of knowledge of good and euill especially seeing he fore-knew his fall THe answer is easie to wit that by the tryall of his obedience in this one commandment hee might subiect the whole man vnto himselfe in all things and that man by the breach or keeping of the said commandement might know by wofull experience as he truely did in his wofull fall the difference betweene good and euill so that whereas before hee knew it onely by contemplation now he should find it by a lamentable experience yea in this his sinne was the greater in that the obiect of his obedience was so facile and the commandement so easie to be kept Aug. li. 14. de ciu Dei cap. 15. For as S. Austine saith like as the obedience of Abraham is highly extolled because the slaying of his sonne with his owne hands was of such difficultie euen so the disobedience of Adam in Paradise was the more hainous by how much the precept which he had imposed was the more facile to haue beene fulfilled Againe as the obedience of the second Adam was so much the more admirable because hee was obedient euen vnto death so the disobedience of the first Adam was the more detestable by which he became disobedient euen vnto death for where the punishment of the disobedience is great and the thing commanded easie who can expresse how great an euill it is not to obey and how great an iniurie to so great a power especially threatning so great punishments Now as touching the second point I answer that therefore God as absolute in his will science and power would create Adam and giue him the aforesaid precept which hee knew neuerthelesse hee would so presently violate to the end that his vnhappy fall might bee an occasion of our most happy Redeemer for as the Schooles commonly hold if Adam had not sinned the Sonne of God had not beene incarnated so that as Gregory saith in regard of this it was a happy fall which deserued or rather required to haue such a Redeemer O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantum habere meruit Redemptorem in which I know not whether I should more admire the goodnesse of God in the creation and restauration of man or the ingratitude of man towards God in and after both his creation redemption and infinite offences and falles but that as it is the nature of that infinite goodnesse to effectuate the greatest good of the greatest euill so is it no lesse consequent to mans naturall propension and of himselfe as it were an infinite of euill of the greatest good to worke the greatest euill a thing not easily beleeued if our daily and wofull experience did not so manifestly proue it for as God by our greatest and originall euill did worke our greatest and originall good and this onely out of his infinite goodnesse the incarnation I meane of his eternall Sonne so man out of his infinite malice did by occasion of this so infinite a benefit worke the most wicked outrage that could bee imagined against his benefactour by seeking his dishonour and death who so abased himselfe to giue him life so that I know not whether I should more admire God shedding his bloud for man or man spilling the bloud of God mans ingratitude towards God or Gods infinite bountie towards man And hence it is that as faith teacheth vs this euill and sinne of Adam was foreseene and permitted of God so is it no lesse a blasphemous heresie to auerre that this or any other sinne is wrought by God wrought I meane by his particular command or concourse not by his vniuersall which is due vnto all entitie and being yet in some sense neither due vnto this of sinne as which in it selfe hath neither entitie nor being but rather if wee speake formally is a priuation of all rectitude goodnesse and being CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression AS it is certaine that the mortalitie of Adam and consequently of all mankinde did proceed of sinne so it hath no small difficultie to declare what instant death that was which God so instantly threatned should follow mans sinne for so saith the text Gen. 2. the 17. verse In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death What day is this what death is this seeing that he neither first sinned the last day of his life nor yet died the first day of his sinne true it is that as death was due at his last day for his first sinne so was it not inflicted in the first houre for his first dayes sinne Was this death peraduenture the priuation of grace by which his soule supernaturally liued for as the body liueth by the soule so Adams soule liued by grace consequently as the body is said to die by the absence of the soule so the soule spiritually by the priuation of grace but yet though this be true yet it cannot bee the sole meaning of the aforesaid words so that then no other death should haue beene due vnto man but only the death of the soule the separation from God who as he had sinned both in body and soule was iustly to be punished in body and soule which the effect afterward shewed that God had before accordingly decreed so that the sentence of his death as it was executed both in body and soule so it is to bee vnderstood to haue beene decreed as well in regard of the body as of the soule because the corporall death is a necessary consequent of the spirituall now then the spirituall being inflicted in the very instant of mans sinne how chanced it that the corporall also did not befall him in the day of his sinne especially seeing that though God threatned not death in the instant of his sinne for the instant of his sinne yet at least God saith that man shall die in the day of his sinne Is it peraduenture threatned and not truly decreed or if really decreed how is it not absolutely performed God threatned his death in the day of his eating Adam eateth and yet liueth long after his eating Could Adam change the decree of God or could God decree that hee meant not to performe Hee performed not therefore he decreed not if he decreed not how then was it said In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die the death not of the soule only for that was instantly but of the body principally seeing that is said to be in tempore in the day not in instanti or momentarily Was it a threat only as wee reade of the Niniuites but they changed their minde they repented their sinne therfore as the sentence was conditionall the condition being changed the sentence of God though eternall is said to be reuoked not changed in act but immuted in obiect the act being immutable the obiect mutable according to the decree of the immutable act But here in this of Adam the cause is altered God
the 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
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
infectious quality was naturally produced in our appetite and thence transfused into our wils or supernaturally the first is impossible because sinne had no such naturall force or power in Adam otherwise it should haue had the same effect likewise in all the posterity of Adam which euen our aduersaries doe deny seeing there is no reason why it should bee so auerred of one more then of all Or peraduenture this quality was not produced by naturall means but by supernaturall not by any naturall power of man but by the supernaturall of Almighty God and as some hath aduentured to pronounce ex sola Dëi voluntate meerly by the will of him to whom nothing is impossible cui non est impossibile omne verbum to whose will all doe obey But certainely if wee waigh this answer either in the naturall principles of true philosophy or supernaturall of grace we shall finde the aforesayd position and solution to bee most dissonant to both seeing that both doe euidently demonstrate vnto vs the repugnance and contradiction of this that hee who is the fountaine of all goodnesse or rather goodnesse it selfe should bee the particular and naturall efficient or morall cause of that which is summum malum the greatest euill nothing more distant then summum bonum and summum malum nothing so vnlike in their being so nothing so improportionate in their causalities and effects Wherfore as it is impossible for goodnesse it selfe not to be good so is it no lesse contradiction to the particular cause of euill and consequently seeing that sinne is summum malum the greatest euill possible and seeing likewise of all sinnes this in some sort is the greatest as which is the originall and fountaine of all other actual sinnes as it doth imply contradiction that God should be the particular cause of other actuall sinnes so it doth à fortiori imply the same that he should be in any wise of this originall yea euen natural reason was a sufficient light of this vnto the very Heathen Philosophers So Plato in his second booke De Republica saith Omnibus modis pugnandum est ne Deus qui bonus est dicatur esse malorum causa alioqui secum Deus pugnaret qui suis legibus contrarium fieri mandauit Wee must by all meanes endeauour saith this diuine Philosopher lest God who is altogether good be said to be the cause of euill otherwise God should bee contrary and repugnant vnto himselfe seeing that hee hath commanded the contrary in his lawes whose eyes as Abacuc saith are so dimme Abacuc 1. that they cannot see euill neither can they behold any iniquity Not that really hee doth not perfectly view and comprehend with his all-knowing science the secretest and most hidden and abhominable action or most inward cogitation and that from all eternity euen before it bee conceiued or thought of by the sinner himselfe but he is said not to see it or not to know it scientia approbationis that is he doth not approoue it but reprooue it not allow it but condemne it and in this sense that is to be vnderstood which the Gospell saith shall be pronounced vnto the vnrepenting sinners nescio vos I know you not not that our Sauiour either according to his humanity much lesse in his diuinity was or is ignorant of any good or bad action according to which hee is to reward in his iudgement but that he did not see or know them so as that hee did deeme them as worthy of the diuine knowledge and approbation or of any reward but onely of eternall fire prepared for the Diuell and his Angels Albertus Pighius Catharinus de originali peccato Albertus Pighius and Catharinus flying the inconueniences of the aforesayd opinions fell into another extreame to wit that there was no other originall sinne in Adams posterity then the sinne of Adam by which he first of all then all his discendence were reputed sinners hee inwardly they outwardly and as the Schooles terme it by an outward denomination to wit by Adams sinne inward to Adam imputed onely to them as though it had been really their own and actually committed by them whereas in very deede they had none proper or inherent but Adams onely by imputation not by reall appropriation Which opinion may fitly bee declared by the example of a man who being adopted by a King as his sonne and heire apparant to the Crowne should haue granted vnto him and to his posterity all the priuiledges annexed vnto his adoption and principality but yet with this condition that if this Prince so adopted should commit any treason against his father both he and his posterity should not onely lose the aforesayd titles and priuiledges but also should be accounted traytours vnto the Crowne In which cause although the posterity of this man had not committed any fault in themselues yet were they to be reputed morally as traytours and to haue committed high treason in their head and pregenitor After the same manner as the Doctors of this opinion auerre was the compact made betweene God and our first father Adam so that if hee had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator eating of the forbidden fruit he and his should haue beene translated out of the terrene Paradise vnto the kingdome of heauen But this compact being broken by our first father both he and wee lost our right vnto the blessednesse for which wee were created he in himselfe and we in him Not that as he had inherent in him the spot and blemish of originall sin wee also should haue it but only by an externe denomination as the Diuines terme it because we had really the effects thereof our first father in whom we were all contained had really both the cause effect the sin I meane of disobedience and the priuatiō of originall iustice together with all other effects therupon ensuing This opinion is gathered out of Paul Rom. 5. In whom to wit in Adam all haue sinned as who would say wee had not sinned originally but onely in Adam wee haue not therefore originally sinned in our selues consequently if wee haue not sinned in our selues but only in Adam our sin only is in Adam as it is only by Adam not in our selues as it was not committed by our selues in so much that it may only bee tearmed ours by imputation from our fore-fathers not by reall inhesion in our selues seeing we neuer gaue any consent by our owne willes vnto the foresaid disobedience but as wee were included in Adam as in our head wee are therefore said to be spotted with originall sinne in as much only as hee who was our head and in whose loines we were contained did really commit the said sinne and consequently as the foresaid Doctors inferre originall sinne in vs neither consisteth in any actuall or habituall transgression neither in concupiscence or in the priuation of originall iustice not in the first Vide Augustinum li. 1. retract
