vale of misery and so become miserably immortall and immortally miserable CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished out of Paradise wherein two auncient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne TVrrianus in his Epistle to the Bishop of Towres alledgeth as an ancient opinion of diuers Doctors that originall sinne was that which the soule had coÌ„mitted before it was infused into the body which opinion seemeth first to haue beene taken from Origenes who held that the soules of men being first created altogether in heauen were cast downe thence into this vale of misery and ioyned vnto these materiall and grosse substances of our bodies in punishment of their sinne committed in heauen before their vnion to their bodies But this is euidently convinced as false out of many places of Scripture for if originall sinne was contracted in heauen how was it contracted by Adam in Paradise and if we did all contract it by one how did wee all contract it in our selues by our selues according to that of Paul Rom. 5. chap. vers 12. By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne so death went ouer all men forasmuch as all men haue sinned vers 16. Neither is the gift so as that which entred in by one that sinned for the fault came of one offence vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification vers 18 19. As by the offence of one the fault came on all men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men to the iustification of life Where wee may manifestly see contraposed death and life iustice and iniustice condemnation and iustification these as proceeding from the obedience of Christ those as flowing from the disobedience of Adam The second opinion in this point is that our originall sinne doth not consist in any qualitie or accident inherent in the substance of our bodies or soules or in any priuation of any excellencie or good qualitie which wee ought to haue retained in our soules but euen in the substance of our corporall and spirituall nature the reason is for whatsoeuer is not conformable to the law of God is sinne but all our nature is corrupt and auerse from the law of God therefore the whole nature of man both body and soule being thus corrupt and become abominable in the sight of God is sinne But thus it would follow as S. Austin well vrgeth against the Manichâ—es who held some things to be
infectious quality was naturally produced in our appetite and thence transfused into our wils or supernaturally the first is impossible because sinne had no such naturall force or power in Adam otherwise it should haue had the same effect likewise in all the posterity of Adam which euen our aduersaries doe deny seeing there is no reason why it should bee so auerred of one more then of all Or peraduenture this quality was not produced by naturall means but by supernaturall not by any naturall power of man but by the supernaturall of Almighty God and as some hath aduentured to pronounce ex sola Dëi voluntate meerly by the will of him to whom nothing is impossible cui non est impossibile omne verbum to whose will all doe obey But certainely if wee waigh this answer either in the naturall principles of true philosophy or supernaturall of grace we shall finde the aforesayd position and solution to bee most dissonant to both seeing that both doe euidently demonstrate vnto vs the repugnance and contradiction of this that hee who is the fountaine of all goodnesse or rather goodnesse it selfe should bee the particular and naturall efficient or morall cause of that which is summum malum the greatest euill nothing more distant then summum bonum and summum malum nothing so vnlike in their being so nothing so improportionate in their causalities and effects Wherfore as it is impossible for goodnesse it selfe not to be good so is it no lesse contradiction to the particular cause of euill and consequently seeing that sinne is summum malum the greatest euill possible and seeing likewise of all sinnes this in some sort is the greatest as which is the originall and fountaine of all other actual sinnes as it doth imply contradiction that God should be the particular cause of other actuall sinnes so it doth à fortiori imply the same that he should be in any wise of this originall yea euen natural reason was a sufficient light of this vnto the very Heathen Philosophers So Plato in his second booke De Republica saith Omnibus modis pugnandum est ne Deus qui bonus est dicatur esse malorum causa alioqui secum Deus pugnaret qui suis legibus contrarium fieri mandauit Wee must by all meanes endeauour saith this diuine Philosopher lest God who is altogether good be said to be the cause of euill otherwise God should bee contrary and repugnant vnto himselfe seeing that hee hath commanded the contrary in his lawes whose eyes as Abacuc saith are so dimme Abacuc 1. that they cannot see euill neither can they behold any iniquity Not that really hee doth not perfectly view and comprehend with his all-knowing science the secretest and most hidden and abhominable action or most inward cogitation and that from all eternity euen before it bee conceiued or thought of by the sinner himselfe but he is said not to see it or not to know it scientia approbationis that is he doth not approoue it but reprooue it not allow it but condemne it and in this sense that is to be vnderstood which the Gospell saith shall be pronounced vnto the vnrepenting sinners nescio vos I know you not not that our Sauiour either according to his humanity much lesse in his diuinity was or is ignorant of any good or bad action according to which hee