A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 66
CHAP. LXVI.
The obiections of Theodorus and Neſtorius.
THeodorus Biſhop of Laodicea, and Neſtorius Patriarke of Conſtantinople, with diuers others of the Greeke Church, were of opinion, that ſinne was not the occaſion of death, but that man ſhould hauehave died though hee had not ſinned: becauſe mortalitie is conſequent to nature, as immortalitie proceedeth only of grace. How then is it poſſible, vnleſſe God can contradict and denie himſelfe, or that one of the diuine decrees can be oppoſite to another, that God ſhould firſt decree the immortalitie of man, then preſently vponupon his tranſgreſſion, the obiect being changed, God alſo ſhould be changed in his decree: for either God fore-knew mans fall, and his perſeuerance in grace for ſo ſmall a ſpace, or hee fore-knew it not: if not, how was hee God? if hee fore-knew it, how is hee ſo preſently changed, and conſequently alſo no God?
Againe, if we were depriued of the gift of immortalitie beſtowed vponupon Adam, and in him vponupon all his poſteritie, how may it ſtand with the iuſtice of God, and much more with his infinite mercy, that wee ſhould be puniſhed for Adams iniuſtice, the innocent for the guiltie, the iuſt for the vniuſt? Yea how ſtandeth this euen with the word of God, and his complaint by Ezechiel, chapter 18. verſe 2. where God complaineth of this, as it ſeemeth, blaſphemie of his people: What meane you, that you vſe this prouerbe concerning the land of Iſrael, ſaying, The fathers hauehave eaten ſowre grapes, and the childrens teeth are ſet on edge? which is as much, as to ſay, our fore-fathers hauehave ſinned, and wee are puniſhed for their ſinnes. How may this ſtand with the iuſtice of God, ſeeing God himſelfe taxeth this as vniuſt, and as vniuſtly obiected againſt him, in the third verſe of the ſame chapter, where conteſting againſt mans vnrighteouſneſſe, hee proteſteth and proueth his owne righteouſneſſe and iuſt dealing, inſinuating thereby, yea deteſting the contrary as iniuſtice, verſe 3. As I liue, ſaith the Lord, yee ſhall not hauehave occaſion any more to vſe this prouerbe in Iſrael, to wit, that the fathers hauehave eaten ſowre grapes, and the childrens teeth are ſet on edge; that is, that their fathers hauehave ſinned, and they were puniſhed: againſt which hee conteſteth, and that by an oath, euen by himſelfe, in the latter end of the fourth verſe, The ſoule that ſinneth, it ſhall die, that is, all that ſinne ſhall die, and none ſhall die but thoſe which ſinne: hee giueth the reaſon in the beginning of the verſe, and that with an ecce, behold, becauſe he would hauehave all to acknowledge his iuſtice with man, and how hee vſeth equalitie with all men; the father as the ſonne, and the ſonne as the father, eueryevery one according to his deeds in Chriſt, becauſe all are equally his, who ſaith, Behold, all ſoules are mine; as the ſoule of the father, ſo alſo the ſoule of the ſonne is mine; the ſoule that ſinneth, it ſhall die: as who would ſay, and none elſe ſhall die, but who ſinneth; which may bee proued by the oppoſite iuſtice, and is exemplified euen by the Prophet, as that none ſhall bee rewarded for anothers righteouſneſſe, ſo none ſhall bee puniſhed for anothers vnrighteouſneſſe: for ſo the Prophet proſecuteth in the fift verſe: But if a man bee iuſt, and doe that which is lawfull and right, and hath not eaten vponupon the mountaines, neither lift vp his eyes vntounto idols of the houſe of Iſrael, neither hath defiled his neighbours wife, neither hath come neere a menſtruous woman, and hath not oppreſſed any, but hath reſtored to the debter his pledge, hath ſpoiled none by violence, hath giuen his bread to the hungrie, and hath couered the naked with a garment; he that hath not giuen forth vponupon vſurie, neither hath taken any increaſe, that hath withdrawne his hand from iniquitie, hath executed true iudgement betweene man and man, hath walked in my ſtatutes, and kept my iudgements to deale truly, he is iuſt, he ſhall ſurely liue, ſaith the Lord God.
