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
eternall God not carnally as carnall men dreame but spiritually in the bread of life as hee himselfe doth affirme of himselfe As therefore he who is the tree of life or rather the author of life or to speake more properly life it selfe euen as he is in the Sacrament of life doth heere truly in this miserable life produce in vs the life of grace as a present pawne of our future glory so it seemeth most probable that the other tree of life as a most perfect figure of this planted in the terrene Paradise had the like inherent vertue for to perpetuate or at least to prolong the liues of Adam and his posteritie as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradise But whether this fruit of the tree of life was sufficient to perpetuate our life or only to prolong it for some determinate time Abulensis super Genes c. 13. quaest 175. Scotus li. 2. sent dist 19 quaest 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7 art 4 Caiet ibid. many dispute probably for both opinions Tostatus vpon the 13. chapter of Genesis q. 175. is most peremptorie for this perpetuitie Scotus Thomas Caietan and Durand for a very long time but not for eternitie because that is the naturall measure of nature this the supernaturall of him who is aboue all nature Secondly seeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cause the effect could not bee supernaturall for though effects be often inferiour to their causes yet neuer the causes vnto the effects the reason because no cause can giue that which it hath not neither any effect haue any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cause wherefore if the tree of life was as without question it was a naturall tree as the Laurell Cypresse and other trees be it could not haue as connaturall the supernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philosophie that omne agens physicum in agendo patitur debilitatur that euery naturall cause doth suffer some detriment euen in and by his owne action consequently therefore though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conserued by the vertue of this excellent fruit yet at length it should haue failed and thence finally mortalitie should haue followed as a necessary effect of so forcible a cause Lastly it is not likely that God who is the author and first rule of nature doth produce any thing frustrate in nature seeing therefore the fall of man was patent vnto him euen from all eternitie to what end should he prouide an eternall cause for a temporary effect But if this argument had any force it should force also our aduersaries to the like if not a greater inconuenience for who doubteth but that God knew also the little time that man was to persist in his grace and yet neuerthelesse he gaue him that fruit which was sufficient for the preseruation of his life for many a yeere as our aduersaries hold why then might hee not likewise for all eternitie is it because of the impossibilitie at non impossibile Deo omne verbum to God nothing is impossible which doth not imply contradiction but what contradiction is in this is it that here naturall philosophie is contradicted omne agens in agendo patitur debilitatur euery agent doth decay euen by his owne action but seeing the author of nature is aboue nature why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature or though in the compasse of nature yet beyond our naturall capacitie which is so small that wee scarcely or very imperfectly vnderstand things of farre inferiour degree yea such as are within our selues why therefore shall wee deny vnto God that which we doe not vnderstand in our selues My resolution therefore is that of Abulensis Propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quòd fructus eius vim haberet seruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus faciendi eum immortalem that this tree was therefore called the tree of life because it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life and the vnion of the body and soule for euer if we had not lost the supernaturall grace which was the vnion of our soules with God but seeing wee wilfully separated our selues from our supernaturall life it was most iust that wee should also be depriued of the naturall hence therefore is that which Paul so often preacheth mortem in mundum intrasse propter peccatum that death entred into the world by the doore of sinne which doore if we had debarred to sinne the grace of God should haue beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vs and the tree of life should haue caused the like betweene our bodies and soules and this of his owne nature eternally though de facto wee needed it but only temporally both supposing our fall as likewise not supposing any at all for if we had not fallen or sinned in our first father wee should certainly after some number of yeeres haue been translated from that terrene Paradise which was our first though temporary habitation vnto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen and this should haue heene without any assault of death because we had alwaies liued in God who as hee would then haue preserued vs by his grace from the corruption of sinne would also haue preserued vs from this corruption which was only the effect of sinne according to that of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death the wager being the deuill our soules are bought and sold sold away for nothing sinne being nothing but a priuation of being but bought againe by the death of the most precious of mortall liues which in no wise should haue beene necessary if wee had not beene lost or fallen from our first grace and innocencie But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambrosia seemed to Aristotle of small ground so this for the like reason may seeme to bee as fabulous for as Aristotle argueth against the former either the Gods vsed this Ambrosia and Nectar for pleasure only or also for necessitie if only for pleasure how then could Ambrosia and Nectar be any necessary cause of their immortalitie againe if for necessitie certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature and consequently no Gods seeing that that which hath need of any thing for his preseruation must necessarily be mortall After the same manner we may argue against this fruit of this tree of life which is said to be sufficient to cause an eternitie of life à parte post as the Philosophers speake for if our immortalitie was onely to be from the tree of life then questionlesse without it wee had beene mortall and subiect to death contrary to that of the Apostle Stipendium peccati mors the wages of sinne is death for whether wee had sinned or persisted in our primatiue grace all had beene one wee should naturally haue tasted of death if wee