cap. 15. in epistola 3. ad Hillarium quae est 80. in Encherridio cap. 36. seeing that was not ours but Adams not in the habit because this should proceed only from the precedent act and finally neither in the two last because these are rather effects proceeding from our originall iustice then the crime and sinne it selfe This may also seeme the opinion of S. Austine in his 3. booke de libero arbitrio cap. 20. where he saith that we are all inquinati peccato primi parentis defiled with the sinne of our first father the which sinne could neither bee inherent in vs as actually proceeding from him neither as habitually inherent in his soule or priuatiuely adherent to his forme It was therefore in vs by an externe denomination inwardly affecting him but outwardly onely denominating vs. But if it bee so as Austine saith that wee were all originally defiled with the sinne of our first father if wee had also besides this some other inherent originall sinne wee should haue two kindes of originall sinnes the one by imputation the other by inhesion the one inherent in Adam only the other in vs deriued from Adam which is to speake without ground of Scripture which onely maketh mention of one originall sinne by which all bee truly called sinners according to that of the Apostle Omnes peccauerunt in Adamo all haue sinned in Adam in Adam hee saith not in themselues and consequently none such did truly possesse them By this wee may see what colour of truth may be giuen to falsitie yea euen vnto heresie such as this seemeth to be for if originall sinne bee nothing else in our posteritie but the punishment and sinne of our first father Adam for which all his posteritie is punished certainly after the same manner the sonnes also of any other of his posteritie who as the Scripture witnesseth are iustly punished for their fathers offences might rightly be said to haue contracted so many originall sinnes as bee sinnes punishable in them by reason of their fathers transgressions which without all question were most absurd and yet the consequence seemeth most euident For if originall sinne according to this last opinion bee nothing else but the sinne of our first father Adam as it is punishable in vs no question but by the same reason as many sinnes of our fore-fathers as are punishable in vs euen vnto the third or fourth generation may as well bee called originall sinnes in vs though they bee not really inherent in our soules or powers thereof but onely are said to be in vs by an externe denomination or name proceeding from our parents Moreouer if our sinne bee nothing else but the sinne of our first parent as it is imputed vnto vs from him as our head certainly as that is blotted in him by his repentance so it should also bee blotted in vs by the same repentance for if his sinne could be sufficient for the condemnation of all why should not his repentance be sufficient for all especially it being nothing in vs but an externe denomination or bare name taken from his sinne which now being washed away in him should of necessitie be likewise blotted in vs nulla siquidem forma siue interna siue externa potest denominare nisi eo modo quo est for questionlesse no forme being taken away can denominate as when it was present This forme therefore being an externe forme which neuer had any vnion in our soules or powers thereof could neuer euen when it was present denominate our soules inwardly sinful much lesse now when it is altogether blotted out of the first subiect wherein it was really inherent but rather now it should giue no denomination at all and consequently none of the sons of Adam should truly be said to bee borne in originall sinne seeing that forme from which they were said to bee borne in sinne is quite abolished and blotted out euen in the first subiect from whence it should proceed vnto all Finally as Dauid witnesseth wee are all borne in iniquitie and our mother conceiued vs in sinne and S. Paul All haue sinned in Adam but this could not be true if so be that wee were onely to bee tearmed originally sinners in that our first father Adam sinned for his sinne being blotted out the denomination also proceeding from it should be taken away seeing that no forme can any longer denominate then whiles it is present and after the manner that it is so Therefore as it could not really and intrinsecally denominate the posteritie of Adam sinners euen when it was present according to the foresaid doctrine so now when it is altogether taken away in his root and first origine it cannot in any wise denominate vs sinners which is euidently against the Scriptures which repeat so often that all mankinde was conceiued in sinne and to haue sinned in Adam hee onely excepted who as goodnesse it selfe in no wise could bee subiect to this so great euill and as man was hypostatically vnited with the second person of the blessed Trinitie and predestinated to bee the generall redemption of the world from this generall deluge of sinne and therefore could not be defiled with any sinne CHAP. LIIII Whether originall sinne consisteth in any priuation or no. MAny seeing the inconueniences of the former opinions not finding in what positiue act or habit they might constitute the essence of our originall iniustice at length haue beene driuen to say that it was not essentially and formally in any positiue act or habit but that it consisted rather in some priuation The reason of this may bee because the essence of sinne according to his nature common to all sinnes both actuall habituall and originall is as the Fathers doe often insinuate non natura aliqua sed negatio not any nature but a negation of nature and consequently the same must be here in originall sinne So Dionysius 4. cap. de diuinis nominibus speaking of the euill and malice of sinne saith neither this euill of sinne is the appetite it selfe but the declination of the appetite from good to euill and more plainly afterward calleth it a priuation atque vt summatim dicam malum quemadmodum saepe diximus infirmitas imbecillitásque ac priuatio est aut scientiae aut fidei aut appetitus aut actionis bonae Euill or sinne as I haue often said is a certaine infirmitie and imbecillitie and a priuation either of knowledge or of faith or of the appetite or of the doing of that which is good Iustine also in his booke of the questions which were proposed by the Gentiles vnto the Christians amongst other things resolueth this difficultie 46. q. 73. that euill or sinne is nothing else but the corruption of goodnesse so that it is not any positiue entitie or being but rather a priuation of entitie or being or as Basil describeth it Basil hom 9. priuatio boni the priuation of good and Athanasius more plainly saith
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
originall commeth only by Adams sinne and transgression and thereby is transfused and passed into vs. Wherefore God speaking not of the former but of the latter Ezechiel chap. 18. saith The soule that hath sinned shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither the father the sonnes iniquitie the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the impietie of the wicked vpon him On the contrary side originall sinne being the sinne of nature requireth only the free libertie of the first and principall head of nature because his will is reputed as the vniuersall will of all whence it is that wee must not thinke that when the childe is first conceiued and the soule first infused into the body that then I say it may bee deemed to sinne but rather that then it is conceiued in sinne so Dauid saith that he was conceiued in sinne not that he sinned in his conception For though both insinuate a true sinne in vs yet the one that is originall sinne is thereby signified to be deriued from Adam vnto vs yea also to be inherent in vs the other that is actuall sinne is from our selues and of our selues whence it is that the person of Adam was first infected with this originall contagion and then his nature but in vs contrariwise first the nature is infected then the person depraued These things presupposed my first conclusion is that it is a point of catholike faith that all those who descend of the seede of Adam by ordinary meanes are infected with this generall maladie of originall sinne Wherefore God threatneth Gen. 13. that he whose flesh is not circumcised shall be blotted out of the booke of God Aug. lib. 3 de peccato originali cap. 30. 35. li. â— dâ— nupt ijs â— concupiscentijs cap. 17 because hee hath made frustrate his couenant out of which testimonie S. Austine thus argueth against the Pelagians The infants did not frustrate this couenant made with God by any actuall sinne seeing they could not commit any actually therefore they contracted originally by originall sinne deriued from Adam The second testimonie which proueth this point is out of the 51. Psalme where Dauid saith Behold I am conceiued in iniquities and my mother conceiued mee in sinne Out of which place almost all the Greeke and Latine Fathers doe inferre the foresaid conclusion especially Origenes Basil and Chrysostome who in his 3. booke in Leuiticum cap. 12. noteth that Dauid doth not by these words accuse any sinne of his mothers but that he calleth nature his mother signifying thereby that the filth and impuritie of Adams sinne hath descended vpon all his posteritie Yea this is also the exposition of Eutimius Hilarius Ruffinus Innocentius tertius Beda Gregory Ambrose and Hierome who also alleage for the same conclusion Eccles cap. 4. a heauie yoake vpon the sonnes of Adam from the day of their birth vnto the day of their death which place S. Austine thus explicateth Quid est graue iugum nisi peccatum What is this heauie yoake but sinne And why is it called a yoake but because it proceedeth from two the male and the female of the good and of the bad and because it is a yoake in both the sexes therefore it is said to bee a heauie yoake vpon the children of Adam therefore in that he said vpon the sonnes of Adam he made no difference of ages no distinction of sexes and by the comparing of sinne vnto a yoake hee made all men equall Christ only excepted who was not borne as others were of corruption and sinne Many of the Fathers August lib. 6 contra Donatistas cap. 12. lib. 1 de piccatorum me ritis remissione cap. 17. 