they so appearing and speaking did alwayes represent the maiestie of their maker repeating for the most part Gods owne words which hee had immediately infused into their vnderstanding Againe if the aforesaid opinion of the assuming of our humane nature is to bee vnderstood by a personall vnion betweene God and man then questionlesse God hath beene twice incarnate and twice vnited to our humane nature which is contrary to the holy Scriptures Or if there was no reall vnion or assumption of our humane nature but only a shade or similitude of the same as wee reade that Angels haue oftentimes assumed humane bodies how then was it truly said let vs make man to our image and likenesse seeing that similitude of humane nature could not in any wise be the image of God neither could it be truly said that Adam was made to the image of God if so be that we vnderstand by the image of God not any true humane nature but the shade only and similitude of mans nature Hence I conclude the first opinion to be the best as which is most grounded in the sacred text and most followed of the holy Fathers and other expositours CHAP. XVI Whether the woman be made to the image of God or no. IT might seeme rashnesse to doubt of this if S. Paul did not giue vs some ground denying as some thinke that woman was made to the image and likenesse of God auerring her onely to be the image of man in that he contraposeth woman as the glory of man to man as the image and glory of God His words be these 1. Cor. 11. 6. Man ought not to couer his head forasmuch as hee is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of the man for the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man The woman therefore is not the image and glory of God but immediately only the glory of the man otherwise there could be no difference in this betweene the man and the woman contrary to the inference which S. Paul maketh in the precedent verse Neuerthelesse euen the text it selfe doth clearly confute this opinion for after that it had beene said let vs make man to our owne image and likenesse presently it is added hee made them both man and woman Wherefore as man was made to the image of God so likewise was the woman made to the same Aug li. 12. de trinitate cap 7. S. Austine is very large in giuing the reason of this conclusion but briefly this is the answer If wee consider the principall reason why man is said to be the image of God to wit as hee is an intellectuall creature and as he is indued with the properties therevnto annexed so is it euident that this word image doth equally signifie and may be equally attributed both to man and woman seeing that they both participate of reason and vnderstanding both bee indued with an immortall soule both partakers of free will both capable of supernaturall gifts both of grace and glory But againe if this word image be taken in a more large and improper signification as hath beene already explicated we may well say that man was made to the image of God woman framed to the image of man Because as God is the end to whom man is immediatly referred so likewise man in some sort is in regard of the woman because man is the head of the woman by whom shee ought to be directed vnto God This explication seemeth to be grounded in the afore-said place of Paul 1. to the Corin. 11. chap. for when hee had said that man was the image of God and woman the glory of the man he presently giueth the reason ver 8. For man saith he is not of the woman but the woman of the man ver 9. for the man was not created for the womans sake but the woman for the mans sake Neuerthelesse if the similitude of God in man and woman be considered not according to their naturall gifts but to the supernaturall of grace and glory then questionlesse it hapneth often-times that some women are more adorned with these supernaturall graces and gifts and consequently are more like vnto God then many men As wee piously beleeue of the blessed Virgin who as shee was pronounced by the Angell of God to bee blessed amongst all women so no doubt but shee hath receiued an eternall blessing aboue all Angells and men our Sauiour only excepted both God and man CHAP. XVII Whether man be made to the image of God euen according to his body and corporall proportion shape and lineaments or doth in any wise represent the diuine maiestie THE subiect of this question is so certaine of it selfe and without all coutrouersie that for the resolution thereof wee haue more neede of the subtlety of distinction then of any profound diuinitie or learning For seeing that the diuine maiesty is a most pure spirit as infinite in essence as in all and euery of his diuine attributes infinite how is it possible that there should be any comparison similitude or likenes with him in that which is altogether corporall limited and most base such as is our humane natute according to the body Neuerthelesse seeing the body doth in some sort represent the soule like as the soule also is the image of God hence peraduenture it may be inferred that the body may in some sort be said to be a representation or similitude of God in as much as the body if wee consider it in his full perfection is an immediate glasse similitude or representation of the soule the which most perfectly representeth Almighty God Wherefore though in regard of our corporall substance considered immediatly in it selfe without any relation vnto the soule wee be no better then bruite beasts yet if we consider it in regard of our soule and as it is the receptacle of the most excellent image of God it may after a remote manner and mediately be said to represent euen God himselfe Wherefore S. Austin propounding this question August lib. 6. de Gen. ad literam cap. 12. in what doth a man exceede the brute beasts seeing they are both made of earth he answereth in nothing but because he is made to the image of God not in body or corporall substance but according to his soule and spirituall powers Though true it is also that he hath euen in his body a certaine property which doth in some sort demonstrate the rectitude of his soule as that he is made vpright to the end that hee might vnderstand how hee ought not to abase himselfe to the terrene vile and base trash of the world like vnto the bruite beasts and other most base creatures who as they are framed prone and haue their bodies inclined towards the earth can neuer erect themselues to any spirituall or heauenly thing Hence Bernard well noteth that God made man vpright in stature and erected towards heauen to the
A TREATISE OF PARADISE AND THE PRINCIPALL contents thereof Especially Of the greatnesse situation beautie and other properties of that place of the trees of life good and euill of the Serpent Cherubin fiery Sword Mans creation immortalitie propagation stature age knowledge temptation fall and exclusion out of Paradise and consequently of his and our originall sin with many other difficulties touching these points Collected out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers and other both ancient and moderne Writers LONDON Printed by EDWARD GRIFFIN for NATHANIEL BVTTER 1617. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE SIR FRANCIS BACON Knight Lord Keeper of the great Seale of ENGLAND and one of his Maiesties most honorable Priuy Councell HIS Maiestie hauing deigned to patronize the first fruits of my labors to whom if I may presume ought I rather for many titles to second with the second then to your Honour Siluerius in Augusto who as Siluerius saith of Caesar hath honoured learning by his owne labours so all the learned labour to honour you with their labours Seeing therefore his Maiestie vouchsafed to accept of my Treatise of Angels deigne likewise most worthy Peere to patronize this of Paradise not for the worth of the worke that I deeme it worthy so worthy a Patron but that for want of its due lustre and worth it may receiue both by the reflecting beames of your Honour which the Lord increase with all iust titles of grace and honor with our Prince on earth with the King of Heauen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that as your wisdome and other heroicall vertues are iustly admired here vpon earth so they may be with double poize rewarded in the kingdome of heauen Which is faithfully praied for by Your Honors humbly deuoted IOHN SALKELD The Argument of the Treatise ensuing AS knowledge is the perfection of our blessednesse in the life to come Quamuis Aureolus apud Capreolum in 4. d. 49. q 1. et Scotus in d d 49. q. 1. teneant formalem beatitudinem in velatione imo Caiet 1. p. q. 27. ar 2. Fer. contragent c. 53. cap. 1. d. 27. q. 2. Iauel 9 met q. 16. Torres de Trinitate q. 27. ar 7. Conimb 3. de anima c 8 teneant esse actionē formaliter so I deeme it to be the beginning in this there of God as it is in perfection here of our selues as in the first steppe to perfection so that here wee knowing our selues to be nothing but sinne and corruption may come to the knowledge of him who is all in all goodnesse and perfection here onely possessed in part there wholly enioyed in full measure but how here in part there in full measure hoc opus hic labor est this shall bee the subiect of our labour and end of this present Treatise by which wee pretend to shew what we lost by the disobedience of Adam Dur quoque q. 4. sine distinctione affirmat beatitudinem esse in aggregatione omniū bonorū in intellectu voluntate corpore sicut Hugo de S. Vict. in c. 7. l. de coelesti Hierarchiae Ric. 4. dist 49. Gab. ib. Cordub lib. 1. quaestionarij q. 42. in fruitione Mars q vlt. Argent q 3 delectatione de Deo viso Bonauent similiter esse visionem fidei respondentem dilectionem charitati viae delectationem spei Communis autem opinio Aquinatis aliorum in actu solo intellectus formulem nostram heatitudinem consistere autumat and what we got by the obedience of Christ how in Paradise wee possessed God in part and by what sinne wee fell from him wholly what were our pleasures in Paradise and what miseries did follow