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
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
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
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 reward yet neuerthelesse the all-seeing and infinite good God doth neuer leaue the least loue of man without his reward It is necessary saith Paul that hee who doth come vnto God should beleeue and especially beleeue that he is a rewarder Wherefore as the first act of a regenerate person is faith so the first obiect of this act is touching our end for as the Philosopher saith quod est primum in intentione est vltimum in executione that which is first in intention or speculation is last in practise or execution and contrariwise that which is first in practise and execution is last in intention and speculation Wherefore as our supernaturall end and felicitie is the last thing which wee are to enioy so is it the first and principall which we ought to seeke and intend and if this bee true in all our actions it must needs bee much more in this of faith which is as Paul said the substance ground or confidence of things hoped for and of all our supernaturall actions By this it is manifest that the measure of the knowledge of the meanes of this supernaturall felicitie was according to the perfection of the apprehension and notice of this end insomuch that as this end may be attained vnto by a threefold meane so was man ordained thereunto by the same meanes to wit faith hope and loue faith for the discouerie of the obiect of our felicitie hope for the effectuating of the meanes of our happinesse loue for the combining of both the meanes a triple cord with a triple knot which not euen the power of Satan shall be able euer to dissolue Againe it seemeth most certaine that he knew the fall of the damned spirits because he might by the knowledge of this be much holpen in the obtaining of his end as thereby inferring the seueritie of the diuine iudgement towards the Angels and his infinite mercy towards men by the one he might be moued to feare the like seueritie if himselfe should fall and hope to replenish the places of the fallen Angels if he should stand The third obiect reuealed vnto Adam was the mysterie of the blessed Trinitie how God I meane was three in one and one in three three in distinction of persons one in the indiuisibilitie of nature being and essence and all his other infinite attributes the which though distinguished for our capacitie according to their obiects yet he well vnderstood them to bee one and the same in nature realitie and simplicitie of essence My reason why I thinke the reuelation of this obiect vnto Adam to be certaine is seeing that the sight of it is to be the perfection of our blessednesse in the life to come it must needs be also a beginning of it here wherefore as it is there by a perfect sight face to face so it must be likewise here in speculo in aenigmate with imperfection and obscuritie Yea seeing Adam knew himselfe to be made to the image of God three in one and one in three in his simple essence and his three spirituall powers so he must needs inferre the same of his prototypon and Creator Lastly hee had reuealed vnto him the incarnation of the Sonne of God not as passible for his sinne which certainly hee did not foresee but as to bee vnited to our nature for the excellencie of the mysterie and because he was to bee the head of mankinde CHAP. XLII Whether Adam was created in the grace of God or no. THough it be out of all controuersie that Adam was before his fall in the state of grace yet many bee of opinion that hee was not created so this was the opinion of Alex. Hales Scotus Bonan Marsilius and Altisiodorensis who though they grant that he was created in originall iustice yet distinguishing these two they deny that hee was created in state of grace their reason is because by grace there is contracted a spirituall kinde of wedlocke league and vnion betweene God and our soules Now then as matrimoniall vnion requireth the consent of both the parts so likewise here and the rather that Adam thereby might the better know himselfe and the weaknesse of his owne nature by an after infusion of grace Neuerthelesse it seemeth much more probable that though wee distinguish grace from originall iustice or howsoeuer that Adam was created in grace for as S. Austine saith God created the first man in that estate in which if hee would haue kept himselfe hee should haue beene transposed at his due time without any death vnto a better estate and where as he could haue committed no sinne so could hee haue had no will vnto sinne so that it was with Adam as the same Father saith in another place of the Angels God did simul condere naturam largiri gratiam ioyntly create his nature and giue him grace yea this according to the opinion of Origen Victorinus Basil Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Beda and Rupertus is signified by these words let vs make man according to our image and likenesse image to wit in nature and her proprieties similitude according to grace and her euer following vertues yea this is insinuated by Paul himselfe in his epistle to the Colossians 3. chap. 9. and 10. verses where he saith that wee should not lie one to another seeing that wee haue put off the old man with his works haue put on the new man which is renewed with knowledge after