20. 29. 30. lib. 2. cap. 27. and principally S. Austine doth deduce this our conclusion out of the 3. of Iohn where our Sauiour saith that vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen out of which place though Bellarmine with most of the Doctors of the church of Rome doe inferre an absolute necessitie of baptisme by reason of the generall exception made by our Sauiour that vnlesse a man be borne of water he cannot be saued yet neuerthelesse this is not so to bee vnderstood of the materiall water but of the grace of God purging and cleansing vs as water doth as a reuerend Author of this age doth wel expound Attersol in his 2 book of the sacrament of baptisme chap. 5. which interpretation may be gathered by conference of a like place Matth. 3. vers 11. hee shall baptise with the holy Ghost and with fire that is by the spirit of God which is as it were fire lightning our hearts with the knowledge of God enflaming them with his loue and purging them from all euill affections So when wee are said to bee borne againe by water and the spirit he meaneth by the spirit shewing forth in vs the force power and propertie of water as if he should say we are borne of water which is the spirit as Iohn 7.38.39 and 4.21 Againe if it were meant of water in baptisme it must bee vnderstood according to a like sentence Iohn 6.53 Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you which must bee vnderstood of such as are of yeeres according to the exposition of Innocentius 3. Decret Gregor lib. 3. tit 42. cap. 3 Lumbardus lib 4. sent distinct 4. and Peter Lumbard the master of the sentences But to leaue the confirmation of this point as touching the saluation of infants vnbaptised S. Chrysostome Theodoretus S. Austine with many other Doctors doe euidently deduce the foresaid conclusion out of the 5. to the Romans Rom. 5. where Paul saith that by one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne death passed vnto all men in which all haue sinned Irencus l. 5. cap. 17. 19. Athan. de iâ—carnatione verbi Bâ—siâ— super Psalmos 32. 50. Concilium MilevitanuÌ„ Araustâ—anum Jâ—stinus Martir Greg Nazian oratione 42. in sanctum Pascha oratione 38 in Christi nattuttate Chrysâ—stomus de Adamo Eua. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 1. in Gen. Theodoretus in Psalmum 50. Damascenus lib 2 fâ—leâ— Orthodoxae Origines super epistolam ad Romanos c. 6. Cyprian epistola 59. Hilarius Pictariensis ad Psalmum 18. Ambros l. de Tobia c. 9. ad Psal 48. l. 1. de poenitentia c. 2. Hierom ad cap. 42. Zech Fulgentius de gratia Jesu Chrsti cap. 31. Bernard seria 4. hebdomadae paenosae de passione Domini Yea this is plainely the opinion of the Milevitan and Arausican Councels of Iustine Martyr Ireneus Athanasius Cirillus Nazianzen Chrysostome Cirillus Alexandrinus Theodoretus Damascenus Origenes Cyprianus Hilarius Pictaviensis Ambrose Ierome Fulgentius Bernard and many others Now it remained that I should haue answered to all and euery of the
be past yet that this might be imputed vnto vs his posteritie onely by reason of the relation which we might haue from his act and this without any other priuation negation or concupiscence remaining in vs. I answer that although this be the opinion of Albertus and Catharinus yet that in no wise it may be admitted for so we are not really and internally sinners in Adam but onely by an externe denomination of his sinne which as wee haue already showne is most erroneous CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie THere hath beene three distinct heresies about this point the first which making no difference betweene the soules of men and other liuing creatures held that as the soules of all other creatures compounded of matter and forme are produced with dependencie of their subiect and materiall substance so likewise the soules of men And that therefore they were infected and polluted by the coniunction with the body The second opinion no lesse absurd in Philosophy then erroneous in Diuinitie is that one soule doth concurre vnto the generation of another as the whole man wholy to the production of another The third and worst opinion of all doth attribute the production of originall sinne in our soules vnto the absolute power of God spotting thereby his infinite goodnesse by the too much extending of his omnipotence euen vnto that which rather argueth impotencie then omnipotencie Now therefore the true cause of originall sinne in vs as the Scripture often witnesseth was our first father Adam by reason of his transgression of the commandement of God but this not by reall influx and concourse but by morall first because hee could not of himselfe and by his owne nature passe vnto his posteritie any such effect especially seeing that that sinne now is altogether past yea at least way according to the guiltinesse thereof it is washed away by the blood of Christ but according to the decree of Almighty God he was the morall cause insomuch as the infusion of originall iustice into vs depended vpon his will by not sinning according to the compact made betweene him and God hee therefore eating of the forbidden fruit there followed necessarily priuation of originall iustice in our soules and consequently originall sinne in it selfe CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary that there should be made a couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CAtharinus aboue alleadged thinketh it altogether necessary that there should bee such a pact betweene God and man vt in posteros peccatum deriuari possit that so Adams sinne might be deriued vnto his posteritie and that the said pact was included in these words in quacunque hora comederis morte morieris in what houre soeuer thou shalt eat thou shalt die Gen. 2. 3. Sotus on the contrary side in his first booke de natura gratia cap. 10. thinketh it friuolous to admit any such pact which opinion many more moderne writers doe the rather follow because the law of nature did oblige man to the preseruing of iustice But certainely no man can deny but that originall grace and iustice should haue beene transfused to Adams posteritie if hee who was our head and had receiued it for vs all had perseuered and this by the sole will and ordinance of God for certainely this was not required by the nature of originall iustice and consequently it onely required the decree of God about this matter which might haue beene otherwise But that there was the said pact betweene God and Adam himselfe for himselfe it seemeth euident out of the aforesaid text of Gen. as Athanasius well noteth CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the flesh I Answer that this infection is not because the soule receiueth any reall influx from the body for without question the body can in no wise as an efficient cause maculate or spot the soule but this is because as soone as euer the soule is created and in the very same instant that shee is infused into the body shee wanteth that gift of originall iustice which shee ought to haue had and therefore concupiscence is imputed vnto her as sinne which should haue been healed or not imputed by originall iustice if Adam had not lost it for vs all and this is the meaning of venerable Bede tomo 8. in lib. quaestionum 4. 14 a little before the end where he saith animā ex vnione cum carne peccato maculatā esse that our soules are maculated by the vnion with the body CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in 〈◊〉 if either Adam or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree THe reason of this doubt is because as the preacher saith a muliere initium peccati sinne had his beginning from the woman and through her all doe die it seemeth therfore that though shee onely had sinned the same sinne should haue beene imputed vnto vs all yea all should haue contracted that sin in her and by hers Secondly S. Hierome S. Ambrose explicating these words ad Rom 5. per vnum hominem c. through one man sinne entred into the world in whom all haue sinned doe vnderstand that one to be Eue if therefore shee was the first cause of this sinne it seemeth that though shee onely had sinned neuerthelesse sinne should haue beene deriued vnto her posteritie though Adam had not sinned seeing that these words in whom all haue sinned according to the interpretation of S. Hierome and S. Ambrose are to be applied vnto the woman as who was the first cause of mans woe Although I can gather nothing altogether certaine about this point either out of the holy Scriptures or Fathers yet neuerthelesse it seemeth more probable that the whole cause of originall sinne in vs ought to bee reduced vnto Adam so that by Adams consent onely and not by Eues we were to be borne in originall iniustice The reason is for that all the Fathers S. Hierome and S. Ambrose only excepted who doe interpret the aforesaid place doe vnderstand it of Adam and not of Eue yea it seemeth that this may be gathered out of the words of S. Paul 1. Corinth 15. As in Adam all do die so all shall be reviued in Christ wherfore venerable Bede is plainely of this opinion in the 14 of his questions tomo 8 where he saith originale peccatum trahere originem ex Adamo non ex diabolo quia ex diabolo non propagamur non ab Eua quia vir id est Adam non est à muliere sed mulier a viro ex quo sequitur Adamo non peccante etiamsi Eua peccasset non futurum in nobis peccatum That originall sinne hath his beginning from Adam onely not from the Deuill because wee are not begot by the Deuill neither of Eue because the man to wit Adam is not of the woman but the woman of the man
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
not inhabitable by reason of the neerenesse of the Sunne and other Planets and stars To which I cannot denie but some shew of answere may be made as that neither Sunne nor any of the Planets are as the Philosophers say formally but onely virtually hot that is though they haue the vertue to produce heate in these inferiour things yet that they be not in themselues hot neither are they capable of heate because as they neither agree in matter nor forme as many Philosophers hold with these inferiour creatures so neither can they haue the same kinde of qualities that our Elements haue But this answer is easily confuted because as the virtuall heate of the sun is sufficient to make inhabitable some places of the world as diuers graue Writers affirme by reason of the neernesse vnto it why might it not also cause the like effect in Paradise vnlesse wee will flie vnto the omnipotence of God and miracles the onely refuge of ill grounded Philosophie and ignorance Or say as some haue fondly fained that Paradise being of another kinde of matter then the rest of the earth or of the same Species and purity that the heauens are as these bee incorruptible by reason of their most pure matter or incorruptible vnion so likewise Paradise and the thinges there onely man being of the same nature that now he is was by the particular prouidence of the omnipotent power kept from mortalitie or corruption as long as hee preserued himselfe from the corruption of sin But these and such like solutions as they are forged without any ground so they may easily be denied without any more reason this onely being added to the former proofe that so high a place as the Spheare of the Moone was altogether vnfit for the situation of Paradise by reason of the perpetual agitation and motion of that place which is so