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
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
had not eaten of the tree of life Againe if it was onely ad melius esse for a better preseruation of our immortalitie due vnto that estate and not absolutely necessary for that effect then consequently it was not the tree of life in the sense which the Scripture insinuateth but an antidote onely against death and not a necessary cause of eternall life I answer that though the argument of Nectar and Ambrosia doth euidently ouerthrow the deitie and immortalitie of the heathen gods yet doth not the simile or comparison any thing impeach the immortalitie and deitie of the true God as neither the immortalitie of our first parents due onely vnto them in their estate of innocencie and which did principally proceed from the true and only immortall God because that immortalitie of life proceeding from the fruit of life was to endure no longer with man then man perseuered in the grace of God which was giuen him as a pawne of eternall life Neither doth this contradict that of the Apostle the wages of sinne is death for though death be due vnto man euen without sinne according to nature yet this debt was to bee remitted by originall grace and the naturall pronenesse thereunto to be redressed by the fruit of life Wherefore though the immediate cause of our immortalitie in Paradise should haue beene the tree of life yet the primarie and principall of all to which the other was consequent was originall grace whose immediate effect was our spirituall life and thereto secondarily followed the freedome from any corporall harme or death yea and this for euer of his owne nature though wee had not beene translated thence to a better life for so it is said of Adam that therefore hee was banished out of Paradise and interdicted the entrance vnto the tree of life lest eating of it hee should liue for euer Genes 3. chap. 22. v. And the Lord God said behold the man is become as one of vs to know good and euill and now lest he 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 till the ground from whence he was taken Hence I conclude with Abulensis and others esum illius arboris sufficientem habuisse virtutem vt vitam homini praestaret aeternam that this tree of life had sufficient vertue to prolong a mans life for all eternitie The which also is the opinion of S. Austine Aug. li. 13. de â—iuitate Dei cap. 20. 23. Chrys hom â—3 in Gen. Rupertus â—ib 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. Chrysostome and Rupertus lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. where hee addeth this more then other Doctors quòd semel sumptus vitam praestitisset immortalem that this fruit of life had beene sufficient to haue caused immortalitie of its owne nature though it had beene but once receiued the which though it may seeme improbable to humane reason yet considering the omnipotence of God and his infinite loue to man in that estate it cannot at leastway appeare impossible CHAP. X. Whether the vertue of the tree of life to preserue man immortall was naturall vnto it or supernaturall LEst wee erre in the resolution of this question by any equiuocation of words as it falleth out often in the like difficulties of naturall and supernaturall obiects I will first declare how the Diuines vse this distinction and then how it is to be taken here Naturall as farre forth as is necessarie for our present purpose is that which floweth from the principles of nature to wit matter and forme of which as of their only compacts all naturall and corporal substances are composed Supernaturall is that which is aboue all nature or rather cannot in any wise proceed from the principles of nature but as it is aboue all nature so it floweth from that sole principle which is aboue all nature if not only yet principally Secondly naturall oftentimes is taken pro congenito for that which is originally produced with any other thing though it flow not in any wise from the principles of nature or bee not due thereunto so no doubt but if an Angel were created with the light of glory or beatificall vision of Gods essence both the light of glory and the vision of God should be in that sense naturall or rather connaturall vnto the Angell because it was produced together with his naturall substance or essence And the same oftentimes is auerred by the Fathers of man in regard of his originall iustice in which hee was created for though this original iustice did not flow from the principles of nature yet neuerthelesse because it was produced with nature by Almightie God and infused into mans nature as due vnto it in that happy estate therefore it is and may well be termed naturall though in its owne essence it was supernaturall Now by these two distinctions of things naturall wee may euidently inferre what is supernaturall namely that which is aboue both these kindes of acceptions or distinctions of naturall obiects that is which neither floweth from the principles of nature neither is any way due vnto nature as originall iustice was due vnto vs in Adam before our fall and corruption of nature This distinction presupposed the difficultie consisteth in this whether the vertue of the tree of life for to preserue man from corruption may bee called naturall or rather is to bee deemed supernaturall Strabo answereth Strabâ— in Gen. Lignum vitae hanc naturaliter habuisse virtutem that the tree of life had naturally this vertue that he who did eat of that fruit should be endued with perpetuall health neither should bee touched with any infirmitie wearinesse or irksomenesse which are wont to be the companions of age Hugo de Sancto Victore addeth Lignum vitae habuisse in se naturam vt perpetuaret homini vitam si competentèr ederetur that the tree of life had that vertue in it to perpetuate our life if it were taken competently For man saith he was made mortall and immortall immortall because hee could not die by reason of that immortall food mortall because he might haue died by outward violence But God had so inwardly fortified him by the tree of life and outwardly by his diuine power that hee could not die Againe because hee had shut vp within him the gate of negligence by the vigilance of humane reason outwardly also the gate of violence by the diuine protection insomuch that vnlesse man abusing his reason should open the gate of negligence neuer any harme should enter into him by the gate of violence But because hee was not carefull to keepe the charge committed vnto him God therefore forsooke the custodie and care he had ouer him S. Austine on the contrary side thinketh that the vertue of this tree of life was supernaturall for so he saith in his 8 booke de Gen ad literam cap. 5. That though
yea as all inferiour creatures are subiect to their superiour according to their nature order perfection and Gods decree the imperfect to the more perfect the matter for the formes the corporall for the spirituall the accidents for the substances the elements for the mixts yea euen the heauens starres and planets for man man only for God as subiect only to God while he did not infringe this sacred order and chaine where by him all things were to be reduced and linked to God Furthermore this power and dominion of man ouer all other liuing creatures proceeding from the excellencie of his nature did remaine in him euen after his sinne though not in the same act or actuall exercise of his power and dominion For albeit whatsoeuer was due vnto nature was blemished defaced and corrupted by sinne yet nothing substantially belonging vnto nature or necessarily consequent vnto the same was wholly taken away Wherefore this diuine image of God being engrauen in mans nature mans nature remaining after sinne the same image of God must needs remaine at least way as much as was due vnto nature or not aboue the spheare of nature and consequently the aforesaid dominion must also continue as hauing his beginning from this image it must I say continue as the Philosopher speaketh non actu sed potentia not alwayes according to the exercise of the act in all particulars but according to the extent of the power in generall as may be manifestly proued out of the 9. of Genesis Gen. 9. v. 2. The feare of you and the dread of you shall be vpon euery beast of the earth and vpon euery fowle of the heauen vpon all that moueth on the earth and vpon all the fishes of the sea vnto your hand are they deliuered Thus God said to Noe after the generall deluge and consequently this dominion ouer all creatures doth remaine euen after sinne CHAP. XXI Whether in the state of innocencie one man should haue beene subiect to another or rather all of equall dominion power and authoritie SAint Augustine answereth that seeing God had made man a reasonable creature Aug. lib. de Ciu. c. 15. he would not haue him to domineere but only ouer the vnreasonable So that man should not haue had power ouer man but onely ouer beasts other vnreasonable creatures Hence it was that our first Fathers and Patriarchs of the world were rather keepers of sheepe and feeders of oxen then gouernours of men that thence wee might vnderstand both what the right order of creatures did require and what followed the disorder of man and desert of sinne seeing base bondage vile slauerie and ignominious subiection proceedeth of sinne as rooted in sinne not springing from nature Wherefore before the iust Noah reuenged the sinne of his sonne wee neuer reade in the Scripture the names of bondage seruitude or slauish subiection which therefore must necessarily bee rather the desert of sinne then the effect of nature Yea this may be confirmed in that God giuing power vnto man ouer all inferiour creatures he maketh no mention of the power of man ouer man because all men were equally made to the image of God as likewise because in that estate all were equally to be borne both in perfection of nature and adorned with grace and consequently all were to bee equall in power and dominion as consequent to the perfection of nature and height of grace seeing this is equally grounded in nature and with no lesse equalitie was to be confirmed by grace Now as it cannot be denied but that this opinion of S. Augustine hath some probable reasons yet I deeme the contrary to be much more probable to wit that though there should haue beene no such dominion in Paradise as which should then haue beene burdensome vnto nature and is now necessarily following our lapse and fall yet questionlesse there should haue beene a kinde of order subiection and subordination of children inferiours and subiects to their parents superiours and politicall gouernours not by way of an imperious command and absolute authoritie but by a voluntary and sweet subiection flowing from nature and confirmed by grace My reason is this for as all should not haue beene equall in the gifts of nature wisdome knowledge skill magnanimitie and prudence neither could they haue beene all equally apt for politicall gouernment such as I suppose should haue beene in that most perfect place of Paradise though in most perfect manner Neither may it be thought contrary to the happinesse of that estate of Paradise that man should haue some kinde of subiection or subordination to man seeing wee must necessarily admit the like in the blessed spirits and holy Angels who as they are distinct in nature indiuiduall and specificall perfections so are they no lesse in their subordination offices and degrees So Ierome saith if there bee principalities powers and vertues it is necessary that they haue some subiect vnto them who fearing and seruing them are confirmed with their vertue and valour which distribution of offices are not onely in this wicked world but also are to bee in the world to come A fortiori then there might haue been the like subordination and order of gouernment amongst men euen in the state of innocencie So that as wee finde in Daniel and Zacharias Daniel 8. Zachar. 