the image that created him CHAP. XLIII Whether if Adam had not falne all his posteritie should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God and confirmed in the same HVgo de sancto Victore answereth that though Adam had begot children in his innocencie yet that his children should not haue beene borne inheritors of their fathers righteousnesse because righteousnes proceedeth not of flesh and bloud but of the meere grace of God so though they had not beene borne in sinne yet neither should they haue beene endued with originall iustice Neuerthelesse the common tenent of Diuines doth perswade the contrary to wit that as Adam by his sinne did transfuse into his posteritie the imputation of sinne together with the crime it selfe so likewise if hee had kept the same originall iustice in which hee was created he should also haue deriued the same vnto all his posteritie And this in effect is the meaning of the Arauficane Counsell where it defineth Adamum peccando sanctitatem iustitiam perdidisse non sibi tantum sed omnibus etiam posteris suis that Adam lost both his sanctitie and righteousnes by his originall sin and transgression not only in regard of him selfe but also to all his posteritie Neither may it bee inferred hence that then grace were no grace as Paul speaketh seeing that it should be cōnaturall in the aforesaid cause for though in some sense it should haue been connaturall that is hauing her being together with nature yet seeing it was not of nature neither due vnto
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
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
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
that I haue also the spirit of God Neither is this the minde onely of S. Paul but euen of his master our Lord and Sauiour Matth. 10. Some there bee which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauen not that this is contrary to the first institution of matrimonie but only a greater perfection supposing a sufficient or superabundant multiplication of mankinde so that as Cyprian saith the first decree of God was concerning generation the second perswaded continencie when the world was as yet void and rude wee multiplied by generation now that the world is filled and fully replenished those that can containe spadonum more viuentes castrantur ad regnum by puritie of life doe dedicate themselues to the kingdome of heauen Now as touching the time and place of Eues creation and first as concerning the time it is euident out of the sacred text that Adam was first created Paul in the first of Timothie chap. 2. saith that Adam was first created and then Eue. Furthermore it is euidently deduced out of Moses when he saith Gen. 2. that after Adam was created all the liuing creatures were brought before him among all which no helpe meet for him being found the Lord God caused an heauie sleepe to fall vpon the man and he slept and he tooke one of his ribs and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man made he a woman Hence it is euident that there was some time betweene the creation of the man and the womans production but it is not so easie to determine how much that was though certaine it bee that this time did not exceed the compasse of the first six dayes for in the seuenth day God ended his worke which hee made and the seuenth day he rested from all his worke which he had made Wherefore the creation of Eue could not bee the seuenth as Catharinus and others presume to auerre As concerning the place where Eue was created though Iosephus and Tertullian doe thinke that shee was created out of Paradise neuerthelesse the contrary seemeth more agreeable to the written word for there it is euident that after Adam was brought into Paradise all liuing creatures were set before him where God seeing the necessitie of the womans creation to wit that Adam might haue an helpe meete for him he framed her out of the side of Adam for so saith the text and the Lord God said it is not good for man to be alone I will make him an helpe meete for him And the Lord God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam and he sleept and he tooke one of his ribbs Gen. 2.18.21 22. and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof And the rib which the Lord God had taken from him made he a woman Wherefore it is not in any wise probable as some haue coniectured that after Adam had beene in Paradise hee was caried out againe and Eue then 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. THis difficultie doth principally arise out of the diuers translations of the fore-alleadged text Gen 2.21 where it is said that the Lord caused an heauy sleepe to fall vpon man and he slept where in place of the Hebrue word Tardemah Aquila translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Simachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a profound sleepe But most of the Fathers following the translation of the seauenty two Interpreters translate an extasis or an excesse of minde My opinion is that seeing the translation permitteth both that it is to giue vs to vnderstand how it was both a sleepe and an extasis or an extaticall sleepe or a sleepie extasis a sleepe because the text in rigor doth signifie a sleepe an extasis or rapt because hee had then his minde supernaturally illuminated and filled with a propheticall spirit insomuch that presently awaking