continually rapt and carried about with the most violent and swift course of the heauen Many other reasons I confesse might bee giuen but which rather appertain vnto Mathematikes and longer discourses then the breuity which wee haue here taken vpon vs will permit Now therefore onely remaineth that by the consideration of the excellencies of this place wherein we were before our sinne we gather the hatred God beareth to sinne seeing that for the sinne of one yea and that but one only God who is so good yea infinite goodnesse and mercie would punish with so long a punishment and with so great punishments for so long a time so infinite a number as is and shall be the whole posteritie of Adam euen vnto the worlds end And that sinne certainly hath a kinde of infinitie of malice which could deserue so infinite a punishment yea so much prouoke the infinite goodnesse and mercy of him who is infinitely good and mercifull And lastly we may inferre what sinne iustly deserueth if it should not be punished more according to the rule of mercy then according to that which the rigor of iustice requireth seeing that nothing was or could bee sufficient to blot or wash it away but onely the bloud of the lambe of God which onely washeth away the sinnes of the world by which we are to be restored not onely into a more high participation of God and his grace then we possessed before our fall but also into a more perfect Paradise then that was from which we were banished for our first sinne and fall And this only by his merits bloud and passion who could in no wise either slippe or fall So that wee may well exclaime with Saint Austine August in meditationibus O strange iudgement ô vnspeakable disposi ion of the diuine mysteries the sinner offendeth the iust is punished the guiltie transgresseth the innocent is beaten the wicked sinneth the godly is condemned that which the euill deserueth the good suffereth the seruant doth amisse the master maketh amends man committeth sinne God beareth the punishment O Sonne of God how hast thou debased thy selfe how hast thou burned in affection How farre is thy mercie stretched whither is thy compassion come Adam did wickedly thou was punished man sinned thou wast afflicted Eue offended thou wast tormented we were disobedient but thou obediently bearest the punishment of our disobedience we serued our concupiscence but thou enduredst hunger the tree allured vs vnto an vnlawfull desire but perfect charitie ledde thee vnto the Crosse wee tasted presumptuously the forbidden fruite but thou sufferedst torments for our presumption and momentarie delight We enioyed the pleasure but thou wast peirced with nailes wee delighted in the sweetnesse of the apple but thou therefore didst tast the bitternesse of the gall Here astonished I know not what to say nay I am so amazed I knowe not what to thinke onely I can exclaime with the Apostle O altitudo sapientiae scientiae Dei O deapth of the wisedom of God! ô mercy of the omnipotent without measure quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae tribuit mihi What shall I giue vnto God again who hath giuen himselfe so often for mee vnto hunger for my riot vnto nakednesse for my pride vnto dishonour for my honour vnto humilitie for my ambition vnto mortalitie for my immortalitie And finally vnto the ignominious torments of a thorny crowne and other of his sacred passion and vitall death for to crowne mee with an eternall crowne of glory in the life to come in that euerlasting Paradise vnto which no mutability no mortality and much lesse any impuritie can ascend vbi non est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis adumbratio whither not euen the very shaddow of change can approach CHAP. III. Of the compasse and greatnesse of Paradise and why it was so beautified seeing God fore-knew for how short a time it was to serue for the vse of man WHere there is lesse certainty in the conclusion there I meane to spend lesse time in the resolution as in this of the compasse of Paradise a question of more difficultie then necessitie yet neuerthelesse because it is vrged by some I will endeauour to giue some satisfaction in it such as may be in so vncertaine a point at least way as far as other principles of Philosophy or Diuinitie or finally as the graue expositours of the sacred text will giue me any firme ground of discourse Amongst whom Ephren aboue alledged answereth to this question that Paradise was greater then all the earth now inhabited Ephren lib de Paradiso The reason may be because as the inhabitants were to bee more in number then the earthly and more worthy so their habitation according to the wisdome bountie of their Creatour should haue beene more magnificent and far more capable of the beautie and magnificence no man can doubt who doubteth not of the history of Genesis Why then should we doubt of the other seeing the same reason vrgeth in both yea if we may discourse according to reason in these things which depend only vpon the free
end that his corporall rectitude and vprightnes of his shape might stirre him vp to preserue the spirituall rectitude and righteousnes of the inward man who was made to the image of God and that the beauty of our corporall substance and outward proportion and right disposition of the lineaments of our body might correct the inward deformitie of our soules and the powers thereof For what can be more vgly deformed and abominable in the eye of that all-seeing God then a sinfull and defiled soule in a beautifull body Is it not a shamefull and detestable thing that an earthly and corrupt vessell such as the body is should contemplate the heauens view the Planets and be delighted with the aspect of the incorruptible spheares and motions of the starres and that on the contrary side the spirituall and celestiall creature far more perfect then all the celestiall globes and heauens the soule I meane of man should alwaies haue her eyes that is hir inward powers and affections debased and cast downe to the terrene trash and basest creatures of this world Consider therefore ô man thy dignitie of nature the perfection of thy powers thy priuiledges of grace the immortalitie of thy soule the excellencie of thy creation the nothing of thy selfe and lastly the infinite price of thy redemption by the most precious blood and death of the Lambe thy Creator and Redeemer and let not this so base and transitorie trash of this world so alienate thy minde and bewitch thy vnderstanding that thou preferre the filthy and base pleasures of the body before the spirituall and eternall of thy spirituall and immortall soule CHAP. XVIII Whether the image of God may be wholy lost and blotted out of the soule of man ORigenes Epiphanius ep ad Iohannē Hierosel Aug lib. 2. contra Adamantiam Manich. l. 83. quaest q. 66. lib. 6. de Gen. ad literam cap. 27.28 and S. Austine do seeme to affirme that man lost the image of God Epiphanius and diuers other of the Fathers doe peremptorily deny it out of Gen the Psalmes and S. Paul but I thinke this controuersie rather to arise by reason of the diuers vnderstanding of the image of God which is in man then of any true difference in their opinions for who can doubt but if wee consider man according to the supernaturall gifts first infused into the soule of Adam but that he lost the diuine similitude or likenesse of God and that wholy nothing remayning but onely the deformity of sinne Gen. c 9. Psal 38. 1. ad Cor. cap. 11. in the deformed and sinfull soule but if we consider him againe according to the naturall substance of the soule and her naturall faculties consequent therevnto it is equally indubitable that shee retained this likenesse of God though not in the same perfection which shee possessed before but rather much defaced blemished and deformed My reason is because there proceeded a more excellent beauty and perfection vnto this naturall substance by reason of the supernaturall qualitie of originall iustice and consequently the depriuation of this supernaturall gift which was also a sufficient cause of natures greater perfection and more admirable beauty was a depriuation and defacing of the said beauty of nature which otherwise had beene a perfect type and portraiture of the diuine nature and being CHAP. XIX Why God made man to his image and similitude MAny and most excellent reasons may be giuen of this but which I must needs confesse are rather morall congruencies grounded in the infinite goodnesse of God then in any other forcible convincing reason plainely deduced out of the sacred Text. The first whereof may be this that God therefore made man like vnto himselfe that thence it might be manifest how much the infinite goodnesse of God exceedeth the malignitie enuy and malice of man for God being infinite in his goodnesse yea in all other his attributes infinite yet doth he not disdaine our of his infinite goodnesse that that which in vs is limited and finite should be compared and likened to that which in him is infinite and beyond all comparison he enuieth not the perfection of our nature he maketh it more perfect by grace and by a sacred league and vnion he combineth both that by both we may be like vnto him in both who is the author of both And this with such a degree of participated perfection that man doth not only become like vnto God but also may bee called and is truly the adopted Sonne of God So that all men may now participate of the grace which one onely possessed by nature insomuch that as he being the naturall Sonne of God is a perfect patterne of his eternall Father by nature so wee also be a participated likenes and similitude in some degree by nature but most perfectly by grace The second reason may be this if so be that we may compare these inferiour things of this world to those supreme and infinite of God like as a temporall Prince hauing for to shew his power magnificence and maiestie built furnished beautified adorned and deck'd some excellent Citty in which hee himselfe doth meane to remaine doth there erect in some principall part thereof his owne image or statue in some precious porphire marble or other more excellent matter euen so Almighty God hauing out of his infinite wisdome made this maine Machina and beautifull Citty of the world for the manifestation of his glory to the end that it might be knowne and acknowledged who was the only author and architect of all hee was pleased to place in the midst thereof in the garden of paradise his owne image and similitude man I meane who by his soule and the three principall powers thereof should represent the vnitie and trinitie of his maker yea and by his outward shape and forme in some sort likewise represent the inward and consequently though not immediately euen God himselfe Insomuch that as it is said of the portrature of Venus painted by Apelles that none could perfect it but onely Apelles who first began it so likewise was it not possible that any should bring our soule to her first perfection but only God who was her first Creator Hence it is that like as he who defaceth the image or statua of an earthly Prince is iustly condemned of high treason so a fortiori who depraueth his owne nature and by offending his maker depriueth it of grace the which is the seale signe and similitude of the diuine power nature and maiestie is worthily condemned of high treason against the same power and maiestie The third motiue why God created man to his image and similitude may be this to the end that all corporall things might be subiect and each after their manner seruiceable to man as who of all other creatures was the expresse similitude of their lord and maker vnto which it seemeth that God did allude when he said vnto Noe the feare of you and the
