A30247:2556
A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is
A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is, by pregnant texts of Scripture vindicated from false glosses / by Anthony Burgess.
London : s.n., 1658
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
¶. 7.
The several Grounds assigned by Schoolmen of Adam's immortality rejected, and some Causes held forth by the Orthodox.
Propos. 7. Although it be agreed upon by all, except Socinians and their adherents, that Adam was made immortal at least by grace, and the favour of his Creator; yet there is difference among the Popish Writers, upon what to fasten the ground of his immortality: What was the cause of it, therein they disagree. Some place it in a certain vigour and excellency that was then in the soul, whereby it was able to preserve the body from death: Molina liketh not this, (De opere sex dierum Disput. 28.) and therefore he doth affirm, that the body of Adam was made immortal and impassible, by an habitual gift bestowed upon it, which he saith was a corporeal quality extended through the whole body; Because, saith he, this immortality was not a transient thing, but an enduring gift, suitable to that state; and God is used to give permanent gifts, not immediately, but by some inherent principle: Even as the glorified bodies are made immortal by some intrinsical quality accommodated to that state; yea and the bodies of the damned also, though they are immortal, yet they are not impassible, because they are tormented in the flames of hell fire. But Suarez (Lib. 3. de hominis Creatione cap. 14.) doth upon good grounds reject any such supposed corporeal quality, as being without any foundation from the Scripture, and introducing a miraculous way without necessity. For who can think, that Adam had such an intrinsical quality in his body, that fire would not burn him? that if he went upon the waters, his body would not sink? Others they attribute his immortality to the tree of life, that was (say they) both alimentum, & medicamentum; as it was both nourishment, so it preserved life; and as it was medicinal, so it did repair that partial abating of natural strength in concoction, which would otherwise in time have come upon man: But this opinion taketh that for granted, which yet is greatly controverted, viz. that it was called the tree of life, as if there had been some active physical power in the fruit thereof to continue a mans life, either for a long time, as some think, or for ever, as others; whether indeed once eating of it, or constant eating was necessary, as opportunity did require, is also debated by curious Authors;