he said forth with this now is bone of my bones Gen. 2.23 and flesh of my flesh shee shall be called woman because shee was taken out of man CHAP. XXXV Why Eue was created out of the ribbe of Adam sleeping and how that could be without any griefe vnto Adam and finally why the woman was not created immediatly of the earth as well as man THe master of the sentences and diuers other schoole Diuines say that Eue was framed out of the side of Adam sleeping for to signifie the mysticall production of the Church out of the sacred side of the second Adam dying but with this difference of productions that the first sleepe was ioyfull to the first Adam because hee had not transgressed as yet the second most ignominions and painefull vnto the second because he had taken vpon him the sinnes of the first The first was depriued of paine by particular dispensation of the author of nature the second was full of ignominie and paine by a supernaturall and gracious dispensation of God as author both of nature and grace to the end that nature being now depraued by sinne might be raised againe and restored to her former estate by an omnipotent grace But now could this be the Adam should haue a ribbe taken from him without any griefe For the vnderstanding of this wee must necessarily praesuppose that no griefe was agreeable to Adams estate before his fall Now then I answer that as God could and de facto did suspend or withdraw his concourse and action from the Babilonian fire for the preseruation of the three children Sidrach Misach and Abednego so likewise here for to shew the like power did God withdraw his concurse from all naturall passion which naturally should haue followed the extracting of the ribbe Now to the last why the woman was not created immediatly of the earth as well as the man but of the mans side and ribbe I answer it was to the end that Adam acknowledging her to bee a part of his substance and shee also knowing that shee proceeded thence it might be an occasion of a more perfect loue for that otherwise he considering how shee was the cause of his misery it might be an occasion of a perpetuall and implacable hatred betweene them or principally this was to signifie the mysticall vnion betweene the second Adam Christ and his Church according to that of Paul Ephes 3.32 this is a great mysterie but I speake concerning Christ and concerning the Church because the diuine vnion betweene Christ and his spouse was signified by the vnion of Adam and Eue so that as Eue was framed out of the first Adams ribbe so was the Church out of the side of the second CHAP. XXXVI Why and how Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam IT was not without the particular prouidence of the wisdome of God that the woman was not made neither of the most principall nor of the most base parts of man not of
reasonable the reasonable to the spirit the spirit to God And as no disorder in nature could proceede from the author of nature so no disorder in the acts of nature could haue beene found in the course of nature and this though euen in the very estate of innocencie there had beene generation of mankinde as now it is as now I meane in the substance of the act not in the manner of raigning and raging lust And this certainely was Gods intent in the creating of our first fathers male and female because if it had not been for generations sake they might haue beene both created males because all things at their first creation were created in their greatest perfection if therefore the man bee more perfect then the woman why should they not both haue been created male if it had not beene for their multiplication by the ordinarie course of generation especially seeing God blessed them with these words which signifie no lesse increase or as the Hebrue hath fructifie and multiply especially seeing as the Philosopher saith generation is the most naturall action of life Aristotiles lib. 2. de anima lib. 4. meteor yea then euery thing is in his perfect estate when it is powerfull to bring forth another like to it selfe 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 AS touching the first point I thinke it most probable that there should haue beene more men then women if so be that wee had persisted in the state of innocencie my reason is because nature then being in a full perfection would for the most part haue produced the most perfect which questionlesse is the male for the most part I say not alwaies because the female also was necessary for the naturall propagation of mankinde Againe it was necessarie for the most part not altogether necessarie but only most perfect and therefore most agreeable to that most perfect estate As touching the second point of the multiplication of the female sexe and how that could be connaturall and agreable to that perfect estate of paradise seeing it belongeth to the perfection of nature to bring forth the most perfect and consequently male not female as which is rather a declining from perfection and argueth some weaknes in nature or imperfection in the Parents Aristotelis de generatione animalium lib. 4 cap. 2. 