our fall how wee are raised againe after our fall and are to be placed in those glorious thrones from which the wicked Angels fell Lastly what is our blessednesse in the life to come and by what meanes it is wrought in vs here In which points if I doe erre as of my selfe I can no lesse it shall bee both with all subiection vnto the learned and with no lesse desire to be corrected THE TABLE and order of the Chapters CHAP. I. WHether there was euer any such place as Paradise or rather the description of Paradise is to be vnderstood allegorically and so to be referred vnto the minde only CHAP. II. The description and situation of Paradise CHAP. III. The compasse and greatnesse of Paradise and why it was so beautified seeing God foreknew for how short a time it was to serue the vse of man CHAP. IV. What may be the reason why Paradise was neuer found as yet CHAP. V. Whether there be as yet any Paradise or no or rather it was destroied in Noes floud CHAP. VI. Of the trees of Paradise whether all were fruitfull or rather some only beautifull though vnfruitfull CHAA. VII Of the tree of life why it was so called and whether it was corporall as other trees be or rather spirituall and food of the soule not of the body or finally appertaining to both CHAP. VIII The allegoricall interpretation of the tree of life CHAP. IX Why the tree of life was so called and whether it had truly the propertie of making a man immortall CHAP. X. Whether the vertue of the tree of life to preserue man immortall was naturall vnto it or supernaturall CHAP. XI Of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill to wit whether it was a true and naturall tree like vnto others And why it was so called CHAP. XII Of the creation of man CHAP. XIII Of the manner of mans creation CHAP. XIIII How man was made to the image and likenesse of God CHAP. XV. What is the difference betweene the image and the similitude of God according to which man is said to he created CHAP. XVI Whether the woman be made to the image of God or no. CHAP. XVII Whether man be made like vnto God according to his corporall substance proportion and lineaments or doth in any wise represent the diuine maiestie CHAP. XVIII Whether the image of God way be wholy lost and blotted out of the soule of man CHAP. XIX Why God made man to his image and similitude CHAP. XX. Whether the dominion ouer all liuing creatures was giuen vnto man and what power that was CHAP. XXI Whether in the state of innocencie one man should haue beene subiect to another or rather all should haue beene of equall authoritie and power CHAP. XXII Whether the Angels did concurre to the production of man or no CHAP. XXIII Whether Adam was created in his perfect stature and age CHAP. XXIV Whether the soule and the body were created in the same instant or no CHAP. XXV Whether the immortalitie of the soule may be demonstrated out of the Scriptures or no. CHAP. XXVI Whether the soule of Adam was immortall by its owne nature or only by grace CHAP. XXVII That Adam was not created in Paradise and why not and by what meanes hee came thither after his creation
eternall God not carnally as carnall men dreame but spiritually in the bread of life as hee himselfe doth affirme of himselfe As therefore he who is the tree of life or rather the author of life or to speake more properly life it selfe euen as he is in the Sacrament of life doth heere truly in this miserable life produce in vs the life of grace as a present pawne of our future glory so it seemeth most probable that the other tree of life as a most perfect figure of this planted in the terrene Paradise had the like inherent vertue for to perpetuate or at least to prolong the liues of Adam and his posteritie as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradise But whether this fruit of the tree of life was sufficient to perpetuate our life or only to prolong it for some determinate time Abulensis super Genes c. 13. quaest 175. Scotus li. 2. sent dist 19 quaest 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7 art 4 Caiet ibid. many dispute probably for both opinions Tostatus vpon the 13. chapter of Genesis q. 175. is most peremptorie for this perpetuitie Scotus Thomas Caietan and Durand for a very long time but not for eternitie because that is the naturall measure of nature this the supernaturall of him who is aboue all nature Secondly seeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cause the effect could not bee supernaturall for though effects be often inferiour to their causes yet neuer the causes vnto the effects the reason because no cause can giue that which it hath not neither any effect haue any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cause wherefore if the tree of life was as without question it was a naturall tree as the Laurell Cypresse and other trees be it could not haue as connaturall the supernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philosophie that omne agens physicum in agendo patitur debilitatur that euery naturall cause doth suffer some detriment euen in and by his owne action consequently therefore though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conserued by the vertue of this excellent fruit yet at length it should haue failed and thence finally mortalitie should haue followed as a necessary effect of so forcible a cause Lastly it is not likely that God who is the author and first rule of nature doth produce any thing frustrate in nature seeing therefore the fall of man was patent vnto him euen from all eternitie to what end should he prouide an eternall cause for a temporary effect But if this argument had any force it should force also our aduersaries to the like if not a greater inconuenience for who doubteth but that God knew also the little time that man was to persist in his grace and yet neuerthelesse he gaue him that fruit which was sufficient for the preseruation of his life for many a yeere as our aduersaries hold why then might hee not likewise for all eternitie is it because of the impossibilitie at non impossibile Deo omne verbum to God nothing is impossible which doth not imply contradiction but what contradiction is in this is it that here naturall philosophie is contradicted omne agens in agendo patitur debilitatur euery agent doth decay euen by his owne action but seeing the author of nature is aboue nature why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature or though in the compasse of nature yet beyond our naturall capacitie which is so small that wee scarcely or very imperfectly vnderstand things of farre inferiour degree yea such as are within our selues why therefore shall wee deny vnto God that which we doe not vnderstand in our selues My resolution therefore is that of Abulensis Propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quòd fructus eius vim haberet seruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus faciendi eum immortalem that this tree was therefore called the tree of life because it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life and the vnion of the body and soule for euer if we had not lost the supernaturall grace which was the vnion of our soules with God but seeing wee wilfully separated our selues from our supernaturall life it was most iust that wee should also be depriued of the naturall hence therefore is that which Paul so often preacheth mortem in mundum intrasse propter peccatum that death entred into the world by the doore of sinne which doore if we had debarred to sinne the grace of God should haue beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vs and the tree of life should haue caused the like betweene our bodies and soules and this of his owne nature eternally though de facto wee needed it but only temporally both supposing our fall as likewise not supposing any at all for if we had not fallen or sinned in our first father wee should certainly after some number of yeeres haue been translated from that terrene Paradise which was our first though temporary habitation vnto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen and this should haue heene without any assault of death because we had alwaies liued in God who as hee would then haue preserued vs by his grace from the corruption of sinne would also haue preserued vs from this corruption which was only the effect of sinne according to that of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death the wager being the deuill our soules are bought and sold sold away for nothing sinne being nothing but a priuation of being but bought againe by the death of the most precious of mortall liues which in no wise should haue beene necessary if wee had not beene lost or fallen from our first grace and innocencie But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambrosia seemed to Aristotle of small ground so this for the like reason may seeme to bee as fabulous for as Aristotle argueth against the former either the Gods vsed this Ambrosia and Nectar for pleasure only or also for necessitie if only for pleasure how then could Ambrosia and Nectar be any necessary cause of their immortalitie againe if for necessitie certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature and consequently no Gods seeing that that which hath need of any thing for his preseruation must necessarily be mortall After the same manner we may argue against this fruit of this tree of life which is said to be sufficient to cause an eternitie of life à parte post as the Philosophers speake for if our immortalitie was onely to be from the tree of life then questionlesse without it wee had beene mortall and subiect to death contrary to that of the Apostle Stipendium peccati mors the wages of sinne is death for whether wee had sinned or persisted in our primatiue grace all had beene one wee should naturally haue tasted of death if wee
