A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 56
CHAP. LVI.
In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely diſcuſſed.
THe firſt heretickes, who after the preaching of the Goſpell denied originall ſinne, were Pelagius and Coeleſtius, as S. Auſtine writeth lib. de peccatorum meritis & remiſsione, cap. 1. 2. 3. 9. & 19. whom Iulian the Pelagian followed in his fourth booke which hee wrote againſt originall ſinne; yea this is attributed vntounto the Armenians, to Faber Stapulenſis, and others.
The firſt argument of this hereſie is that which Iulian the Pelagian vſed againſt S. Auſtine; becauſe it is eſſentiall to all ſinnes, to be voluntary; but nothing can be voluntary vntounto infants, before the vſe of reaſon, ſeeing that as the Philoſophers ſay, and proue, nihil concupitum quin praecognitum, nothing is willed, deſired, or ſought after, which is not firſt knowne; infants therefore who hauehave no vſe of reaſon, can hauehave no abuſe of will by conſent vntounto a foreknowne euill; and where there can be no ſufficient foreknowledge or diſtinction of good from euill, there queſtionleſſe can be no ſinne.
Yea this ſeemeth to be confirmed by S. Auſtine himſelfe, lib. 3. de libero arbitrio, cap. 13. where hee confeſſeth that ſinne is ſo voluntary an euill, that nothing can be ſinne, which is not voluntary: and in another place he auoucheth, that neither any of the ſmall number of the learned, nor of the multitude of the vnlearned, doe hold that a man can ſinne without his conſent. Wherefore Doctor Biſhop againſt M. Perkins out of thoſe words doubteth not to vpbraid the Church of Englands doctrine about this point, ſaying, What vnlearned learned men are ſtart vp in our miſerable age, that make no bones to denie this, and greater matters too?
To this argument of Iulian peraduenture ſome will ſay, that originall ſinne is voluntary in the infants, not by their owne proper actuall will, as who can hauehave none ſuch, but by the will of their firſt father Adam, which after a ſort may be ſaid to be the will of all his poſteritie, ſeeing he was the head of them all, and therefore that by his voluntary tranſgreſſion all Adams poſteritie may bee ſaid to hauehave ſinned in him.
But this ſeemeth not to ſatisfie for originall ſinne, if wee will conſider well the nature of it: and as all the aduerſe part doth hold, verè auertit à Deo parvuli voluntatem, & cam conuertit ad bonum mutabile; it doth truly auert the will of the infants from God, vntounto an apparant and mutable good, yea euen to the deuill; therefore the will of our parent, and his ſinne, is in no wiſe to cauſe originall ſinne in vsus. Secondly (as true Philoſophie teacheth) no cauſe can produce that which it hath not in it ſelfe, either virtually, or formally, neither doth any cauſe produce any thing, but after the manner that it containeth the thing which is to bee produced, either formally, if ſo bee that it hath the ſame forme, ſpecies, or kinde, which the effect hath; or virtually, if it containe it in a more perfect degree and meaſure. But certainly, neither our firſt parent Adam, neither our immediate parents now regenerated in Chriſt, hauehave in any wiſe the guiltineſſe of originall ſinne at the time of our generation; how can it therefore poſſibly come to paſſe, that any ſuch guilt of originall ſinne ſhould proceed from them vntounto vsus? Certainly this could not proceed from any matrimoniall act, ſeeing that was and is lawfull in all lawes, both of nature, Moſes, and grace: how therefore could that which is a ſinne, and conſequently vnlawfull, proceed from that which is altogether lawfull? Thirdly, the actions of our externall powers, as of ſeeing, ſmelling, taſting, and the like, are in no wiſe voluntary, or ſo tearmed, but outwardly only, or (as the Philoſophers tearme is) by an extrinſecall denomination, or name deriued from our will; and this, becauſe they hauehave no freedome or libertie in themſelues inwardly, but only as they are directed from the inward facultie of the will: and therefore as they hauehave no libertie or free will, but only by an externe denomination; ſo neither hauehave they any ſinne inwardly inherent, but onelyonly as they are commanded, or proceed from the will. Therefore after the ſame manner, ſeeing the ſoules and willes of the infants hauehave no libertie, or freedome of choice, but only by an externe denomination, outwardly deriued from the will of Adam, now altogether paſt, and of his ſinne, now forgiuen; it muſt needs follow, that they cannot in any wiſe bee ſaid to hauehave contracted any ſin, but only by an externe denomination, proceeding from the ſin of Adam.
Fourthly, that which in it ſelfe is according to Gods law, neither in any wiſe contradicting the ſame, cannot be the cauſe of that which is againſt the law of God: wherefore ſeeing that matrimonie, or the matrimoniall act, is according to Gods law, it cannot bee the cauſe or occaſion of originall ſinne in the infant, which is againſt Gods law.
