QUESTION IV. How it is proved from the Sacred Writings that the first man was created with original justice — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

QUESTION IV. How it is proved from the Sacred Writings that the first man was created with original justice.¹

QUAESTIO IIII. Quomodo ex Sacris litteris probetur, primum hominem esse creatum cum iustitia originali.

Restat altera quaestio, tanquam disputationis de iustitia originali clausula quaedam hoc loco explicanda. Num primum hominem creatum esse cum iustitia originali, quam supra descripsimus,...

There remains the other question, to be explained in this place as a kind of conclusion of the disputation on original justice: whether the fact that the first man was created with the original justice which we described above,...²

...descripsimus, et in statu illo innocentiae felicissimo, ex litteris Sacris demonstrari et probari queat. Potest id sane multis et manifestis Scripturae testimoniis et argumentis comprobari. Etenim tria erant illo statu maxime insignia: felicitas hominis tam secundum corpus quam secundum animum; tum perfecta partis inferioris sub imperium et potestatem superioris subiectio; denique immortalitas corporis, vel quod verius dictu est, potestas non moriendi. Felicitatem Adami satis indicavit Scriptura describendo incomparabilem amoenitatem Paradisi terrestris, vim arboris vitae, et indolentiam seu impassibilitatem corporis. Cum enim dicat eos in Paradiso versatos esse nudos, ab omni dolore, molestia, denique incommodo quod extrinsecus eis posset accidere, inoffensos atque intactos fuisse significat. Perfectionem autem et felicitatem animi Moses insinuavit, cum dixit hominem fuisse creatum ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei, et principem ac Dominum animantium a Deo constitutum, nec perfecta tantummodo rerum naturalium scientia ornatum, sed etiam divino prophetiae spiritu afflatum. Subiectio carnis et sensus sub imperium rationis significata est a Mose cum dixit eos fuisse nudos, nec tamen erubuisse. Paulus quidem certe ad Rom. 7 rebellionem carnis adversus spiritum ex peccato natam esse docet.

...and in that most happy state of innocence, can be demonstrated and proved from the Sacred Writings. This can indeed be confirmed by many and manifest testimonies and arguments of Scripture. For three things were most notable in that state: the happiness of man both according to body and according to soul; then the perfect subjection of the lower part under the command and power of the higher; finally, the immortality of the body, or, what is more truly said, the power of not dying. Adam's happiness Scripture sufficiently indicated by describing the incomparable pleasantness of the earthly Paradise, the power of the tree of life, and the painlessness or impassibility of the body. For when it says that they dwelt in Paradise naked, it signifies that they were unharmed and untouched by all pain, trouble, and finally inconvenience that could befall them from without. The perfection and happiness of the soul Moses insinuated when he said that man was created to the image and likeness of God, and was constituted by God the prince and lord of the living things, and was adorned not only with the perfect knowledge of natural things, but also breathed upon by the divine spirit of prophecy. The subjection of the flesh and sense under the command of reason was signified by Moses when he said that they were naked, yet did not blush. Paul indeed, in Romans 7, teaches that the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit was born from sin.³

Quid multa? mortem ex peccato primi hominis permanasse in omne genus humanum, nec a Deo esse factam—quippe qui hominem fecerat inexterminabilem—sed invidia diaboli intrasse in mundum, ad Roman. 5 et Sapien. 2 scriptum testatumque legimus. Nec obscure hoc ipsum indicavit Moses, cum facit Deum Adamo, si ex arbore scientiae boni et mali comederet, poenam mortis comminantem; quasi, si non comederet, nunquam esset moriturus. Nec alia profecto ratio satis idonea et probabilis adferri potest cur solum primum Adami peccatum non ipsi tantum, sed etiam posteritati eius nocuerit, et in omnes posteros eius per carnalem generationem transfusum sit, nisi quia primo illo peccato Adam perdidit iustitiam originalem, quod erat donum non tantum personae Adami, sed totius naturae, et ad omnes posteros eius pertinens: quo factum est ut privatio iustitiae originalis omnibus ex Adamo originem trahentibus acciderit.