sinne signified by these words and he shall rule ouer thee CHAP. XXII Whether the Angels did concurre to the production of man or no THis doubt may be vnderstood of the seuerall parts of man the body or the soule first therefore as touching the soule which as it was altogether of nothing so it was not possible that it should be brought out of that nothing but by the immediate power and particular concourse of the Almighty for as S. Austine saith lib. 9. de Gen. ad lit cap. 15. as it is impossible for any Angell or creature to create it selfe so is it no lesse that any other thing should bee produced of nothing but by him only which is aboue all things Wherefore the doubt onely is whether the Angels did in some sort concurre to the creation of the body of man seeing that as S. Austine saith in his 8. booke de Gen. ad lit cap. 24. all materiall and corporall creatures are subiect to the Angelicall powers seeing also that their ordinary apparitions vnto men are by corporall shapes and formes which they assume vnto themselues it may seeme not improbable that in like manner they may frame and depute vnto euery soule her materiall substance and corporall shape yea and vnite the matter and forme together and consequently that they may in some sense be said to create man Neuerthelesse though I cannot denie but that the Angels might in some sort concurre vnto the disposition of the materiall substance of man and thereby instrumentally to the introducing of the forme yet they may not in any wise bee said to haue created either matter or forme seeing both were immediately from Almighty God as which were both produced of nothing Aug lib. 9. de Gen. ad lib. cap. 15. So as S. Austine most fitly compareth though the husbandman doe digge plough plant manure and till the ground and the Physitian by his medicines potions and physicke doth prolong the life yet neuerthelesse neither of them may be said to create euen so though the Angels might in some sort dispose to the creation or generation of man yet may they not absolutely bee said to create because this is a production of nothing presupposed which only belongeth to an infinite power CHAP. XXIII Whether Adam was created in his perfect corporall stature and age SAint Austine answereth Aug. lib. 6. de Gen. ad lib. cap. 13. that as it was proper only to Adam not to be borne of parents but framed immediately of the earth so also was it peculiar vnto him alone that hee was created in perfect age Neither may this kinde of production saith the master of the sentences be said to be against nature Magist sent lib. 2. distinct 17. vnlesse it be in regard of vs to whom it may seeme to be beyond nature for whatsoeuer God worketh that in regard of God may be counted nature yea this seemeth to haue some ground in the sacred text seeing that God hauing newly created our first Fathers he presently commanded them to increase and multiply wherefore as hee created other things perfect Gen. 1. ver 22. 24. and apt for to multiply each one in their seuerall kindes so also did he create our first parents in the like perfection both of stature and age as some say as between 30. and 40. yeares of age or as others doe assigne about 50. Now as concerning the dimension or greatnesse of his body though some auerre that hee was the greatest of all men and Giants that euer were deducing it out of the 14. of Iosue Iosue 14. Numb 13. and the 13. of the Numbers neuerthelesse this seemeth altogether vnprobable if those places be vnderstood of Adam they are rather to be interpreted so that hee was the greatest of all men not in quantitie but in qualities not in dimension of body but in beautie both of body and soule not in corporall extension but in dignitie prerogatiues and all other excellencies both corporall and spirituall because otherwise hee might rather seeme a monster in regard of vs then a man My opinion therefore in this point is that as hee was created perfect in all other respects so likewise in this of perfect corporall stature greatnesse and all other dimensions and consequently that hee was created of the best stature and proportion of all lineaments and members of his body that euer man was or shall be our Sauiour onely excepted CHAP. XXIIII Whether the soule and the body were created in the same instant or no. Chrysost in Gen. hom 12. 13. Eugub in Cosmopaeia in Pentateu hum Castro lib. 2. contra haereticos vbi disputat de anima Ferus in cap 2. Gen. Tostat ibid. sicut Genadius ibid. CHrysostome Eugubinus Alphonsus de Castro Ferus and Genadius denie that the soule and the body were created in one and the same instant yea this opinion seemeth to be grounded in the word of God Gen. 2. vers 7. where Moses saith that the Lord God made man of the dust of the earth and breathed in his face the breath of life and the man was a liuing soule Wherefore man as these Doctors say was first made according to his materiall part afterward this matter was disposed by God by the contemperating of conuenient qualities and lastly after all this was the soule infused and vnited to the body thus disposed Gregorius Nicenus Damascenus Aquinas and S. Austine are of the contrary opinion to wit that the soule of man was made and infused into the body in the very same instant and indiuisible point of time in which the body was created by God Aquinas his reason is this because such is the nature of parts that while they are separate the one from the other they are reputed to bee in an imperfect estate for why the part being ordained for the whole it cannot in any wise obtaine its due perfection while it is a part from the whole wherefore seeing all things were created in their perfect estate in their first production it is not likely that either the soule was created without the body or the body produced separate from the soule as powerfull I meane and in potentia proxima as the Philosophers speake fully disposed for the receiuing of the soule CHAP. XXV Whether the immortalitie of the soule may be demonstrated out of the Scriptures or no. EVsebius writeth of certaine Arabians who held that though the soules of men should reviue in the generall resurrection vnto immortalitie yet that now at the separation of the body and soule the soule perisheth with the body Yea Tertullian also as S. Austine writeth doth seeme to hold no lesse Augustin de haer nu 86. Neuerthelesse the contrary is most certainely deduced out of those places of Scripture which do signifie that man was made to the image and likenes of God First in his infinite capacity of minde and will which are satisfied by no created obiect Secondly
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
