A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 57 – Chapter 62
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 vntounto them.
Firſt, that if the concupiſcence, or fomes peccati, which is left after our baptiſme in vsus, 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 hauehave beene in vsus, though we had perſiſted in originall iuſtice, yet had it not beene any ſinne in any of vsus, 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 hauehave beene in vsus alſo, by reaſon that the like grace and iuſtice which was infuſed into Adam, ſhould alſo hauehave beene deriued vntounto vsus by Adam.
But ſeeing Adam loſt this grace both for vsus, and himſelfe: both this priuation of grace is attributed vntounto vsus, as alſo the concupiſcence reviued in vsus 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery 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 vntounto man, as ſecond cauſe of it, then vntounto God, who is the vniuerſall cauſe of all, is, becauſe man hauing the vniuerſall concourſe of God vntounto good, determineth it, according to his euill inclination vntounto 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 hauehave beene in vsus, 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 onelyonly originall ſinne in eueryevery one of vsus, but many: for ſeeing that there is not one onelyonly culpable priuation of that originall iuſtice, which Adam had in Paradiſe, but alſo of faith, hope, charitie, and of all other graces, conſequent vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave beene by his perſeuerance paſſed vntounto 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 vntounto vsus his poſteritie, onelyonly by reaſon of the relation which we might hauehave from his act, and this without any other priuation, negation, or concupiſcence remaining in vsus.
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 onelyonly by an externe denomination of his ſinne, which (as wee hauehave 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 vntounto 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 vntounto the abſolute power of God, ſpotting thereby his infinite goodneſſe by the too much extending of his omnipotence, euen vntounto that, which rather argueth impotencie, then omnipotencie.
Now therefore the true cauſe of originall ſinne in vsus (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 vntounto 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 vsus depended vponupon 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 vntounto his poſteritie, and that the ſaid pact was included in theſe words, in quacun que 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 hauehave beene tranſfuſed to Adams poſteritie, if hee who was our head, and had receiued it for vsus 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 onelyonly required the decree of God about this matter, which might hauehave 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 hauehave had, and therefore concupiſcence is imputed vntounto her, as ſinne, which ſhould hauehave been healed, or not imputed by originall iuſtice, if Adam had not loſt it for vsus 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 hauehave beene any originall ſinne in …, if either Adam, or Eue onelyonly 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 onelyonly had ſinned, the ſame ſinne ſhould hauehave beene imputed vntounto vsus all; yea all ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave ſinned, doe vnderſtand that one to be Eue, if therefore ſhee was the firſt cauſe of this ſinne, it ſeemeth that though ſhee onelyonly had ſinned, neuertheleſſe ſinne ſhould hauehave beene deriued vntounto her poſteritie, though Adam had not ſinned, ſeeing that theſe words, in whom all hauehave ſinned, according to the interpretation of S. Hierome, and S. Ambroſe, are to be applied vntounto 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 vsus ought to bee reduced vntounto Adam, ſo that by Adams conſent onelyonly, 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 onelyonly, 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 hauehave been borne in ſinne.
Aquinas giueth another reaſon, quia mulier paſsiue ſe habet ad generationem prolis, becauſe the woman doth onelyonly concurre paſſiuely vntounto 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 vntounto originall ſinne in this life.
I Anſwer briefly, that the firſt puniſhment due vntounto originall ſinne, and which was firſt of all inflicted vponupon man, was the priuation of originall iuſtice, as proceeding from God, and as it did ſubdue the inferiour portion of the ſoule vntounto the ſuperiour, and the ſuperiour vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave the rule ouer thee. Verſe 17. VntoUnto Adam hee ſaid, becauſe thou haſt hearkened vntounto 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 vntounto 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 eueryevery way to keepe the way of the tree of life.