How then can it bee true that Adams poſteritie ſhould bee puniſhed for his ſinne, or depriued of immortalitie, which God had decreed vntounto them for Adams tranſgreſſion? Or otherwiſe how can that bee true which the ſame Prophet proſecuteth in the twentieth verſe? The ſoule that ſinneth, it ſhall die: the ſonne ſhall not beare the iniquitie of the father, neither ſhall the father beare the iniquitie of the ſonne: the righteouſneſſe of the righteous ſhall be vponupon him, and the wickedneſſe of the wicked ſhall bee vponupon him. Where hee proſecuteth throughout all the chapter, prouing and approuing the iuſtice of God, together with the reproofe of mans vnrighteouſneſſe and iniuſtice, eſpecially from the 29. verſe to the end, where hee propoundeth and anſwereth the obiections of his people: Yet (ſaith the houſe of Iſrael) the way of the Lord is not equall: O houſe of Iſrael, are not my wayes equall? are not your wayes vnequall? Therefore I will iudge you, O houſe of Iſrael, eueryevery one according to his wayes, ſaith the Lord God: repent and turne your ſelues from all your tranſgreſſion, ſo iniquitie ſhall not bee your ruine; caſt away from you all your tranſgreſsions, whereby you hauehave tranſgreſſed, and make you a new heart, and a new ſpirit: for why will you die, O houſe of Iſrael? for I hauehave no pleaſure in the death of him that dieth, ſaith the Lord God: wherefore turne your ſelues, and liue.
Now then if God hauehave no pleaſure in the death of a ſinner, how hath hee pleaſure in his mortalitie, hauing created him immortall? or how hath hee not pleaſure in his death, whom for ſo ſmall a matter as the eating of an apple, or ſome other ſuch like fruit, hee depriueth of immortalitie, yea contradicteth his owne decree for the fulfilling of the aforeſaid reuenge of ſinne?
Againe, though wee grant that Adam died for his ſinne and iniuſtice, why ſhould wee not likewiſe ſay, that Noe, Melchiſedech, Abraham, and others of the Patriarkes and Prophets were reſtored vntounto immortalitie for their iuſtice and righteouſneſſe? Wee know that God is alwayes more prone to ſhew his mercy, then to execute his iuſtice: how then may it bee ſaid, that here he ſo withdraweth his mercy, and extendeth his iuſtice? Hee often pardoneth the wicked for the godly mens ſake, and neuer puniſheth the iuſt for the wickeds ſinne: from whence then is this his crueltie and vniuſt dealing againſt thoſe which neuer committed any iniuſtice?
Moreouer, the ſonne of God was incarnate for Adams ſinne: we ought to bee thankfull euen to the deuill, to our ſelues, and to ſinne it ſelfe, as occaſion of ſo great good, as was the reſtoring of mankinde to a more bleſſed eſtate.
Laſtly, if Adams ſinne was cauſe of his death, why did not the deuils alſo die, ſeeing they ſinned much more grieuouſly? If you ſay they died ſpiritually, in that they were depriued of the grace of God, why might not the like death ſuffice alſo for Adams ſinne? the death (I meane) of the ſoule, his body remaining as it was created, not ſubiect to death? How did God iuſtly execute his iuſtice, inflicting a greater puniſhment vponupon Adam for a ſmaller offence, then vponupon the deuils for a greater, depriuing them only of their ſpirituall life, but Adam both of ſpirituall and corporall?
Theſe are the arguments of theſe heretickes, againſt the iuſt puniſhment which God did inflict vponupon our firſt father for his firſt offence of diſobedience; by which they would conclude, that whether Adam had ſinned, or remained in his former righteouſneſſe, whether hee had eaten of the forbidden fruit, or abſtained from it, hee had neuertheleſſe beene ſubiect to death, becauſe hee was created of his owne nature mortall, which nature neither the eating of the forbidden fruit could make mortall, nor the abſtinence from it immortall.
Hence therefore they are imboldned to affirme, that whereſoeuer the Scripture maketh mention of Adams ſinne, as cauſe of his corporall death, that it is to bee vnderſtood figuratiuely, not that Adams ſinne was properly the cauſe or the occaſion of his death, but that the Scripture vſeth this phraſe, to the end, that when Adam ſhould heare of ſo ſeuere a puniſhment, as the death of both body and ſoule, he might bee terrified thereby from the committing of ſinne. The Scripture vſeth the like manner of ſpeech in diuers occaſions, as in the 22. chapter of Geneſis, God tempted or tried Abraham, which place muſt needs be vnderſtood figuratiuely; for God who ſeeth all things, as well future, as preſent, or paſt, hath no need of any triall or experience. The like kinde of threatning wee hauehave in the fourth chapter of Exodus, where it is ſaid, that God would hauehave ſlaine Moſes, which places are not to bee interpreted literally as they ſound, but figuratiuely, as all other places of Scripture (according to the rule of S. Auſtine) when otherwiſe they ſignifie any abſurditie, as this of the death of Adam doth, becauſe it contradicteth the decree of God concerning his immortalitie.