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
A TREATISE OF PARADISE AND THE PRINCIPALL contents thereof Especially Of the greatnesse situation beautie and other properties of that place of the trees of life good and euill of the Serpent Cherubin fiery Sword Mans creation immortalitie propagation stature age knowledge temptation fall and exclusion out of Paradise and consequently of his and our originall sin with many other difficulties touching these points Collected out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers and other both ancient and moderne Writers LONDON Printed by EDWARD GRIFFIN for NATHANIEL BVTTER 1617. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE SIR FRANCIS BACON Knight Lord Keeper of the great Seale of ENGLAND and one of his Maiesties most honorable Priuy Councell HIS Maiestie hauing deigned to patronize the first fruits of my labors to whom if I may presume ought I rather for many titles to second with the second then to your Honour Siluerius in Augusto who as Siluerius saith of Caesar hath honoured learning by his owne labours so all the learned labour to honour you with their labours Seeing therefore his Maiestie vouchsafed to accept of my Treatise of Angels deigne likewise most worthy Peere to patronize this of Paradise not for the worth of the worke that I deeme it worthy so worthy a Patron but that for want of its due lustre and worth it may receiue both by the reflecting beames of your Honour which the Lord increase with all iust titles of grace and honor with our Prince on earth with the King of Heauen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that as your wisdome and other heroicall vertues are iustly admired here vpon earth so they may be with double poize rewarded in the kingdome of heauen Which is faithfully praied for by Your Honors humbly deuoted IOHN SALKELD The Argument of the Treatise ensuing AS knowledge is the perfection of our blessednesse in the life to come Quamuis Aureolus apud Capreolum in 4. d. 49. q 1. et Scotus in d d 49. q. 1. teneant formalem beatitudinem in velatione imo Caiet 1. p. q. 27. ar 2. Fer. contragent c. 53. cap. 1. d. 27. q. 2. Iauel 9 met q. 16. Torres de Trinitate q. 27. ar 7. Conimb 3. de anima c 8 teneant esse actionē formaliter so I deeme it to be the beginning in this there of God as it is in perfection here of our selues as in the first steppe to perfection so that here wee knowing our selues to be nothing but sinne and corruption may come to the knowledge of him who is all in all goodnesse and perfection here onely possessed in part there wholly enioyed in full measure but how here in part there in full measure hoc opus hic labor est this shall bee the subiect of our labour and end of this present Treatise by which wee pretend to shew what we lost by the disobedience of Adam Dur quoque q. 4. sine distinctione affirmat beatitudinem esse in aggregatione omniū bonorū in intellectu voluntate corpore sicut Hugo de S. Vict. in c. 7. l. de coelesti Hierarchiae Ric. 4. dist 49. Gab. ib. Cordub lib. 1. quaestionarij q. 42. in fruitione Mars q vlt. Argent q 3 delectatione de Deo viso Bonauent similiter esse visionem fidei respondentem dilectionem charitati viae delectationem spei Communis autem opinio Aquinatis aliorum in actu solo intellectus formulem nostram heatitudinem consistere autumat and what we got by the obedience of Christ how in Paradise wee possessed God in part and by what sinne wee fell from him wholly what were our pleasures in Paradise and what miseries did follow our fall how wee are raised againe after our fall and are to be placed in those glorious thrones from which the wicked Angels fell Lastly what is our blessednesse in the life to come and by what meanes it is wrought in vs here In which points if I doe erre as of my selfe I can no lesse it shall bee both with all subiection vnto the learned and with no lesse desire to be corrected THE TABLE and order of the Chapters CHAP. I. WHether there was euer any such place as Paradise or rather the description of Paradise is to be vnderstood allegorically and so to be referred vnto the minde only CHAP. II. The description and situation of Paradise CHAP. III. The compasse and greatnesse of Paradise and why it was so beautified seeing God foreknew for how short a time it was to serue the vse of man CHAP. IV. What may be the reason why Paradise was neuer found as yet CHAP. V. Whether there be as yet any Paradise or no or rather it was destroied in Noes floud CHAP. VI. Of the trees of Paradise whether all were fruitfull or rather some only beautifull though vnfruitfull CHAA. VII Of the tree of life why it was so called and whether it was corporall as other trees be or rather spirituall and food of the soule not of the body or finally appertaining to both CHAP. VIII The allegoricall interpretation of the tree of life CHAP. IX Why the tree of life was so called and whether it had truly the propertie of making a man immortall CHAP. X. Whether the vertue of the tree of life to preserue man immortall was naturall vnto it or supernaturall CHAP. XI Of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill to wit whether it was a true and naturall tree like vnto others And why it was so called CHAP. XII Of the creation of man CHAP. XIII Of the manner of mans creation CHAP. XIIII How man was made to the image and likenesse of God CHAP. XV. What is the difference betweene the image and the similitude of God according to which man is said to he created CHAP. XVI Whether the woman be made to the image of God or no. CHAP. XVII Whether man be made like vnto God according to his corporall substance proportion and lineaments or doth in any wise represent the diuine maiestie CHAP. XVIII Whether the image of God way be wholy lost and blotted out of the soule of man CHAP. XIX Why God made man to his image and similitude CHAP. XX. Whether the dominion ouer all liuing creatures was giuen vnto man and what power that was CHAP. XXI Whether in the state of innocencie one man should haue beene subiect to another or rather all should haue beene of equall authoritie and power CHAP. XXII Whether the Angels did concurre to the production of man or no CHAP. XXIII Whether Adam was created in his perfect stature and age CHAP. XXIV Whether the soule and the body were created in the same instant or no CHAP. XXV Whether the immortalitie of the soule may be demonstrated out of the Scriptures or no. CHAP. XXVI Whether the soule of Adam was immortall by its owne nature or only by grace CHAP. XXVII That Adam was not created in Paradise and why not and by what meanes hee came thither after his creation
