A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 44
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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave died: for, that is not immortall onelyonly, which cannot dye at all, vnleſſe it be ſpirituall, which is promiſed to vsus 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 vntounto 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 vntounto the rule of reaſon, was a gift due euen vntounto nature, granted vntounto man, as not only agreable, but likewiſe belonging, and conſequent vntounto 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 hauehave 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.