2 that one Angell doth command another notwithstanding the perfect blessednesse of both so likewise it seemeth most certaine that there might haue beene the like subordination amongst men the like command and power ouer others though wee had all remained in that pleasant place of Paradise The wife should haue beene subiect to her husband the children to their parents the youth to their elders and finally all inferiours to their superiours But how then may some say was the subiection of the wife vnto her husband inflicted as a punishment due vnto her sinne according vnto the sentence of God Genes 4. vers 16. thy desire shall bee subiect to thy husband and he shall rule ouer thee How could this be inflicted for sinne if so be it was consequent to nature I answer briefly that there is a twofold subiection of the wife to her husband the one voluntary the other involuntary the one of nature the other of sinne the one burdensome the other gratefull the one confirmed by grace the other repugnant to nature finally the one nothing repugnant to the state of innocencie the other inflicted for originall sinne For certainly though Eue had not fallen and transgressed the commandement of God by tasting the forbidden fruit yet because shee was the weaker vessell therefore euen her owne nature would haue required subiection vnto her husband subiection I meane voluntary not constrained naturall not forced yea free and without any contradiction which now euen the best of Eues descendents doe sometimes experiment in regard of their husbands so that though the one subiection bee a propertie of nature yet the other is a punishment of
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
cap. 15. in epistola 3. ad Hillarium quae est 80. in Encherridio cap. 36. seeing that was not ours but Adams not in the habit because this should proceed only from the precedent act and finally neither in the two last because these are rather effects proceeding from our originall iustice then the crime and sinne it selfe This may also seeme the opinion of S. Austine in his 3. booke de libero arbitrio cap. 20. where he saith that we are all inquinati peccato primi parentis defiled with the sinne of our first father the which sinne could neither bee inherent in vs as actually proceeding from him neither as habitually inherent in his soule or priuatiuely adherent to his forme It was therefore in vs by an externe denomination inwardly affecting him but outwardly onely denominating vs. But if it bee so as Austine saith that wee were all originally defiled with the sinne of our first father if wee had also besides this some other inherent originall sinne wee should haue two kindes of originall sinnes the one by imputation the other by inhesion the one inherent in Adam only the other in vs deriued from Adam which is to speake without ground of Scripture which onely maketh mention of one originall sinne by which all bee truly called sinners according to that of the Apostle Omnes peccauerunt in Adamo all haue sinned in Adam in Adam hee saith not in themselues and consequently none such did truly possesse them By this wee may see what colour of truth may be giuen to falsitie yea euen vnto heresie such as this seemeth to be for if originall sinne bee nothing else in our posteritie but the punishment and sinne of our first father Adam for which all his posteritie is punished certainly after the same manner the sonnes also of any other of his posteritie who as the Scripture witnesseth are iustly punished for their fathers offences might rightly be said to haue contracted so many originall sinnes as bee sinnes punishable in them by reason of their fathers transgressions which without all question were most absurd and yet the consequence seemeth most euident For if originall sinne according to this last opinion bee nothing else but the sinne of our first father Adam as it is punishable in vs no question but by the same reason as many sinnes of our fore-fathers as are punishable in vs euen vnto the third or fourth generation may as well bee called originall sinnes in vs though they bee not really inherent in our soules or powers thereof but onely are said to be in vs by an externe denomination or name proceeding from our parents Moreouer if our sinne bee nothing else but the sinne of our first parent as it is imputed vnto vs from him as our head certainly as that is blotted in him by his repentance so it should also bee blotted in vs by the same repentance for if his sinne could be sufficient for the condemnation of all why should not his repentance be sufficient for all especially it being nothing in vs but an externe denomination or bare name taken from his sinne which now being washed away in him should of necessitie be likewise blotted in vs nulla siquidem forma siue interna siue externa potest denominare nisi eo modo quo est for questionlesse no forme being taken away can denominate as when it was present This forme therefore being an externe forme which neuer had any vnion in our soules or powers thereof could neuer euen when it was present denominate our soules inwardly sinful much lesse now when it is altogether blotted out of the first subiect wherein it was really inherent but rather now it should giue no denomination at all and consequently none of the sons of Adam should truly be said to bee borne in originall sinne seeing that forme from which they were said to bee borne in sinne is quite abolished and blotted out euen in the first subiect from whence it should proceed vnto all Finally as Dauid witnesseth wee are all borne in iniquitie and our mother conceiued vs in sinne and S. Paul All haue sinned in Adam but this could not be true if so be that wee were onely to bee tearmed originally sinners in that our first father Adam sinned for his sinne being blotted out the denomination also proceeding from it should be taken away seeing that no forme can any longer denominate then whiles it is present and after the manner that it is so Therefore as it could not really and intrinsecally denominate the posteritie of Adam sinners euen when it was present according to the foresaid doctrine so now when it is altogether taken away in his root and first origine it cannot in any wise denominate vs sinners which is euidently against the Scriptures which repeat so often that all mankinde was conceiued in sinne and to haue sinned in Adam hee onely excepted who as goodnesse it selfe in no wise could bee subiect to this so great euill and as man was hypostatically vnited with the second person of the blessed Trinitie and predestinated to bee the generall redemption of the world from this generall deluge of sinne and therefore could not be defiled with any sinne CHAP. LIIII Whether originall sinne consisteth in any priuation or no. MAny seeing the inconueniences of the former opinions not finding in what positiue act or habit they might constitute the essence of our originall iniustice at length haue beene driuen to say that it was not essentially and formally in any positiue act or habit but that it consisted rather in some priuation The reason of this may bee because the essence of sinne according to his nature common to all sinnes both actuall habituall and originall is as the Fathers doe often insinuate non natura aliqua sed negatio not any nature but a negation of nature and consequently the same must be here in originall sinne So Dionysius 4. cap. de diuinis nominibus speaking of the euill and malice of sinne saith neither this euill of sinne is the appetite it selfe but the declination of the appetite from good to euill and more plainly afterward calleth it a priuation atque vt summatim dicam malum quemadmodum saepe diximus infirmitas imbecillitásque ac priuatio est aut scientiae aut fidei aut appetitus aut actionis bonae Euill or sinne as I haue often said is a certaine infirmitie and imbecillitie and a priuation either of knowledge or of faith or of the appetite or of the doing of that which is good Iustine also in his booke of the questions which were proposed by the Gentiles vnto the Christians amongst other things resolueth this difficultie 46. q. 73. that euill or sinne is nothing else but the corruption of goodnesse so that it is not any positiue entitie or being but rather a priuation of entitie or being or as Basil describeth it Basil hom 9. priuatio boni the priuation of good and Athanasius more plainly saith