In short: that death flowed from the sin of the first man into the whole human race, and was not made by God—who had made man imperishable—but entered the world by the envy of the devil, we read written and attested in Romans 5 and Wisdom 2. Nor obscurely did Moses indicate this same thing, when he makes God threaten Adam, if he should eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with the penalty of death; as if, if he did not eat, he would never die. Nor indeed can any other reason sufficiently apt and probable be brought, why Adam's first sin alone harmed not only himself, but also his posterity, and was transfused into all his descendants through carnal generation, except that by that first sin Adam lost original justice—which was a gift not only of the person of Adam, but of the whole nature, and pertaining to all his descendants: whence it came about that the privation of original justice befell all who draw their origin from Adam.⁴

Verum haec nimis presse et concise dicta sunt a nobis: quapropter latius et explicatius declaranda sunt. Donum iustitiae originalis, quale scilicet supra a nobis suis coloribus depictum est, datum fuisse primis hominibus, clarissime perspicitur ex divina Scriptura. Primo, id voluit significare Moses cum dixit: Erant nudi ambo, et non erubescebant. Post peccatum continuo agnoscentes nuditatem, eam, quasi pudendum quid et obscoenum, quamprimum obtegere voluerunt. Pudor autem de nuditate corporum existebat ex acri sensu immoderatae libidinis, quem in membris suis contra iudicium rationis et contra...

But these things have been said by us too concisely and briefly: wherefore they must be declared more fully and explicitly. That the gift of original justice—such, namely, as was above depicted by us in its own colors—was given to the first men, is most clearly perceived from divine Scripture. First, Moses wished to signify this when he said: ‘They were both naked, and were not ashamed.’ After sin, immediately recognizing their nakedness, they wished to cover it as soon as possible, as a thing shameful and obscene. And the shame about the nakedness of their bodies arose from the keen sense of immoderate lust, which in their members, against the judgment of reason and against...⁵

...contraque voluntatem suam suscitari et ardescere sentiebant. Deinde, felicitas illius status, omnium bonorum copia iucundissimi et tranquillissimi (id quod indicabat locus Paradisi), satis ostendebat in summa mentis et corporis tranquillitate, si Deo pareret, tunc Adamum esse victurum: illa autem rebellio carnis adversus spiritum quanta sit hominis vexatio et afflictio, quantumque malum et infelicitas, satis ostendit et deplorat Paulus Rom. 7.

...and against their will [they] felt [their members] roused and burning. Next, the happiness of that state—the abundance of all goods most pleasant and most tranquil (which the place of Paradise indicated)—sufficiently showed, in the supreme tranquillity of mind and body, that, if he obeyed God, Adam would then live: but how great a vexation and affliction of man, and how great an evil and unhappiness, that rebellion of the flesh against the spirit is, Paul sufficiently shows and deplores in Romans 7.⁶

Praeterea, huius rei fidem facit immortalitas Adamo promissa, si praeceptum Dei custodiret: sicut enim poterat non mori, ita poterat non peccare; utraque enim potentia, et non moriendi et non peccandi, in illo statu indissolubili vinculo ac nexu erat invicem colligata. Si enim poterat non mori, ergo etiam non peccare: nam si, hoc concesso, potuisset peccare, non sane id consentaneum erat divinae iustitiae, et erat perniciosum peccatoris vitam prorogari in perpetuum. Potentia autem non peccandi nitebatur rectitudine totius hominis quam efficiebat iustitia originalis. Recte igitur Augustinus libro de Correptione et gratia cap. 11 eo discrimine distinguit statum innocentiae a statu gloriae, quod in illo fuit possibilitas non peccandi et moriendi, in hoc autem et peccandi et non moriendi futura sit impossibilitas.

Moreover, the immortality promised to Adam, if he should keep the precept of God, gives credit to this matter: for just as he could not die, so he could not sin; for both powers, of not dying and of not sinning, in that state were bound together by an indissoluble bond and tie. For if he could not die, then also not sin: for if, this being granted, he could have sinned, that surely was not consistent with divine justice, and it was pernicious that a sinner's life be prolonged forever. And the power of not sinning rested on the uprightness of the whole man which original justice effected. Rightly therefore Augustine, in the book On Reproof and Grace, chapter 11, distinguishes the state of innocence from the state of glory by this difference: that in the former there was the possibility of not sinning and not dying, but in the latter there will be the impossibility both of sinning and of not dying.⁷