Fiftly, originall ſinne cannot proceed from Adam vntounto his poſteritie, neither as from the morall cauſe thereof, neither as from a phyſicall, naturall, or reall cauſe: not morally, becauſe as death did proceed from ſinne; ſo life, if he had perſeuered, ſhould hauehave proceeded from grace, and originall iuſtice, which was a gift giuen vntounto all our nature in Adam, not per modum meriti, by way of merit, (as ſome hauehave dreamed) but gratis: otherwiſe (as the Apoſtle argueth, Romans the 11. chapter) grace ſhould hauehave been no grace. Now therefore conſequently, neither doth originall ſinne paſſe vntounto vsus his poſteritie by way of demerit, or as a morall effect of ſinne, ſeeing that the ſame reaſon which doth vrge for the transfuſion of this demerit or ſinne vntounto vsus, doth alſo vrge for the transfuſion of grace. Wherefore ſeeing he could not be the meritorious cauſe of our grace, becauſe it doth implie contradiction, to be deſerued, and yet to be grace, a free gift, and graciouſly giuen; neither can he be conſequently the morall cauſe of our originall ſinne. Neither finally can the ſinne of Adam bee the reall or phyſicall cauſe of our ſinne, ſeeing that his ſinne, whereof ours ſhould proceed, is now neither actuall, nor virtuall; not actuall, becauſe it is forgiuen; not virtuall, for that then it ſhould be latent in the generatiue power or ſeed; which cannot poſſibly bee, becauſe then it ſhould be attributed to God, who is cauſe of the generatiue power; ſeeing (as the Philoſophers ſay) cauſa cauſae eſt cauſa effectus illius ſecundae cauſae, the cauſe of any ſecond cauſe is the cauſe of the effect proceeding from the ſecond cauſe.
Laſtly, there cannot bee aſſigned any time or moment, in which the ſonnes of Adam doe or can contract this originall ſinne: therefore both according to true Diuinitie and Philoſophie, it cannot be that we doe really and inwardly in our ſoules contract any ſuch ſinne, but rather wee are called ſinners in Adam, and are ſaid by the Apoſtle to hauehave ſinned in Adam, by reaſon onelyonly of his fall, who was our head. The antecedent ſeemeth certaine, becauſe this ſinne can neither infect our ſoules in the firſt inſtant of their creation or infuſion, otherwiſe the ſoule ſhould hauehave it from her creation, and conſequently it might bee attributed to Almightie God, as to the author thereof, ſeeing that as true Philoſophie teacheth, operatio quae ſimul incipit cum eſſe rei, eſt illi ab agente, à quo habet eſſe; the action which beginneth iointly with the being of the effect, is from that cauſe, from which it hath being.
And hence Aquinas holdeth as impoſſible,Aquinas 1 parte q. 63. art. 15 in corpore. Angelum in primo inſtante creationis ſuae peccaſſe, quoniam peccatum illud tribueretur Deo: that Lucifer ſinned in the firſt inſtant of his creation, becauſe that ſinne ſhould hauehave beene attributed to God, which were blaſphemous.
Neither could this ſinne bee contracted by vsus in the inſtant, in which our ſoules were infuſed into our bodies, ſeeing that the immediate ſubiect of ſinne is not the body, but the ſoule, or ſome of the powers of the ſoule: ſeeing therefore no inſtant can be aſſigned, in which the ſonnes of Adam are infected with this originall crime, it followeth neceſſarily, both according to the grounds of reaſon, and Scripture, that there is no ſuch infection or corruption inherent in our ſoules.
For the better vnderſtanding of this fundamentall point, ſo controuerted in all ages, we muſt note, firſt, that originall ſinne is called peccatum naturae, the ſinne of nature, according to that of Paul, Epheſians 2. Wee were by nature the ſonnes of wrath: becauſe ſinne did ſpot, defile, or rather corrupt the whole maſſe of humane nature in our firſt father Adam, from whom, as firſt head and fountaine, it hath beene and is deriued.
Secondly, this ſinne is called the ſinne of the world, Iohn chap. 1. Behold the Lambe of God, which taketh away the ſinne of the world; becauſe all men were defiled with this, one onelyonly excepted, God and man, by whom al others were redeemed.
Thirdly, it is alſo tearmed peccatum humanae conditionis, the ſinne common to all humane nature; becauſe there is not any (Chriſt only excepted) which doth not vndergoe this yoke. So Ierome explicating that of the 50. Pſalme, Behold I am conceiued in iniquities, ſaith,Hieron. ſuper cap. 4. Ezechiel. not in the iniquities of my mother, but in the iniquities of humane nature, which are generall to all humane nature, or which hath defiled all mankinde.