originall commeth only by Adams sinne and transgression and thereby is transfused and passed into vs. Wherefore God speaking not of the former but of the latter Ezechiel chap. 18. saith The soule that hath sinned shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither the father the sonnes iniquitie the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the impietie of the wicked vpon him On the contrary side originall sinne being the sinne of nature requireth only the free libertie of the first and principall head of nature because his will is reputed as the vniuersall will of all whence it is that wee must not thinke that when the childe is first conceiued and the soule first infused into the body that then I say it may bee deemed to sinne but rather that then it is conceiued in sinne so Dauid saith that he was conceiued in sinne not that he sinned in his conception For though both insinuate a true sinne in vs yet the one that is originall sinne is thereby signified to be deriued from Adam vnto vs yea also to be inherent in vs the other that is actuall sinne is from our selues and of our selues whence it is that the person of Adam was first infected with this originall contagion and then his nature but in vs contrariwise first the nature is infected then the person depraued These things presupposed my first conclusion is that it is a point of catholike faith that all those who descend of the seede of Adam by ordinary meanes are infected with this generall maladie of originall sinne Wherefore God threatneth Gen. 13. that he whose flesh is not circumcised shall be blotted out of the booke of God Aug. lib. 3 de peccato originali cap. 30. 35. li. â— dâ— nupt ijs â— concupiscentijs cap. 17 because hee hath made frustrate his couenant out of which testimonie S. Austine thus argueth against the Pelagians The infants did not frustrate this couenant made with God by any actuall sinne seeing they could not commit any actually therefore they contracted originally by originall sinne deriued from Adam The second testimonie which proueth this point is out of the 51. Psalme where Dauid saith Behold I am conceiued in iniquities and my mother conceiued mee in sinne Out of which place almost all the Greeke and Latine Fathers doe inferre the foresaid conclusion especially Origenes Basil and Chrysostome who in his 3. booke in Leuiticum cap. 12. noteth that Dauid doth not by these words accuse any sinne of his mothers but that he calleth nature his mother signifying thereby that the filth and impuritie of Adams sinne hath descended vpon all his posteritie Yea this is also the exposition of Eutimius Hilarius Ruffinus Innocentius tertius Beda Gregory Ambrose and Hierome who also alleage for the same conclusion Eccles cap. 4. a heauie yoake vpon the sonnes of Adam from the day of their birth vnto the day of their death which place S. Austine thus explicateth Quid est graue iugum nisi peccatum What is this heauie yoake but sinne And why is it called a yoake but because it proceedeth from two the male and the female of the good and of the bad and because it is a yoake in both the sexes therefore it is said to bee a heauie yoake vpon the children of Adam therefore in that he said vpon the sonnes of Adam he made no difference of ages no distinction of sexes and by the comparing of sinne vnto a yoake hee made all men equall Christ only excepted who was not borne as others were of corruption and sinne Many of the Fathers August lib. 6 contra Donatistas cap. 12. lib. 1 de piccatorum me ritis remissione cap. 17. 20. 29. 30. lib. 2. cap. 27. and principally S. Austine doth deduce this our conclusion out of the 3. of Iohn where our Sauiour saith that vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen out of which place though Bellarmine with most of the Doctors of the church of Rome doe inferre an absolute necessitie of baptisme by reason of the generall exception made by our Sauiour that vnlesse a man be borne of water he cannot be saued yet neuerthelesse this is not so to bee vnderstood of the materiall water but of the grace of God purging and cleansing vs as water doth as a reuerend Author of this age doth wel expound Attersol in his 2 book of the sacrament of baptisme chap. 5. which interpretation may be gathered by conference of a like place Matth. 3. vers 11. hee shall baptise with the holy Ghost and with fire that is by the spirit of God which is as it were fire lightning our hearts with the knowledge of God enflaming them with his loue and purging them from all euill affections So when wee are said to bee borne againe by water and the spirit he meaneth by the spirit shewing forth in vs the force power and propertie of water as if he should say we are borne of water which is the spirit as Iohn 7.38.39 and 4.21 Againe if it were meant of water in baptisme it must bee vnderstood according to a like sentence Iohn 6.53 Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you which must bee vnderstood of such as are of yeeres according to the exposition of Innocentius 3. Decret Gregor lib. 3. tit 42. cap. 3 Lumbardus lib 4. sent distinct 4. and Peter Lumbard the master of the sentences But to leaue the confirmation of this point as touching the saluation of infants vnbaptised S. Chrysostome Theodoretus S. Austine with many other Doctors doe euidently deduce the foresaid conclusion out of the 5. to the Romans Rom. 5. where Paul saith that by one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne death passed vnto all men in which all haue sinned Irencus l. 5. cap. 17. 19. Athan. de iâ—carnatione verbi Bâ—siâ— super Psalmos 32. 50. Concilium MilevitanuÌ„ Araustâ—anum Jâ—stinus Martir Greg Nazian oratione 42. in sanctum Pascha oratione 38 in Christi nattuttate Chrysâ—stomus de Adamo Eua. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 1. in Gen. Theodoretus in Psalmum 50. Damascenus lib 2 fâ—leâ— Orthodoxae Origines super epistolam ad Romanos c. 6. Cyprian epistola 59. Hilarius Pictariensis ad Psalmum 18. Ambros l. de Tobia c. 9. ad Psal 48. l. 1. de poenitentia c. 2. Hierom ad cap. 42. Zech Fulgentius de gratia Jesu Chrsti cap. 31. Bernard seria 4. hebdomadae paenosae de passione Domini Yea this is plainely the opinion of the Milevitan and Arausican Councels of Iustine Martyr Ireneus Athanasius Cirillus Nazianzen Chrysostome Cirillus Alexandrinus Theodoretus Damascenus Origenes Cyprianus Hilarius Pictaviensis Ambrose Ierome Fulgentius Bernard and many others Now it remained that I should haue answered to all and euery of the
arguments of the contrary opinion but seeing they may be easily answered with one and the same distinction I will onely expresse that and so conclude this question which hath so troubled the Church of God in former ages The distinction is this that wee must vnderstand the difference and distinction of a twofold sinne the first is actuall the second originall the first from our selues the second from Adam though in our selues the first we grant could neuer be in the afore-said infants as which neuer came to the vse of reason and consequently neither could euer abuse it the second which is originall sinne might be and was in them as is manifest by the authorities and reasons aboue alleadged both of Scripture and Fathers and by this distinction we may vnderstand all those authorities which seeme in any sort to fauour the Pelagians in this point which therefore I conclude with S. Austine serm 7. de verbis Apostoli circa finem Ecce infantes in suis vtique operibus innocentes sunt nihil secum nisi quod de primo homine traxerunt habentes quibus propterea est Christi gratia necessaria vt in Christo viuificentur qui in Adamo mortui sunt vt quia inquinati sunt generatione purgentur regeneratione behold saith he the infants be innocent in their owne workes hauing no sinne but that which they haue by descent from their first father to whom notwithstanding the grace of Christ is therefore necessarie that they may be receiued in Christ who died in Adam to the end that being defiled by generation they might be purged by regeneration in his blood who died for all CHAP. LVII Wherein are solued diuers difficulties against the former doctrine MAny obiections are wont to bee made against the doctrine of the precedent Chapters of which these following are the principall yea all may be reduced vnto them First that if the concupiscence or fomes peccati which is left after our baptisme in vs were sinne it would follow that God were the author of sinne seeing he is the author of our nature and therefore hee must needs be the author of that which necessarily followeth nature as who is the cause of the fire is also of the heat proceeding from the fire wherefore seeing that God was the author of nature hee must also be the author of this fomes peccati and concupiscence which necessarily floweth from the same nature if therefore our originall sinne consist in this concupiscence which floweth from nature he who is the author and cause of nature must also be of the sinne which floweth from nature which both seeme no lesse blasphemous then absurd I answer that this fomes peccati or concupiscence with which Adam was created and wee all borne was first in him and should also haue beene in vs though we had persisted in originall iustice yet had it not beene any sinne in any of vs if Adam had not sinned and we in him because this was as it were extinguished and ouercome by original iustice in Adam and should haue beene in vs also by reason that the like grace and iustice which was infused into Adam should also haue beene deriued vnto vs by Adam But seeing Adam lost this grace both for vs and himselfe both this priuation of grace is attributed vnto vs as also the concupiscence reviued in vs by reason of Adams sinn true it is that the guilt thereof is taken away in the regenerate by baptisme and so it is not imputed by reason of our regeneration But hence peraduenture it may bee further vrged that though God be not the author of this concupiscence as it hath the force and malice of sinne yet that he is the author of the same thing that is originall sinne to wit of that fomes peccati fewell of sinne concupiscence or inclination vnto sinne which also is no small absurditie I answer that this is no absurditie but necessarie no heresie but catholique doctrine so that it be not granted that he is author of it as it is sinne but of that materiall or thing which by mans wickednesse is made sinne yea which is good as proceeding from God though euill and wicked as flowing from man Gods concourse being altogether good mans determination euill as detorting it to euill as the light of the Sunne of it self pure and good is oftentimes vsed and abused to euill yea of this we haue infinite examples in which our aduersaries are driuen to auerre the like For who doubteth but that Almighty God qui operatur omnia in omnibus who worketh all reall actions in all things whatsoeuer is also the vniuersall cause of euery reall action and habit of sinne and yet neuerthelesse no man will be so blinde and blasphemous therefore to attribute to his infinite goodnes that which hath infinite malice in it as it is against that infinite goodnes The reason therefore why it is rather to be attributed vnto man as second cause of it then vnto God who is the vniuersall cause of all is because man hauing the vniuersall concourse of God vnto good determineth it according to his euill inclination vnto naught and so committeth that nothing which in it selfe is sin and priuation of good Secondly it may be obiected against originall sinne that if that priuation of originall iustice which ought to haue beene in vs and of which we were depriued by Adams fall were in any wise to be tearmed originall sinne it would follow that there were not one onely originall sinne in euery one of vs but many for seeing that there is not one onely culpable priuation of that originall iustice which Adam had in Paradise but also of faith hope charitie and of all other graces consequent vnto the fore-said originall iustice why should there not be by the like reason as many originall sinnes as there bee priuations of supernaturall gifts and graces The answer is easie for that all these depriuations of graces are deriued of one which is of our originall iustice which should haue beene the roote and fountaine of them all The third obiection may be that seeing that it is not in the power of any to attaine to the grace of God being in originall sinne consequently the formall of originall sinne cannot be any priuation of grace but rather a negation I answer that because once it was in the power of Adam supposing the couenant made by Almighty God with him that the said supernaturall forme of originall iustice should haue beene by his perseuerance passed vnto his posteritie hence it is that this absence of originall iustice in Adam and his posteritie is rather a priuation then negation Fourthly it may be obiected that as in the opinion of Scotus whensoeuer the act of sinne is past the sinner may truly be called a sinner only by reason of the relation of the act past which is not as yet forgiuen so it seemeth that the same might be said in originall sin that though the act of Adam