of opinion that there was neuer any such place as Paradise but rather that the scripture where it maketh mention of Paradise is to be vnderstood Metaphorically Spiritually or Allegorically First because in other places of Scripture where there is mention of Paradise that word cannot be vnderstood of any terrene place therefore if one place of Scripture must bee the interpreter of the other according to the common consent of the Fathers it may not seem improbable but that the like may be admitted in this history of Paradise Secondly because those things which are said to haue beene in Paradise cannot be vnderstood literally as that in the midst of Paradise there was a tree of knowledge of good and euill a property not due vnto nature much lesse agreeable or consequent to the nature of a tree Secondly that Adam heard the voyce of GOD where as spirits of their owne nature haue no voyce or sound much lesse the purest of spirits Thirdly that hee heard God walking towards the South whereas indeed God neither walketh nor moueth but is alwaies replenishing working and filling euery place yea in euery place equally present in essence equall in power equall in all his other infinit attributes equall Againe how can it be vnderstood literally that after the transgression and expulsion of Adam out of Paradise there was placed a Cherub or Angell with a fiery sword as necessary for the custody of the said place as though eyther the commaundement of God had not beene sufficient or his will resistible without the assistance of the Angelicall power or the Angell not sufficiently powerfull for the restraining of Adam without the vse of a fiery sword as though againe God in power were not omnipotent neyther the Angell spirituall but either that the creator had neede of his creature or that which is a pure spirit had need in his operation of an impure imperfect and corruptible bodie Moses Barsephas tractatu de Paradyso Moses Barsephas in his Treatise of Paradise saith that there be two parts of Paradise one corporall another spirituall one created for the pleasure of the body another for to delight the soule so that as man is composed of two parts the one spirituall the other corporall and yet but one onely man so saith hee was Paradise partly corporall and partly spirituall yet one onely Paradise his arguments bee these If Paradise were onely corporall saith hee then the body onely of Adam was delighted there because no corporall thing can delight the soule wherefore if God had not created another part of Paradise spirituall hee might seem to haue dealt fraudulently with man which were blaspheamous who promised a Paradise for the whole man and yet created such a one as could not delight the whole man Againe that Paradise is not onely spirituall he proueth with these arguments For then it could not haue delighted the body but onely the spirit Yea all those things which Moses writeth as touching Paradise might bee deemed false seeing that hee so euidently insinuateth that man was created in Paradise as in some materiall place and that God had planted Paradise in Eden from the beginning that he put man there whom hee had created that he created for him there all trees hearbs beasts and all other things necessary both for the delight and vse of man That our first Fathers fell from Gods grace by eating of the forbidden fruite that they hid themselues amongst the trees of Paradise after their fall and many other things which cannot be vnderstood but of a reall and corporall place Thirdly if Paradise were not a reall and corporall place how could there flow out of it those foure riuers which as the Scripture witnesseth compasse the whole earth How should Enoch and Elias be translated thither and as many writers affirme be conserued there both in body and soule yea otherwise how should Adam and Eue haue liued there Which things though all of them bee not so certaine yet most of them are so euidently expressed in the scripture that they manifestly prooue the Garden of Paradise to haue beene a reall and corporall place Chrysostom hom 13. in genesi◠August in gen l. 8. c. 1. sequenti bus lib. 13. de ciuit dei c. 21. q. 27. in gen Basil hom exameron hom 11. Hier epist ad Pamachiū Epiphanius Damascen Isiderus Nicenus Cyrillus Naz. and therfore S. Chrysostome in his 13. Homily vpon Genesis saith Ideo Mosen descipsisse Paradisum That Moses did therefore so manifestly describe Paradise the riuers the trees the fruites And all other things thereto appertaining that the simple and ignorant should not be deceiued by the fabulous Allegories and doting dreames which some would pretend to diuulge for sole truth hidden in the figuratiue and materiall description of Paradise The like also may be seene in Saint Augustine in his eight booke vpon Genesis cap. 1. seq and the 13. booke de ciuitate dei cap. 21. questione vigesima septima in Gen. Basil Hom. 11. vpon the Exameron Likewise Hierome in his Epistle to Pamachius Epiphanius epist ad Iohannem Hieros Damascenus in his fourth booke de Orthodoxa fide cap. 13. Isodorus libro quarto Etymologiarum cap. 3. Gregorius Nicenus oratione quinta in orationem dominicam Cyrill Naz. Ephren and others Lastly S. Augustine in his 27. Aug. quaest 27. in Gen. question vpon Genesis giueth this reason as an euident demonstration that Paradise was a true corporall place because the land of the Sodomites and Gomorrhae ans before the destruction thereof was compared in the thirteenth chapter of Genesis Genes c. 13. to this pleasant place of Paradise in these words Before the Lord destroyed Sodome and Gomorrah it was as the garden of the Lord like the Land of Aegypt as thou goest vnto Zoar Wherefore saith Saint Augustine in the place aboue alleadged if by the fruitfull trees described in Paradise there were nothing else to bee vnderstood but onely the vertues of the minde as some do hold and if there were no true corporal Paradise beautified with all kinde of trees it would not haue beene said of that place that it was as the Paradise of God Conticescant igitur as Saint Hierome commenteth vpon Daniel Hieronimus in Danielem cap. 10 cap. 10. eorum deliramenta qui vmbras imagines in veritate sequentes ipsam conantur euertere veritatem vt Paradysum flumina arbores putent Allegoriae legibus se debere subruere Because the aforesaid Allegories rather seeme deliramenta dottages and dreames as this Father tearmeth them then expositions of learned Doctors let them therefore in no wise be mentioned or vttered not that there may not bee good vse of these and other the like Allegoricall expositions but that they are not so to be vsed that they be a meanes to ouerthrow the truth or that they be taken for the sole trueth which were no small iniury vnto the word of God