Fourthly, the ſinne of Adam is called peccatum radicale, the radicall ſinne, or root of ſinne; becauſe wee being now depriued by it of originall iuſtice, which as it was in Adam, ſo ſhould it alſo hauehave beene in vsus, an antidote againſt all inordinate deſires: but now our inordinate appetite and concupiſcence (which is the root of all euill) is let looſe, to the ouerthrow of all true libertie.
Laſtly, wee muſt note this difference betweene the originall and the actuall ſinne of eueryevery particular man beſides Adam, that the actuall ſinne is committed by the actuall will and conſent of eueryevery ſinner, but the originall commeth only by Adams ſinne and tranſgreſſion, and thereby is transfuſed and paſſed into vsus. Wherefore God ſpeaking not of the former, but of the latter, Ezechiel chap. 18. ſaith, The ſoule that hath ſinned ſhall die: the ſonne ſhall not beare the iniquitie of the father, neither the father the ſonnes iniquitie: the righteouſneſſe of the righteous ſhall be vponupon him, and the impietie of the wicked vponupon him.
On the contrary ſide, originall ſinne being the ſinne of nature, requireth only the free libertie of the firſt and principall head of nature, becauſe his will is reputed as the vniuerſall will of all: whence it is, that wee muſt not thinke, that when the childe is firſt conceiued, and the ſoule firſt infuſed into the body, that then (I ſay) it may bee deemed to ſinne, but rather that then it is conceiued in ſinne: ſo Dauid ſaith, that he was conceiued in ſinne, not that he ſinned in his conception. For though both inſinuate a true ſinne in vsus, yet the one, that is, originall ſinne, is thereby ſignified to be deriued from Adam vntounto vsus, yea alſo to be inherent in vsus: the other, that is, actuall ſinne, is from our ſelues, and of our ſelues; whence it is, that the perſon of Adam was firſt infected with this originall contagion, and then his nature: but in vsus contrariwiſe, firſt the nature is infected, then the perſon depraued.
Theſe things preſuppoſed, my firſt concluſion is, that it is a point of catholike faith, that all thoſe who deſcend of the ſeede of Adam by ordinary meanes, are infected with this generall maladie of originall ſinne. Wherefore God threatneth, Gen. 13. that he whoſe fleſh is not circumciſed, ſhall be blotted out of the booke of God, Aug. lib. 3 de peccato originali, cap. 30. & 35. & li. … d… nupt ijs … concupiſcentijs, cap. 17becauſe hee hath made fruſtrate his couenant: out of which teſtimonie S. Auſtine thus argueth againſt the Pelagians; The infants did not fruſtrate this couenant made with God by any actuall ſinne, ſeeing they could not commit any actually; therefore they contracted originally by originall ſinne deriued from Adam.
The ſecond teſtimonie, which proueth this point, is out of the 51. Pſalme, where Dauid ſaith, Behold I am conceiued in iniquities, and my mother conceiued mee in ſinne. Out of which place almoſt all the Greeke and Latine Fathers doe inferre the foreſaid concluſion, eſpecially Origenes, Baſil, and Chryſoſtome, who in his 3. booke in Leuiticum cap. 12. noteth, that Dauid doth not by theſe words accuſe any ſinne of his mothers, but that he calleth nature his mother, ſignifying thereby, that the filth and impuritie of Adams ſinne hath deſcended vponupon all his poſteritie. Yea this is alſo the expoſition of Eutimius, Hilarius, Ruffinus, Innocentius tertius, Beda, Gregory, Ambroſe, and Hierome, who alſo alleage for the ſame concluſion Eccleſ. cap. 4. a heauie yoake vponupon the ſonnes of Adam from the day of their birth vntounto the day of their death: which place S. Auſtine thus explicateth; Quid eſt graue iugum, niſi peccatum? What is this heauie yoake, but ſinne? And why is it called a yoake, but becauſe it proceedeth from two, the male and the female, of the good, and of the bad; and becauſe it is a yoake in both the ſexes, therefore it is ſaid to bee a heauie yoake vponupon the children of Adam: therefore in that he ſaid vponupon the ſonnes of Adam, he made no difference of ages, no diſtinction of ſexes, and by the comparing of ſinne vntounto a yoake, hee made all men equall, Chriſt only excepted, who was not borne as others were of corruption and ſinne.