that meate was corporall yet was it of such vertue and nature that it did confirme man in perfect health not as other meates but by an occult vertue proceeding from aboue And this he confirmeth by two examples the first of Elias his cake the second of the flower and oyle of the widow of Sarepta which without all question were effected by supernaturall power Beda likewise affirmeth that therefore it was called the tree of life because it hath receiued from the diuine power that whosoeuer should eat thereof should be confirmed in perpetuall health Neither ought we to maruaile Bonauenâ—ure 2. lib. sent dist 17 as Bonauenture well noteth that a man might be disposed vnto immortalitie by the fruit of this tree seeing there be many other things as Myrrhe and Balme which doe preserue from corruption for a long time therefore as our Sacraments doe not really concurre vnto grace but the diuine power which alwaies is assistant vnto them so the fruit of that tree did not of his owne nature produce immortality but rather the diuine power did communicate it by the eating of that fruit Here wee may see these so opposite opinions with their reasons and authorities in which it may be free for euery one to follow as he liketh seing there is nothing in this point plainely expressed in the Scripture with me both the authoritie of S. Austin and reason doth sway most for this latter opinion because it seemeth not so probable that a naturall tree or fruit should haue of his owne virtue and substance so supernaturall a virtue and qualitie as to cause immortalitie But to conclude whether the virtue of this tree was naturall or supernaturall all is one in regard of our losse ingratitude and sinne our losse of both liues spirituall and corporall our ingratitude towards God to vs wards so infinitely good our sinne also being the same seeing that though it had beene onely a naturall virtue which was in that fruit of life yet it depriued vs not onely of our owne liues but also of the author of life What therefore remaineth but that now being redeemed from this sinne and raised againe from this death we blesse him perpetually with all the powers of our soules and all the daies of our liues who is the onely giuer of life and sole redeemer of our soules CHAP. XI Of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill to wit whether it was a true and naturall tree like vnto others And why it was so called NOthing can bee so plainely set downe in the holy scripture but there will be some idle braine or other who will so moralize or so wrest it to a spirituall sense though often-times without sense that they will not sticke to deny the truth of the history as it happeneth here in the first point of our question in which some haue not feared that name before but afterwards of the euent so that when God commanded our fore-fathers that they should not eate of that tree either he called it by some other name or he demonstrated it vnto them as it were with his finger Many other reasons do the Rabbins giue of the name of this tree but so farre from reason that they be not worthy the repeating I will onely touch one as most fabulous by which we may coniecture of the rest They say that our first Parents were created as infants in sense and reason though men in body strength and stature Now because this tree had a virtue of ripening mans iudgment witt and discretion of good from euill it was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because to know good and euill according to the Hebrue and scripture phrase is as much as to haue the vse of reason But this is not onely contrary to the text but also to reason for certaine it is that as man was created perfect in all the parts of his body so was hee no lesse in the powers of his soule Yea how is it likely that he was without reason who was created lord of all vnreasonable creatures who gaue them their names proper to their natures and was to gouerne all things according to their nature by his owne rule of reason yea with whom God the author of nature and chiefe rule of reason had made this couenant most conformable to reason that if he liued according to the law of nature and instinct of reason his reward should be aboue all nature and exceed the capacitie of humane reason wherefore who was both culpable in this pact and punishable for his transgression must in all reason haue then had the vse of reason Iosephus in his first booke of his Antiquities perceiuing well the absurditie of this opinion fell into another which Lyra deemeth not much lesse absurd to wit that this tree was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because it had virtue to sharpen the wit ripen the iudgment and to giue prudence and vnderstanding to all humane affaires Lyra his refutation is this because the fruit of that tree being corporall how could it saith he haue any spirituall effect wherefore the minde witt and iudgment of man being spirituall how could they be holpen by any corporall cause For though the superior cause and more perfect then his effect may haue influence into the inferiour and imperfect yet neuer the inferiour into the superiour Therefore though the spirituall causes be of such excellent perfection that they haue influence into our bodies yet neuer any corporall creature saith he is so perfect that it can inflow in the spirituall For what is that which any corporall thing may produce in the spirit not any thing corporall seeing that all that is in the spirit is spirituall neither againe can it be spirituall because nothing spirituall can bee contained in the vertue of a materiall or corporall cause It cannot be denied but that this discourse of Lyra might haue some force in those causes which as the Philosophers speake doe worke directè per se by themselues directly yet in those whose causaltie is altogether indirect true philosophy teacheth the contrary wherefore though it be most certaine that the body cannot directly haue any influence into the soule or spirit yet bicause the spirit whiles it is in this life dependeth in her operations of the body and the dispositions thereof according to the generally receiued philosophicall axiome the manner of the working followeth the manner of being it must necessarily follow that accordingly as the dispositions of the body are better or worse so may the operations of the minde be also more or lesse perfect Yea Aristotle teacheth vs in his 7. booke of his Politikes that though those men who are borne and brought vp in the Northerne parts of the world bee stronger then others in corporall forces yet that they bee of a much more slow and duller capacity contrariwise those who are borne in hotter climates of Affrica Spaine and Mauritania
and as a body without a head a common-wealth without a ruler or kingdome without a King confused imperfect without order or beautie But seeing that to bring man to this finall perfection and end many things were necessary each person of the blessed Trinitie did assume to himselfe diuers functions the Father to create because power and might doth especially appeare in the Father the Sonne did assume the reparation of man after his fall a worke of infinite wisdome and therfore it is particularly ascribed to this person and infinite wisdome finally the holy Ghost did particularly worke mans sanctification this therefore is likewise accommodated to this person together with all spirituall graces and finall glorification Neuerthelesse these offices operations and workes are so attributed to the three holy persons not that any one of them was effected alone by any one person for whatsoeuer is wrought out of the sacred Trinitie in or by any creature whatsoeuer is equally effected and wrought by all and euery person of the blessed Trinitie but because something doth appeare in euery of these workes which doth especially manifest the Father the Sonne or the holy Ghost the Fathers power the Sonnes wisdome the grace and sanctification of the holy Ghost therefore these and other the like attributes are particularly applied and attributed to each person of the blessed Trinitie Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate operibus â—ius This is the ground of Rupertus his discourse and reason why God created man to his likenesse and image why he changed his voice and altered his manner of speaking for whereas hee said in the creation of other creatures Fiat factum est Let it be done and it was done now as though hee had beene weary with going about the earth compassing the seas and measuring the amplitude of the heauens he sate him downe and as it were taking his breath hee called to minde that there was one thing as yet wanting which was no lesse necessary then fitting to be made then said he let vs make man to our owne image and likenesse Thus doest thou then thinke that a small matter which was intended by these words A great mysterie without doubt it was in that counsell of wisdome in that counsell of such persons the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Canst thou iudge that there was any thing wanting any thing superfluous either done or to be done in vs or about vs in that sacred Senate There doubtlesse was all our cause considered there our fall foreseene there our death and perdition foreknowne and determined vpon to wit that euery person should vndertake some part of the worke that as it is said before the Father should create the Sonne should redeeme and finally the holy Ghost should worke the remission of sinnes and the resurrection of the flesh But what should bee the reason why God deliberating about the creation of man should say Faciamus let vs make To whom did hee speake speaking in the plurall let vs make Shall we say to the earth as to a compart of man or to the Angels as the fellow-workers with God as though God had need either of the cooperation of the Angels or were so senselesse as thus to conferre with that his creature void of all reason and sense Ambrose in his seuenth chapter of the sixt booke of the Exameron answereth that God spake not to himselfe because hee speaketh not in the singular but in the plurall let vs make neither yet to the Angels as who are but his seruants therefore