that meate was corporall yet was it of such vertue and nature that it did confirme man in perfect health not as other meates but by an occult vertue proceeding from aboue And this he confirmeth by two examples the first of Elias his cake the second of the flower and oyle of the widow of Sarepta which without all question were effected by supernaturall power Beda likewise affirmeth that therefore it was called the tree of life because it hath receiued from the diuine power that whosoeuer should eat thereof should be confirmed in perpetuall health Neither ought we to maruaile Bonauenâ—ure 2. lib. sent dist 17 as Bonauenture well noteth that a man might be disposed vnto immortalitie by the fruit of this tree seeing there be many other things as Myrrhe and Balme which doe preserue from corruption for a long time therefore as our Sacraments doe not really concurre vnto grace but the diuine power which alwaies is assistant vnto them so the fruit of that tree did not of his owne nature produce immortality but rather the diuine power did communicate it by the eating of that fruit Here wee may see these so opposite opinions with their reasons and authorities in which it may be free for euery one to follow as he liketh seing there is nothing in this point plainely expressed in the Scripture with me both the authoritie of S. Austin and reason doth sway most for this latter opinion because it seemeth not so probable that a naturall tree or fruit should haue of his owne virtue and substance so supernaturall a virtue and qualitie as to cause immortalitie But to conclude whether the virtue of this tree was naturall or supernaturall all is one in regard of our losse ingratitude and sinne our losse of both liues spirituall and corporall our ingratitude towards God to vs wards so infinitely good our sinne also being the same seeing that though it had beene onely a naturall virtue which was in that fruit of life yet it depriued vs not onely of our owne liues but also of the author of life What therefore remaineth but that now being redeemed from this sinne and raised againe from this death we blesse him perpetually with all the powers of our soules and all the daies of our liues who is the onely giuer of life and sole redeemer of our soules CHAP. XI Of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill to wit whether it was a true and naturall tree like vnto others And why it was so called NOthing can bee so plainely set downe in the holy scripture but there will be some idle braine or other who will so moralize or so wrest it to a spirituall sense though often-times without sense that they will not sticke to deny the truth of the history as it happeneth here in the first point of our question in which some haue not feared that name before but afterwards of the euent so that when God commanded our fore-fathers that they should not eate of that tree either he called it by some other name or he demonstrated it vnto them as it were with his finger Many other reasons do the Rabbins giue of the name of this tree but so farre from reason that they be not worthy the repeating I will onely touch one as most fabulous by which we may coniecture of the rest They say that our first Parents were created as infants in sense and reason though men in body strength and stature Now because this tree had a virtue of ripening mans iudgment witt and discretion of good from euill it was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because to know good and euill according to the Hebrue and scripture phrase is as much as to haue the vse of reason But this is not onely contrary to the text but also to reason for certaine it is that as man was created perfect in all the parts of his body so was hee no lesse in the powers of his soule Yea how is it likely that he was without reason who was created lord of all vnreasonable creatures who gaue them their names proper to their natures and was to gouerne all things according to their nature by his owne rule of reason yea with whom God the author of nature and chiefe rule of reason had made this couenant most conformable to reason that if he liued according to the law of nature and instinct of reason his reward should be aboue all nature and exceed the capacitie of humane reason wherefore who was both culpable in this pact and punishable for his transgression must in all reason haue then had the vse of reason Iosephus in his first booke of his Antiquities perceiuing well the absurditie of this opinion fell into another which Lyra deemeth not much lesse absurd to wit that this tree was therefore called the tree of knowledge of good and euill because it had virtue to sharpen the wit ripen the iudgment and to giue prudence and vnderstanding to all humane affaires Lyra his refutation is this because the fruit of that tree being corporall how could it saith he haue any spirituall effect wherefore the minde witt and iudgment of man being spirituall how could they be holpen by any corporall cause For though the superior cause and more perfect then his effect may haue influence into the inferiour and imperfect yet neuer the inferiour into the superiour Therefore though the spirituall causes be of such excellent perfection that they haue influence into our bodies yet neuer any corporall creature saith he is so perfect that it can inflow in the spirituall For what is that which any corporall thing may produce in the spirit not any thing corporall seeing that all that is in the spirit is spirituall neither againe can it be spirituall because nothing spirituall can bee contained in the vertue of a materiall or corporall cause It cannot be denied but that this discourse of Lyra might haue some force in those causes which as the Philosophers speake doe worke directè per se by themselues directly yet in those whose causaltie is altogether indirect true philosophy teacheth the contrary wherefore though it be most certaine that the body cannot directly haue any influence into the soule or spirit yet bicause the spirit whiles it is in this life dependeth in her operations of the body and the dispositions thereof according to the generally receiued philosophicall axiome the manner of the working followeth the manner of being it must necessarily follow that accordingly as the dispositions of the body are better or worse so may the operations of the minde be also more or lesse perfect Yea Aristotle teacheth vs in his 7. booke of his Politikes that though those men who are borne and brought vp in the Northerne parts of the world bee stronger then others in corporall forces yet that they bee of a much more slow and duller capacity contrariwise those who are borne in hotter climates of Affrica Spaine and Mauritania