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
CHAP. XXVIII To what end was Adam placed in Paradise CHAP. XXIX Whether the commandement of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill was giuen aswell to Eue as to Adam and how that was CHAP. XXX Why God commanded that Adam should not eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill CHAP. XXXI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created CHAP. XXXIV What sleepe that was which God caused to fall vpon Adam for the creation of Eue and whether it was a true sleepe or no CHAP. XXXV Why Eue was created of Adams ribbe and not immediately of the earth and how that could be without any griefe to Adam CHAP. XXXVI Why and how Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had persisted in Paradise CHAP. XXXIX Whether there should haue beene more men or women in the state of innocencie or rather an equalitie of both sexes and how there could haue beene any women seeing they are said to proceed out of the defect of nature CHAP. XL. Of the prerogatiues and excent gifts wherewith Adam was endued in the state of innocencie and first as touching his knowledge and naturall wisdome of naturall things CHAP. XLI Of the knowledge which Adam had of things aboue nature CHAP. XLII Whether Adam was created in the grace of God or no. CHAP. XLIII Whether if Adam had not fallen all his posteritie should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God and confirmed in the same CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall CHAP. XLV What kinde of Serpent that was which tempted Eue. CHAP. XLVI Whether that which Moses saith that the Serpent was craftier then all beasts of the earth is to be vnderstood of the true Serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. XLVII What was the reason why the woman was not afraid to speake with the Serpent CHAP. XLVIII Why the Deuill tooke the shape of a serpent rather then of any other creature and why Moses made no mention of the Deuill seeing he was the chiefe tempter CHAP. XLIX Whether when God cursed the serpent it is to be vnderstood of the true serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day he was created CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and Sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished Paradise wherein two ancient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne CHAP. LIII In which diuers other opinions touching originall sinne are refuted CHAP LIV. Whether originall sinne consist in any priuation or no CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is discussed and reiected and the true doctrine of originall sinne set downe CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. LVII Wherein diuers difficulties are solued against the former doctrine CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary there should be made any couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the body in the posteritie of Adam by his originall sinne CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in vs if either Adam only or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree CHAP. LXII What punishments bee due to originall sinne in this life CHAP. LXIII What punishment is due to originall sinne in the other life CHAP. LXIV The obiections of Simon Magus against the aforesaid doctrine of the creation of man and his being in Paradise CHAP. LXV In which the obiections of Manes are assoiled CHAP. LXVI The obiections of Theodorus and Nestorius against originall sinne are solued CHAP. I. Whether there was euer any such place as Paradise or rather the description of Moses is to be vnderstood Allegoricallie and so to be referred vnto the minde onely AS there is nothing in nature so plain which may not be contradicted neyther any thing so pure which may not be defiled so nothing so euident in Gods Worde which hath not beene opposed Such is our nature after our fall and such our daily most lamentable lapses after our first lapse and originall Fall Insomuch that ignoring the cause of our infinite misery we become desperately sicke and of our selues and nature without remedy Wherfore my intent beeing chiefly to shew vs our end and eternall felicity I will first shew the place and demonstrate the grace from which we fell that thereby knowing the infelicity of our fall and place from which we fel we may be more thankfull vnto God for that felicity place and grace vnto which we are exalted after our fall and so come to a more perfect blessednes after our fall then that which wee possessed before we fell or should haue possessed in Paradise if wee had not falne Now therefore as touching this place of our first happinesse and from whence our misery was first deriued I will begin with a worthy Prelate who though hee was one of the chiefest Doctors of the Church of God yet being to explicate these very difficulties of Paradise Ambrosius de Paradyso in principio capitis primi was not ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance De Paradiso adoriendus sermo non mediocrem nobis oestum videtur incutere quid nam sit Paradysus et vbi sit qualisue sit inuestigare explanare cupientibus maxime Apostolus siue in corpore siue extra corpus nesciat raptū se tamen dicat vsque ad tertiū coelū 2 Cor. 12. idemque testetur se ibi audiuisse arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui Being to speake saith this Father of Paradise it doth not a litle trouble me to search out and explane what Paradise is where it is what manner of place it is especially seeing the Apostle saith that he was rapt thither into the third heauen where hee heard such things as bee not lawfull for any mortall man to vtter By which words he signifieth two things the first that that place was Paradise vnto which S. Paul was carried the which opinion in what sense it may bee verified it shall afterward be explicated the second thing there to be noted is that it is impossible for man to declare what kinde of place that was vnto which the Apostle was carried vnlesse peraduenture it might haue been by him who had that speciall priuiledge to be carried thither Hence peraduenture it is that Origenes Philo the Hermetians and Seleucians were
not inhabitable by reason of the neerenesse of the Sunne and other Planets and stars To which I cannot denie but some shew of answere may be made as that neither Sunne nor any of the Planets are as the Philosophers say formally but onely virtually hot that is though they haue the vertue to produce heate in these inferiour things yet that they be not in themselues hot neither are they capable of heate because as they neither agree in matter nor forme as many Philosophers hold with these inferiour creatures so neither can they haue the same kinde of qualities that our Elements haue But this answer is easily confuted because as the virtuall heate of the sun is sufficient to make inhabitable some places of the world as diuers graue Writers affirme by reason of the neernesse vnto it why might it not also cause the like effect in Paradise vnlesse wee will flie vnto the omnipotence of God and miracles the onely refuge of ill grounded Philosophie and ignorance Or say as some haue fondly fained that Paradise being of another kinde of matter then the rest of the earth or of the same Species and purity that the heauens are as these bee incorruptible by reason of their most pure matter or incorruptible vnion so likewise Paradise and the thinges there onely man being of the same nature that now he is was by the particular prouidence of the omnipotent power kept from mortalitie or corruption as long as hee preserued himselfe from the corruption of sin But these and such like solutions as they are forged without any ground so they may easily be denied without any more reason this onely being added to the former proofe that so high a place as the Spheare of the Moone was altogether vnfit for the situation of Paradise by reason of the perpetual agitation and motion of that place which is so continually rapt and carried about with the most violent and swift course of the heauen Many other reasons I confesse might bee giuen but which rather appertain vnto Mathematikes and longer discourses then the breuity which wee haue here taken vpon vs will permit Now therefore onely remaineth that by the consideration of the excellencies of this place wherein we were before our sinne we gather the hatred God beareth to sinne seeing that for the sinne of one yea and that but one only God who is so good yea infinite goodnesse and mercie would punish with so long a punishment and with so great punishments for so long a time so infinite a number as is and shall be the whole posteritie of Adam euen vnto the worlds end And that sinne certainly hath a kinde of infinitie of malice which could deserue so infinite a punishment yea so much prouoke the infinite goodnesse and mercy of him who is infinitely good and mercifull And lastly we may inferre what sinne iustly deserueth if it should not be punished more according to the rule of mercy then according to that which the rigor of iustice requireth seeing that nothing was or could bee sufficient to blot or wash it away but onely the bloud of the lambe of God which onely washeth away the sinnes of the world by which we are to be restored not onely into a more high participation of God and his grace then we possessed before our fall but also into a more perfect Paradise then that was from which we were banished for our first sinne and fall And this only by his merits bloud and passion who could in no wise either slippe or fall So that wee may well exclaime with Saint Austine August in meditationibus O strange iudgement ô vnspeakable disposi ion of the diuine mysteries the sinner offendeth the iust is punished the guiltie transgresseth the innocent is beaten