though the Iewes and Arrians doe neuer so much repugne these words without all question are spoken to his Sonne as who is the true and liuely similitude and likenesse of God the Father And this I deeme to be the truest opinion seeing that the eternall Sonne of God euen as hee is the Word and Sonne of God is a liuely and expresse similitude and likenesse not only of his eternall Father but also a most perfect Idea and exemplar according to which man was created Others not improbably doe interpret that God therefore spake in the plurall Faciamus let vs make as Princes and great persons are wont to doe to shew their authoritie and maiestie saying We will We command We decree c. yet of the two I deeme the first exposition to bee best and that the text may admit them both CHAP. XIIII How man was made to the image and likenesse of God FOr the vnderstanding of this Sainctes Pagnines in the sauro linguae Hebraae wee must note the originall Hebrew words Selem and Demuth by Selem is properly signified a shadow or transitorie similitude Psalme 33. In imagine pertransit homo man passeth away like vnto a shadow Likewise Psalme 101. My dayes haue declined as a shadow The other word Demuth signifieth to cut downe to faile to fade to be silent to recogitate and to expect but most properly to assimulate or liken wherefore seeing euery similitude or likenesse is transitorie vanishing and quickly passing away the same word doth also signifie to vanish to passe away to faile and to fade Now therefore when God said that man was made to his image and likenesse it was to giue vs to vnderstand that such was the likenesse and so perfect the representation as could be betweene an inferiour creature and his Creator but because God is of infinite perfection it must necessarily follow that his similitude should bee infinitely inferiour and of lesse perfection then the prototypon or first type of his perfection Like as though the shadow be in some sort the similitude and representation of the body yet is it obscure and imperfect yea nothing in it selfe and in comparison of the body nothing Hence consequently wee may inferre a twofold interpretation of the said words adimaginem similitudinem nostram to our image and likenesse to wit of that image or similitude which is in God his diuine nature essence being or vnderstanding insomuch that the nature of God and his Ideall representation of his vnderstanding bee the exemplar and first type vnto whose similitude man was made Or againe that â—his be the meaning of Gods words let vs make man such a one as wee are or so like vnto vs that he may bee such an image forme and similitude as he may represent our nature power wisdome and prouidence yea and immortalitie in a body of its owne nature mortall For as S. Austine well noteth Aug. li. 83. quaest q. 51. diuers things doe diuersly represent Almighty God some doe participate of vertue and wisdome others only of life others of existence and being insomuch that those things which only haue existence and neither liue nor breathe are counted an imperfect similitude of God because they are good according to their kinde and flow from that infinite Ocean of goodnesse from whence all other goodnesse doth proceed Againe those things which doe liue and yet doe not vnderstand doe more perfectly participate
sinne signified by these words and he shall rule ouer thee CHAP. XXII Whether the Angels did concurre to the production of man or no THis doubt may be vnderstood of the seuerall parts of man the body or the soule first therefore as touching the soule which as it was altogether of nothing so it was not possible that it should be brought out of that nothing but by the immediate power and particular concourse of the Almighty for as S. Austine saith lib. 9. de Gen. ad lit cap. 15. as it is impossible for any Angell or creature to create it selfe so is it no lesse that any other thing should bee produced of nothing but by him only which is aboue all things Wherefore the doubt onely is whether the Angels did in some sort concurre to the creation of the body of man seeing that as S. Austine saith in his 8. booke de Gen. ad lit cap. 24. all materiall and corporall creatures are subiect to the Angelicall powers seeing also that their ordinary apparitions vnto men are by corporall shapes and formes which they assume vnto themselues it may seeme not improbable that in like manner they may frame and depute vnto euery soule her materiall substance and corporall shape yea and vnite the matter and forme together and consequently that they may in some sense be said to create man Neuerthelesse though I cannot denie but that the Angels might in some sort concurre vnto the disposition of the materiall substance of man and thereby instrumentally to the introducing of the forme yet they may not in any wise bee said to haue created either matter or forme seeing both were immediately from Almighty God as which were both produced of nothing Aug lib. 9. de Gen. ad lib. cap. 15. So as S. Austine most fitly compareth though the husbandman doe digge plough plant manure and till the ground and the Physitian by his medicines potions and physicke doth prolong the life yet neuerthelesse neither of them may be said to create euen so though the Angels might in some sort dispose to the creation or generation of man yet may they not absolutely bee said to create because this is a production of nothing presupposed which only belongeth to an infinite power CHAP. XXIII Whether Adam was created in his perfect corporall stature and age SAint Austine answereth Aug. lib. 6. de Gen. ad lib. cap. 13. that as it was proper only to Adam not to be borne of parents but framed immediately of the earth so also was it peculiar vnto him alone that hee was created in perfect age Neither may this kinde of production saith the master of the sentences be said to be against nature Magist sent lib. 2. distinct 17. vnlesse it be in regard of vs to whom it may seeme to be beyond nature for whatsoeuer God worketh that in regard of God may be counted nature yea this seemeth to haue some ground in the sacred text seeing that God hauing newly created our first Fathers he presently commanded them to increase and multiply wherefore as hee created other things perfect Gen. 1. ver 22. 24. and apt for to multiply each one in their seuerall kindes so also did he create our first parents in the like perfection both of stature and age as some say as between 30. and 40. yeares of age or as others doe assigne about 50. Now as concerning the dimension or greatnesse of his body though some auerre that hee was the greatest of all men and Giants that euer were deducing it out of the 14. of Iosue Iosue 14. Numb 13. and the 13. of the Numbers neuerthelesse this seemeth altogether vnprobable if those places be vnderstood of Adam they are rather to be interpreted so that hee was the greatest of all men not in quantitie but in qualities not in dimension of body but in beautie both of body and soule not in corporall extension but in dignitie prerogatiues and all other excellencies both corporall and spirituall because otherwise hee might rather seeme a monster in regard of vs then a man My opinion therefore in this point is that as hee was created perfect in all other respects so likewise in this of perfect corporall stature greatnesse and all other dimensions and consequently that hee was created of the best stature and proportion of all lineaments and members of his body that euer man was or shall be our Sauiour onely excepted CHAP. XXIIII Whether the soule and the body were created in the same instant or no. Chrysost in Gen. hom 12. 13. Eugub in Cosmopaeia in Pentateu hum Castro lib. 2. contra haereticos vbi disputat de anima Ferus in cap 2. Gen. Tostat ibid. sicut Genadius ibid. CHrysostome Eugubinus Alphonsus de Castro Ferus and Genadius denie that the soule and the body were created in one and the same instant yea this opinion seemeth to be grounded in the word of God Gen. 2. vers 7. where Moses saith that the Lord God made man of the dust of the earth and breathed in his face the breath of life and the man was a liuing soule Wherefore man as these Doctors say was first made according to his materiall part afterward this matter was disposed by God by the contemperating of conuenient qualities and lastly after all this was the soule infused and vnited to the body thus disposed Gregorius Nicenus Damascenus Aquinas and S. Austine are of the contrary opinion to wit that the soule of man was made and infused into the body in the very same instant and indiuisible point of time in which the body was created by God Aquinas his reason is this because such is the nature of parts that while they are separate the one from the other they are reputed to bee in an imperfect estate for why the part being ordained for the whole it cannot in any wise obtaine its due perfection while it is a part from the whole wherefore seeing all things were created in their perfect estate in their first production it is not likely that either the soule was created without the body or the body produced separate from the soule as powerfull I meane and in potentia proxima as the Philosophers speake fully disposed for the receiuing of the soule CHAP. XXV Whether the immortalitie of the soule may be demonstrated out of the Scriptures or no. EVsebius writeth of certaine Arabians who held that though the soules of men should reviue in the generall resurrection vnto immortalitie yet that now at the separation of the body and soule the soule perisheth with the body Yea Tertullian also as S. Austine writeth doth seeme to hold no lesse Augustin de haer nu 86. Neuerthelesse the contrary is most certainely deduced out of those places of Scripture which do signifie that man was made to the image and likenes of God First in his infinite capacity of minde and will which are satisfied by no created obiect Secondly
