A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 21 – Chapter 29
CHAP. XXI.
Whether in the ſtate of innocencie one man ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave him to domineere, but only ouer the vnreaſonable. So that man ſhould not hauehave had power ouer man, but onelyonly 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 vntounto 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 hauehave beene no ſuch dominion in Paradiſe, as which ſhould then hauehave beene burdenſome vntounto nature, and is now neceſſarily following our lapſe and fall: yet queſtionleſſe there ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave beene equall in the gifts of nature, wiſdome, knowledge, skill, magnanimitie, and prudence; neither could they hauehave beene all equally apt for politicall gouernment: ſuch as I ſuppoſe ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſome ſubiect vntounto them; who fearing and ſeruing them, are confirmed with their vertue and valour: which diſtribution of offices are not onelyonly in this wicked world, but alſo are to bee in the world to come. A fortiori then, there might hauehave 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. 2that one Angell doth command another, notwithſtanding the perfect bleſſedneſſe of both: ſo likewiſe it ſeemeth moſt certaine, that there might hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto her huſband inflicted as a puniſhment due vntounto her ſinne, according vntounto 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 hauehave required ſubiection vntounto 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 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto men are by corporall ſhapes and formes, which they aſſume vntounto themſelues, it may ſeeme not improbable, that in like manner they may frame and depute vntounto eueryevery 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 vsus, 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto 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, in the liberty, which he hath vntounto whatſoeuer particular good. Thirdly, in his naturall propenſion vntounto eternitie, and immortalitie,Plato in Alcib. & in Phaedone. Porph. l. 1. ad Boet. vide Euſeb. lib. 11. de praepar: euangelica. the which euen Plato and Porphirius thought to be ſufficient arguments of the ſoules immortalitie.
Yea the immortalitie of the ſoule is euidently proued, in that as Moyſes ſaith, God conſtituted man ſupreme Lord ouer all inferiour creatures, yea in that he breathed into him a reaſonable ſoule with full liberty ouer all his naturall actions, according vntounto that of the fourth of Geneſis, the 7. verſe, where GOD ſaith thus vntounto Cain, that his deſire ſhall be ſubiect vntounto him, and hee ſhall rule ouer it, but more particularly this is demonſtrated out of the third of Exodus; where God ſaith vntounto Moiſes, that he is the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Iacob, and this not of the dead, but of the liuing, as our Sauiour added in the goſpell.
Finally, this may be deduced out of Deuteron: 4, where it is ſaid, that God made the Sunne, the Moone, the ſtarres, and the planets for the ſeruice of man, as for a more perfect creature, and conſequently participating a more perfect immortalitie, then is the incorruption of thoſe eternall globes, and ſtarres.
CHAP. XXVI.
Whether the ſoule of Adam was immortall by its owne nature, or onelyonly by grace.
SOphronius, Ierome, Sophronius in his 11. ep. in the 6. Synode. Hierom. l. 2. con… Pae. lag. Damaſ. l. 2. de fide orthod. c. 3. & 12.and Damaſcene are of opinion that the Angels and humane ſoules are not immortall of their owne nature, but only by Gods grace. To this alſo S. Paul in his firſt Epiſtle to Timothie, and his laſt chapter may ſeeme to incline, where hee ſaith, that God onelyonly hath immortalitie. Plato plainely inſinuateth the ſame of Angells, much more then of humane ſpirits.
Neuertheleſſe it is moſt certaine, that mans ſoule is immortall euen of its owne nature, for which reaſon our Sauiour commandeth vsus Math: 10. not to feare them that kill the body, Math. 10. ver. 28.but are not able to kill the ſoule. Wherefore as the body is mortall, and corruptible, it followeth by the antitheſis, that the ſoule is immortall, and incorruptible.
Againe this is moſt plaine out of diuers other places of ſcripture, Pſalme 29, & 16. Eccleſiasticus 12, and the 9. Matth. 10. 2. Sam. 23. & 32. Phil. 1.23. 1. Pet. 3. & 19. Apoc. 9.6. & 7.9.
CHAP. XXVII.
That Adam was not created in Paradiſe, and why not, and by what meanes was he placed there after his creation.
AS touching the firſt point, that he was not created in Paradiſe, it is manifeſt, that though the woman was created in paradiſe, yet the man was not, for ſo it is ſaid of him. Gen: 2. the 15. verſe. Then the Lord tooke the man, and put him in the garden of Eden, that he might dreſſe it, and keepe it, therefore he was not there before, at his firſt creation, though Eue was; for ſo it was conuenient, that ſhee ſhould be produced of Adam in his moſt perfect ſtate, and being, according to both body, ſoule, and habitation, which is the opinion of Baſil, Aquinas, Baſil. homil. de paradyſo. Aquinas 1. parte q. 102 ar. 4 & plures in 2. ſententiarum diſtinct. 18.and the moſt of the ancient Diuines againſt Tertullian, Ioſephus, and Rupertus.
As touching the ſecond point, that God tooke man, and put him into the garden of Eden. This may be vnderſtood three wayes; firſt by inward inſpiration, by which God might ſhew him, that it was his pleaſure, that hee ſhould hauehave that for his habitation, in which ſenſe many vnderſtand that of Math. 4. that our Sauiour was caried of the ſpirit into the wildernes, to wit, by the inward inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt, though he went alſo voluntarily of himſelfe.
Secondly, we may vnderſtand it, that he was caried by the ſpirit of God, or rather conveighed by the immediate power of the Almighty, as we read of Henoch, Habacuck, and Philip.