the wicked sinneth the godly is condemned that which the euill deserueth the good suffereth the seruant doth amisse the master maketh amends man committeth sinne God beareth the punishment O Sonne of God how hast thou debased thy selfe how hast thou burned in affection How farre is thy mercie stretched whither is thy compassion come Adam did wickedly thou was punished man sinned thou wast afflicted Eue offended thou wast tormented we were disobedient but thou obediently bearest the punishment of our disobedience we serued our concupiscence but thou enduredst hunger the tree allured vs vnto an vnlawfull desire but perfect charitie ledde thee vnto the Crosse wee tasted presumptuously the forbidden fruite but thou sufferedst torments for our presumption and momentarie delight We enioyed the pleasure but thou wast peirced with nailes wee delighted in the sweetnesse of the apple but thou therefore didst tast the bitternesse of the gall Here astonished I know not what to say nay I am so amazed I knowe not what to thinke onely I can exclaime with the Apostle O altitudo sapientiae scientiae Dei O deapth of the wisedom of God! ô mercy of the omnipotent without measure quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae tribuit mihi What shall I giue vnto God again who hath giuen himselfe so often for mee vnto hunger for my riot vnto nakednesse for my pride vnto dishonour for my honour vnto humilitie for my ambition vnto mortalitie for my immortalitie And finally vnto the ignominious torments of a thorny crowne and other of his sacred passion and vitall death for to crowne mee with an eternall crowne of glory in the life to come in that euerlasting Paradise vnto which no mutability no mortality and much lesse any impuritie can ascend vbi non est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis adumbratio whither not euen the very shaddow of change can approach CHAP. III. Of the compasse and greatnesse of Paradise and why it was so beautified seeing God fore-knew for how short a time it was to serue for the vse of man WHere there is lesse certainty in the conclusion there I meane to spend lesse time in the resolution as in this of the compasse of Paradise a question of more difficultie then necessitie yet neuerthelesse because it is vrged by some I will endeauour to giue some satisfaction in it such as may be in so vncertaine a point at least way as far as other principles of Philosophy or Diuinitie or finally as the graue expositours of the sacred text will giue me any firme ground of discourse Amongst whom Ephren aboue alledged answereth to this question that Paradise was greater then all the earth now inhabited Ephren lib de Paradiso The reason may be because as the inhabitants were to bee more in number then the earthly and more worthy so their habitation according to the wisdome bountie of their Creatour should haue beene more magnificent and far more capable of the beautie and magnificence no man can doubt who doubteth not of the history of Genesis Why then should we doubt of the other seeing the same reason vrgeth in both yea if we may discourse according to reason in these things which depend only vpon the free
that he did not only giue vnto him what was necessary or conuenient for his naturall estate there but also added other most extraordinarie meanes and helpes both naturall and supernaturall conuenient and necessarie for both his estates of nature and grace such was this of the tree of life which as some well note according to the originall text was called the tree or wood not of life onely in the singular but in the plurall of liues because it was so to lengthen the life of euery man that euery singular and particular mans life might well seame the life not of one onely man but of many Whereby we may first admire the power of Almighty God secondly his goodnesse towards man his power in the creating of such a fruite his goodnesse in bestowing it vpon him whom he knew was in so short a time after to be so vngratefull for that and many other most excellent as well naturall as supernaturall gifts The second reason why it is tearmed the tree of liues is because as a man hath three liues virtually if not really distinct the sensitiue vegetatiue and rationall so this fruite of the tree of liues should haue had vertue to fortified all three in which also we may note the wisedome of God but more againe his mercy his wisedome in that hee knew to produce incorruption at least way for many yeares if not eternall as many hold by a continuall repairing of nature by the eating of the said apple but more againe I say may we admire his mercy and bountie by which he sought meanes to eternize him whom he knew by his fall was to bee his owne death yea the death of his most deare and eternall sonne which was the true tree of life prefigured by this tree of life or liues so also called because it was not to giue or prolong the life of Adam only but also the liues of his posteritie vntill such time as it should please their Maker to translate them from that earthly beatitude vnto a more perfect and supernaturall estate Man 17. where as Saint Austine saith they were to possesse in a more perfect measure and that through all eternity ioy without sorrow rest without labour honour without feare wealth without damage health without sicknesse aboundance without care life with all security immortalitie without corruption all happinesse with no miserie at all Where all perfection is in the highest degree and all imperfections remote where sight is face vnto face where perfect knowledge and nothing vnreuealed of which humane nature can be capable where Gods soueraigne goodnesse raigneth super omnia aboue al things and the light enlightening is glorified of the Saints where the present maiestie of the Almightie is perpetually beholden and the minde of the beholders eternally filled with this fruit of life Fourthly it was called the tree of life or liues because it did after a double manner sustaine and renew the life of man first in restoring our naturall moisture by which wee liue which consumeth euery day more and more by our naturall heat which was a proprietie common also to all other fruits of Paradise Secondly in that which was proper to this tree only and for which it was particularly tearmed the tree of life because it was of such qualities and excellent proprieties that being eaten it did renew our humidum radicale our naturall humiditie and moisture whereby wee should haue liued with the like or equall puritie and perfection which had beene in man at his first creation yea it should haue so fortified our naturall heat that although it did naturally suffer some detriment and losse by continuall action yet should it haue beene so strengthned by that fruit of life that it could neuer haue decaied or perished and consequently man could neuer die corporally in that happy estate vnlesse hee had first killed himselfe spiritually by being partaker of the forbidden fruit insomuch that the disobedience of one brought in by concupiscence was the cause of all our misery and mortalitie that so God of his meere goodnesse through his infinite wisedome might thereby take occasion of shewing his mercy vpon those who after Adams fall were nothing but miserie and by the obedience of his dearest Sonne might repaire and redeeme the disobedience of vs most accursed caitifes so that wee participating of the fruit of the tree of life communicated vnto vs in the sacred communion by vertue of that tree of life prefigured in this Paradise might thereby be reuiued from a temporall death to an eternitie of blessednesse and perpetuitie of a most blessed life yea so by occasion of our first sinne gaine more then euer we had obtained if we had not sinned seeing hereby we obtained that fruit of life to be prepared for vs vpon the tree of the crosse yea and thence communicated vnto vs in the sacred communion and bread of life which doubtlesse wee should not haue obtained at leastway after that manner and measure if wee had not transgressed Or at leastway Christ prefigured in this tree of life should not haue appeared passible as one of vs if wee by our sinne had not needed his passion Wherefore we being astonished at so great mercy shewne vnto vs in so infinite miserie and that so lamentable a losse should be an occasion of so ioyfull and infinite gaine we may well exclaime with Gregory the great O foelix culpa quae talem tantum habere meruit Redemptorem O happy fall and happy vnhappinesse which was occasion of so great happinesse Lastly the aforesaid tree was worthily called the tree of life or liues because it did not only preserue our naturall being by the repairing of our naturall forces but also did so renew them by a supernaturall vertue proceeding thence that thereby we might haue liued a life free from all kinde of feares of death or of any griefes vexations or torments now necessarily annexed to both deaths corporall and spirituall temporall and eternall now I say annexed to both deaths vnlesse wee haue applied vnto vs the vertue of another tree of life by whole life all things being haue their being and by whose influence all things liuing haue their life Hence it is that the former was a most perfect patterne or representation of the latter but the latter a more perfect forme then could bee fully represented by the former or by any other possible Neuerthelesse the tree of life was created in the terrestriall Paradise to the end that it might be a type and in some sort represent that which should be fully represented or seene in the celestiall kingdome by the eternall light of glory according to the diuine oracle In lumine tuo videbimus lumen in thy light wee shall see light that is by and through thy light of glory which is a supernaturall habit infused into our vnderstandings wee shall see the glorious light of thy essence not comprehensiuely which is impossible but most perfectly and essentially which
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