the principall lest shee should be too impudent neither of the baser lest shee should be too much debased shee was therefore created of the ribbe and of that ribbe which was next to the heart the one to signifie the mediocritie of her condition the other to insinuate the esteeme and respect which both shee should haue towards Adam and Adam towards her as also to signifie the heart loue and fidelitie which he should beare vnto her who had her being from so neere his heart Now the difficultie is how Eue being of so perfect stature as she was created could be created out of a ribbe of so little quantitie seeing either shee was equall in stature with the man or not farre inferiour in greatnes vnto him was there any matter added vnto the ribbe or was the same matter of the ribbe multiplied surely it might be as Lombard and Gabriel said by the multiplication of the same matter or by rarefaction of the same ribbe or rather which I deeme more probable by addition of new matter as the Diuines hold it happened in the multiplication of the fiue barly loaues of which wee read in the gospell Neither may it be inferred hence that then it should rather haue beene said that the woman was framed of other matter then of the ribbe of Adam because the more principall part beareth the name not alwaies the greater especially when the principall part is not only the principall but also the first of the whole compound or worke Wherefore seeing the ribbe of Adam was the first and principall matter of which the woman was created and vnto the which the other was but an addition it is therefore rightly and absolutely said that Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam without the expressing of any other matter because though the new assumed matter was the greater in quantitie yet lesse in perfection so likewise in the muitiplication of the fiue loaues though that which was added was much more then the precedent quantitie of bread yet because it was but an addition vnto the former therefore the name was deriued of the more principall part according to the common axiome of the Philosophers denominatio sequitur principaliorem partem the name must follow the more principall part CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. BOth the Phisitians and Philosophers doe agree in this that euery man according to his naturall constitution and perfection hath 24 ribbes twelue of each side wherefore if our first father had thirteene on the leaft it may bee thought that this was rather monstrous then agreeable to nature which neither admitteth want nor superfluitie either therefore this ribbe was super-abundant in him and so he monstrous by super-abundance or it is wanting in vs and so we monstrous by defect I answer that though it were monstrous in any of vs to haue 13 ribbes yet was it in no wise in respect of Adam it were in regard of vs because none is to be created of vs but in regard of him the defect were rather monstrous because Eue was to be created of it so that neither was Adam a monster when he had that which we haue not neither yet deficient when he wanted that of which Eue was created because the name of monster is not so much in regard of superabundance or want as in regard of the ends and purposes intended by the author of nature grounded in that which is most connaturall Wherefore though in regard of the particular nature of Adam as hee was but one particular man this ribbe was superfluous and so consequently in an other person might be thought monstrous yet in regard of him of whom the rest of mankinde was to proceed it was most naturall Neither doe these two sorts of considerations imply contradiction seeing that euen in nature we haue infinite examples of this for so the heauiest drosse and massiest matter hath a naturall and particular inclination to descend to the center which neuerthelesse will ascend for the preseruation of the course of nature ne detur vacuum when there is any danger of vacuitie of aire or want of any other body which naturally should fill all places so that as to descend is proper to heauy things considering their particular inclination and nature so to ascend is no lesse agreeable vnto their nature considering their vniuersall propension for the preseruation of the vniuersall good of nature In like manner if we consider Adam as one particular man not as first parent of our humane nature it were monstrous that hee should haue more ribbs on the leaft side then on the right or more then any of his posteritie haue but if we consider him as he was to be the first father of mankinde after that particular manner that God hath determined it was most necessarie and agreeable to his nature that hee should haue more ribbs then any other of the same specificall nature seeing that our first mother Eue was to haue her being of this ribbe of his and we all ours by her CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had not sinned GRegory Nisene Damascene Chrysostome Procopius Gazeus and diuers others were of opinion that if Adam had not sinned there should haue beene no such naturall generation of mankinde as is now but rather an immediate multiplication and production of men by the immediate power of God So that as we shall be like vnto the Angels in the coelestiall Paradise through our vnion vnto Christ so wee should not haue beene vnlike vnto them in the terrestriall by the immediate production of God wherefore as sinne was the cause of our dissimilitude from the Angelicall life so was it according to these Fathers the cause also of the dissimilitude of our production the Angells being by creation immediately from God wee not immediately but by mediate generation and hence it is that Austine saith that consanguinities and affinities proceed of sinne not of nature The ground peraduenture of these Doctors may be the impure and corrupt manner of our generation and the deformitie of lust together with the immoderate pleasure thereof proceeding the which our first fathers as S. Austine saith presently vpon their sinne experimented and thence were ashamed and couered themselues Neuerthelesse I cannot but deeme it most certaine but that so long as mans superiour powers were subiect to God so long also should mans inferiour powers haue beene obedient to man wherefore whiles there was no deformitie by sin in the will neither should there haue beene any filthines or abomination in the actions of nature But as our eyes and other senses be as yet subiect to our will so also all other now rebelling inferiour powers should haue beene subiect to their superiour lastly as all deformities and disorder should haue beene taken away so all conformitie and order should haue beene left The sensitiue appetite should haue been subiect to the
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
nature it cannot be denied but that it was grace as which was not consequent vnto nature but aboue all nature Wherefore as now in the law of grace all that are regenerated by baptisme in Christ doe in and by baptisme according to the opinion of many Diuines receiue the grace of Christ so likewise in the state of innocency all that should haue been borne of the loines of Adam should in and at the very instant of their naturall conception and first moment of naturall life haue receiued the first influence of their spirituall birth and supernaturall life Now the difficultie is whether if Adam had persisted in the state of innocencie all we his posteritie should then haue beene confirmed in grace insomuch that as wee should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God so wee should neuer haue fallen from the same Anselmus lib. 1. Cur Deus home cap. 38. Gregorius lib. 4. Moraliū c. 36. Anselmus and Gregorie the great answer that if Adam had not sinned then all his posteritie should haue beene confirmed in the grace and fauour of God for who saith Anselmus dare presume to affirme plus valere iniustitiam that iniustice should haue beene of more force to binde vnto bondage in mans first perswasion then his iustice to confirme him in liberty if he had persisted in his first temptation for euen as all humane nature was ouercome by Adams sinne so by him all should haue ouercome if he had not sinned Neuerthelesse I resolue with S. Austine that the posteritie of Adam should not at least way in the instant of their generation beene confirmed in grace though Adam had persisted in his originall iustice for how is it credible that they should haue receiued more abundant grace then their first head and father at his first creation Wherefore like as Adam though created in grace could fall from that happy estate of grace so it seemeth most probable that his posteritie might also seeing that wee read of no particular prouidence grace promised to them which was not profferd to their first father For though Adam could as many Diuines hold haue increased in grace yet none but Paelagians hold that hee could merit vnto himselfe the infusion of the first grace much lesse vnto others CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall SAint Austine in his 7. booke de Gen. ad lit cap. 25. answereth most excellently that the body of Adam before his sinne was both mortall and immortall mortall because he could die immortall beause hee could not haue died For it is one thing not to be able to dye another to be able not to dye that belongeth only to the Angells this is agreable euen vnto man not by the constitution of his nature but by the benefit of the tree of life from which tree hee was banished as soone as hee sinned that hee might dye who if he had not sinned might not haue died wherefore he was mortall by the nature of his corruptible body but yet immortall by the benefit of his Creator for if the body was mortall because it could dye by the like reason it was immortall because it could not haue died for that is not immortall onely which cannot dye at all vnlesse it be spirituall which is promised to vs in our resurrection Now therefore the difficultie is whether this gift of immortalitie due to the perfect state of Paradise was due also and connaturall vnto man