in the liberty which he hath vnto whatsoeuer particular good Thirdly in his naturall propension vnto eternitie and immortalitie Plato in Alcib in Phaedone Porph. l. 1. ad Boet. vide Euseb lib. 11. de praepar euangelica the which euen Plato and Porphirius thought to be sufficient arguments of the soules immortalitie Yea the immortalitie of the soule is euidently proued in that as Moyses saith God constituted man supreme Lord ouer all inferiour creatures yea in that he breathed into him a reasonable soule with full liberty ouer all his naturall actions according vnto that of the fourth of Genesis the 7. verse where GOD saith thus vnto Cain that his desire shall be subiect vnto him and hee shall rule ouer it but more particularly this is demonstrated out of the third of Exodus where God saith vnto Moises that he is the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob and this not of the dead but of the liuing as our Sauiour added in the gospell Finally this may be deduced out of Deuteron 4 where it is said that God made the Sunne the Moone the starres and the planets for the seruice of man as for a more perfect creature and consequently participating a more perfect immortalitie then is the incorruption of those eternall globes and starres CHAP. XXVI Whether the soule of Adam was immortall by its owne nature or onely by grace SOphronius Ierome Sophronius in his 11. ep in the 6. Synode Hierom. l. 2. conâ—â— Pae. lag Damas l. 2. de fide orthod c. 3. 12. and Damascene are of opinion that the Angels and humane soules are not immortall of their owne nature but only by Gods grace To this also S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothie and his last chapter may seeme to incline where hee saith that God onely hath immortalitie Plato plainely insinuateth the same of Angells much more then of humane spirits Neuerthelesse it is most certaine that mans soule is immortall euen of its owne nature for which reason our Sauiour commandeth vs Math 10. not to feare them that kill the body Math. 10. ver 28. but are not able to kill the soule Wherefore as the body is mortall and corruptible it followeth by the antithesis that the soule is immortall and incorruptible Againe this is most plaine out of diuers other places of scripture Psalme 29 16. Ecclesiasticus 12 and the 9. Matth. 10. 2. Sam. 23. 32. Phil. 1.23 1. Pet. 3. 19. Apoc. 9.6 7.9 CHAP. XXVII That Adam was not created in Paradise and why not and by what meanes was he placed there after his creation AS touching the first point that he was not created in Paradise it is manifest that though the woman was created in paradise yet the man was not for so it is said of him Gen 2. the 15. verse Then the Lord tooke the man and put him in the garden of Eden that he might dresse it and keepe it therefore he was not there before at his first creation though Eue was for so it was conuenient that shee should be produced of Adam in his most perfect state and being according to both body soule and habitation which is the opinion of Basil Aquinas Basil homil de paradyso Aquinas 1. parte q. 102 ar 4 plures in 2. sententiarum distinct 18. and the most of the ancient Diuines against Tertullian Iosephus and Rupertus As touching the second point that God tooke man and put him into the garden of Eden This may be vnderstood three wayes first by inward inspiration by which God might shew him that it was his pleasure that hee should haue that for his habitation in which sense many vnderstand that of Math. 4. that our Sauiour was caried of the spirit into the wildernes to wit by the inward inspiration of the Holy Ghost though he went also voluntarily of himselfe Secondly we may vnderstand it that he was caried by the spirit of God or rather conveighed by the immediate power of the Almighty as we read of Henoch Habacuck and Philip. Or lastly that he was transported by some Angell in the shape and forme of man who shewing him the way did lead him into paradise as wee read of the Angell Raphael how he lead Tobias and to this last I incline the rather because it is the opinion of S. Austine But now it may be demanded why God would not create man in paradise the reason may be to the end that hee might more manifestly vnderstand his goodnes and liberality towards him and that that place was rather giuen vnto him of meere grace then any wise due by nature But why then may some say were the Angels created in heauen yea all other liuing creatures created each in their owne place I answer that neither the puritie of the empyreall heauen did exceed the Angelicall puritie neither the grosnesse of this inferiour globe of the earth did exceed the nature of corporall creatures there liuing and therefore these two places were most apt for the creation and habitation of Angels and these inferiour creatures But such was the perfection of paradise that it was in no wise to bee deemed a conuenient place for humane habitation mans nature I meane only considered not the grace and bounty of God thereby manifested CHAP. XXVIII To what end was Adam placed in Paradise MOyses answereth Gen 2. ver 15. that the Lord tooke the man and put him into the garden of Eden that he might dresse it and keepe it or as the vulgar hath that he might worke in it to giue vs to vnderstand how much God abhorreth idlenesse seeing that euen in that place where there was no neede of labour God would not haue man idle not an ill item for our lazie gallants who thinke their gentilitie to consist in idlenes and a point of honour to liue of other mens labour but euen in this I am of opinion that God doth punish them that they haue more griefes and more discontent in their idle pleasures then others in their most wearisome toiles and labours which though it be a most voluntary bondage yet is it likewise the most base and cruell slauerie to the base appetites a tyranny of Satan a double bondage to a double tyrant to Satan to sinne for as S. Paul saith who committeth sinne is the slaue to sinne so who subiecteth himselfe to the suggestions of Satan is a slaue to Satan an intolerable slauery and an infinite misery the beginning miserable the proceedings damnable the end as which hath no end intolerable Now therefore lest Adam or his posteritie should by alluring idlenes come to this endles paine God of his mercy placed Adam in paradise vt operaretur custodiret illum that he might worke and keepe it to wit that hee working might keepe paradise and paradise by the same worke might keepe him from idlenes from sinne because that is the ordinarie cause of sinne for as it is
threatneth the sinne is committed why then is not the sentence presently executed In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die the death Iustinus the Martyr Iustinus in dialogo cum Triphone Iren. lib. 5. aduersus haereticos in this more acute then Catholike answereth that euen the very same day that Adam was depriued of the spirituall life of his soule he was no lesse also of the other of his body for though he died not the same day according to the naturall reuolution of the heauen yet seeing that a thousand yeeres as Dauid and Peter speake are but as one day in regard of Gods eternitie Adams death being within the compasse of the thousand yeeres may well be said according to Gods and the Scriptures phrase to haue died euen the same day that he was created But seeing true histories doe seldome admit any such subtilities I rather incline to the interpretation of Ierome and S. Austine who vnderstand that sentence of death not of death then instantly inflicted but of the necessitie of death then forthwith contracted Ierome therefore commendeth Symmacus who for that which our translation hath morieris thou shalt die translateth mortalis eris thou shalt become mortall so that whereas hee had beene created to an eternitie of life now he is made subiect to the penaltie of death or as our interpretation seemeth to insinuate euen to death it selfe seeing that euen from thenceforth hee began to be mortall who by grace before was altogether immortall So that as according to true Philosophie wee may say that the alteration of qualities or the dispositions vnto generation are in some sort generation so likewise by this phrase of Scripture that Adam should die in the day of his sinne we may well vnderstand that he began to die dispositiuè by way of disposition in the day of his sinne seeing sinne was the immediate disposition or cause of his mortalitie and death sinne I say being the cause of his mortalitie his mortalitie consequently prepared forthwith the way vnto death For so it is said in the second booke of the Kings We all die and slide away as water for though at the present while we liue we be not iointly dead yet because wee slide away towards death as the flouds towards the Ocean wee are all said to die instantly because our life euen from the first instant thereof is nothing else but a swift sliding towards death yea our temporall life as Gregory the great well noteth compared to the eternall is rather to be called a present death then a continued life seeing that our continuall corruption and declining towards death may rather be tearmed a long or continuall death then euen a very momentarie life CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created AS it is most certaine that the principal end of the creation of Adam was to serue loue honour and obey his Lord and maker so the same likewise was the womans principal end Againe as Adams secondary end was to bee the father of mankinde so was it also Eues to be the mother of all and to bee a comfort and helpe vnto her husband Gen. 2. vers 18. It is not good that man should be alone I will make him an helper meet for him good neither in regard of God of man nor of the world of God for his seruice of man for his helpe of the world for procreation for though this was not absolutely necessary neither in regard of God man or the world yet supposing the decree of God that hee would be preserued by the beautifull disposition and order of this world it was not only most conuenient but in some sort necessary that he should make man a helper and a helper meet for him for though hee could otherwise haue disposed of things by immediate creation yet was it more agreeable to the nature of things and for the sweeter disposition of the course of nature that mankinde should rather be multiplied by naturall course of generation then by supernaturall power and immediate creation Hence peraduenture it may be inferred that seeing God saith it is not good that the man should be himselfe alone that consequently it must be euill if hee bee alone and therefore as by this sentence lawfull matrimonie is confirmed so virginitie by the contrary consequence is condemned for whatsoeuer is opposite to that which is good must necessarily bee condemned as bad as which is nothing else but the priuation of good To this I answer as our Sauiour did to the Sadduces in their obiection touching mariage Matth. the 22.29 verse Yee are deceiued not knowing the Scriptures for as Christ is not against Moses neither the new Testament contrary to the old neither the greater perfection to the lesse so neither is virginitie contrary to matrimonie both are laudable both in their degree excellent but virginitie more laudable more excellent most admirable as by which wee rather imitate the angelicall state and perfection then follow our owne depraued nature and corruption This is the definition of Paul not any humane inuention for thus doth Paul determine this controuersie the 1. to the Corinthians ch 7. vers 25. Now concerning virgins I haue no command of the Lord but I giue mine aduice as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull Loe here virginitie is not commanded but commended not exacted by force but commended through grace neither counselled to all because it cannot be performed of all counselled therefore onely to some and those but few seeing few can attaine to this perfection 1. Cor. c 7. vers 27. My counsell therefore is that of Saint Paul Art thou bound vnto a wife seeke not to be loosed lest loosing the knot which God hath knit thou loose thy selfe Art thou loosed from a wife seeke not a wife here Paul counselleth hee commandeth not neither is his counsell extended to all seeing all cannot be capable of this counsell not onely by nature because this is not any gift of nature but also euen by a lesser measure of grace for though the Sunne of iustice doth shine ouer the iust and vniust and send downe the dew of his grace vnto all yet not with equalitie vnto all but according vnto his good pleasure and will Wherefore as S. Paul prosecuteth If thou takest a wife thou sinnest not and if a Virgin marie she sinneth not verse 37. He that standeth firme in his heart that he hath not neede but hath power ouer his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virgin he doth well so then hee that giueth her to mariage doth well but he that giueth her not to mariage doth better the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liueth but if her husband be dead she is at libertie to marie with whom she will only in the Lord but she is more blessed if she abide in my iudgement and I thinke