is to reward in his iudgement but that he did not see or know them so as that hee did deeme them as worthy of the diuine knowledge and approbation or of any reward but onely of eternall fire prepared for the Diuell and his Angels Albertus Pighius Catharinus de originali peccato Albertus Pighius and Catharinus flying the inconueniences of the aforesayd opinions fell into another extreame to wit that there was no other originall sinne in Adams posterity then the sinne of Adam by which he first of all then all his discendence were reputed sinners hee inwardly they outwardly and as the Schooles terme it by an outward denomination to wit by Adams sinne inward to Adam imputed onely to them as though it had been really their own and actually committed by them whereas in very deede they had none proper or inherent but Adams onely by imputation not by reall appropriation Which opinion may fitly bee declared by the example of a man who being adopted by a King as his sonne and heire apparant to the Crowne should haue granted vnto him and to his posterity all the priuiledges annexed vnto his adoption and principality but yet with this condition that if this Prince so adopted should commit any treason against his father both he and his posterity should not onely lose the aforesayd titles and priuiledges but also should be accounted traytours vnto the Crowne In which cause although the posterity of this man had not committed any fault in themselues yet were they to be reputed morally as traytours and to haue committed high treason in their head and pregenitor After the same manner as the Doctors of this opinion auerre was the compact made betweene God and our first father Adam so that if hee had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator eating of the forbidden fruit he and his should haue beene translated out of the terrene Paradise vnto the kingdome of heauen But this compact being broken by our first father both he and wee lost our right vnto the blessednesse for which wee were created he in himselfe and we in him Not that as he had inherent in him the spot and blemish of originall sin wee also should haue it but only by an externe denomination as the Diuines terme it because we had really the effects thereof our first father in whom we were all contained had really both the cause effect the sin I meane of disobedience and the priuatiō of originall iustice together with all other effects therupon ensuing This opinion is gathered out of Paul Rom. 5. In whom to wit in Adam all haue sinned as who would say wee had not sinned originally but onely in Adam wee haue not therefore originally sinned in our selues consequently if wee haue not sinned in our selues but only in Adam our sin only is in Adam as it is only by Adam not in our selues as it was not committed by our selues in so much that it may only bee tearmed ours by imputation from our fore-fathers not by reall inhesion in our selues seeing we neuer gaue any consent by our owne willes vnto the foresaid disobedience but as wee were included in Adam as in our head wee are therefore said to be spotted with originall sinne in as much only as hee who was our head and in whose loines we were contained did really commit the said sinne and consequently as the foresaid Doctors inferre originall sinne in vs neither consisteth in any actuall or habituall transgression neither in concupiscence or in the priuation of originall iustice not in the first Vide Augustinum li. 1. retract
Atha oratione contra idola that it is an ethnicall and hereticall opinion to say that sinne or euill hath any entitie or essence seeing it is rather the priuation of entitie or essence And this is the reason why Nazianzene compareth sinne vnto darknesse Naz. oratione 9. n. 39. not only because darknesse and obscuritie in matters of saluation and the mysteries of our faith is the effect of sin but also or rather because as darknesse is opposite vnto light and is nothing else but the priuation of light so sinne is nothing else but the priuation of goodnesse wherefore in his 40. oration in sanctum baptisma he concludeth that which Nisenus Damascenus and Nizetas tooke from him nullam esse mali essentiam that euill or sinne hath no essence to wit no reall or positiue essence or being Augustin l. 11. de civ Dei or as St. Austin describeth it natura nulla sed boni amissio no positiue nature but the losse of goodnesse which position Fulgentius in his booke of faith the 21. chap. deemeth so certaine that it ought saith he to be holden as a matter of faith because all things that haue reall being or nature are good his words be these Quia omnis natura in quantum natura est bona est sed quia in ea bonum augeri minui potest in tantum mala dicitur in quantum bonum eius minuitur malum enim nihil aliud est nisi boni priuatio vnde geminum constat esse rationalis creaturae malum vnum quo voluntariè ipsa defecit à summo bono creatore suo alterum quo in vita punietur Euill saith this Father is nothing else but the priuation of good and hence it is manifest that the creatures endued with reason are subiect to two kinds of euils one by which they voluntarily fall from their cheefest good the other by which they are punished in this life Likewise St. Austin in his first Treatise vpon St. Iohn giueth this reason why God being the Creator of all things may not bee sayd to bee the author of sinne to wit because sinne in his owne being hath no entitie or being but rather is a priuation of entitie and being Peccatum quidem non per ipsum factum est vt manifestum est quia peccatum nihil est nihil fiunt homines cùm peccant Sinne