persisting there Many of the best learned of this age are of opinion that this originall iustice which did bring with it a power of immortalitie and a perfect subiection of the flesh and senses vnto the rule of reason was a gift due euen vnto nature granted vnto man as not only agreable but likewise belonging and consequent vnto his naturall integritie and perfection insomuch that mans nature being now depriued thereof may iustly bee deemed in a manner maimed imperfect and monstrous especially seeing it was to proceed of naturall causes such as was the eating of the tree of life Againe euen naturall reason doth require that the minde and reason should rule and gouerne the whole man and consequently that the flesh and senses should be ruled by reason and obey the superiour power wherefore as it is without all question that the rebellion of the flesh against reason is contrary to mans nature so originall iustice which did restraine the rebellion did questionlesse pertaine to the naturall state integritie and perfection of man yea how were it otherwise agreable to the diuine wisdome to make a creature partly immortall and incorruptible partly againe mortall and corruptible Neuerthelesse vnlesse the question be more de nomine then dere I deeme it most certaine and out of all question that that gift of immortalitie was supernaturall as which was in no wise due or consequent to nature for neither this immortalitie could proceed of the qualities proportionate to the body seeing these tend rather to corruption then immortalitie as which are each contrary to other and after a sort consuming one another and these tending to the disvniting of the body and soule neither could this immortalitie be ab externo agente from some outward principle and cause for then if it were so it were rather to bee deemed in some sort opposite to the inclination of nature the which of it selfe as we haue already said tendeth to corruption yet as that which is congenitum or produced ioyntly with nature may in some sort be said to be naturall or rather connaturall so I will not deny of this quality of immortalitie though of it selfe it be altogether aboue nature yet respectiuely and in regard of the first infusion into nature I will not I say deny but that it may be deemed naturall CHAP. XLV What kinde of serpent that was which tempted Eue. IOsephus in his first booke of Antiq. chap. 1 holdeth that as it was a true and naturall serpent which tempted our first fathers so it was naturall vnto it to speake vnderstand yea and to goe vpright like vnto man and that vnderstanding mans felicitie moued with enuie hee sought his ouerthrow maliciose persuadens mulieri vt de arbore scientiae gustaret maliciously perswading the woman that shee should taste of the tree of knowledge Ephraim the Syrian as Barsalas relateth in his booke of Paradise the 27. chap. held that the serpent which spake with Eue was a true corporall serpent and that Satan had obtained of God the facultie of speech to be giuen vnto the serpent for a time so that as in Balaams reprehension God gaue the vse of speach vnto the Asse for his iust reprehension and punishment so likewise here saith Ephraim God gaue not only speach but euen intellectuall power and vnderstanding vnto the serpent for a tryall of our first fathers obedience Cyrillus in his third booke against Iulian the apostata and Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia are of opinion that this was not
proceeding from Adams and giue humble and hearty thankes for the infinite mercies receiued by Christ CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise THe Originists doe vnderstand this allegorically so that by this kinde of custodie is meant nothing else but the particular prouidence of God by which our first parents were depriued of all hope of returning to Paradise Others thinke that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is mystically vnderstood a twofold impediment or means by which we be now debarred from the celestiall Paradise the first inuisible of the inuisible spirits and deuils according to that of Paul to the Ephesians the last chapter verse 12. For we wrestle not against flesh and bloud but against principalities against powers and against the gouernours of this world the Princes of darknesse against spirituall wickednesses which are in high places The second impediment as these Authors say mystically signified by the fiery sword is the perpetuall fight of flesh and bloud in our spirituall battell as well in prosperitie as aduersitie according to our Sauiours words Matth. 11. chap. 12. verse The kingdome of heauen suffereth violence and the violent take it by force and that of Iob Militia est vita hominis super terram Or rather as other doe interpret we may vnderstand by these lets of accesse to Paradise three principall hinderances of accesse to the celestiall Paradise by the Cherubin which is interpreted the fulnesse of science wisdome and knowledge may be vnderstood too much curiositie of science and spirituall pride oftentimes contained therein much repugnant to the simplicitie and puritie of Christian faith By the fiery sword may bee vnderstood as some Authors doe allegorize all enflaming lusts and vices proceeding from the sensitiue appetite the which as it is twofold concupiscible and irascible so is it signified by the fire and sword or fiery sword the which being voluble or as it were wheeling about and alwayes in a perpetuall motion doth plainly expresse the perpetuall inconstancie volubilitie and motion of humane matters Aquinas and Tertullian thinke Aquinas 2. 2 ae quaest 165. ar vlt. that by the Cherubin and fierie sword is vnderstood the place and situation of Paradise vnder the aequinoctiall line or Torrida Zona the firest Climate of the world But certainely the heat of this place is naturall vnto it and proceeding from the neerenesse of the Sunne as the Mathematicians doe demonstrate and therefore could not bee occasioned by the sinne of man much lesse proceede thereof as a naturall effect of sin which in it selfe hath no reall being but is rather the priuation of goodnesse according to its formall essence and being Lyra. in Genesim Lyranus thinketh that by the Cherubin and fiery sword is vnderstood a mighty and flaming fire issuing out of the mountaine of Paradise defending and compassing it round about in the manner of a wall Ambros of in Psalm 118. Ambrose vpon the Psalme 118. thinketh the fore-sayd flaming sword to be the fire of Purgatory by which the soules that depart our of the world not altogether purified are cleansed before their entrance into Heauen But to omit the controuersie of Purgatory this cannot bee seeing that the sword and Cherubin were placed at the entrance of Paradise as is manifest in the Text lest Adam should enter into Paradise and participate of the tree of life for so saith the Text Gen. 3 ver 24. Thus he cast out man and at the East side of the garden of Eden he set the Cherubins and the blade of a sword shaken to keepe the way of the tree of life That therefore which seemeth most probable in this poynt is that the words of the aforesayd text are to be vnderstood literally of a true Angelicall custody of Paradise and fiery swords the first against the infernall spirits the second for to terrifie man The Diuels were repelled and kept from this place of Paradise lest they should deceiue man by the tree of life promising him thereby a perpetuity of life such as he should haue enioyed if he had not falne man also was banished out of the same place not onely by the iust iudgment of Almighty God executed vpon him for his disobedience but also by a fatherly diuine prouidence and tender loue towards mankinde lest eating of the forbidden fruit which was of immortality a sufficient cause I meane to make him immortall he should liue an immortall life in this vale of misery and so become miserably immortall and immortally miserable CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished out of Paradise wherein two auncient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne TVrrianus in his Epistle to the Bishop of Towres alledgeth as an ancient opinion of diuers Doctors that originall sinne was that which the soule had coÌ„mitted before it was infused into the body which opinion seemeth first to haue beene taken from Origenes who held that the soules of men being first created altogether in heauen were cast downe thence into this vale of misery and ioyned vnto these materiall and grosse substances of our bodies in punishment of their sinne committed in heauen before their vnion to their bodies But this is euidently convinced as false out of many places of Scripture for if originall sinne was contracted in heauen how was it contracted by Adam in Paradise and if we did all contract it by one how did wee all contract it in our selues by our selues according to that of Paul Rom. 5. chap. vers 12. By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne so death went ouer all men forasmuch as all men haue sinned vers 16. Neither is the gift so as that which entred in by one that sinned for the fault came of one offence vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification vers 18 19. As by the offence of one the fault came on all men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men to the iustification of life Where wee may manifestly see contraposed death and life iustice and iniustice condemnation and iustification these as proceeding from the obedience of Christ those as flowing from the disobedience of Adam The second opinion in this point is that our originall sinne doth not consist in any qualitie or accident inherent in the substance of our bodies or soules or in any priuation of any excellencie or good qualitie which wee ought to haue retained in our soules but euen in the substance of our corporall and spirituall nature the reason is for whatsoeuer is not conformable to the law of God is sinne but all our nature is corrupt and auerse from the law of God therefore the whole nature of man both body and soule being thus corrupt and become abominable in the sight of God is sinne But thus it would follow as S. Austin well vrgeth against the Manichâ—es who held some things to be