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
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
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
Atha oratione contra idola that it is an ethnicall and hereticall opinion to say that sinne or euill hath any entitie or essence seeing it is rather the priuation of entitie or essence And this is the reason why Nazianzene compareth sinne vnto darknesse Naz. oratione 9. n. 39. not only because darknesse and obscuritie in matters of saluation and the mysteries of our faith is the effect of sin but also or rather because as darknesse is opposite vnto light and is nothing else but the priuation of light so sinne is nothing else but the priuation of goodnesse wherefore in his 40. oration in sanctum baptisma he concludeth that which Nisenus Damascenus and Nizetas tooke from him nullam esse mali essentiam that euill or sinne hath no essence to wit no reall or positiue essence or being Augustin l. 11. de civ Dei or as St. Austin describeth it natura nulla sed boni amissio no positiue nature but the losse of goodnesse which position Fulgentius in his booke of faith the 21. chap. deemeth so certaine that it ought saith he to be holden as a matter of faith because all things that haue reall being or nature are good his words be these Quia omnis natura in quantum natura est bona est sed quia in ea bonum augeri minui potest in tantum mala dicitur in quantum bonum eius minuitur malum enim nihil aliud est nisi boni priuatio vnde geminum constat esse rationalis creaturae malum vnum quo voluntariè ipsa defecit à summo bono creatore suo alterum quo in vita punietur Euill saith this Father is nothing else but the priuation of good and hence it is manifest that the creatures endued with reason are subiect to two kinds of euils one by which they voluntarily fall from their cheefest good the other by which they are punished in this life Likewise St. Austin in his first Treatise vpon St. Iohn giueth this reason why God being the Creator of all things may not bee sayd to bee the author of sinne to wit because sinne in his owne being hath no entitie or being but rather is a priuation of entitie and being Peccatum quidem non per ipsum factum est vt manifestum est quia peccatum nihil est nihil fiunt homines cùm peccant Sinne saith he was not made by God because sin of it selfe is no thing but nothing and men become nothing becomming sinners Now then if the essence of sinne in common or of all sinne whatsoeuer be nothing but that nothing which is the priuation of good Turrianus in epistola ad Iacobâ—m Amiâ—tum episcopum Antisiodorensem Corduba lib. 1. q. 10. opinione 6. quâ—s etiam sequuntur plures recentiores hence it must needs follow that the essence of originall sin must also consist in some particular priuation of some particular good the which wee are now particularly to search out In which poynt Turrian and Corduba are of opinion that this priuation is subiectionis coniunctionis cum Deo in qua nati fuissemus si primus parens non peccasset of the subiection and coniunction with God in which we should haue been borne if our first father Adam had not falne This they prooue by impugning of the other opinions for that as hath beene already prooued it cannot consist in any positiue and reall thing because God otherwise might in some sort haue beene sayd to concurre vnto it and consequently after that maner to be the cause of it which were blasphemous neither can it consist in any other priuation of any other supernaturall gift because all such priuations or depriuations are rather effects consequent as punishment due vnto the sinne it selfe therefore as the heat cannot be sayd to bee the cause of the fire from whence it doth proceede nor the light cause of the Sunne so neither the priuation of originall iustice or of any other vertue or supernaturall gift can be said to be the essence of originall sin for certainely if wee vnderstand aright wee shall finde that all such priuations are rather consequent vnto sinne and so the effects then the sinne it selfe yea rather the punishments inflicted by Almighty God vpon man for his transgression then the transgression it selfe And heereby also wee may easily demonstrate the absurdities of that common opinion of the Papists that the essence of originall sinne in vs consisteth formally in the depriuation of originall iustice which had beene due vnto vs all if wee had not transgressed in our first father which is the common opinion of the schooles and Papists of Aquinas Caietan Conradus Scotus Taperus Sotus Marsilius Ocamus Buderius Alexander Bonaventure Richardus de Medianilla Maior Vasquez Zuares Sumel and almost all other Papists of this age Anselm lib. de conceptu virginali cap. 26. Yea Anselmus saith that hee cannot conceiue that originall sin is any other then that which was committed by the inobedience of Adam to wit the depriuation of the iustice in infants which was otherwise due vnto them ArasicanuÌ„ concilium 2. Can. 2. Finally the Arausican Councell 2. Can. 2. defineth it to be the death of the soule wherefore if death as is plaine out of Philosophy be nothing else but the priuation of the life of the soule seeing nothing else can be vnderstood to be the life of the soule but onely the inward grace of God by which onely the soule did liue that supernaturall life which is possessed in Paradise consequently the priuation of this originall grace or iustice wherewith the soule was adorned and liued in Paradise must needs be the priuation of the same gift As if our naturall life here in this vale of misery doth consist in the presence of our soule or vnion thereof with the body consequently our death must necessarily consist in the absence of the same soule which gaue it life or in the disvnion or separation of these two comparts the soule and the body after the same manner if the supernaturall life of our soule consist in the presence of God dwelling in our soules by his grace then certainely our spirituall death whether it be considered here after our expulsion out of Paradise or in the fall from that first happinesse must necessarily consist in the departing of God from our soules or which is all one in the absence or depriuation of his grace Neither can this want of originall iustice be rightly deemed a punishment of our originall sinne as hath beene before obiected because no defect or want worthy of an other punishment can be inflicted as a punishment wherefore seeing that this maketh our soules worthy to be depriued of eternall blisse which is the greatest punishment imaginable that could be inflicted for originall sinne Aquin. 2. 2. q. 21. it can in no wise be the punishment due vnto the fault but rather it must be the sinne it selfe
because as the schoole Diuines well note the fault as it is a fault deserueth punishment so that the worthinesse or debt of the punishment doth follow the fault as a proper passion thereof as intense heare followeth the fire and light necessarily proceedeth from the Sunne CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is refuted and the truth set downe in what consisted the sinne of our first father and ours contracted from him WE may easily perceiue by the opinions refuted in the precedent Chapters how easie it is euen for the greatest witts to erre in supernaturall matters without the assistance of Gods supernaturall grace and illumination seeing that those who were accounted the very mirrours of wisdome in their time haue beene so hoodwinked and blinded in the cause and first fountaine of their felicitie insomuch that though they knew that they were conceiued as Dauid saith in iniquitie and sinne yet they were not able to declare sufficiently in what consisted that iniquitie and originall sinne much lesse to demonstrate with any certainety that which S. Austine almost in one word doth declare so euidently libro q o de nuptijs concupiscentijs cap. 23 26. where hee expresly holdeth that our originall sin consisteth in concupiscence which though it remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed to them in ijs ergo qui regenerantur in Christo in those therefore who are regenerated in Christ when they receiue the remission of all their sinnes it is necessarie that the guiltinesse of this as yet remaining concupiscence be remitted So that as I haue already said it be not imputed to sin for as the guiltinesse of those sinnes which cannot remaine because they passe when they are committed remaineth neuerthelesse which if it be not remitted will remaine for euer so the guiltinesse of the foresaid concupiscence when it is remitted is quite taken away Calvin lib. 2. Instit c. 1. Melancth in colloqâ—io Wormatien apologia confessionis A gustanae So that here we see auerred and proued that which many learned late writers doe auouch as a matter of faith euidently deducing it out of the 6 7 8. chap. of the Apostle to the Romanes and the 11 to the Hebrues to wit that our originall iniustice consisteth in concupiscence the which though it doth remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed vnto them so that as diuers learned men doe declare themselues in this matter tegitur non tollitur raditur non eradicatur it is couered not rooted out it remaineth but is not imputed For proofe of which Rom. 7. verse 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. sequentibus I will only ponder the example of Paul who no doubt was regenerate at least after he was called an Apostle and yet he could finde this sinne of concupiscence within himselfe striuing against the spirit yea hee did acknowledge it to be his originall sinne the fountaine of all actuall sinnes and therefore hee addeth Wee know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne for I allow not that which I doe for what I would that doe I not but what I hate that doe I now then it is no more I that doth it but sinne that dwelleth in mee Now what sinne is this the Apostle speaketh of but originall or concupiscence remaining as yet euen after his regeneration drawing him vnto that which he would not and therefore afterward in the same chapter opposing it to the right inclination of the minde hee calleth it another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde and leading him captiue vnto the law of sinne which was in his members and hence he concludeth O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the body of this death that is from originall sinne the which as it is the death of the soule so likewise it causeth the death of the body CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed THe first heretickes who after the preaching of the Gospell denied originall sinne were Pelagius and Coelestius as S. Austine writeth lib. de peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 1. 