Porro Paulus epist. ad Rom. cap. 7, prae nimio desiderio quo cupiebat liberari a molestissimo et perpetuo certamine quod inter spiritum et carnem in nobis agitur, exclamavit: Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Sed cur, a rebellione carnis cupiens Paulus liberari, dicit se velle liberari a corruptione et morte corporis? nisi quia illa rebellio simul cum corruptione et morte corporis evenit homini propter peccatum, ante quod simul erant in homine et potentia non peccandi et potentia non moriendi: non igitur ante peccatum homo sentiebat rebellionem carnis. His adde quod hanc rebellionem carnis et inordinatam concupiscentiam Paulus non semel appellat peccatum, quia videlicet erat peccati effectus et poena, ut nuper interpretati sunt Patres in Concilio Tridentino in decreto quod ediderunt de Iustificatione.

Further, Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 7, from the excessive desire by which he longed to be freed from the most troublesome and perpetual struggle which is waged between the spirit and the flesh in us, exclaimed: ‘Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ But why, since Paul desires to be freed from the rebellion of the flesh, does he say he wishes to be freed from the corruption and death of the body? except because that rebellion befell man together with the corruption and death of the body on account of sin—before which there were at once in man both the power of not sinning and the power of not dying: man, therefore, did not feel the rebellion of the flesh before sin. To these add that Paul more than once calls this rebellion of the flesh and disordered concupiscence ‘sin,’ because, namely, it was the effect and penalty of sin, as the Fathers lately interpreted in the Council of Trent, in the decree which they issued on Justification.⁸

Ad extremum, Paulus Rom. 5 longa oratione argumentatur, ob primum Adae peccatum omnes eius posteros nasci et peccato infectos et obnoxios morti. In quo, inquit, omnes peccaverunt. Et: Per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors. Sed cur primum illud peccatum Adae potius nocuit posteris eius quam alia eiusdem vel aliorum parentum peccata? Certe non alia de causa, nisi quod propter illud peccatum perdidit Adam donum gratiae et iustitiae originalis, quod non pro se modo, sed etiam pro sua omni posteritate divinitus acceperat. Sane vocabulo mortis quae omnes homines comprehendit, quamlibet corruptionem intelligere convenit: quo nomine in primis censetur corruptio concupiscentiae. Habuit igitur Adam donum aliquod compescens concupiscentiam, eiusque...

Finally, Paul in Romans 5 argues in a long discourse that, on account of the first sin of Adam, all his descendants are born both infected with sin and liable to death. ‘In whom,’ he says, ‘all have sinned.’ And: ‘By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death.’ But why did that first sin of Adam harm his descendants rather than the other sins of him or of other parents? Certainly for no other reason than that on account of that sin Adam lost the gift of grace and of original justice, which he had received from God not only for himself, but also for all his posterity. Indeed, by the word ‘death,’ which comprehends all men, it is fitting to understand any corruption: by which name is reckoned, in the first place, the corruption of concupiscence. Adam, therefore, had some gift restraining concupiscence, and its...⁹

...eiusque rebellionem et corruptionem prohibens: hoc enim significatur in libro Sapientiae cap. 2, cum dicitur, secundum translationem Graecam, Fecit Deus hominem ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, hoc est, in integritate et incorruptione.

...and prohibiting its rebellion and corruption: for this is signified in the book of Wisdom, chapter 2, when it is said, according to the Greek translation, ‘God made man ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ (en aphtharsia),’ that is, in integrity and incorruption.¹⁰

Non est in hac disputatione praetereundus luculentissimus ille locus Scripturae, crebro Theologorum sermone usurpatus, qui apud Salomonem, capite septimo libri Ecclesiastae, sic habet: Solummodo hoc inveni, quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum, et ipse se infinitis miscuerit quaestionibus. Certe eam rectitudinem hominis nunc non cernimus: cum etiam ante diluvium dixerit Deus, sensus et cogitationes hominis iam inde ab adolescentia pronas esse ad malum; et quanta fuerit statim post peccatum Adae animi humani corruptela, in fratricidio Cain liquido cernitur: aliter igitur ante peccatum quam nunc est homo, tum ratione tum appetitu, affectus erat atque constitutus. Sed videre est quemadmodum Caietanus, in commentariis eius loci, praedicta verba, hac propria verissimaque et ab omnibus fere Patribus et Theologis tradita et probata intelligentia, aliorsum detorquere sit conatus; adscribam eius verba: Si ponderaveris, inquit, verbum illud, Inveni, invenies quod non est sermo de creato homine in gratuito dono rectitudinis originalis, sed de homine facto a Deo in naturali rectitudine animae: talem enim rectitudinem concionantis disputatio invenit per lumen naturale intellectus humani naturaliter discurrendo; rectitudinem autem originalis iustitiae credimus tantum, nec inquirendo invenire possumus. Haec Caietanus.