Neuertheleſſe the contrary expoſition is moſt firmly to bee holden as concerning the immortalitie of man before his fall, and mortalitie after and by his tranſgreſſion: not that there was any mutation in God, but tranſgreſſion in man: God predetermined according to his foreſight, man ſinned according to that foreſight, not that the foreſight was cauſe of mans fall, but rather mans fall was the obiect of Gods foreſight: inſomuch that God had not foreſeene mans fall, if man had not beene to fall; neither man had fallen, if God had not foreſeene his fall: ſo that though it bee neceſſary that God foreſee that which is future, yet that is not neceſſarily future, which God doth foreſee; for ſo ſeeth hee things future as they are future, not impoſing any neceſſitie in things not neceſſarily future by his foreſight: which as it is neceſſary in regard of things neceſſary, ſo is it contingent in regard of things contingent: contingent (I ſay) in reſpect of the obiect, though neceſſary in reſpect of his owne entitie and being; or as the Schoole-Diuines doe explicate it, ad intra neceſſary, ad extra contingent: inſomuch that all the mutation is in the outward and created obiects, nothing at all can reflect or redound vntounto God.
Wherefore though Almighty God had eternally decreed the immortalitie of man in his firſt creation; yet was there no mutation in God, becauſe vponupon his tranſgreſſion he made him mortall, and ſubiect to death: for as both the degrees were eternall, ſo the foreſight of the euent of both was likewiſe eternall; the mutation iſſued onelyonly from the obiect, and remained in the ſame: immutabilitie was alwayes, and remaineth in God, becauſe as hee had foreſeene, ſo he determined; and as he determined, ſo likewiſe he foreſaw.
Lege ad Rom. cap. 5. & 7.Hence it is is, that ſeeing the Scripture ſo often witneſſeth, that death was the effect of ſinne, and that if ſinne had not raigned in our ſoules, neither ſhould death hauehave deſtroied our mortall bodies; queſtionleſſe, though man was created immortall by grace, yet is hee iuſtly depriued of that immortalitie, and become ſubiect to death through his tranſgreſſion.
Now as touching the abſurdities ſo ignorantly (if not blaſphemouſly) inferred vponupon the foreſaid doctrine, I anſwer, that though God doe reproue that ancient prouerbe of the Iewes, and their compariſon of the ſowre grape, with other the like conteſtations of ſillie wormes with their Creator, that theſe (I ſay) are principally to bee vnderſtood in regard of actuall ſinne, as is plaine out of the text it ſelfe, and not habituall or originall, of which the text ſpeaketh not.
But if it bee referred (as ſome hauehave done) euen vntounto originall ſinne, yet neither can the iuſtice of God bee any whit impeached thereby: for though wee eat not the ſowre grape, neither taſte the forbidden fruit in our ſelues, yet did we both taſte and eat in Adam, who was our head: yea though wee taſted not the fruit it ſelfe in our ſelues, yet we contracted the ſowreneſſe thereof, and the effect of the ſinne, yea the ſinne it ſelfe in our ſoules: for though the action was onelyonly in our head, yet the paſſion, and effect was in all the members; as is more largely explicated aboue in the queſtion of the manner, nature, and eſſence of this ſinne, in which all the difficulties concerning this and the like points are anſwered.
Neither can it bee inferred hence, that God doth puniſh the iuſt for the vniuſt, or reuenge the fathers wickedneſſe in the ſonnes: (which neuertheleſſe were no iniuſtice, ſeeing the ſonnes are in ſome ſort deemed as parts of the fathers, and conſequently may iuſtly be puniſhed for their fathers offences) but rather that eueryevery man is puniſhed for his owne originall ſinne; which though it bee contracted from Adam, yet it is inherent in eueryevery mans owne nature.
Againe, ſeeing Adam of his owne nature was created mortall, and by grace onelyonly was to bee preſerued immortall, there was no iniuſtice in God towards Adams poſteritie in that they were depriued of originall iuſtice, but this proceeded from Adams demerit for himſelfe, and his poſteritie. Eſpecially ſeeing that the couenant was ſo concluded betweene GOD and Adam, that qua die comederet, moriretur, that his eating ſhould be his death; his abſtinence, life: with this difference that death ſhould be onelyonly from himſelfe, as ſinne had beene onelyonly from his will, but life ſhould hauehave beene onelyonly from God, and the preſeruation from ſinne, from Gods grace onelyonly.