Or laſtly, that he was tranſported by ſome Angell, in the ſhape and forme of man, who ſhewing him the way, did lead him into paradiſe, as wee read of the Angell Raphael, how he lead Tobias, and to this laſt I incline the rather, becauſe it is the opinion of S. Auſtine.
But now it may be demanded, why God would not create man in paradiſe? the reaſon may be, to the end that hee might more manifeſtly vnderſtand his goodnes, and liberality towards him, and that, that place was rather giuen vntounto him of meere grace, then any wiſe due by nature.
But why then (may ſome ſay) were the Angels created in heauen, yea all other liuing creatures created each in their owne place? I anſwer, that neither the puritie of the empyreall heauen, did exceed the Angelicall puritie, neither the groſneſſe of this inferiour globe of the earth, did exceed the nature of corporall creatures there liuing, and therefore theſe two places were moſt apt for the creation and habitation of Angels, and theſe inferiour creatures. But ſuch was the perfection of paradiſe, that it was in no wiſe to bee deemed a conuenient place for humane habitation, mans nature (I meane) only conſidered, not the grace, and bounty of God thereby manifeſted.
CHAP. XXVIII.
To what end was Adam placed in Paradiſe.
MOyſes anſwereth, Gen: 2. ver: 15. that the Lord tooke the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, that he might dreſſe it, and keepe it; or as the vulgar hath, that he might worke in it, to giuegive vsus to vnderſtand how much God abhorreth idleneſſe, ſeeing that euen in that place, where there was no neede of labour, God would not hauehave man idle: not an ill item for our lazie gallants, who thinke their gentilitie to conſiſt in idlenes, and a point of honour to liue of other mens labour: but euen in this (I am of opinion) that God doth puniſh them, that they hauehave more griefes, and more diſcontent in their idle pleaſures, then others in their moſt weariſome toiles, and labours, which though it be a moſt voluntary bondage, yet is it likewiſe the moſt baſe, and cruell ſlauerie to the baſe appetites; a tyranny of Satan, a double bondage to a double tyrant, to Satan, to ſinne; for as S. Paul ſaith, who committeth ſinne, is the ſlaue to ſinne; ſo who ſubiecteth himſelfe to the ſuggeſtions of Satan is a ſlaue to Satan; an intolerable ſlauery, and an infinite miſery; the beginning miſerable, the proceedings damnable, the end, as which hath no end, intolerable.
Now therefore leſt Adam or his poſteritie ſhould by alluring idlenes, come to this endles paine; God of his mercy placed Adam in paradiſe, vt operaretur, & cuſtodiret illum, that he might worke and keepe it, to wit, that hee working might keepe paradiſe, and paradiſe by the ſame worke might keepe him from idlenes, from ſinne: becauſe that is the ordinarie cauſe of ſinne, for as it is true, that which the Poët ſaith, that labour blunteth the arrowes of Cupid, ſo doth it no leſſe other darts of the deuill.
But hence peraduenture ſome patron of idlenes may inferre, that labour was contrary to that bleſſed ſtate of Paradiſe, as which required all quiet, reſt, and content; no, rather I ſay that it was conſequent, or neceſſarily pertaining to that bleſſed ſtate, ſeeing that labour was not any toile, or paine, but rather a pleaſure, and a voluntary effect of his well diſpoſed minde, as it is now likewiſe to men not ſo ill affected, quorum otium, as Seneca ſaid, maximum negotium, ſo as S. Auſtine ſaith l. 8. de Gen: ad lit: cap. 8. non eſſet laboris afflictio, ſed voluntatis exhilaratio, cùm ea, quae Deus creauerat humani generis adiutorium, laetius ſeraciú que provenirent, that it ſhould not be a toile or affliction of the body, but a recreation, and reioycing of the will and minde.
CHAP. XXIX.
Whether the precept of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill, was giuen aſwell to Eue, as to Adam, and how that was.
THe difficultie of this queſtion proceedeth of the diuers readings of the precept, becauſe ſome with Greg. l. 35. moral. cap. 10. do read it according to the Greeke in the plurall; the Hebrue, & Caldaean, with the vulgar Latin, and Engliſh are in the ſingular. Gen. 21.16. and the Lord God commanded the man, ſaying, thou ſhalt eat freely of eueryevery tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good & euill, thou ſhalt not eat of it, for in the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt dye the death. Whereby wee ſee that this commandement was directed to the man only, not to the woman, ſeeing ſhee as yet was not created, as is apparent out of the 18 verſe, the 21, 22, & 23, where the creation of Eue is deſcribed.
Neuertheleſſe it is manifeſt that the ſame commandment was extended to Eue alſo, for ſo ſhee anſwered the ſerpent according to the vulgar edition, de ligno quod eſt in medio paradyſi, praecepit nobis deus ne comederemus, but of the tree, which is in the midſt of Paradiſe, God commanded vsus, wee ſhould not eat; wherfore though this precept was principally giuen to Adam, yet was it alſo to be obſerued of Eue, for as they were conioyned in nature, ſo were they not to be ſeparated in regard of their precept and grace.
But why then (may ſome ſay) was the name onelyonly of Adam expreſſed? I anſwer with Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate, & operibus eius c. 32. becauſe the precept was principally giuen vntounto him, as vponupon whoſe obedience or breach, his, and his poſterities happineſſe did ſolely depend, not vponupon Eues.