A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 54 – Chapter 55
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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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,Atha. oratione contra idola. that it is an ethnicall and hereticall opinion, to ſay, that ſinne or euill hath any entitie or eſſence, ſeeing it is rather the priuation of entitie or eſſence.
And this is the reaſon why Nazianzene compareth ſinne vntounto darkneſſe,Naz. oratione 9. n. 39. not only becauſe darkneſſe and obſcuritie in matters of ſaluation, and the myſteries of our faith, is the effect of ſin; but alſo, or rather, becauſe as darkneſſe is oppoſite vntounto light, and is nothing elſe but the priuation of light; ſo ſinne is nothing elſe but the priuation of goodneſſe: wherefore in his 40. oration in ſanctum baptiſma, he concludeth, that which Niſenus, Damaſcenus, and Nizetas tooke from him, nullam eſſe mali eſſentiam, that euill or ſinne hath no eſſence; to wit, no reall or poſitiue eſſence or being,Auguſtin. l. 11. de civ. Dei. or as St. Auſtin deſcribeth it, natura nulla, ſed boni amiſsio, no poſitiue nature, but the loſſe of goodneſſe, which poſition Fulgentius in his booke of faith, the 21. chap. deemeth ſo certaine, that it ought, ſaith he, to be holden as a matter of faith, becauſe all things that hauehave reall being or nature, are good: his words be theſe: Quia omnis natura, in quantum natura eſt, bona eſt, ſed quia & in ea bonum & augeri, & minui poteſt, in tantum mala dicitur, in quantum bonum eius minuitur: malum enim nihil aliud eſt, niſi boni priuatio; vnde geminum conſtat eſſe rationalis creaturae malum; vnum quo voluntariè ipſa defecit à ſummo bono creatore ſuo; alterum quo in vita punietur: Euill (ſaith this Father) is nothing elſe but the priuation of good, and hence it is manifeſt, that the creatures endued with reaſon are ſubiect to two kinds of euils: one, by which they voluntarily fall from their cheefeſt good, the other, by which they are puniſhed in this life.
Likewiſe St. Auſtin in his firſt Treatiſe vponupon St. Iohn giueth this reaſon, why God being the Creator of all things, may not bee ſayd to bee the author of ſinne, to wit, becauſe ſinne in his owne being, hath no entitie or being, but rather is a priuation of entitie and being. Peccatum quidem non per ipſum factum eſt, vt manifeſtum eſt, quia peccatum nihil eſt, & nihil fiunt homines, cùm peccant: Sinne (ſaith he) was not made by God, becauſe ſin of it ſelfe is no thing, but nothing, and men become nothing becomming ſinners.
Now then if the eſſence of ſinne in common, or of all ſinne whatſoeuer be nothing, but that nothing which is the priuation of good,Turrianus in epiſtola ad Iacob…m Ami…tum epiſcopum Antiſiodorenſem. Corduba lib. 1. q. 10. opinione 6. qu…s etiam ſequuntur plures recentiores. hence it muſt needs follow, that the eſſence of originall ſin muſt alſo conſiſt in ſome particular priuation of ſome particular good, the which wee are now particularly to ſearch out.
In which poynt Turrian and Corduba are of opinion, that this priuation is ſubiectionis & coniunctionis cum Deo, in qua nati fuiſſemus, ſi primus parens non peccaſſet: of the ſubiection and coniunction with God, in which we ſhould hauehave been borne, if our firſt father Adam had not falne.
This they prooue by impugning of the other opinions, for that as hath beene already prooued, it cannot conſiſt in any poſitiue and reall thing, becauſe God otherwiſe might in ſome ſort hauehave beene ſayd to concurre vntounto it, and conſequently after that maner to be the cauſe of it, which were blaſphemous: neither can it conſiſt in any other priuation of any other ſupernaturall gift, becauſe all ſuch priuations or depriuations, are rather effects conſequent, as puniſhment due vntounto the ſinne it ſelfe; therefore as the heat cannot be ſayd to bee the cauſe of the fire, from whence it doth proceede, nor the light cauſe of the Sunne: ſo neither the priuation of originall iuſtice, or of any other vertue or ſupernaturall gift, can be ſaid to be the eſſence of originall ſin: for certainely if wee vnderſtand aright, wee ſhall finde that all ſuch priuations are rather conſequent vntounto ſinne, and ſo the effects, then the ſinne it ſelfe, yea, rather the puniſhments inflicted by Almighty God vponupon man for his tranſgreſſion, then the tranſgreſſion it ſelfe.
And heereby alſo wee may eaſily demonſtrate the abſurdities of that common opinion of the Papiſts, that the eſſence of originall ſinne in vsus conſiſteth formally in the depriuation of originall iuſtice, which had beene due vntounto vsus all, if wee had not tranſgreſſed in our firſt father; which is the common opinion of the ſchooles and Papiſts, of Aquinas, Caietan, Conradus, Scotus, Taperus, Sotus, Marſilius, Ocamus, Buderius, Alexander, Bonaventure, Richardus de Medianilla, Maior: Vaſquez, Zuares, Sumel, and almoſt all other Papiſts of this age.
Anſelm: lib. de conceptu virginali cap. 26.Yea Anſelmus ſaith that hee cannot conceiue that originall ſin is any other, then that which was committed by the inobedience of Adam, to wit, the depriuation of the iuſtice in infants, which was otherwiſe due vntounto them.