6. yea as Aristotle saith is praeter intentionem agentis and therefore seemeth rather a monstrous act of generation then a perfect issue or patterne of the Parents or nature And least this may seeme improbable euen nature herselfe as the Philosopher writeth giueth sufficient tokens and signes of this seeing that the female sex is begotten rather in tender and old age then in the flourishing and vigorous time of mans age for as naturall heat hath not attained vnto his perfection in the one so hath it lost his former vigour in the other It is also ordinarily seene that the moistest and most feeble bodies doe beget females by reason of the want of naturall heate Furthermore the same philosopher saith that the female kinde being of their owne nature feeble and cold are to be deemed as a defect errour default or declination of nature Neuerthelesse I answer briefely because this matter more belongeth to Philosophy then to Diuinitie that the production of the female doth not proceede only or rather not alwaies of the defect of nature but oftentimes also of the more remisse manner of concurse of the power of generation as also of the imagination thereto inclining and other like naturall defects whence it is that though the generation of the female be in vs a signe of lesse vigor of nature yet was it not so in Adam but rather it proceeded of the afore-said causes of the imaginatiue apprehension or particular disposition of the author of nature for the multiplication of mankinde CHAP. XL. Of the prerogatiues and excellent gifts with which Adam was endued in the state of innocencie and first as touching his knowledge and naturall wisdome of naturall things IT is the common opinion of the Fathers and other Diuines that Adam had infused into his soule a most perfect knowledge of all naturall obiects according to that of the Preacher the 17. chapter where thus hee describeth the creation of man together with the prerogatiues wherewith he was first endued vers 3. Ecclesiasticus cap. 17. v. 3.4 5.6.7 8 9.10.11 He endued them with strength by themselues and made them according to his image and put the feare of man vpon all flesh and gaue them dominion ouer beasts and fowles They receiued the vse of the fiue operations of the Lord and in the sixt place he imparted them vnderstanding and in the seuenth speech an interpreter of the cogitations thereof Counsell and a tongue and eyes eares and a heart gaue he them to vnderstand Withall hee filled them with the knowledge of vnderstanding and shewed them good and euill Hee set his eye vpon their hearts that he might shew them the greatnesse of his workes He gaue them to glory in his maruellous acts for euer that they might declare his works with vnderstanding Besides this hee gaue them knowledge and the law of life for an heritage And hence it was that Adam perfectly vnderstanding the nature of other inferiour creatures gaue each of them their names according to their natures for so saith the text Gen. 2.19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed euery beast of the field and euery fowle of the aire and brought them vnto Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoeuer Adam called euery liuing creature that was the name thereof and Adam gaue names to all cattle and to the fowles of the aire and to euery beast in the field Now if Adam gaue to each liuing creature his name according to his nature as questionlesse he did it can be no lesse certaine but that he had a perfect notice if not comprehension of their natures according to which hee had giuen them their names But now the difficulitie is how this is to bee vnderstood that God brought the beasts and fowles vnto man whether only by an intellectuall representation bringing them or representing them as obiects of his minde and cogitation as Caietan holdeth or corporally truly and really in their owne nature essence and being and if thus by what meanes whether by naturall instinct guiding them to performe this will of the author of nature or that God himselfe immediately by himselfe or by the ministerie of his Angels did present them before Adam Though I finde no constant resolution of this point either in the Scripture Fathers or reason neuerthelesse that which seemeth to me most probable is that as euery liuing creature hath his naturall peculiar and proper instinct vnto
thereby to punish him not only in himselfe but euen in his instrument by which hee had committed that hainous offence against his God like as he who breaketh the instrument in hatred of the Musitian who plaied vpon it So likewise in the 20. chapter of Leuiticus God commanded that the beast shall be stoned to death with which any man hath offended thereby to signifie how great the offence is in the sight of God who doth punish it not onely in the principall actor thereof but euen in his instrument thereby to signifie vnto vs how hatefull sinne is seeing often hee doth punish it in his vnreasonable and insensible creatures who are not capable of the sinne it selfe Againe he cursed the serpent for Satans sake as he did the earth for Adams sinne yea and that which is most dreadfull he drowned the world with an vniuersall deluge not sparing the beasts for their owners sinnes The like also we finde in Princes and other Potentates of this world who take vengeance of the innocent for the nocents sake of the sonnes for their fathers offences of their subiects for their Princes outrages So the Poet not as a Poet saith Quic quid delirant Reges plectuntur Achiui The Chastillians bloud in France spilt at the massacre was long after required of the Guisâ—an race The Thracians did beat their wiues because their forefathers