the likenesse of God but those things lastly which doe vnderstand doe come so neere vnto the likenesse of God that nothing created can come more neere Wherefore seeing that man may participate of the wisdome of the diuine nature yea euen according to hiâ— owne nature hence it is that hee is so framed to the image of God that nothing can be more like in his being and nature vnto God he liueth he breatheth he vnderstandeth he hath existence and being and is in all these as a perfect patterne of his Creator and God CHAP. XV. What is the difference betweene the image and the similitude of God according to which man is said to be created SAint Austine in his questions vpon Deuteronomie thinketh it no lesse then blasphemie to auerre any thing to be superfluous in the sacred text wherefore lest we be enforced to contradict this so receiued a principle Orig. lib. 3. Periâ—rchon cap. 6. Basil hom 6. in Gen. in hunc locum Ambros li. 6. Exameron c. 6. 8 Nicenus homil de creat hom Eucher li. 1. commen in Gen. in hunc locum Victorin in dispâ—t quam scripsit aduersus Arrium Theodoret. in quaest in Gen. q. 20. Rupert li. 2. de Trinitate operibus eius c. 3. et 5 Aquin. prima parte quaest 93. Magister sent lib. 2. distinct 26. ibidem Scholastici and manifest truth wee are to search what difference is betweene the image and likenesse of God according to which man was created Origenes Basil Nicenus Eucherius Victorinus Theodoretus Rupertus Aquinas the master of the sentences with many others both moderne and ancient Writers are of opinion that man is said to be made to the image of God according to his nature and properties consequent vnto nature as vnderstanding memorie and free will which he exerciseth in his naturall actions and in which he exceedeth all other inferiour creatures the which image though it may be and is in some sort defaced by sinne yet is it in no wise fully lost and blotted out because as it is wholly of God so it dependeth only of God and therefore can be taken away only by God himselfe nay not euen by God himselfe man remaining a reasonable creature or man For though he may haue his senses and other spirituall powers depraued yea though he may also be depriued of the exercise of them all yet in no wise can they be vtterly extinguished man as I said remaining man Now as touching the similitude of God according vnto which man was created wee are to consider him not according vnto the naturall gifts which are necessarily consequent vnto nature but according vnto iustice sanctitie and innocencie and grace which are gifts infused into nature though aboue nature the which as they are independent of nature so also may they bee and are separate from nature according to the free disposition and order of God the Author of nature but this certainly is alway for some sinne which in this sense may be said to be a deprauation of nature seeing it depriueth nature not only of these supernaturall gifts which are the chiefe ornaments and helpes of nature but also because it depraueth nature herselfe euen in her selfe and hindereth the due exercise of her naturall powers Rupertus in his second booke of the Trinitie and second chapter discourseth very acutely of this point of the difference betweene the image and similitude vnto which man was created giuing also the reason why the word image is prefixed before the word similitude in a word his resolution is this that the Sonne of God is signified by the word image and the holy Ghost by the word similitude for saith he the difference betweene similitude and image is this that the image is in regard of one only but a similitude is at least of two now the eternall Sonne of the eternall Father is the image of God according to that of the Apostle 1. Coloss who is the image of the inuisible God The Sonne I say is the image of the inuisible God equally inuisible For the vnderstanding of which we must presuppose that there bee many kindes of images as the image of man of a horse a picture in the wall an image grauen in stone or wood yea wee see euen the images of the Sunne and Moone in the water yet wee may not thinke that the Sonne of God is so to be called the image of God but rather as the Apostle writeth in another place Heb. 2. the figure of his substance because as euery substance is knowne by his figure or shape so God the Father by his word Againe the image of man is said to be a propertie of his substance in which sense the sacred text saith that Adam begat his sonne to his image and likenesse Gen. 5. and called his name Seth. Hence wee may vnderstand how the eternall Sonne is the image of his eternall Father and the holy Ghost the similitude and likenesse of the Father and Sonne seeing the goodnesse and loue of the Father and Sonne is common to both Father and Sonne Hence it is that it could not rightly be said in regard of the Sonne only let vs make man to our image and likenesse for as the Sonne is Sonne in regard only of the Father not of the Father and the holy Ghost iointly so also is hee not the image of the Father and of the holy Ghost iointly but of the Father onely But it is rightly said in regard of the holy Ghost to our image and likenesse because as the holy Ghost is the infinite goodnesse of the Father and Sonne so is he likewise the infinite similitude and likenesse common to both Father and Sonne But this not by the force of his particular proceeding as is the Sonne Others are of opinion that this word ad imaginem to our image doth signifie vnto vs the second person of the blessed Trinitie as he was to be incarnate or to take our nature vpon him But if we marke the phrase of the sacred text we shall easily finde that the Sonne of God was incarnate rather according to the similitude of man then that man was created according to his similitude Rom. 8. Philip. 1. Heb. 2. Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia and Oleaster vpon the first of Genesis are of opinion that God therefore said let vs make man to our image and likenesse because when hee created man hee tooke vpon him the shape and forme of man to the end that he might the better conuerse with man But this seemeth rather to bee an inuention of their owne then grounded in Scripture because it is most probable that which the Schoolemen doe commonly hold with Dionysius that all those apparitions which we reade in the old Testament were not immediately of God or by God himselfe but by the mediation of Angels who taking vpon them airie or other apparant bodies appeared vnto men in the shape and forme of men but so neuerthelesse that
that I haue also the spirit of God Neither is this the minde onely of S. Paul but euen of his master our Lord and Sauiour Matth. 10. Some there bee which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauen not that this is contrary to the first institution of matrimonie but only a greater perfection supposing a sufficient or superabundant multiplication of mankinde so that as Cyprian saith the first decree of God was concerning generation the second perswaded continencie when the world was as yet void and rude wee multiplied by generation now that the world is filled and fully replenished those that can containe spadonum more viuentes castrantur ad regnum by puritie of life doe dedicate themselues to the kingdome of heauen Now as touching the time and place of Eues creation and first as concerning the time it is euident out of the sacred text that Adam was first created Paul in the first of Timothie chap. 2. saith that Adam was first created and then Eue. Furthermore it is euidently deduced out of Moses when he saith Gen. 2. that after Adam was created all the liuing creatures were brought before him among all which no helpe meet for him being found the Lord God caused an heauie sleepe to fall vpon the man and he slept and he tooke one of his ribs and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man made he a woman Hence it is euident that there was some time betweene the creation of the man and the womans production but it is not so easie to determine how much that was though certaine it bee that this time did not exceed the compasse of the first six dayes for in the seuenth day God ended his worke which hee made and the seuenth day he rested from all his worke which he had made Wherefore the creation of Eue could not bee the seuenth as Catharinus and others presume to auerre As concerning the place where Eue was created though Iosephus and Tertullian doe thinke that shee was created out of Paradise neuerthelesse the contrary seemeth more agreeable to the written word for there it is euident that after Adam was brought into Paradise all liuing creatures were set before him where God seeing the necessitie of the womans creation to wit that Adam might haue an helpe meete for him he framed her out of the side of Adam for so saith the text and the Lord God said it is not good for man to be alone I will make him an helpe meete for him And the Lord God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam and he sleept and he tooke one of his ribbs Gen. 2.18.21 22. and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof And the rib which the Lord God had taken from him made he a woman Wherefore it is not in any wise probable as some haue coniectured that after Adam had beene in Paradise hee was caried out againe and Eue then created CHAP. XXXIV What sleepe that was which God caused to fall vpon Adam for the creation of Eue and whether it was a true sleepe or no. THis difficultie doth principally arise out of the diuers translations of the fore-alleadged text Gen 2.21 where it is said that the Lord caused an heauy sleepe to fall vpon man and he slept where in place of the Hebrue word Tardemah Aquila translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Simachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a profound sleepe But most of the Fathers following the translation of the seauenty two Interpreters translate an extasis or an excesse of minde My opinion is that seeing the translation permitteth both that it is to giue vs to vnderstand how it was both a sleepe and an extasis or an extaticall sleepe or a sleepie extasis a sleepe because the text in rigor doth signifie a sleepe an extasis or rapt because hee had then his minde supernaturally illuminated and filled with a propheticall spirit insomuch that presently awaking he said forth with this now is bone of my bones Gen. 2.23 and flesh of my flesh shee shall be called woman because shee was taken out of man CHAP. XXXV Why Eue was created out of the ribbe of Adam sleeping and how that could be without any griefe vnto Adam and finally why the woman was not created immediatly of the earth as well as man THe master of the sentences and diuers other schoole Diuines say that Eue was framed out of the side of Adam sleeping for to signifie the mysticall production of the Church out of the sacred side of the second Adam dying but with this difference of productions that the first sleepe was ioyfull to the first Adam because hee had not transgressed as yet the second most ignominions and painefull vnto the second because he had taken vpon him the sinnes of the first The first was depriued of paine by particular dispensation of the author of nature the second was full of ignominie and paine by a supernaturall and gracious dispensation of God as author both of nature and grace to the end that nature being now depraued by sinne might be raised againe and restored to her former estate by an omnipotent grace But now could this be the Adam should haue a ribbe taken from him without any griefe For the vnderstanding of this wee must necessarily praesuppose that no griefe was agreeable to Adams estate before his fall Now then I answer that as God could and de facto did suspend or withdraw his concourse and action from the Babilonian fire for the preseruation of the three children Sidrach Misach and Abednego so likewise here for to shew the like power did God withdraw his concurse from all naturall passion which naturally should haue followed the extracting of the ribbe Now to the last why the woman was not created immediatly of the earth as well as the man but of the mans side and ribbe I answer it was to the end that Adam acknowledging her to bee a part of his substance and shee also knowing that shee proceeded thence it might be an occasion of a more perfect loue for that otherwise he considering how shee was the cause of his misery it might be an occasion of a perpetuall and implacable hatred betweene them or principally this was to signifie the mysticall vnion betweene the second Adam Christ and his Church according to that of Paul Ephes 3.32 this is a great mysterie but I speake concerning Christ and concerning the Church because the diuine vnion betweene Christ and his spouse was signified by the vnion of Adam and Eue so that as Eue was framed out of the first Adams ribbe so was the Church out of the side of the second CHAP. XXXVI Why and how Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam IT was not without the particular prouidence of the wisdome of God that the woman was not made neither of the most principall nor of the most base parts of man not of