they so appearing and speaking did alwayes represent the maiestie of their maker repeating for the most part Gods owne words which hee had immediately infused into their vnderstanding Againe if the aforesaid opinion of the assuming of our humane nature is to bee vnderstood by a personall vnion betweene God and man then questionlesse God hath beene twice incarnate and twice vnited to our humane nature which is contrary to the holy Scriptures Or if there was no reall vnion or assumption of our humane nature but only a shade or similitude of the same as wee reade that Angels haue oftentimes assumed humane bodies how then was it truly said let vs make man to our image and likenesse seeing that similitude of humane nature could not in any wise be the image of God neither could it be truly said that Adam was made to the image of God if so be that we vnderstand by the image of God not any true humane nature but the shade only and similitude of mans nature Hence I conclude the first opinion to be the best as which is most grounded in the sacred text and most followed of the holy Fathers and other expositours CHAP. XVI Whether the woman be made to the image of God or no. IT might seeme rashnesse to doubt of this if S. Paul did not giue vs some ground denying as some thinke that woman was made to the image and likenesse of God auerring her onely to be the image of man in that he contraposeth woman as the glory of man to man as the image and glory of God His words be these 1. Cor. 11. 6. Man ought not to couer his head forasmuch as hee is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of the man for the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man The woman therefore is not the image and glory of God but immediately only the glory of the man otherwise there could be no difference in this betweene the man and the woman contrary to the inference which S. Paul maketh in the precedent verse Neuerthelesse euen the text it selfe doth clearly confute this opinion for after that it had beene said let vs make man to our owne image and likenesse presently it is added hee made them both man and woman Wherefore as man was made to the image of God so likewise was the woman made to the same Aug li. 12. de trinitate cap 7. S. Austine is very large in giuing the reason of this conclusion but briefly this is the answer If wee consider the principall reason why man is said to be the image of God to wit as hee is an intellectuall creature and as he is indued with the properties therevnto annexed so is it euident that this word image doth equally signifie and may be equally attributed both to man and woman seeing that they both participate of reason and vnderstanding both bee indued with an immortall soule both partakers of free will both capable of supernaturall gifts both of grace and glory But againe if this word image be taken in a more large and improper signification as hath beene already explicated we may well say that man was made to the image of God woman framed to the image of man Because as God is the end to whom man is immediatly referred so likewise man in some sort is in regard of the woman because man is the head of the woman by whom shee ought to be directed vnto God This explication seemeth to be grounded in the afore-said place of Paul 1. to the Corin. 11. chap. for when hee had said that man was the image of God and woman the glory of the man he presently giueth the reason ver 8. For man saith he is not of the woman but the woman of the man ver 9. for the man was not created for the womans sake but the woman for the mans sake Neuerthelesse if the similitude of God in man and woman be considered not according to their naturall gifts but to the supernaturall of grace and glory then questionlesse it hapneth often-times that some women are more adorned with these supernaturall graces and gifts and consequently are more like vnto God then many men As wee piously beleeue of the blessed Virgin who as shee was pronounced by the Angell of God to bee blessed amongst all women so no doubt but shee hath receiued an eternall blessing aboue all Angells and men our Sauiour only excepted both God and man CHAP. XVII Whether man be made to the image of God euen according to his body and corporall proportion shape and lineaments or doth in any wise represent the diuine maiestie THE subiect of this question is so certaine of it selfe and without all coutrouersie that for the resolution thereof wee haue more neede of the subtlety of distinction then of any profound diuinitie or learning For seeing that the diuine maiesty is a most pure spirit as infinite in essence as in all and euery of his diuine attributes infinite how is it possible that there should be any comparison similitude or likenes with him in that which is altogether corporall limited and most base such as is our humane natute according to the body Neuerthelesse seeing the body doth in some sort represent the soule like as the soule also is the image of God hence peraduenture it may be inferred that the body may in some sort be said to be a representation or similitude of God in as much as the body if wee consider it in his full perfection is an immediate glasse similitude or representation of the soule the which most perfectly representeth Almighty God Wherefore though in regard of our corporall substance considered immediatly in it selfe without any relation vnto the soule wee be no better then bruite beasts yet if we consider it in regard of our soule and as it is the receptacle of the most excellent image of God it may after a remote manner and mediately be said to represent euen God himselfe Wherefore S. Austin propounding this question August lib. 6. de Gen. ad literam cap. 12. in what doth a man exceede the brute beasts seeing they are both made of earth he answereth in nothing but because he is made to the image of God not in body or corporall substance but according to his soule and spirituall powers Though true it is also that he hath euen in his body a certaine property which doth in some sort demonstrate the rectitude of his soule as that he is made vpright to the end that hee might vnderstand how hee ought not to abase himselfe to the terrene vile and base trash of the world like vnto the bruite beasts and other most base creatures who as they are framed prone and haue their bodies inclined towards the earth can neuer erect themselues to any spirituall or heauenly thing Hence Bernard well noteth that God made man vpright in stature and erected towards heauen to the
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
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
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