There must not be passed over in this disputation that most brilliant passage of Scripture, frequently used in the speech of the Theologians, which in Solomon, in the seventh chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes, runs thus: ‘Only this I found, that God made man upright, and he has involved himself in infinite questions.’ Certainly we do not now discern that uprightness of man: since even before the Flood God said that the senses and thoughts of man are, from his very youth, prone to evil; and how great the corruption of the human soul was immediately after Adam's sin is clearly discerned in the fratricide of Cain: man, therefore, was disposed and constituted otherwise before sin, both in reason and in appetite, than he now is. But it is to be seen how Cajetan, in his commentary on that place, tried to twist the aforesaid words—with this proper and most true understanding, handed down and approved by almost all the Fathers and Theologians—into another sense; I shall set down his words: ‘If you weigh that word, “I found,”’ he says, ‘you will find that it is not speech about man created in the gratuitous gift of original uprightness, but about man made by God in the natural uprightness of the soul: for such uprightness the preacher's disputation finds, by the natural light of the human intellect reasoning naturally; but the uprightness of original justice we only believe, and cannot find by inquiring.’ Thus Cajetan.¹¹

Verum enimvero, locum illum Salomonis et Augustinus compluribus locis aliique Patres interpretati sunt de rectitudine originali, cum qua primus homo a Deo creatus est, et qua, propter peccatum eius, omnes ipsius posteri privati sunt. Non enim ab initio talis conditus est homo a Deo, qualis nunc generatur: nec, ut nunc est, vere dici potest rectus. Quomodo enim rectus dicatur generari, cum gemebundus clamet David, Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea? et clara voce pronunciet Paulus, Nos omnes nasci filios irae? et Iob maledixit diei conceptus et ortus sui, quod peccato infectus et in utero matris generatus et ex eodem utero hanc in lucem editus esset; nimirum propter peccatum originale, quod in conceptu nostro concipimur non recti, sed obliqui, curvi ac distorti, id est, aversi a Deo rerumque divinarum amore, et ad bonorum caducorum, quin etiam vitiorum illecebras et cupiditates proni atque propensi.

But indeed, Augustine in several places and the other Fathers interpreted that passage of Solomon of the original uprightness with which the first man was created by God, and of which, on account of his sin, all his descendants were deprived. For man was not founded by God from the beginning such as he is now generated; nor, as he now is, can he truly be called upright. For how can he be said to be generated upright, when David groaning cries, ‘Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me’? and Paul pronounces with clear voice, ‘We all are born children of wrath’? and Job cursed the day of his conception and birth, because, infected with sin, he had been generated in his mother's womb and brought into this light from the same womb—namely, on account of original sin, that in our conception we are conceived not upright, but oblique, bent, and distorted, that is, averted from God and the love of divine things, and prone and inclined to perishable goods, indeed even to the enticements and lusts of vices.¹²

Hieronymus quidem certe locum illum Salomonis in suis eius libri Commentariis explanans: Ne videretur, inquit, communem damnare naturam et Deum auctorem mali facere, dum talium conditor est qui malum vitare non possunt, arguto praecucurrit et ait, bonos nos a Deo creatos, sed quod sumus libero arbitrio derelicti, vitia in peiora labi, dum maiora quaerimus, et ultra vires nostras varie cogitamus. Sic Hieronymus. Verum hic terminum habeat de...

Jerome indeed, explaining that passage of Solomon in his Commentaries on that book: ‘Lest he should seem,’ he says, ‘to condemn the common nature and to make God the author of evil, while he is the founder of such [men] as cannot avoid evil, he shrewdly anticipated and says that we were created good by God, but, because we are left to free will, [we] slip into worse vices, while we seek greater things and think variously beyond our powers.’ Thus Jerome. But let it have its end here, concerning...¹³

...de Iustitia originali disputatio, quam in praesentia tractandam suscepimus.