saith he was not made by God because sin of it selfe is no thing but nothing and men become nothing becomming sinners Now then if the essence of sinne in common or of all sinne whatsoeuer be nothing but that nothing which is the priuation of good Turrianus in epistola ad Iacobâ—m Amiâ—tum episcopum Antisiodorensem Corduba lib. 1. q. 10. opinione 6. quâ—s etiam sequuntur plures recentiores hence it must needs follow that the essence of originall sin must also consist in some particular priuation of some particular good the which wee are now particularly to search out In which poynt Turrian and Corduba are of opinion that this priuation is subiectionis coniunctionis cum Deo in qua nati fuissemus si primus parens non peccasset of the subiection and coniunction with God in which we should haue been borne if our first father Adam had not falne This they prooue by impugning of the other opinions for that as hath beene already prooued it cannot consist in any positiue and reall thing because God otherwise might in some sort haue beene sayd to concurre vnto it and consequently after that maner to be the cause of it which were blasphemous neither can it consist in any other priuation of any other supernaturall gift because all such priuations or depriuations are rather effects consequent as punishment due vnto the sinne it selfe therefore as the heat cannot be sayd to bee the cause of the fire from whence it doth proceede nor the light cause of the Sunne so neither the priuation of originall iustice or of any other vertue or supernaturall gift can be said to be the essence of originall sin for certainely if wee vnderstand aright wee shall finde that all such priuations are rather consequent vnto sinne and so the effects then the sinne it selfe yea rather the punishments inflicted by Almighty God vpon man for his transgression then the transgression it selfe And heereby also wee may easily demonstrate the absurdities of that common opinion of the Papists that the essence of originall sinne in vs consisteth formally in the depriuation of originall iustice which had beene due vnto vs all if wee had not transgressed in our first father which is the common opinion of the schooles and Papists of Aquinas Caietan Conradus Scotus Taperus Sotus Marsilius Ocamus Buderius Alexander Bonaventure Richardus de Medianilla Maior Vasquez Zuares Sumel and almost all other Papists of this age Anselm lib. de conceptu virginali cap. 26. Yea Anselmus saith that hee cannot conceiue that originall sin is any other then that which was committed by the inobedience of Adam to wit the depriuation of the iustice in infants which was otherwise due vnto them ArasicanuÌ„ concilium 2. Can. 2. Finally the Arausican Councell 2. Can. 2. defineth it to be the death of the soule wherefore if death as is plaine out of Philosophy be nothing else but the priuation of the life of the soule seeing nothing else can be vnderstood to be the life of the soule but onely the inward grace of God by which onely the soule did liue that supernaturall life which is possessed in Paradise consequently the priuation of this originall grace or iustice wherewith the soule was adorned and liued in Paradise must needs be the priuation of the same gift As if our naturall life here in this vale of misery doth consist in the presence of our soule or vnion thereof with the body consequently our death must necessarily consist in the absence of the same soule which gaue it life or in the disvnion or separation of these two comparts the soule and the body after the same manner if the supernaturall life of our soule consist in the presence of God dwelling in our soules by his grace then certainely our spirituall death whether it be considered here after our expulsion out of Paradise or in the fall from that first happinesse must necessarily consist in the departing of God from our soules or which is all one in the absence or depriuation of his grace Neither can this want of originall iustice be rightly deemed a punishment of our originall sinne as hath beene before obiected because no defect or want worthy of an other punishment can be inflicted as a punishment wherefore seeing that this maketh our soules worthy to be depriued of eternall blisse which is the greatest punishment imaginable that could be inflicted for originall sinne Aquin. 2. 2. q. 21. it can in no wise be the punishment due vnto the fault but rather it must be the sinne it selfe
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
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
mans fall and his perseuerance in grace for so small a space or hee fore-knew it not if not how was hee God if hee fore-knew it how is hee so presently changed and consequently also no God Againe if we were depriued of the gift of immortalitie bestowed vpon Adam and in him vpon all his posteritie how may it stand with the iustice of God and much more with his infinite mercy that wee should be punished for Adams iniustice the innocent for the guiltie the iust for the vniust Yea how standeth this euen with the word of God and his complaint by Ezechiel chapter 18. verse 2. where God complaineth of this as it seemeth blasphemie of his people What meane you that you vse this prouerbe concerning the land of Israel saying The fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge which is as much as to say our fore-fathers haue sinned and wee are punished for their sinnes How may this stand with the iustice of God seeing God himselfe taxeth this as vniust and as vniustly obiected against him in the third verse of the same chapter where contesting against mans