because as the schoole Diuines well note the fault as it is a fault deserueth punishment so that the worthinesse or debt of the punishment doth follow the fault as a proper passion thereof as intense heare followeth the fire and light necessarily proceedeth from the Sunne CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is refuted and the truth set downe in what consisted the sinne of our first father and ours contracted from him WE may easily perceiue by the opinions refuted in the precedent Chapters how easie it is euen for the greatest witts to erre in supernaturall matters without the assistance of Gods supernaturall grace and illumination seeing that those who were accounted the very mirrours of wisdome in their time haue beene so hoodwinked and blinded in the cause and first fountaine of their felicitie insomuch that though they knew that they were conceiued as Dauid saith in iniquitie and sinne yet they were not able to declare sufficiently in what consisted that iniquitie and originall sinne much lesse to demonstrate with any certainety that which S. Austine almost in one word doth declare so euidently libro q o de nuptijs concupiscentijs cap. 23 26. where hee expresly holdeth that our originall sin consisteth in concupiscence which though it remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed to them in ijs ergo qui regenerantur in Christo in those therefore who are regenerated in Christ when they receiue the remission of all their sinnes it is necessarie that the guiltinesse of this as yet remaining concupiscence be remitted So that as I haue already said it be not imputed to sin for as the guiltinesse of those sinnes which cannot remaine because they passe when they are committed remaineth neuerthelesse which if it be not remitted will remaine for euer so the guiltinesse of the foresaid concupiscence when it is remitted is quite taken away Calvin lib. 2. Instit c. 1. Melancth in colloqâ—io Wormatien apologia confessionis A gustanae So that here we see auerred and proued that which many learned late writers doe auouch as a matter of faith euidently deducing it out of the 6 7 8. chap. of the Apostle to the Romanes and the 11 to the Hebrues to wit that our originall iniustice consisteth in concupiscence the which though it doth remaine in the regenerate yet is it not imputed vnto them so that as diuers learned men doe declare themselues in this matter tegitur non tollitur raditur non eradicatur it is couered not rooted out it remaineth but is not imputed For proofe of which Rom. 7. verse 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. sequentibus I will only ponder the example of Paul who no doubt was regenerate at least after he was called an Apostle and yet he could finde this sinne of concupiscence within himselfe striuing against the spirit yea hee did acknowledge it to be his originall sinne the fountaine of all actuall sinnes and therefore hee addeth Wee know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne for I allow not that which I doe for what I would that doe I not but what I hate that doe I now then it is no more I that doth it but sinne that dwelleth in mee Now what sinne is this the Apostle speaketh of but originall or concupiscence remaining as yet euen after his regeneration drawing him vnto that which he would not and therefore afterward in the same chapter opposing it to the right inclination of the minde hee calleth it another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde and leading him captiue vnto the law of sinne which was in his members and hence he concludeth O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the body of this death that is from originall sinne the which as it is the death of the soule so likewise it causeth the death of the body CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed THe first heretickes who after the preaching of the Gospell denied originall sinne were Pelagius and Coelestius as S. Austine writeth lib. de peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 1. 2. 3. 9. 19. whom Iulian the Pelagian followed in his fourth booke which hee wrote against originall sinne yea this is attributed vnto the Armenians to Faber Stapulensis and others The first argument of this heresie is that which Iulian the Pelagian vsed against S. Austine because it is essentiall to all sinnes to be voluntary but nothing can be voluntary vnto infants before the vse of reason seeing that as the Philosophers say and proue nihil concupitum quin praecognitum nothing is willed desired or sought after which is not first knowne infants therefore who haue no vse of reason can haue no abuse of will by consent vnto a foreknowne euill and where there can be no sufficient foreknowledge or distinction of good from euill there questionlesse can be no sinne Yea this seemeth to be confirmed by S. Austine himselfe lib. 3. de libero arbitrio cap. 13. where hee confesseth that sinne is so voluntary an euill that nothing can be sinne which is not voluntary and in another place he auoucheth that neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent Wherefore Doctor Bishop against M. Perkins out of those words doubteth not to vpbraid the Church of Englands doctrine about this point saying What vnlearned learned men are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too To this argument of Iulian peraduenture some will say that originall sinne is voluntary in the infants not by their owne proper actuall will as who can haue none such but by the will of their first father Adam which after a sort may be said to be the will of all his posteritie seeing he was the head of them all and therefore that by his voluntary transgression all Adams posteritie may bee said to haue sinned in him But this seemeth not to satisfie for originall sinne if wee will consider well the nature of it and as all the aduerse part doth hold verè auertit à Deo parvuli voluntatem cam conuertit ad bonum mutabile it doth truly auert the will of the infants from God vnto an apparant and mutable good yea euen to the deuill therefore the will of our parent and his sinne is in no wise to cause originall sinne in vs. Secondly as true Philosophie teacheth no cause can produce that which it hath not in it selfe either virtually or formally neither doth any cause produce any thing but after the manner that it containeth the thing which is to bee produced either formally if so bee that it hath the same forme species or kinde which the effect hath or virtually if it containe it in a more perfect degree and measure But certainly neither our first
