A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 53
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 primū 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 vntounto this in his firſt booke de nuptijs & concupiſcentijs cap. 25 where he ſaith, that originall ſinne doth not remaine ſubſtantially in vsus 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 Romano…. M…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 corruptū eſt per peccatū, &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) vntounto 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 vponupon that of Rom. chap. 7. But that ſinne which dwelleth in me: for the Author of the gloſſe addeth vntounto 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 infectious quality was naturally produced in our appetite, and thence transfuſed into our wils, or ſupernaturally: the firſt is impoſſible, becauſe ſinne had no ſuch naturall force or power in Adam, otherwiſe it ſhould hauehave had the ſame effect likewiſe in all the poſterity of Adam: which euen our aduerſaries doe deny, ſeeing there is no reaſon, why it ſhould bee ſo auerred of one more then of all.
Or peraduenture this quality was not produced by naturall means, but by ſupernaturall, not by any naturall power of man, but by the ſupernaturall of Almighty God, and as ſome hath aduentured to pronounce, ex ſola Dëi voluntate, meerly by the will of him, to whom nothing is impoſſible, cui non eſt impoſsibile omne verbum, to whoſe will all doe obey.
But certainely if wee waigh this anſwer, either in the naturall principles of true philoſophy, or ſupernaturall of grace, we ſhall finde the aforeſayd poſition and ſolution to bee moſt diſſonant to both, ſeeing that both doe euidently demonſtrate vntounto vsus the repugnance and contradiction of this; that hee who is the fountaine of all goodneſſe, or rather goodneſſe it ſelfe, ſhould bee the particular and naturall efficient, or morall cauſe of that which is ſummum malum, the greateſt euill, nothing more diſtant then ſummum bonum and ſummum malum, nothing ſo vnlike in their being, ſo nothing ſo improportionate in their cauſalities and effects. Wherfore, as it is impoſſible for goodneſſe it ſelfe not to be good, ſo is it no leſſe contradiction to the particular cauſe of euill, and conſequently ſeeing that ſinne is ſummum malum, the greateſt euill poſſible, and ſeeing likewiſe of all ſinnes, this in ſome ſort is the greateſt, as which is the originall and fountaine of all other actual ſinnes, as it doth imply contradiction, that God ſhould be the particular cauſe of other actuall ſinnes, ſo it doth à fortiori imply the ſame, that he ſhould be in any wiſe of this originall; yea, euen natural reaſon was a ſufficient light of this vntounto the very Heathen Philoſophers. So Plato in his ſecond booke De Republica ſaith, Omnibus modis pugnandum eſt, ne Deus qui bonus eſt, dicatur eſſe malorum cauſa, alioqui ſecum Deus pugnaret, qui ſuis legibus contrarium fieri mandauit. Wee muſt by all meanes endeauour (ſaith this diuine Philoſopher) leſt God, who is altogether good, be ſaid to be the cauſe of euill, otherwiſe God ſhould bee contrary and repugnant vntounto himſelfe, ſeeing that hee hath commanded the contrary in his lawes: whoſe eyes (as Abacuc ſaith) are ſo dimme, Abacuc. 1.that they cannot ſee euill, neither can they behold any iniquity. Not that really, hee doth not perfectly view, and comprehend with his all-knowing ſcience, the ſecreteſt and moſt hidden, and abhominable action, or moſt inward cogitation, and that from all eternity, euen before it bee conceiued or thought of by the ſinner himſelfe: but he is ſaid not to ſee it, or not to know it, ſcientia approbationis, that is, he doth not approoue it, but reprooue it: not allow it, but condemne it: and in this ſenſe that is to be vnderſtood, which the Goſpell ſaith, ſhall be pronounced vntounto the vnrepenting ſinners, neſcio vos, I know you not, not that our Sauiour either according to his humanity, much leſſe in his diuinity, was, or is ignorant of any good or bad action, according to which hee is to reward in his iudgement: but that he did not ſee or know them ſo, as that hee did deeme them as worthy of the diuine knowledge and approbation, or of any reward, but onelyonly of eternall fire, prepared for the Diuell and his Angels.
Albertus, Pighius, & Catharinus de originali peccato.Albertus, Pighius, and Catharinus flying the inconueniences of the aforeſayd opinions, fell into another extreame: to wit, that there was no other originall ſinne in Adams poſterity, then the ſinne of Adam, by which he firſt of all, then all his diſcendence were reputed ſinners; hee inwardly, they outwardly; and as the Schooles terme it, by an outward denomination, to wit, by Adams ſinne inward to Adam, imputed onelyonly to them, as though it had been really their own, and actually committed by them, whereas in very deede they had none proper, or inherent, but Adams onelyonly by imputation, not by reall appropriation.