2. 3. 9. 19. whom Iulian the Pelagian followed in his fourth booke which hee wrote against originall sinne yea this is attributed vnto the Armenians to Faber Stapulensis and others The first argument of this heresie is that which Iulian the Pelagian vsed against S. Austine because it is essentiall to all sinnes to be voluntary but nothing can be voluntary vnto infants before the vse of reason seeing that as the Philosophers say and proue nihil concupitum quin praecognitum nothing is willed desired or sought after which is not first knowne infants therefore who haue no vse of reason can haue no abuse of will by consent vnto a foreknowne euill and where there can be no sufficient foreknowledge or distinction of good from euill there questionlesse can be no sinne Yea this seemeth to be confirmed by S. Austine himselfe lib. 3. de libero arbitrio cap. 13. where hee confesseth that sinne is so voluntary an euill that nothing can be sinne which is not voluntary and in another place he auoucheth that neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent Wherefore Doctor Bishop against M. Perkins out of those words doubteth not to vpbraid the Church of Englands doctrine about this point saying What vnlearned learned men are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too To this argument of Iulian peraduenture some will say that originall sinne is voluntary in the infants not by their owne proper actuall will as who can haue none such but by the will of their first father Adam which after a sort may be said to be the will of all his posteritie seeing he was the head of them all and therefore that by his voluntary transgression all Adams posteritie may bee said to haue sinned in him But this seemeth not to satisfie for originall sinne if wee will consider well the nature of it and as all the aduerse part doth hold verè auertit à Deo parvuli voluntatem cam conuertit ad bonum mutabile it doth truly auert the will of the infants from God vnto an apparant and mutable good yea euen to the deuill therefore the will of our parent and his sinne is in no wise to cause originall sinne in vs. Secondly as true Philosophie teacheth no cause can produce that which it hath not in it selfe either virtually or formally neither doth any cause produce any thing but after the manner that it containeth the thing which is to bee produced either formally if so bee that it hath the same forme species or kinde which the effect hath or virtually if it containe it in a more perfect degree and measure But certainly neither our first
arguments of the contrary opinion but seeing they may be easily answered with one and the same distinction I will onely expresse that and so conclude this question which hath so troubled the Church of God in former ages The distinction is this that wee must vnderstand the difference and distinction of a twofold sinne the first is actuall the second originall the first from our selues the second from Adam though in our selues the first we grant could neuer be in the afore-said infants as which neuer came to the vse of reason and consequently neither could euer abuse it the second which is originall sinne might be and was in them as is manifest by the authorities and reasons aboue alleadged both of Scripture and Fathers and by this distinction we may vnderstand all those authorities which seeme in any sort to fauour the Pelagians in this point which therefore I conclude with S. Austine serm 7. de verbis Apostoli circa finem Ecce infantes in suis vtique operibus innocentes sunt nihil secum nisi quod de primo homine traxerunt habentes quibus propterea est Christi gratia necessaria vt in Christo viuificentur qui in Adamo mortui sunt vt quia inquinati sunt generatione purgentur regeneratione behold saith he the infants be innocent in their owne workes hauing no sinne but that which they haue by descent from their first father to whom notwithstanding the grace of Christ is therefore necessarie that they may be receiued in Christ who died in Adam to the end that being defiled by generation they might be purged by regeneration in his blood who died for all CHAP. LVII Wherein are solued diuers difficulties against the former doctrine MAny obiections are wont to bee made against the doctrine of the precedent Chapters of which these following are the principall yea all may be reduced vnto them First that if the concupiscence or fomes peccati which is left after our baptisme in vs were sinne it would follow that God were the author of sinne seeing he is the author of our nature and therefore hee must needs be the author of that which necessarily followeth nature as who is the cause of the fire is also of the heat proceeding from the fire wherefore seeing that God was the author of nature hee must also be the author of this fomes peccati and concupiscence which necessarily floweth from the same nature if therefore our originall sinne consist in this concupiscence which floweth from nature he who is the author and cause of nature must also be of the sinne which floweth from nature which both seeme no lesse blasphemous then absurd I answer that this fomes peccati or concupiscence with which Adam was created and wee all borne was first in him and should also haue beene in vs though we had persisted in originall iustice yet had it not beene any sinne in any of vs if Adam had not sinned and we in him because this was as it were extinguished and ouercome by original iustice in Adam and should haue beene in vs also by reason that the like grace and iustice which was infused into Adam should also haue beene deriued vnto vs by Adam But seeing Adam lost this grace both for vs and himselfe both this priuation of grace is attributed vnto vs as also the concupiscence reviued in vs by reason of Adams sinn true it is that the guilt thereof is taken away in the regenerate by baptisme and so it is not imputed by reason of our regeneration But hence peraduenture it may bee further vrged that though God be not the author of this concupiscence as it hath the force and malice of sinne yet that he is the author of the same thing that is originall sinne to wit of that fomes peccati fewell of sinne concupiscence or inclination vnto sinne which also is no small absurditie I answer that this is no absurditie but necessarie no heresie but catholique doctrine so that it be not granted that he is author of it as it is sinne but of that materiall or thing which by mans wickednesse is made sinne yea which is good as proceeding from God though euill and wicked as flowing from man Gods concourse being altogether good mans determination euill as detorting it to euill as the light of the Sunne of it self pure and good is oftentimes vsed and abused to euill yea of this we haue infinite examples in which our aduersaries are driuen to auerre the like For who doubteth but that Almighty God qui operatur omnia in omnibus who worketh all reall actions in all things whatsoeuer is also the vniuersall cause of euery reall action and habit of sinne and yet neuerthelesse no man will be so blinde and blasphemous therefore to attribute to his infinite goodnes that which hath infinite malice in it as it is against that infinite goodnes The reason therefore why it is rather to be attributed vnto man as second cause of it then vnto God who is the vniuersall cause of all is because man hauing the vniuersall concourse of God vnto good determineth it according to his euill inclination vnto naught and so committeth that nothing which in it selfe is sin and priuation of good Secondly it may be obiected against originall sinne that if that priuation of originall iustice which ought to haue beene in vs and of which we were depriued by Adams fall were in any wise to be tearmed originall sinne it would follow that there were not one onely originall sinne in euery one of vs but many for seeing that there is not one onely culpable priuation of that originall iustice which Adam had in Paradise but also of faith hope charitie and of all other graces consequent vnto the fore-said originall iustice why should there not be by the like reason as many originall sinnes as there bee priuations of supernaturall gifts and graces The answer is easie for that all these depriuations of graces are deriued of one which is of our originall iustice which should haue beene the roote and fountaine of them all The third obiection may be that seeing that it is not in the power of any to attaine to the grace of God being in originall sinne consequently the formall of originall sinne cannot be any priuation of grace but rather a negation I answer that because once it was in the power of Adam supposing the couenant made by Almighty God with him that the said supernaturall forme of originall iustice should haue beene by his perseuerance passed vnto his posteritie hence it is that this absence of originall iustice in Adam and his posteritie is rather a priuation then negation Fourthly it may be obiected that as in the opinion of Scotus whensoeuer the act of sinne is past the sinner may truly be called a sinner only by reason of the relation of the act past which is not as yet forgiuen so it seemeth that the same might be said in originall sin that though the act of Adam
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
saith hee dare not define how great this punishment of fire shall be in regard of them who depart with the guilt onely of originall sinne The like also is not improbably gathered out of Gregory the great in his 9. booke of his morals the 12. chapter vpon those words in turbine conteret me where he seemeth plainly to insinuate the said sensible punishment of the infants by fire ac si apertè humani generis damna considerans dicat as if considering the losses of mankinde he should plainly say with what punishment will that most iust and rigorous Iudge punish those who are condemned for their owne fault if he also eternally smite those whom the guiltinesse of their owne will doth not condemne by which word of smiting he seemeth to insinuate the punishment of sense which is by fire Again he declareth his mind himself touching this sensible punishment vpon those words of the same chap. multiplicabit vulnera mea hee shall multiplie my wounds where speaking of the foresaid infants he saith that perpetua tormenta percipiunt qui nihil ex propria voluntate peecarunt that those who haue sinned in nothing by their owne proper will receiue perpetuall torments which words of perpetuall torments must needs import a sensible punishment Yea this was the opinion of the Bishops of Africa in Fulgentius his time as is plainly out of him aboue alleaged and more plainly in his booke of the incarnation which booke hee wrote not onely by the approbation of all the Bishops of Africa but also in their names as may be euidently seene by the beginning of the first chapter of that booke Finally this seemeth to be the sense of the Scripture Matth. the third chapter verse 12. and Marke also the third chapter verse 14. where S. Iohn Baptist speaking of our Sauiour saith that he will come with his fanne in his hand and will make cleane the floore and gather his wheat into his garner but will burne vp the chaffe with vnquenchable fire where as wee see all mankinde is but onely of two sorts the good and the bad the wheat and the chaffe wherof the wheat only is for the garner that is the good for heauen the chaffe for the fire the bad for those intolerable torments of hell here is no meane all is either good or bad all either for eternall blesse both sensible and spirituall or eternall curse and punishment both sensible and spirituall and consequently there is no other place or manner of punishment for those who die with originall sinne innocent in their owne actions though eternally sequestred from the sight of God for Adams sinne and corruption Secondly it is said in the same chapter that euery tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewen downe and cast in the fire Wherefore seeing those that depart out of this world with the guilt only of originall sinne are vnfruitfull trees consequently they are to bee cast into euerlasting fire Thirdly when our blessed Sauiour shall come to giue euery man according to his deeds hee will only separate two sorts of people one of the right hand another of the left the good of the right the bad of the left those for eternall blesse in the kingdome of heauen these for an eternall curse in the vnquenchable fire of hell Matth. 