parent Adam neither our immediate parents now regenerated in Christ haue in any wise the guiltinesse of originall sinne at the time of our generation how can it therefore possibly come to passe that any such guilt of originall sinne should proceed from them vnto vs Certainly this could not proceed from any matrimoniall act seeing that was and is lawfull in all lawes both of nature Moses and grace how therefore could that which is a sinne and consequently vnlawfull proceed from that which is altogether lawfull Thirdly the actions of our externall powers as of seeing smelling tasting and the like are in no wise voluntary or so tearmed but outwardly only or as the Philosophers tearme is by an extrinsecall denomination or name deriued from our will and this because they haue no freedome or libertie in themselues inwardly but only as they are directed from the inward facultie of the will and therefore as they haue no libertie or free will but only by an externe denomination so neither haue they any sinne inwardly inherent but onely as they are commanded or proceed from the will Therefore after the same manner seeing the soules and willes of the infants haue no libertie or freedome of choice but only by an externe denomination outwardly deriued from the will of Adam now altogether past and of his sinne now forgiuen it must needs follow that they cannot in any wise bee said to haue contracted any sin but only by an externe denomination proceeding from the sin of Adam Fourthly that which in it selfe is according to Gods law neither in any wise contradicting the same cannot be the cause of that which is against the law of God wherefore seeing that matrimonie or the matrimoniall act is according to Gods law it cannot bee the cause or occasion of originall sinne in the infant which is against Gods law Fiftly originall sinne cannot proceed from Adam vnto his posteritie neither as from the morall cause thereof neither as from a physicall naturall or reall cause not morally because as death did proceed from sinne so life if he had perseuered should haue proceeded from grace and originall iustice which was a gift giuen vnto all our nature in Adam not per modum meriti by way of merit as some haue dreamed but gratis otherwise as the Apostle argueth Romans the 11. chapter grace should haue been no grace Now therefore consequently neither doth originall sinne passe vnto vs his posteritie by way of demerit or as a morall effect of sinne seeing that the same reason which doth vrge for the transfusion of this demerit or sinne vnto vs doth also vrge for the transfusion of grace Wherefore seeing he could not be the meritorious cause of our grace because it doth implie contradiction to be deserued and yet to be grace a free gift and graciously giuen neither can he be consequently the morall cause of our originall sinne Neither finally can the sinne of Adam bee the reall or physicall cause of our sinne seeing that his sinne whereof ours should proceed is now neither actuall nor virtuall not actuall because it is forgiuen not virtuall for that then it should be latent in the generatiue power or seed which cannot possibly bee because then it should be attributed to God who is cause of the generatiue power seeing as the Philosophers say causa causae est causa effectus illius secundae causae the cause of any second cause is the cause of the effect proceeding from the second cause Lastly there cannot bee assigned any time or moment in which the sonnes of Adam doe or can contract this originall sinne therefore both according to true Diuinitie and Philosophie it cannot be that we doe really and inwardly in our soules contract any such sinne but rather wee are called sinners in Adam and are said by the Apostle to haue sinned in Adam by reason onely of his fall who was our head The antecedent seemeth certaine because this sinne can neither infect our soules in the first instant of their creation or infusion otherwise the soule should haue it from her creation and consequently it might bee attributed to Almightie God as to the author thereof seeing that as true Philosophie teacheth operatio quae simul incipit cum esse rei est illi ab agente à quo habet esse the action which beginneth iointly with the being of the effect is from that cause from which it hath being And hence Aquinas holdeth as impossible Aquinas 1 parte q. 63. art 15 in corpore Angelum in primo instante creationis suae peccasse quoniam peccatum illud tribueretur Deo that Lucifer sinned in the first instant of his creation because that sinne should haue beene attributed to God which were blasphemous Neither could this sinne bee contracted by vs in the instant in which our soules were infused into our bodies seeing that the immediate subiect of sinne is not the body but the soule or some of the powers of the soule seeing therefore no instant can be assigned in which the sonnes of Adam are infected with this originall crime it followeth necessarily both according to the grounds of reason and Scripture that there is no such infection or corruption inherent in our soules For the better vnderstanding of this fundamentall point so controuerted in all ages we must note first that originall sinne is called peccatum naturae the sinne of nature according to that of Paul Ephesians 2. Wee were by nature the sonnes of wrath because sinne did spot defile or rather corrupt the whole masse of humane nature in our first father Adam from whom as first head and fountaine it hath beene and is deriued Secondly this sinne is called the sinne of the world Iohn chap. 1. Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinne of the world because all men were defiled with this one onely excepted God and man by whom al others were redeemed Thirdly it is also tearmed peccatum humanae conditionis the sinne common to all humane nature because there is not any Christ only excepted which doth not vndergoe this yoke So Ierome explicating that of the 50. Psalme Behold I am conceiued in iniquities saith Hieron super cap. 4. Ezechiel not in the iniquities of my mother but in the iniquities of humane nature which are generall to all humane nature or which hath defiled all mankinde Fourthly the sinne of Adam is called peccatum radicale the radicall sinne or root of sinne because wee being now depriued by it of originall iustice which as it was in Adam so should it also haue beene in vs an antidote against all inordinate desires but now our inordinate appetite and concupiscence which is the root of all euill is let loose to the ouerthrow of all true libertie Lastly wee must note this difference betweene the originall and the actuall sinne of euery particular man besides Adam that the actuall sinne is committed by the actuall will and consent of euery sinner but the
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
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
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