...the disputation on original justice, which we undertook to treat for the present occasion.¹⁴

Translator’s notes

Question divider opening the fourth and final question of the disputation on original justice (the Scriptural proof). ↩
Opening of Question IV, the conclusion of the disputation: whether Scripture proves man was created with original justice. Continues to next page (catchword 'descripsimus'). ↩
Q4: three notable things of that state—(1) man's happiness in body and soul, (2) the lower part's perfect subjection to the higher, (3) the body's immortality (the power of not dying). Scriptural proofs: Paradise's amenity and the tree of life (Gen 2); man as image/likeness and lord of animals, with knowledge and prophecy; the nakedness without shame (Gen 2:25); the flesh's rebellion born of sin (Rom 7). ↩
Death came from Adam's sin, not from God (Wisdom 2:23-24 'God made man imperishable... by the envy of the devil death entered'; Romans 5); the death-threat of Gen 2:17. The only adequate reason Adam's first sin harmed his posterity is that he thereby lost original justice—a gift of the whole nature, so its privation passed to all his descendants. ↩
The proofs more fully: first, Genesis 2:25 ('they were both naked, and were not ashamed')—after sin they at once sought to cover their nakedness; the shame arose from the keen sense of immoderate lust felt in their members against reason. Continues to next page (catchword 'contra'). ↩
Completes the point (from p.583): the members roused against the will; the happiness of the state (mind and body's tranquillity, indicated by Paradise) showed Adam would live if he obeyed God; the flesh's rebellion is man's great vexation, which Paul deplores (Rom 7). ↩
The immortality promised to Adam confirms it: the powers of not-dying and not-sinning were bound together by an indissoluble bond (a sinner's life prolonged forever would be unjust/pernicious). Augustine (De Correptione et gratia 11): in innocence, the possibility of not-sinning and not-dying; in glory, the impossibility of sinning and of dying. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Expenditur locus Pauli ad Rom. 7' (the passage of Paul to the Romans 7 is weighed). Romans 7:24 ('who shall deliver me from the body of this death?'): the flesh's rebellion came with the body's corruption/death on account of sin, before which both powers (not-sinning, not-dying) were in man. Paul calls concupiscence 'sin' as sin's effect/penalty (as Trent interpreted, decree on Justification). ↩
Romans 5:12 ('in whom all have sinned'; 'by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death'). Adam's first sin harmed his posterity because he thereby lost the gift of grace and original justice, received for all his posterity. 'Death' includes any corruption—chiefly the corruption of concupiscence; so Adam had a gift restraining concupiscence. Continues to next page (catchword 'eiusque'). ↩
GLYPH verified by magnification: ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ (en aphtharsia, 'in incorruption')—Wisdom 2:23 LXX ('God created man for/in incorruption'), cited as proof that Adam had a gift restraining concupiscence and its corruption. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Excutitur locus Ecclesiastae cap. 7 adversus Caietanum' (the passage of Ecclesiastes 7 is examined against Cajetan). Ecclesiastes 7:29 ('God made man upright'): we no longer see that uprightness (Gen 8:21 'prone to evil from youth'; Cain's fratricide). Cajetan tried to twist it to mean only natural (not original) rectitude—'we only believe' original justice, cannot 'find' it; quoted and rejected. ↩
Marginal refs: 'Psalm. 50' and 'Ephes. 2'. Augustine and the Fathers read Eccl 7:29 of original uprightness, of which sin deprived all posterity. Proofs we are not born upright: Psalm 50(51):7 ('conceived in iniquities'); Ephesians 2:3 ('children of wrath'); Job cursing his day (Job 3)—on account of original sin we are conceived 'oblique, bent, distorted,' averted from God and prone to perishable goods and vice. ↩
Jerome (commentary on Ecclesiastes 7): lest Solomon seem to condemn nature or make God the author of evil, he says we were created good but, left to free will, slip into vices seeking greater things beyond our powers. Ends 'Sic Hieronymus.' The disputation on original justice is concluding (catchword 'de'); colophon 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1.' with signature 'EEE'. ↩
Closing words of the disputation on original justice (the third internal excellence of the state of innocence), continued from the previous page (catchword 'de'). ↩