had killed Orpheus And Agathocles wasted the Iland Corsyra because in ancient times it gaue entertainment to Vlysses But now the difficultie may be about these words aboue alleaged Vpon thy belly shalt thou goe and shalt eat dust all the dayes of thy life For if it were a serpent before euen the very name doth signifie that it crept vpon its belly if then it was the serpents nature how was it a curse or if a curse how was it his naturall propertie I answer with Ephren and Barcephas in his booke of Paradise that creeping rather proceeded of Gods curse then of the serpents nature who as we reade of other serpents went vpon his feet yea more vpright then any other serpent but as Lucifer his principall mouer became by his sinne a most vgly deuill of a most beautifull Angell so the serpent who was the instrument of Lucifer in this action became a most filthy venomous and detestable creeping beast or worme of a beautifull and vpright going creature Neuerthelesse as I haue already before insinuated the curse pronounced against the serpent is principally to bee vnderstood against the principall author of the temptation and mouer of the serpent to wit the deuill according to the opinion of S. Austine Beda Rupertus Hugo de sancto Victore Caietan and many others so that the deuill as hath beene touched already is called a serpent for his subtiltie and craft in deceiuing of mankinde Againe he is said to be cursed amongst all the beasts of the earth because he is condemned to eternall punishment and whatsoeuer is said to be obscene filthy and abominable in any whatsoeuer beast or other most filthy creature that spiritually is found in the deuill in a higher degree and more detestable measure hee goeth likewise vpon his breast and belly because he tempteth principally in pride and lecherie and therefore most fit to tempt attempt and ouercome the woman as most inclinable to these kinde of vices he especially I say tempteth in pride signified by the breast in lust by the belly Or finally hee goeth vpon his breast which is the seat of the irascible power anger and wrath and vpon his belly because this is the fountaine of all filthy lust and concupiscences CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day that he was created Moses Barcephas supra citatus Philoxinus oratione de arbore vitae Ephren coÌ„ment in Gen. Sabugensis oratione de passione Domini Irenaeus Cyriiâ—us Diodorus Tharsensis SOme thinke that Adam was created the first houre of the sixt artificiall day without the compasse of Paradise and was brought in thither at the third houre afterwards about the sixt houre he eat of the forbidden fruit and finally about the ninth being reprehended by God he was cast out about Sunne setting The reason of this opinion is taken from the words of the serpent vnto Eue Why did God command you that you should not eat of euery tree of Paradise by which words wee may inferre that Adam and Eue had not eaten any thing till that time and consequently that they were but newly brought into Paradise yea that they were created but a little before Neuerthelesse I thinke it more probable Basil homil de Paradiso Damascen l. 2. de fide Orthodexa cap. 10. August li. 11. de gen ad lit cap. 21. l. 20 de ciuitate Dei cap 26. Gregorius lib. 4. dial cap. 1. Tostatus Abulensis super 13. ca pâ—t Gen. Ioseph lib. 1. antiquitat that our first parents persisted more then one day in Paradise and that this was done by the particular prouidence of God to the end that they might the better perceiue the miserie into which they fell by sinne by the knowledge and experience which they had of their former felicitie in Paradise And this is the opinion of S. Basil Damascene Austine Gregory Abulensis and Iosephus Yea it seemeth most probable that our first parents were not one only day in Paradise for otherwise the serpent would not haue asked them why they did not eat of euery tree of Paradise for then it might easily be answered because their necessitie did not require it as yet Wherefore though many haue defined the time of their abode in Paradise to haue beene so many yeeres as our Sauiour liued in this mortall life others fortie dayes according to the time of our Sauiours fast yet if it be lawfull to coniecture in this matter so doubtfull and vncertaine I would thinke that they were only eight dayes in Paradise because this was sufficient for the experience of that happy estate so that as our Sauiour was conceiued as many thinke on the Friday and died on the same day so likewise as some coniecture was the fall of Adam the cause of his death the same day so that Adams fall his creation and redemption was by the particular prouidence of Almighty God wrought as some contemplate vpon one and the same day The which though it be no conuincing reason neither sufficiently grounded in the sacred text yet can it not be denied but that it hath some congruitie and conueniencie in reason that the wound and the remedie should bee in one and the same day appointed to be by God who from eternitie foreseeth the end together with the meanes and decreeth of the end together with the meanes to the end that the common course of time and remembrance of the day might put vs in minde both of our miserable fall by Adam and our more happie redemption by Christ that so wee might continually bewaile our sinnes
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