Many of the Fathers,Auguſt lib. 6 contra Donatiſtas, cap. 12. & lib. 1 de piccatorum me ritis & remiſſione, cap. 17. & 20. 29. 30. & lib. 2. cap. 27. and principally S. Auſtine doth deduce this our concluſion out of the 3. of Iohn, where our Sauiour ſaith, that vnleſſe a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghoſt, hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen: out of which place, though Bellarmine with moſt of the Doctors of the church of Rome, doe inferre an abſolute neceſſitie of baptiſme, by reaſon of the generall exception made by our Sauiour, that vnleſſe a man be borne of water he cannot be ſaued; yet neuertheleſſe this is not ſo to bee vnderſtood of the materiall water, but of the grace of God purging and cleanſing vsus as water doth, as a reuerend Author of this age doth wel expound:Atterſol in his 2 book of the ſacrament of baptiſme, chap. 5. which interpretation may be gathered by conference of a like place, Matth. 3. verſ. 11. hee ſhall baptiſe with the holy Ghoſt, and with fire, that is, by the ſpirit of God, which is as it were fire, lightning our hearts with the knowledge of God, enflaming them with his louelove, and purging them from all euill affections. So when wee are ſaid to bee borne againe by water and the ſpirit, he meaneth by the ſpirit ſhewing forth in vsus the force, power, and propertie of water; as if he ſhould ſay, we are borne of water, which is the ſpirit, as Iohn 7.38.39. and 4.21. Againe, if it were meant of water in baptiſme, it muſt bee vnderſtood according to a like ſentence Iohn 6.53. Vnleſſe you eat the fleſh of the ſonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you ſhall not hauehave life in you: which muſt bee vnderſtood of ſuch as are of yeeres, according to the expoſition of Innocentius 3.Decret. Gregor. lib. 3. tit. 42. cap. 3 Lumbardus lib 4. ſent. diſtinct. 4. and Peter Lumbard the maſter of the ſentences.
But to leaue the confirmation of this point as touching the ſaluation of infants vnbaptiſed, S. Chryſoſtome, Theodoretus, S. Auſtine, with many other Doctors doe euidently deduce the foreſaid concluſion out of the 5. to the Romans,Rom. 5. where Paul ſaith, that by one man ſinne entred into the world, and by ſinne death paſſed vntounto all men, in which all hauehave ſinned. Irencus l. 5. cap. 17. & 19. Athan. de i…carnatione verbi. B…ſi…. ſuper Pſalmos 32. & 50. Concilium Milevitanū & Arauſt…anum. J…ſtinus Martir. Greg Nazian, oratione 42. in ſanctum Paſcha, & oratione 38 in Chriſti nattuttate. Chryſ…ſtomus de Adamo & Eua. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 1. in Gen. Theodoretus in Pſalmum 50. Damaſcenus lib 2 f…le… Orthodoxae. Origines ſuper epiſtolam ad Romanos c. 6. Cyprian. epiſtola 59. Hilarius Pictarienſis ad Pſalmum 18. Ambroſ. l. de Tobia c. 9. & ad Pſal. 48. & l. 1. de poenitentia c. 2. Hierom ad cap. 42. Zech: Fulgentius de gratia Jeſu Chrſti, cap. 31. Bernard ſeria 4. hebdomadae paenoſae de paſſione Domini.Yea this is plainely the opinion of the Milevitan and Arauſican Councels; of Iuſtine Martyr, Ireneus, Athanaſius, Cirillus, Nazianzen, Chryſoſtome, Cirillus Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Damaſcenus, Origenes, Cyprianus, Hilarius Pictavienſis, Ambroſe, Ierome, Fulgentius, Bernard, and many others.
Now it remained, that I ſhould hauehave anſwered to all and eueryevery of the arguments of the contrary opinion, but ſeeing they may be eaſily anſwered with one and the ſame diſtinction, I will onelyonly expreſſe that, and ſo conclude this queſtion, which hath ſo troubled the Church of God in former ages.
The diſtinction is this, that wee muſt vnderſtand the difference, and diſtinction of a twofold ſinne: the firſt is actuall, the ſecond originall: the firſt from our ſelues, the ſecond from Adam, though in our ſelues: the firſt we grant could neuer be in the afore-ſaid infants, as which neuer came to the vſe of reaſon, and conſequently neither could euer abuſe it: the ſecond, which is originall ſinne, might be and was in them, as is manifeſt by the authorities and reaſons aboue alleadged both of Scripture, and Fathers: and by this diſtinction we may vnderſtand all thoſe authorities which ſeeme in any ſort to fauour the Pelagians in this point; which therefore I conclude with S. Auſtine ſerm: 7. de verbis Apoſtoli circa finem: Ecce infantes in ſuis vti que operibus innocentes ſunt, nihil ſecum, niſi quod de primo homine traxerunt habentes, quibus propterea eſt Chriſti gratia neceſſaria, vt in Chriſto viuificentur, qui in Adamo mortui ſunt, vt quia inquinati ſunt generatione, purgentur regeneratione: behold (ſaith he) the infants be innocent in their owne workes, hauing no ſinne, but that which they hauehave by deſcent from their firſt father, to whom notwithſtanding the grace of Chriſt is therefore neceſſarie, that they may be receiued in Chriſt, who died in Adam, to the end that being defiled by generation, they might be purged by regeneration, in his blood, who died for all.