vnrighteousnesse hee protesteth and proueth his owne righteousnesse and iust dealing insinuating thereby yea detesting the contrary as iniustice verse 3. As I liue saith the Lord yee shall not haue occasion any more to vse this prouerbe in Israel to wit that the fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that is that their fathers haue sinned and they were punished against which hee contesteth and that by an oath euen by himselfe in the latter end of the fourth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die that is all that sinne shall die and none shall die but those which sinne hee giueth the reason in the beginning of the verse and that with an ecce behold because he would haue all to acknowledge his iustice with man and how hee vseth equalitie with all men the father as the sonne and the sonne as the father euery one according to his deeds in Christ because all are equally his who saith Behold all soules are mine as the soule of the father so also the soule of the sonne is mine the soule that sinneth it shall die as who would say and none else shall die but who sinneth which may bee proued by the opposite iustice and is exemplified euen by the Prophet as that none shall bee rewarded for anothers righteousnesse so none shall bee punished for anothers vnrighteousnesse for so the Prophet prosecuteth in the fift verse But if a man bee iust and doe that which is lawfull and right and hath not eaten vpon the mountaines neither lift vp his eyes vnto idols of the house of Israel neither hath defiled his neighbours wife neither hath come neere a menstruous woman and hath not oppressed any but hath restored to the debter his pledge hath spoiled none by violence hath giuen his bread to the hungrie and hath couered the naked with a garment he that hath not giuen forth vpon vsurie neither hath taken any increase that hath withdrawne his hand from iniquitie hath executed true iudgement betweene man and man hath walked in my statutes and kept my iudgements to deale truly he is iust he shall surely liue saith the Lord God How then can it bee true that Adams posteritie should bee punished for his sinne or depriued of immortalitie which God had decreed vnto them for Adams transgression Or otherwise how can that bee true which the same Prophet prosecuteth in the twentieth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the wickednesse of the wicked shall bee vpon him Where hee prosecuteth throughout all the chapter prouing and approuing the iustice of God together with the reproofe of mans vnrighteousnesse and iniustice especially from the 29. verse to the end where hee propoundeth and answereth the obiections of his people Yet saith the house of Israel the way of the Lord is not equall O house of Israel are not my wayes equall are not your wayes vnequall Therefore I will iudge you O house of Israel euery one according to his wayes saith the Lord God repent and turne your selues from all your transgression so iniquitie shall not bee your ruine cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you haue transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit for why will you die O house of Israel for I haue no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God wherefore turne your selues and liue Now then if God haue no pleasure in the death of a sinner how hath hee pleasure in his mortalitie hauing created him immortall or how hath hee not pleasure in his death whom for so small a matter as the eating of an apple or some other such like fruit hee depriueth of immortalitie yea contradicteth his owne decree for the fulfilling of the aforesaid reuenge of sinne Againe though wee grant that Adam died for his sinne and iniustice why should wee not likewise say that Noe Melchisedech Abraham and others of the Patriarkes and Prophets were restored vnto immortalitie for their iustice and righteousnesse Wee know that God is alwayes more prone to shew his mercy then to execute his iustice how then may it bee said that here he so withdraweth his mercy and extendeth his iustice Hee often pardoneth the wicked for the godly mens sake and neuer punisheth the iust for the wickeds sinne from whence then is this his crueltie and vniust dealing against those which neuer committed any iniustice Moreouer the sonne of God was incarnate for Adams sinne we ought to bee thankfull euen to the deuill to our selues and to sinne it selfe as occasion of so great good as was the restoring of mankinde to a more blessed estate Lastly if Adams sinne was cause of his death why did not the deuils also die seeing they sinned much more grieuously If you say they died spiritually in that they were depriued of the grace of God why might not the like death suffice also for Adams sinne the death I meane of the soule his body remaining as it was created not subiect to death How did God iustly execute his iustice inflicting a greater punishment vpon Adam for a smaller offence then vpon the deuils for a greater depriuing them only of their spirituall life but Adam both of spirituall and corporall These are the arguments of these heretickes against the iust punishment which God did inflict vpon our first father for his first offence of disobedience by which they would conclude that whether Adam had sinned or remained in his former righteousnesse whether hee had eaten of the forbidden fruit or abstained from it hee had neuerthelesse beene subiect to death because hee was created of his owne nature mortall which nature neither the eating of the
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
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