Hence wee may vnderſtand how there is no iniuſtice or vnrighteouſneſſe in God, that although Adam was created immortall, yet we ſhould be borne of Adam mortall, and ſubiect to death: ſeeing hee was iuſtly depriued of immortalitie by his ſin, and we by him.
Laſtly, if we read the ſacred text, we ſhall finde it neither to be iniuſtice, or any nouelty that the ſonnes be puniſhed for their fathers offences; for ſo it is in the 1. of Samuel the 15. becauſe I remember that which Amalech did vntounto Iſrael, going out of Aegypt, goe thou Saul, and fight againſt Agag, and his people: and the 2. of Samuel 18, it is ſaid, that the wiues of Dauid ſhould be defiled for Dauids ſinne. againe in the 2 of Samuel the 21 it is written, how Dauid hanged the ſonnes of Reſphe for the Gabaonites ſake.
Moreouer, if it were true that which the Poet ſang vntounto his friend; delicta maiorum immeritus lues: thou ſhalt beare the offences of thy fore-fathers without thine owne deſeruings, then certainely the queſtion,B. King vponupon Ionas, cap. 1. v. 7. as a reuerend and learned Prelate well noteth, were more difficult, but who is able to ſay, my heart is cleane, though I came from an vncleane ſeede? though I were borne of a Morian, I hauehave not his ſinne: though an Amorite were my father, and my mother a Hittite, I hauehave not their nature: though I hauehave touched pitch, I am not defiled: I can waſh my hands in innocencie, and ſay with a cleare conſcience, I hauehave not ſinned? but if this be the cauſe of all, that there is not a ſoule in the whole cluſter of mankinde, that hath not offended, though not as principall as Achan in taking the curſed thing, Choran in rebelling, Dauid in numbring the people, yet as acceſſarie in conſenting and concealing; if neither principall nor acceſſarie in that one ſinne, yet culpable in a thouſand others committed in our life time, (perhaps not open to the world, but in the eyes of God as bright as the Sunne in the firmament; for the Scorpion hath a ſting, though hee hath not thruſt it out to wound vsus, and man hath malice, though hee hath not outwardly ſhewed it) it may be ſome ſinnes to come which God fore-ſeeth; and ſome paſt, which he recounteth, ſhall we ſtand in argument with God, as man would plead with man, and charge the iudge of the quicke and the dead with iniurious exactions? I hauehave paied the things, that I neuer tooke, I hauehave borne the price of ſinne, which I neuer committed? You ſee already the ground of mine anſwere.
We hauehave all ſinned father and ſonne, ruſh and branch, and deſeruedly are to expect that wages from the hands of God, which to our ſinne appertaineth. Beſides it cannot be denied, but thoſe things, which we part in our conceipts, by reaſon that diſtance of time and place hauehave ſundered them, ſome being done of old, ſome of late, ſome in one quarter of the world, ſome in another; thoſe doth the God of knowledge vnite, and view them at once, as if they were done together; out of all which conceiued together (as the all-vnderſtanding wiſdome of God doth conceiue and vnite them) we may well inferre that the iudgements of God bee as iuſt, and his waies as right as his mercy, and goodneſſe, and prouidence extended to all, that as there is no worke of man, not fully recompenced, or rewarded with ouerplus; ſo there is no ſinne, whether actuall, or originall, not iuſtly puniſhed, citra, as the Diuines hold, but neuer vltra condignum, leſſe, I meane, then the ſinne doth deſerue, neuer more then the fact doth require, Gods mercy being (as the Scripture witneſſeth) ouer all his workes; and alwaies in ſome ſort more extended then his iuſtice: for though it be true, that as his iuſtice is included in his mercy, euen formally (as moſt Diuines hold) ſo like wiſe his mercy is included in his iuſtice, and ſo both equall in nature and being: yet ſuch is the goodnes of our infinite good God, that in the execution, & ad extra, (as the Diuines tearme it) his mercy ſhould alwaies be extended further then his iuſtice, and his iuſt iudgements alwaies in ſomewhat at leaſt, deteined, or after a ſort reſtrained by his mercy. Wherefore as we are wont to ſay, of famous, worthy, and excellent men, in caeteris vicit omnes, in hoc ſeipſum, in other things hee exceeded all men; in this, hee ouercame himſelfe; The like wee may affirme of God; that hee is incomparable, in all attributes, and workes, but in this hee exceedeth himſelfe. To him therefore, as infinite, mercifull, and euerliuing God, three perſons and one indiviſible deitie, bee aſcribed all honor, power, maieſtie, and dominion, now and for euermore. AMEN.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Salkeld, A Treatise of Paradise (1617)