the principall lest shee should be too impudent neither of the baser lest shee should be too much debased shee was therefore created of the ribbe and of that ribbe which was next to the heart the one to signifie the mediocritie of her condition the other to insinuate the esteeme and respect which both shee should haue towards Adam and Adam towards her as also to signifie the heart loue and fidelitie which he should beare vnto her who had her being from so neere his heart Now the difficultie is how Eue being of so perfect stature as she was created could be created out of a ribbe of so little quantitie seeing either shee was equall in stature with the man or not farre inferiour in greatnes vnto him was there any matter added vnto the ribbe or was the same matter of the ribbe multiplied surely it might be as Lombard and Gabriel said by the multiplication of the same matter or by rarefaction of the same ribbe or rather which I deeme more probable by addition of new matter as the Diuines hold it happened in the multiplication of the fiue barly loaues of which wee read in the gospell Neither may it be inferred hence that then it should rather haue beene said that the woman was framed of other matter then of the ribbe of Adam because the more principall part beareth the name not alwaies the greater especially when the principall part is not only the principall but also the first of the whole compound or worke Wherefore seeing the ribbe of Adam was the first and principall matter of which the woman was created and vnto the which the other was but an addition it is therefore rightly and absolutely said that Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam without the expressing of any other matter because though the new assumed matter was the greater in quantitie yet lesse in perfection so likewise in the muitiplication of the fiue loaues though that which was added was much more then the precedent quantitie of bread yet because it was but an addition vnto the former therefore the name was deriued of the more principall part according to the common axiome of the Philosophers denominatio sequitur principaliorem partem the name must follow the more principall part CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. BOth the Phisitians and Philosophers doe agree in this that euery man according to his naturall constitution and perfection hath 24 ribbes twelue of each side wherefore if our first father had thirteene on the leaft it may bee thought that this was rather monstrous then agreeable to nature which neither admitteth want nor superfluitie either therefore this ribbe was super-abundant in him and so he monstrous by super-abundance or it is wanting in vs and so we monstrous by defect I answer that though it were monstrous in any of vs to haue 13 ribbes yet was it in no wise in respect of Adam it were in regard of vs because none is to be created of vs but in regard of him the defect were rather monstrous because Eue was to be created of it so that neither was Adam a monster when he had that which we haue not neither yet deficient when he wanted that of which Eue was created because the name of monster is not so much in regard of superabundance or want as in regard of the ends and purposes intended by the author of nature grounded in that which is most connaturall Wherefore though in regard of the particular nature of Adam as hee was but one particular man this ribbe was superfluous and so consequently in an other person might be thought monstrous yet in regard of him of whom the rest of mankinde was to proceed it was most naturall Neither doe these two sorts of considerations imply contradiction seeing that euen in nature we haue infinite examples of this for so the heauiest drosse and massiest matter hath a naturall and particular inclination to descend to the center which neuerthelesse will ascend for the preseruation of the course of nature ne detur vacuum when there is any danger of vacuitie of aire or want of any other body which naturally should fill all places so that as to descend is proper to heauy things considering their particular inclination and nature so to ascend is no lesse agreeable vnto their nature considering their vniuersall propension for the preseruation of the vniuersall good of nature In like manner if we consider Adam as one particular man not as first parent of our humane nature it were monstrous that hee should haue more ribbs on the leaft side then on the right or more then any of his posteritie haue but if we consider him as he was to be the first father of mankinde after that particular manner that God hath determined it was most necessarie and agreeable to his nature that hee should haue more ribbs then any other of the same specificall nature seeing that our first mother Eue was to haue her being of this ribbe of his and we all ours by her CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had not sinned GRegory Nisene Damascene Chrysostome Procopius Gazeus and diuers others were of opinion that if Adam had not sinned there should haue beene no such naturall generation of mankinde as is now but rather an immediate multiplication and production of men by the immediate power of God So that as we shall be like vnto the Angels in the coelestiall Paradise through our vnion vnto Christ so wee should not haue beene vnlike vnto them in the terrestriall by the immediate production of God wherefore as sinne was the cause of our dissimilitude from the Angelicall life so was it according to these Fathers the cause also of the dissimilitude of our production the Angells being by creation immediately from God wee not immediately but by mediate generation and hence it is that Austine saith that consanguinities and affinities proceed of sinne not of nature The ground peraduenture of these Doctors may be the impure and corrupt manner of our generation and the deformitie of lust together with the immoderate pleasure thereof proceeding the which our first fathers as S. Austine saith presently vpon their sinne experimented and thence were ashamed and couered themselues Neuerthelesse I cannot but deeme it most certaine but that so long as mans superiour powers were subiect to God so long also should mans inferiour powers haue beene obedient to man wherefore whiles there was no deformitie by sin in the will neither should there haue beene any filthines or abomination in the actions of nature But as our eyes and other senses be as yet subiect to our will so also all other now rebelling inferiour powers should haue beene subiect to their superiour lastly as all deformities and disorder should haue beene taken away so all conformitie and order should haue beene left The sensitiue appetite should haue been subiect to the
thereby to punish him not only in himselfe but euen in his instrument by which hee had committed that hainous offence against his God like as he who breaketh the instrument in hatred of the Musitian who plaied vpon it So likewise in the 20. chapter of Leuiticus God commanded that the beast shall be stoned to death with which any man hath offended thereby to signifie how great the offence is in the sight of God who doth punish it not onely in the principall actor thereof but euen in his instrument thereby to signifie vnto vs how hatefull sinne is seeing often hee doth punish it in his vnreasonable and insensible creatures who are not capable of the sinne it selfe Againe he cursed the serpent for Satans sake as he did the earth for Adams sinne yea and that which is most dreadfull he drowned the world with an vniuersall deluge not sparing the beasts for their owners sinnes The like also we finde in Princes and other Potentates of this world who take vengeance of the innocent for the nocents sake of the sonnes for their fathers offences of their subiects for their Princes outrages So the Poet not as a Poet saith Quic quid delirant Reges plectuntur Achiui The Chastillians bloud in France spilt at the massacre was long after required of the Guisâ—an race The Thracians did beat their wiues because their forefathers had killed Orpheus And Agathocles wasted the Iland Corsyra because in ancient times it gaue entertainment to Vlysses But now the difficultie may be about these words aboue alleaged Vpon thy belly shalt thou goe and shalt eat dust all the dayes of thy life For if it were a serpent before euen the very name doth signifie that it crept vpon its belly if then it was the serpents nature how was it a curse or if a curse how was it his naturall propertie I answer with Ephren and Barcephas in his booke of Paradise that creeping rather proceeded of Gods curse then of the serpents nature who as we reade of other serpents went vpon his feet yea more vpright then any other serpent but as Lucifer his principall mouer became by his sinne a most vgly deuill of a most beautifull Angell so the serpent who was the instrument of Lucifer in this action became a most filthy venomous and detestable creeping beast or worme of a beautifull and vpright going creature Neuerthelesse as I haue already before insinuated the curse pronounced against the serpent is principally to bee vnderstood against the principall author of the temptation and mouer of the serpent to wit the deuill according to the opinion of S. Austine Beda Rupertus Hugo de sancto Victore Caietan and many others so that the deuill