Araſicanū concilium 2. Can. 2.Finally the Arauſican Councell 2. Can. 2. defineth it to be the death of the ſoule, wherefore if death (as is plaine out of Philoſophy) be nothing elſe but the priuation of the life of the ſoule: ſeeing nothing elſe can be vnderſtood to be the life of the ſoule, but onelyonly the inward grace of God, by which onelyonly the ſoule did liue that ſupernaturall life, which is poſſeſſed in Paradiſe: conſequently the priuation of this originall grace, or iuſtice, wherewith the ſoule was adorned, and liued in Paradiſe, muſt needs be the priuation of the ſame gift.
As if our naturall life, here in this vale of miſery doth conſiſt in the preſence of our ſoule, or vnion thereof with the body, conſequently our death muſt neceſſarily conſiſt in the abſence of the ſame ſoule, which gaue it life, or in the diſvnion or ſeparation of theſe two comparts, the ſoule, and the body: after the ſame manner, if the ſupernaturall life of our ſoule, conſiſt in the preſence of God dwelling in our ſoules by his grace, then certainely our ſpirituall death, whether it be conſidered here after our expulſion out of Paradiſe, or in the fall from that firſt happineſſe, muſt neceſſarily conſiſt in the departing of God from our ſoules, or (which is all one) in the abſence or depriuation of his grace.
Neither can this want of originall iuſtice be rightly deemed a puniſhment of our originall ſinne (as hath beene before obiected) becauſe no defect or want worthy of an other puniſhment, can be inflicted as a puniſhment: wherefore ſeeing that this maketh our ſoules worthy to be depriued of eternall bliſſe, which is the greateſt puniſhment imaginable, that could be inflicted for originall ſinne;Aquin. 2. 2. q. 21. it can in no wiſe be the puniſhment due vntounto the fault, but rather it muſt be the ſinne it ſelfe, becauſe as the ſchoole Diuines well note, the fault as it is a fault deſerueth puniſhment, ſo that the worthineſſe or debt of the puniſhment doth follow the fault, as a proper paſſion thereof, as intenſe heare followeth the fire, and light neceſſarily proceedeth from the Sunne.
CHAP. LV.
In which the laſt opinion of the precedent Chapter is refuted, and the truth ſet downe in what conſisted the ſinne of our first father, and ours contracted from him.
WE may eaſily perceiue by the opinions refuted in the precedent Chapters, how eaſie it is, euen for the greateſt witts to erre in ſupernaturall matters, without the aſſiſtance of Gods ſupernaturall grace, and illumination, ſeeing that thoſe who were accounted the very mirrours of wiſdome in their time, hauehave beene ſo hoodwinked and blinded in the cauſe and firſt fountaine of their felicitie, inſomuch that though they knew, that they were conceiued, as Dauid ſaith, in iniquitie and ſinne, yet they were not able to declare ſufficiently in what conſiſted that iniquitie, and originall ſinne, much leſſe to demonſtrate with any certainety, that which S. Auſtine almoſt in one word doth declare ſo euidently, libro qo: de nuptijs, & concupiſcentijs cap. 23, & 26. where hee expreſly holdeth that our originall ſin conſiſteth in concupiſcence, which though it remaine in the regenerate, yet is it not imputed to them, in ijs ergo qui regenerantur in Chriſto, in thoſe therefore who are regenerated in Chriſt, when they receiue the remiſsion of all their ſinnes, it is neceſſarie that the guiltineſſe of this as yet remaining concupiſcence, be remitted; So that (as I hauehave already ſaid) it be not imputed to ſin for as the guiltineſſe of thoſe ſinnes, which cannot remaine, becauſe they paſſe, when they are committed, remaineth neuertheleſſe; which if it be not remitted, will remaine for euer: ſo the guiltineſſe of the foreſaid concupiſcence, when it is remitted, is quite taken away.
Calvin. lib. 2. Inſtit. c. 1. Melancth. in colloq…io Wormatien. & apologia confeſſionis A guſtanae.So that here we ſee auerred and proued, that which many learned late writers doe auouch as a matter of faith, euidently deducing it out of the 6, 7, & 8. chap. of the Apoſtle to the Romanes, and the 11 to the Hebrues, to wit, that our originall iniuſtice conſiſteth in concupiſcence, the which though it doth remaine in the regenerate, yet is it not imputed vntounto them; ſo that as diuers learned men doe declare themſelues in this matter, tegitur, non tollitur; raditur, non eradicatur: it is couered, not rooted out; it remaineth, but is not imputed.
For proofe of which,Rom. 7. verſe 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. & ſequentibus. I will only ponder the example of Paul, who no doubt was regenerate, at leaſt after he was called an Apoſtle; and yet he could finde this ſinne of concupiſcence within himſelfe, ſtriuing againſt the ſpirit, yea hee did acknowledge it to be his originall ſinne, the fountaine of all actuall ſinnes, and therefore hee addeth, Wee know that the law is ſpirituall, but I am carnall, ſold vnderunder ſinne: for I allow not that which I doe; for what I would, that doe I not; but what I hate, that doe I: now then it is no more I that doth it, but ſinne that dwelleth in mee. Now what ſinne is this the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of, but originall, or concupiſcence, remaining as yet euen after his regeneration, drawing him vntounto that which he would not, and therefore afterward in the ſame chapter, oppoſing it to the right inclination of the minde, hee calleth it another law in his members, rebelling against the law of his minde, and leading him captiue vntounto the law of ſinne, which was in his members: and hence he concludeth, O wretched man that I am, who ſhall deliuer mee from the body of this death? that is, from originall ſinne, the which as it is the death of the ſoule, ſo likewiſe it cauſeth the death of the body.