25. chap. vers 31. And when the sonne of man commeth in his glory and all the holy Angels with him then shall he sit vpon the throne of his glory and before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate one from another as a shepheard separateth the sheepe from the goats and hee shall set the sheepe on the right hand and the goats on the left Loe here bee two sorts of people signified by those two kindes of beasts the sheepe and the goats the good and the bad the sheepe on the right hand the goats on the left according vnto the two sorts of sentences pronounced vers 34. and 41. Then shall the King say to them on his right hand come yee blessed of my Father possesse the inheritance of the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world Againe to the cursed hee saith vers 41. Depart from me yee cursed vnto euerlasting fire which is prepared for the Deuill and his angels Hence therefore it must needs follow that seeing those who died in originall sinne imputed vnto them as who were not in any wise ingraffed in the body of Christ that these I say must needs according vnto the opinion of the aforesaid Fathers bee condemned vnto vnquenchable fire though certaine it is as God willing shall bee demonstrated in another place that those who are in any wise ingraffed in Christ either by the baptisme of water of bloud or of the holy Ghost by reason of originall sinne only shall neuer taste of those eternall torments prepared for the deuill and his angels CHAP. LXIIII. The obiections of Simon Magus against the aforesaid doctrine of the creation of man and his placing in Paradise AS there is nothing so manifest vnto reason but hath beene oppugned by reason so neither hath there beene any thing so euident in Scripture but hath beene oppugned with Scripture So the Pharisees resisted the Messias and Simon Magus the doctrine of Moses especially about the creation For either saith hee the God which created man was omnipotent or not if omnipotent how is it that hee would that Adam should not fall who neuerthelesse did fall if he was not omnipotent how can he be God To this wee answer that though Adam sinned and by his sinne did contrary to the will of God neuerthelesse hee remained in some sort conformable to the will of God for as hee created him endued with vnderstanding that thereby hee might discerne good from euill so was hee also created with free will whereby hee might embrace the good and eschew the euill obey or disobey his Lord and maker this was the perfection in which he excelled the beasts of the earth paulò minor factus Angelis in this he resembled the purest Angels yea in this hee is said to bee made to the image of God himselfe But God saith Simon Magus would not that Adam should haue eaten of the forbidden fruit who neuerthelesse did eat of that fruit it followeth therefore that hee remained not as his Creator would haue had him to haue remained how then can God be omnipotent or his will alwayes fulfilled It were necessary if we should fully satisfie this argument to intreat more largely of the will of God then were conuenient for this place wherefore that wee may briefly answer this obiection wee must presuppose with the Schoole-Diuines a threefold distinction of the will of God Aquinas 1. n.i. te quaestione 19. Ibidem Molina VasqueZ Suarius Sumel Bannesius alij plures according to the diuersitie of their proper obiects the first they call his efficient effectuall or working will by which God doth so effectually intend
doe most blasphemously accuse the wisdom of God as touching the fore-said commandement of abstaining from the tree of good and euill for saith he doubtles when God did giue this law vnto our first fathers hee thought that they would obey it which seeing they did not God as Manes obiecteth was deceiued Secondly he accuseth God of vniust wrath and indignation in that he condemned man for so small a matter as the eating of an apple Finally he accuseth him of ignorance mutabilitie and contradiction to himselfe in that ignoring his future compassion towards man hee did frustrate the law which hee himselfe had made yea and contradicted the sentence of death as rashly pronounced by himselfe against Adam Here we may see how as Tertullian saith God of his infinite goodnes and mercy suffereth himselfe to bee dishonoured in his other infinite attributes and dietie but that it may bee apparent that these blasphemies haue not any ground euen in naturall reason we answer that though all things and consequently the disobedience of Adam was perfectly fore-knowne by God Almighty yet neuerthelesse it was conformable to reason that Adam being a reasonable creature should haue this law of obedience prescribed vnto him so conformable to reason first for to manifest the absolute power dominion and authoritie of God the Creator ouer his creature and the due subiection of the creature towards his Creator Secondly this law of obedience was most profitable vnto man though foreknowne that it was to be violated by man most profitable I say it was both in regard of the manifestation of Gods iustice and mercy as also for the exercise and tryall of the good and bad righteous and vnrighteous a necessarie obiect of the afore-said attributes Now if this law should therefore haue beene omitted because God fore-knew the transgression thereof by the same reason or rather no reason no other law should haue beene prescribed vnto man seeing there is no law either of nature or grace which God in his fore-knowledge did not foresee would be often-times violated by man Furthermore as touching the blasphemie against the wrath of God I answer that it is not to be attributed to God as signifying any passion or mutation in the immutable or impassible God but that this shadow of change or shew of mutabilitie is attributed vnto him who in his nature is altogether immutable because hee seeing the wickednesse of man he worketh those effects which in vs bee euident tokens and signes of mutabilitie and change Nay secondly I adde that after Adam had transgressed the commandement of God God pronounced against him the afore-said sentence of death more moued by mercy then of any anger or wrath which wee may euidently see in that hee did not die the same day of his transgression according as the sentence which God pronounced against him seemed to threaten so that whether wee respect the sentence giuen before Adams disobedience or the execution of the same after his sinne we may admire the infinite mercy of the Almighty in both both in regard of Adam and his posteritie as also in regard of the sentence threatned to be inflicted so immediatly after their sinne so that euen in his iustice wee may magnifie his mercy and say with the Psalmist misericordia eius super omnia opera eius that his mercy aboundeth in all his workes yea and is aboue all his works because as the Diuines say remunerat vltra condignum punit citra condignum he rewardeth our workes farre beyond their worth which is none at all vnlesse it bee in Christ and punisheth our sinnes much lesse then they deserue To the other blasphemie which Manes vseth against the Almighty God in accusing him of repentance and mutabilitie I answer that we must first suppose what it is to repent or to be sorry for any thing which wee haue done For repentance or sorrow supposeth ignorance in vs of future euents yea of such as are noxious or hurtfull to those who are affected with the afore-said passion both which are farre vnfitting the all-seeing science and omnipotent power of God who did not remit the rigour of this sentence moued by sorrow or repentance as it happeneth in vs but rather as we haue said before by his infinite mercy and clemencie to the end that his infinite goodnesse and mercy might bee the more manifest vnto vs. In like manner wee may say that when any sinner doth turne from his former being in sinne God Almightie in some sort may bee said to remit the rigour of his sentence pronounced against him and this not by reason of any ignorance or mutable repenting himselfe of the former fact or threatning as Manes blasphemously obiecteth but rather hee remitteth out of his infinite clemencie the sentence of damnation which conditionally hee had decreed to wit if the sinner had not repented himselfe of his sinne an example of which wee finde in the commination of doome and vtter destruction threatned not absolutely but conditionally against the Niuiuites Ionae 3. that they should vtterly bee destroied within forty dayes 4. Reg. 20. likewise against Ezechias that hee should die for his sinnes whom neuerthelesse God pardoned vpon their repentance and the like also wee finde in others most hainous offenders against whom God hauing denounced his wrath neuerthelesse pardoned vpon their sorrow contristation and humiliation Now as touching the lie which this hereticke obiecteth against God in that hee threatned death vnto man in the day of his transgression which neuerthelesse was not inflicted I answer that as man is composed of body and spirit so likewise the death threatned against him was both corporall and spirituall which both were in some sort inflicted euen in the very instant of his transgression the spirituall in the separation of his spirit from God and his grace wherein consisted his spirituall and supernaturall life the corporall in the perturbation of his affections and powers both spirituall and corporall which was a kinde of beginning of a neuer dying death beginning in this life and which according to the present iustice of God if it had beene executed was to haue beene consummated in the other life or rather eternall death if so be that this first lapse and fall had not been remitted not of mans merit but by Gods mercy CHAP. LXVI The obiections of Theodorus and Nestorius THeodorus Bishop of Laodicea and Nestorius Patriarke of Constantinople with diuers others of the Greeke Church were of opinion that sinne was not the occasion of death but that man should haue died though hee had not sinned because mortalitie is consequent to nature as immortalitie proceedeth only of grace How then is it possible vnlesse God can contradict and denie himselfe or that one of the diuine decrees can be opposite to another that God should first decree the immortalitie of man then presently vpon his transgression the obiect being changed God also should be changed in his decree for either God fore-knew