as hath beene touched already is called a serpent for his subtiltie and craft in deceiuing of mankinde Againe he is said to be cursed amongst all the beasts of the earth because he is condemned to eternall punishment and whatsoeuer is said to be obscene filthy and abominable in any whatsoeuer beast or other most filthy creature that spiritually is found in the deuill in a higher degree and more detestable measure hee goeth likewise vpon his breast and belly because he tempteth principally in pride and lecherie and therefore most fit to tempt attempt and ouercome the woman as most inclinable to these kinde of vices he especially I say tempteth in pride signified by the breast in lust by the belly Or finally hee goeth vpon his breast which is the seat of the irascible power anger and wrath and vpon his belly because this is the fountaine of all filthy lust and concupiscences CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day that he was created Moses Barcephas supra citatus Philoxinus oratione de arbore vitae Ephren coÌ„ment in Gen. Sabugensis oratione de passione Domini Irenaeus Cyriiâ—us Diodorus Tharsensis SOme thinke that Adam was created the first houre of the sixt artificiall day without the compasse of Paradise and was brought in thither at the third houre afterwards about the sixt houre he eat of the forbidden fruit and finally about the ninth being reprehended by God he was cast out about Sunne setting The reason of this opinion is taken from the words of the serpent vnto Eue Why did God command you that you should not eat of euery tree of Paradise by which words wee may inferre that Adam and Eue had not eaten any thing till that time and consequently that they were but newly brought into Paradise yea that they were created but a little before Neuerthelesse I thinke it more probable Basil homil de Paradiso Damascen l. 2. de fide Orthodexa cap. 10. August li. 11. de gen ad lit cap. 21. l. 20 de ciuitate Dei cap 26. Gregorius lib. 4. dial cap. 1. Tostatus Abulensis super 13. ca pâ—t Gen. Ioseph lib. 1. antiquitat that our first parents persisted more then one day in Paradise and that this was done by the particular prouidence of God to the end that they might the better perceiue the miserie into which they fell by sinne by the knowledge and experience which they had of their former felicitie in Paradise And this is the opinion of S. Basil Damascene Austine Gregory Abulensis and Iosephus Yea it seemeth most probable that our first parents were not one only day in Paradise for otherwise the serpent would not haue asked them why they did not eat of euery tree of Paradise for then it might easily be answered because their necessitie did not require it as yet Wherefore though many haue defined the time of their abode in Paradise to haue beene so many yeeres as our Sauiour liued in this mortall life others fortie dayes according to the time of our Sauiours fast yet if it be lawfull to coniecture in this matter so doubtfull and vncertaine I would thinke that they were only eight dayes in Paradise because this was sufficient for the experience of that happy estate so that as our Sauiour was conceiued as many thinke on the Friday and died on the same day so likewise as some coniecture was the fall of Adam the cause of his death the same day so that Adams fall his creation and redemption was by the particular prouidence of Almighty God wrought as some contemplate vpon one and the same day The which though it be no conuincing reason neither sufficiently grounded in the sacred text yet can it not be denied but that it hath some congruitie and conueniencie in reason that the wound and the remedie should bee in one and the same day appointed to be by God who from eternitie foreseeth the end together with the meanes and decreeth of the end together with the meanes to the end that the common course of time and remembrance of the day might put vs in minde both of our miserable fall by Adam and our more happie redemption by Christ that so wee might continually bewaile our sinnes
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
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
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
mans fall and his perseuerance in grace for so small a space or hee fore-knew it not if not how was hee God if hee fore-knew it how is hee so presently changed and consequently also no God Againe if we were depriued of the gift of immortalitie bestowed vpon Adam and in him vpon all his posteritie how may it stand with the iustice of God and much more with his infinite mercy that wee should be punished for Adams iniustice the innocent for the guiltie the iust for the vniust Yea how standeth this euen with the word of God and his complaint by Ezechiel chapter 18. verse 2. where God complaineth of this as it seemeth blasphemie of his people What meane you that you vse this prouerbe concerning the land of Israel saying The fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge which is as much as to say our fore-fathers haue sinned and wee are punished for their sinnes How may this stand with the iustice of God seeing God himselfe taxeth this as vniust and as vniustly obiected against him in the third verse of the same chapter where contesting against mans vnrighteousnesse hee protesteth and proueth his owne righteousnesse and iust dealing insinuating thereby yea detesting the contrary as iniustice verse 3. As I liue saith the Lord yee shall not haue occasion any more to vse this prouerbe in Israel to wit that the fathers haue eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that is that their fathers haue sinned and they were punished against which hee contesteth and that by an oath euen by himselfe in the latter end of the fourth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die that is all that sinne shall die and none shall die but those which sinne hee giueth the reason in the beginning of the verse and that with an ecce behold because he would haue all to acknowledge his iustice with man and how hee vseth equalitie with all men the father as the sonne and the sonne as the father euery one according to his deeds in Christ because all are equally his who saith Behold all soules are mine as the soule of the father so also the soule of the sonne is mine the soule that sinneth it shall die as who would say and none else shall die but who sinneth which may bee proued by the opposite iustice and is exemplified euen by the Prophet as that none shall bee rewarded for anothers righteousnesse so none shall bee punished for anothers vnrighteousnesse for so the Prophet prosecuteth in the fift verse But if a man bee iust and doe that which is lawfull and right and hath not eaten vpon the mountaines neither lift vp his eyes vnto idols of the house of Israel neither hath defiled his neighbours wife neither hath come neere a menstruous woman and hath not oppressed any but hath restored to the debter his pledge hath spoiled none by violence hath giuen his bread to the hungrie and hath couered the naked with a garment he that hath not giuen forth vpon vsurie neither hath taken any increase that hath withdrawne his hand from iniquitie hath executed true iudgement betweene man and man hath walked in my statutes and kept my iudgements to deale truly he is iust he shall surely liue saith the Lord God How then can it bee true that Adams posteritie should bee punished for his sinne or depriued of immortalitie which God had decreed vnto them for Adams transgression Or otherwise how can that bee true which the same Prophet prosecuteth in the twentieth verse The soule that sinneth it shall die the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon him and the wickednesse of the wicked shall bee vpon him Where hee prosecuteth throughout all the chapter prouing and approuing the iustice of God together with the reproofe of mans vnrighteousnesse and iniustice especially from the 29. verse to the end where hee propoundeth and answereth the obiections of his people Yet saith the house of Israel the way of the Lord is not equall O house of Israel are not my wayes equall are not your wayes vnequall Therefore I will iudge you O house of Israel euery one according to his wayes saith the Lord God repent and turne your selues from all your transgression so iniquitie shall not bee your ruine cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you haue transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit for why will you die O house of Israel for I haue no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God wherefore turne your selues and liue Now then if God haue no pleasure in the death of a sinner how hath hee pleasure in his mortalitie hauing created him immortall or how hath hee not pleasure in his death whom for so small a matter as the eating of an apple or some other such like fruit hee depriueth of immortalitie yea contradicteth his owne decree for the fulfilling of the aforesaid reuenge of sinne Againe though wee grant that Adam died for his sinne and iniustice why should wee not likewise say that Noe Melchisedech Abraham and others of the Patriarkes and Prophets were restored vnto immortalitie for their iustice and righteousnesse Wee know that God is alwayes more prone to shew his mercy then to execute his iustice how then may it bee said that here he so withdraweth his mercy and extendeth his iustice Hee often pardoneth the wicked for the godly mens sake and neuer punisheth the iust for the wickeds sinne from whence then is this his crueltie and vniust dealing against those which neuer committed any iniustice Moreouer the sonne of God was incarnate for Adams sinne we ought to bee thankfull euen to the deuill to our selues and to sinne it selfe as occasion of so great good as was the restoring of mankinde to a more blessed estate Lastly if Adams sinne was cause of his death why did not the deuils also die seeing they sinned much more grieuously If you say they died spiritually in that they were depriued of the grace of God why might not the like death suffice also for Adams sinne the death I meane of the soule his body remaining as it was created not subiect to death How did God iustly execute his iustice inflicting a greater punishment vpon Adam for a smaller offence then vpon the deuils for a greater depriuing them only of their spirituall life but Adam both of spirituall and corporall These are the arguments of these heretickes against the iust punishment which God did inflict vpon our first father for his first offence of disobedience by which they would conclude that whether Adam had sinned or remained in his former righteousnesse whether hee had eaten of the forbidden fruit or abstained from it hee had neuerthelesse beene subiect to death because hee was created of his owne nature mortall which nature neither the eating of the