wherevpon it followeth that though Eue had sinned if Adam had not we should not haue been borne in sinne Aquinas giueth another reason quia mulier passiue se habet ad generationem prolis because the woman doth onely concurre passiuely vnto generation but whether this be true or no quod medicorum est curent medici tractent fabrilia fabri one thing seemeth most certaine that this dependeth more on the secret will of Almighty God then of any naturall reason and consequence which may be deduced out of the principles of nature CHAP. LXII What punishments be due vnto originall sinne in this life I Answer briefly that the first punishment due vnto originall sinne and which was first of all inflicted vpon man was the priuation of originall iustice as proceeding from God and as it did subdue the inferiour portion of the soule vnto the superiour and the superiour vnto God The second punishment proceeding from the first was in the soule and her powers both vnderstanding and will not that any thing essentiall either to the soule or her powers is taken away but that they are not so able to exercise their functions as they should haue beene being endued with originall iustice The third punishment of originall sinne was that both Adam and his posteritie became thereby subiect to all corporall infirmities yea euen vnto death it selfe and many other expressed in the third chapter of Genesis vers 16. I will greatly increase thy sorrowes and thy conceptions in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children thy desire shall bee to thy husband and hee shall haue the rule ouer thee Verse 17. Vnto Adam hee said because thou hast hearkened vnto the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree concerning the which I commanded saying thou shalt not eat of it cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the dayes of thy life Verse 18. Thornes also and thistles shall it bring forth vnto thee and thou shalt eat of the hearbes of the field Verse 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou bee turned againe to the ground for out of it was thou taken for dust thou art and into dust shalt thou be turned againe Now seeing this naturall death could not naturally bee effectuated so long as Adam was in Paradise because the tree of life retained his vertue wherewith man might renew his age therefore Almighty God addeth in the same chapter verse 22. 23. and 24. And now lest peraduenture hee put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and liue for euer therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to dresse the ground whence he was taken And so he droue out man and at the East side of the garden of Eden he set the Cherubins and a flaming sword which turned euery way to keepe the way of the tree of life CHAP. LXIII What punishment is due vnto originall sin in the other life AL the difficultie of this point is wholly as concerning those who depart out of this world without baptisme whereby the guilt of originall sinne as many hold should haue been taken away wherefore the question is what becommeth of these or what punishment is due vnto them for this sin supposing that it be not taken away as certainly it is not at leastway in those that are not comprehended in the couenant of grace The common opinion of the schoole-Diuines in this point is that the innocents vnbaptised either baptismo sanguinis fluminis or flaminis either with the baptisme of bloud to wit of martyrdome or of the holy Ghost by some supernaturall act or habit sufficient to iustification or finally by the ordinary baptisme of water that such I say are punished with the losse of their supernaturall blessednesse though not with any other sensible punishment This is expresly the opinion of S. Ambrose vpon that of the 5. chapter to the Romans as by one man where thus hee declareth his minde in this point Death is the resolution of the body when the soule is separated from the body there is also another death which is called the second death vnto hell which wee doe not suffer through Adams sinne but this is gotten by our owne proper actuall sinne though by the occasion of the other Yea if wee onely attend vnto the nature of originall sinne contracted by the aforesaid innocents we shall finde that they are altogether vncapable of the punishment of hell fire for who will say that a man might iustly bee cast in prison or beaten for his originall sin seeing it was neuer in his power to auoid it much lesse therefore were it iust Lumbar 2. dist 33. Bonau ibid. ar 3. q. 1. Rich. ar 3. q. 1. Dur. q. 3. Scotus q. vnica Gal r. q. 1. ar 2. concla 1. seq Marsil in 2 q. 19. ar 5. post 2. conclusionem Alex. 1. par q. 39. mem 3 ar 4. Dom. Sotus l. 1. de natura gratia ar 4. cap. 14. Cath. in opusc peculiari de hac re that any man should suffer the eternall torments of hell fire for that sinne which hee neuer committed neither was euer in his power to auoid it wherefore this is the most common opinion of the Schooles that the infants or others who die with originall sinne only shall not suffer any sensible torment of hell fire though they bee eternally excluded from the company of the blessed in heauen and the glorious sight of Almighty God and this in particular is the opinion of the master of the sentences Bonauenture Richardus Durand Scotus Marsilius Gabriel Alexander Sotus and lastly of the Councell of Florence in the last session in literis vnionis The second opinion of other schoole-Diuines is that the said vnbaptised innocents are to bee punished in the other world not only with the losse of the sight of God their essentiall blisse but also with other sensible torments euen with hell fire it selfe This is plainly the opinion of S. Austine l. 5. hypognosticon post medium and in his booke de fide ad Petrum c. 27. 44. But if these be not so certainly Austines workes the second at least is of the learned Bishop Fulgentius and the other of some learned Author yea whosoeuer be the authors of those it is most certaine that Austine was of this opinion in his 14. sermon of the words of the Apostle where he saith infantes in peccato originali discedentes ex hac vita deputandos esse ad sinistram ad ignem aeternum that the infants that depart out of this world in originall sinne are to be deputed to the left hand vnto euerlasting fire Againe in his fift booke against Iulian the 8. chapter a little after the midst he auerreth hanc poenamignis seruatam esse infantibus quanta verò futura sit non audet definire that this punishment of fire is reserued for infants though as he
the likenesse of God but those things lastly which doe vnderstand doe come so neere vnto the likenesse of God that nothing created can come more neere Wherefore seeing that man may participate of the wisdome of the diuine nature yea euen according to hiâ— owne nature hence it is that hee is so framed to the image of God that nothing can be more like in his being and nature vnto God he liueth he breatheth he vnderstandeth he hath existence and being and is in all these as a perfect patterne of his Creator and God CHAP. XV. What is the difference betweene the image and the similitude of God according to which man is said to be created SAint Austine in his questions vpon Deuteronomie thinketh it no lesse then blasphemie to auerre any thing to be superfluous in the sacred text wherefore lest we be enforced to contradict this so receiued a principle Orig. lib. 3. Periâ—rchon cap. 6. Basil hom 6. in Gen. in hunc locum Ambros li. 6. Exameron c. 6. 8 Nicenus homil de creat hom Eucher li. 1. commen in Gen. in hunc locum Victorin in dispâ—t quam scripsit aduersus Arrium Theodoret. in quaest in Gen. q. 20. Rupert li. 2. de Trinitate operibus eius c. 3. et 5 Aquin. prima parte quaest 93. Magister sent lib. 2. distinct 26. ibidem Scholastici and manifest truth wee are to search what difference is betweene the image and likenesse of God according to which man was created Origenes Basil Nicenus Eucherius Victorinus Theodoretus Rupertus Aquinas the master of the sentences with many others both moderne and ancient Writers are of opinion that man is said to be made to the image of God according to his nature and properties consequent vnto nature as vnderstanding memorie and free will which he exerciseth in his naturall actions and in which he exceedeth all other inferiour creatures the which image though it may be and is in some sort defaced by sinne yet is it in no wise fully lost and blotted out because as it is wholly of God so it dependeth only of God and therefore can be taken away only by God himselfe nay not euen by God himselfe man remaining a reasonable creature or man For though he may haue his senses and other spirituall powers depraued yea though he may also be depriued of the exercise of them all yet in no wise can they be vtterly extinguished man as I said remaining man Now as touching the similitude of God according vnto which man was created wee are to consider him not according vnto the naturall gifts which are necessarily consequent vnto nature but according vnto iustice sanctitie and innocencie and grace which are gifts infused into nature though aboue nature the which as they are independent of nature so also may they bee and are separate from nature according to the free disposition and order of God the Author of nature but this certainly is alway for some sinne which in this sense may be said to be a deprauation of nature seeing it depriueth nature not only of these supernaturall gifts which are the chiefe ornaments and helpes of nature but also because it depraueth nature herselfe euen in her selfe and hindereth the due exercise of her naturall powers Rupertus in his second booke of the Trinitie and second chapter discourseth very acutely of this point of the difference betweene