Which opinion may fitly bee declared by the example of a man, who being adopted by a King, as his ſonne and heire apparant to the Crowne, ſhould hauehave granted vntounto him and to his poſterity, all the priuiledges annexed vntounto his adoption and principality: but yet with this condition, that if this Prince ſo adopted ſhould commit any treaſon againſt his father, both he and his poſterity ſhould not onelyonly loſe the aforeſayd titles and priuiledges, but alſo ſhould be accounted traytours vntounto the Crowne. In which cauſe, although the poſterity of this man had not committed any fault in themſelues; yet were they to be reputed morally as traytours, and to hauehave committed high treaſon in their head and pregenitor.
After the ſame manner (as the Doctors of this opinion auerre) was the compact made betweene God, and our firſt father Adam; ſo that if hee had not tranſgreſſed the commandement of his Creator, eating of the forbidden fruit, he and his, ſhould hauehave beene tranſlated out of the terrene Paradiſe, vntounto the kingdome of heauen. But this compact being broken by our firſt father, both he, and wee loſt our right vntounto the bleſſedneſſe, for which wee were created; he in himſelfe, and we in him: Not that as he had inherent in him the ſpot and blemiſh of originall ſin, wee alſo ſhould hauehave it: but only by an externe denomination (as the Diuines terme it) becauſe we had really the effects thereof, & our firſt father, in whom we were all contained, had really both the cauſe & effect, the ſin (I meane) of diſobedience and the priuatiō of originall iuſtice, together with all other effects therupon enſuing.
This opinion is gathered out of Paul, Rom. 5. In whom (to wit) in Adam all hauehave ſinned, as who would ſay, wee had not ſinned originally, but onelyonly in Adam: wee hauehave not therefore originally ſinned in our ſelues, & conſequently if wee hauehave not ſinned in our ſelues, but only in Adam, our ſin only is in Adam, as it is only by Adam, not in our ſelues, as it was not committed by our ſelues: in ſo much, that it may only bee tearmed ours by imputation from our fore-fathers, not by reall inheſion in our ſelues, ſeeing we neuer gaue any conſent by our owne willes vntounto the foreſaid diſobedience, but as wee were included in Adam, as in our head; wee are therefore ſaid to be ſpotted with originall ſinne, in as much only, as hee who was our head, and in whoſe loines we were contained, did really commit the ſaid ſinne, and conſequently (as the foreſaid Doctors inferre) originall ſinne in vsus, neither conſiſteth in any actuall or habituall tranſgreſſion, neither in concupiſcence, or in the priuation of originall iuſtice: not in the firſt,Vide Auguſtinum li. 1. retract. 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 vsus as actually proceeding from him, neither as habitually inherent in his ſoule, or priuatiuely adherent to his forme. It was therefore in vsus by an externe denomination, inwardly affecting him, but outwardly onelyonly denominating vsus.
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 hauehave two kindes of originall ſinnes, the one by imputation, the other by inheſion; the one inherent in Adam only, the other in vsus deriued from Adam, which is to ſpeake without ground of Scripture, which onelyonly maketh mention of one originall ſinne, by which all bee truly called ſinners, according to that of the Apoſtle, Omnes peccauerunt in Adamo, all hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vsus; no queſtion, but by the ſame reaſon, as many ſinnes of our fore-fathers as are puniſhable in vsus, euen vntounto the third or fourth generation, may as well bee called originall ſinnes in vsus, though they bee not really inherent in our ſoules, or powers thereof, but onelyonly are ſaid to be in vsus 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 vntounto vsus from him as our head; certainly as that is blotted in him by his repentance, ſo it ſhould alſo bee blotted in vsus 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 vsus 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 vsus, 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 giuegive 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 vntounto all.
Finally, as Dauid witneſſeth, wee are all borne in iniquitie, and our mother conceiued vsus in ſinne; and S. Paul, All hauehave ſinned in Adam: but this could not be true, if ſo be that wee were onelyonly 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 vsus ſinners, which is euidently againſt the Scriptures, which repeat ſo often, that all mankinde was conceiued in ſinne, and to hauehave ſinned in Adam, hee onelyonly 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.