the image and similitude vnto which man was created giuing also the reason why the word image is prefixed before the word similitude in a word his resolution is this that the Sonne of God is signified by the word image and the holy Ghost by the word similitude for saith he the difference betweene similitude and image is this that the image is in regard of one only but a similitude is at least of two now the eternall Sonne of the eternall Father is the image of God according to that of the Apostle 1. Coloss who is the image of the inuisible God The Sonne I say is the image of the inuisible God equally inuisible For the vnderstanding of which we must presuppose that there bee many kindes of images as the image of man of a horse a picture in the wall an image grauen in stone or wood yea wee see euen the images of the Sunne and Moone in the water yet wee may not thinke that the Sonne of God is so to be called the image of God but rather as the Apostle writeth in another place Heb. 2. the figure of his substance because as euery substance is knowne by his figure or shape so God the Father by his word Againe the image of man is said to be a propertie of his substance in which sense the sacred text saith that Adam begat his sonne to his image and likenesse Gen. 5. and called his name Seth. Hence wee may vnderstand how the eternall Sonne is the image of his eternall Father and the holy Ghost the similitude and likenesse of the Father and Sonne seeing the goodnesse and loue of the Father and Sonne is common to both Father and Sonne Hence it is that it could not rightly be said in regard of the Sonne only let vs make man to our image and likenesse for as the Sonne is Sonne in regard only of the Father not of the Father and the holy Ghost iointly so also is hee not the image of the Father and of the holy Ghost iointly but of the Father onely But it is rightly said in regard of the holy Ghost to our image and likenesse because as the holy Ghost is the infinite goodnesse of the Father and Sonne so is he likewise the infinite similitude and likenesse common to both Father and Sonne But this not by the force of his particular proceeding as is the Sonne Others are of opinion that this word ad imaginem to our image doth signifie vnto vs the second person of the blessed Trinitie as he was to be incarnate or to take our nature vpon him But if we marke the phrase of the sacred text we shall easily finde that the Sonne of God was incarnate rather according to the similitude of man then that man was created according to his similitude Rom. 8. Philip. 1. Heb. 2. Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia and Oleaster vpon the first of Genesis are of opinion that God therefore said let vs make man to our image and likenesse because when hee created man hee tooke vpon him the shape and forme of man to the end that he might the better conuerse with man But this seemeth rather to bee an inuention of their owne then grounded in Scripture because it is most probable that which the Schoolemen doe commonly hold with Dionysius that all those apparitions which we reade in the old Testament were not immediately of God or by God himselfe but by the mediation of Angels who taking vpon them airie or other apparant bodies appeared vnto men in the shape and forme of men but so neuerthelesse that
euill euen of their owne nature it would follow I say that God were the author of sinne seeing he is the author of nature Therefore as S. Austine saith of the Angell so I of man Diabolus natura est Angelus sed quod natura est Dei opus est quod verò diabolus est vitio suo est vtendo male naturae suae bono opera verò eius mala quae vitia dicuntur actus sunt non res The Deuill by nature is an Angel and this is Gods worke but that hee is a Deuill commeth of his owne sinne by the euill vse of his good nature so that his euill workes which are called vices are the actions of his nature not nature it selfe or his Angelicall substance After the same manner God of his infinite goodnes created man good in substance in nature excellent in his powers perfect and in essence of all inferiour creatures the most eminent but he by his will abusing Gods gifts depraued his powers and depriued his nature of these supernaturall gifts which were made connaturall vnto his first creation not that either his nature became formally sinne or that his sinne was transformed in substance and nature least that he who is the author of nature should also be iudged the author of sinne but that man freely subiecting himselfe vnto the breach of Gods commandement voluntarily depriued himselfe of those supernaturall graces which according to the former decree of God were due vnto his happy estate of innocencie Insomuch that all the goodnes beauty and graces which before were connaturall vnto him were bestowed by God and all the euill which was preternaturall vnto him and accidentary vnto his nature was deriued from himselfe according to that of the Prophet Hosea chap. 13. vers 9. Thy perdition is of thy selfe but in me is thy helpe Hence it is most euident that our nature depraued with sinne must needs be distinguished from that sinne which depraueth nature as the man infected with any maladie or sicknesse is distinguished from the qualitie or maladie infecting the man CHAP. LIII In which diuers other opinions of many Diuines touching the essence of originall sinne are declared and refuted Lombard 2. dist 33. LOmbard the master of the sentences Driedo Ariminensis Parisiensis and Altisiodorensis Greg. 2 dist 30. q. 2. art Gabr q. 2. ar 1. 2. Hen quod l. 2. q. 11. Guliel Paris tract de vitijs peccatis cap 2. 4. Altisiod lib. 2. tract 27. cap. 1. 2. Driedo lib. 1. de gratia libero arbitrio p. 3 confider 4. Holcottus q. de imputabilitato peccati ad primuÌ„ principale with diuers other schole Diuines are of opinion that the essence of originall sinne consisteth in morbida quadam qualitate in a certaine infectious qualitie not of the body but of the soule deriued from the corruption of the carnall appetite yea S. Austine may seeme to allude vnto this in his first booke de nuptijs concupiscentijs cap. 25 where he saith that originall sinne doth not remaine substantially in vs as a body or spirit but that it is a certaine affection of an ill qualitie as a disease or languishing and in his 13 chap. hee calleth it morbidum affectum a sickly qualitie affection or disposition though more spirituall then corporall Againe in his sixt booke against Iulian chap. 7. hee explicateth himselfe more plainely oppugning others in this wise some Philosophers said that it was the vitious part of the minde by which the minde or any part of it becommeth vitious that so all being healed the whole substance may be conserued so as it seemeth the Philosophers by a figuratiue kind of speach called that vitious part of the minde libidinem lust in which the vice which is called lust is inherent after the manner that those who are contained in the house are called the house Ambrosius in cap. 7. ad Romanoâ— Mâ—gister sent lib. 2. distinct 31. cap. 8. S. Ambrose likewise seemeth to bee of the same opinion in the 7. chap. of the epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes where propounding this question how sinne doth dwell in the flesh seeing it is not any substance but the priuation of goodnes he answereth ecce primi hominis corpus corruptuÌ„ est per peccatuÌ„ c. Behold saith this Father the body of the first man was corrupted by sinne and the corruption by reason of the offence remaineth in the body retaining the force of Gods sentence denounced against Adam by whose fellowship and society the soule is spotted with sinne But certainely if wee duely ponder the aforesaid places we shall easily find that neither Austine nor any other of the Fathers is of this opinion wherefore the meaning of S. Austine in the places aboue alleadged is that concupiscence is not any substance or part of substance but rather a qualitie or affection or effect of an ill qualitie and therefore it is most fitly compared to a disease not because it is distinguished from the sensitiue appetite but because it is the very appetite and power it selfe now depraued which is a qualitie and as the Diuines tearme it affectio morbida a sickly corrupt or infected affection or inclination First because it doth preuent or ouersway reason which ought to bee the gouernesse and rule ouer all humane actions Secondly because it is depriued of originall iustice which in our first Parents was a power aboue nature yet connaturalized if I may so tearme it vnto their nature as well for their direction in matter of nature as for their helpe and furtherance in actions of grace insomuch that while their wills were ruled by reason they were alwaies subiect to their Creator and likewise directed in all things belonging both to nature and grace True it is as St. Austin doth often repeat that the soule is corrupted by the flesh as the liquour by the corrupt and vncleane vessell not because that there was any such quality as the forementioned deriued into the soule by the sinne of Adam but rather because the soule is infused into the body which descended of the defiled seede of Adam and therefore doth contract this sinne by which it is truly said to be polluted And according to this interpretation wee are also to vnderstand that which the Master of the Sentences aboue alleadged doth falsely cite out of St. Ambrose being rather the words of the ordinary glosse vpon that of Rom. chap. 7. But that sinne which dwelleth in me for the Author of the glosse addeth vnto the rest of Ambrose his word cuius consortio anima maculatur peccato by whose society the soule is defiled with sinne which by no wise can bee vnderstood by reason of any infectious quality deriued from the body and thence transfused into the soule but accordingly as hath beene partly explicated already and shall bee heereafter more declared And this may be further demonstrated euen by reason for first either this morbida qualitas this