Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Of the Justice of the Punishment with Which Our First Parents Were Visited for Their Disobedience.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter 15.—Of the Justice of the
Punishment with Which Our First Parents Were Visited for Their
Disobedience.
Therefore, because the sin was a
despising of the authority of God,—who had created man; who had
made him in His own image; who had set him above the other animals;
who had placed him in Paradise; who had enriched him with abundance
of every kind and of safety; who had laid upon him neither many,
nor great, nor difficult commandments, but, in order to make a
wholesome obedience easy to him, had given him a single very brief
and very light precept by which He reminded that creature whose
service was to be free that He was Lord,—it was just that
condemnation followed, and condemnation such that man, who by
keeping the commandments should have been spiritual even in his
flesh, became fleshly even in his spirit; and as in his pride he
had sought to be his own satisfaction, God in His justice abandoned
him to himself, not to live in the absolute independence he
affected, but instead of the liberty he desired, to live
dissatisfied with himself in a hard and miserable bondage to him to
whom by sinning he had yielded himself, doomed in spite of himself
to die in body as he had willingly become dead in spirit, condemned
even to eternal death (had not the grace of God delivered him)
because he had forsaken eternal life. Whoever thinks such
punishment either excessive or unjust shows his inability to
measure the great iniquity of sinning where sin might so easily
have been avoided. For as Abraham’s obedience is with justice
pronounced to be great, because the thing commanded, to kill his
son, was very difficult, so in Paradise the disobedience was the
greater, because the difficulty of that which was commanded was
imperceptible. And as the obedience of the second Man was
the
more laudable because He became obedient even “unto death,”738
so the
disobedience of the first man was the more detestable because he
became disobedient even unto death. For where the penalty annexed
to disobedience is great, and the thing commanded by the Creator is
easy, who can sufficiently estimate how great a wickedness it is,
in a matter so easy, not to obey the authority of so great a power,
even when that power deters with so terrible a penalty?
In short, to say all in a word,
what but disobedience was the punishment of disobedience in that
sin? For what else is man’s misery but his own disobedience to
himself, so that in consequence of his not being willing to do what
he could do, he now wills to do what he cannot? For though he
could not do all things in Paradise before he sinned, yet he wished
to do only what he could do, and therefore he could do all things
he wished. But now, as we recognize in his offspring, and as
divine Scripture testifies, “Man is like to vanity.”739
For who
can count how many things he wishes which he cannot do, so long as
he is disobedient to himself, that is, so long as his mind and his
flesh do not obey his will? For in spite of himself his mind is
both frequently disturbed, and his flesh suffers, and grows old,
and dies; and in spite of ourselves we suffer whatever else we
suffer, and which we would not suffer if our nature absolutely and
in all its parts obeyed our will. But is it not the infirmities
of the flesh which hamper it in its service? Yet what does it
matter how its service is hampered, so long as the fact
remains, that by the just retribution of the sovereign God whom we
refused to be subject to and serve, our flesh, which was subjected
to us, now torments us by insubordination, although our
disobedience brought trouble on ourselves, not upon God? For He
is not in need of our service as we of our body’s; and therefore
what we did was no punishment to Him, but what we receive is so to
us. And the pains which are called bodily are pains of the soul
in and from the body. For what pain or desire can the flesh feel
by itself and without the soul? But when the flesh is said to
desire or to suffer, it is meant, as we have explained, that the
man does so, or some part of the soul which is affected by the
sensation of the flesh, whether a harsh sensation causing pain, or
gentle, causing pleasure. But pain in the flesh is only a
discomfort of the soul arising from the flesh, and a kind of
shrinking from its suffering, as the pain of the soul which is
called sadness is a shrinking from those things which have happened
to us in spite of ourselves. But sadness is frequently preceded
by fear, which is itself in the soul, not in the flesh; while
bodily pain is not preceded by any kind of fear of the flesh, which
can be felt in the flesh before the pain. But pleasure is
preceded by a certain appetite which is felt in the flesh like a
craving, as hunger and thirst and that generative appetite which is
most commonly identified with the name” lust,” though this is
the generic word for all desires. For anger itself was defined by
the ancients as nothing else than the lust of revenge;740
| 740 Cicero, Tusc. Quæst. iii.
6 and iv. 9. So Aristotle. | although
sometimes a man is angry even at inanimate objects which cannot
feel his vengeance, as when one breaks a pen, or crushes a quill
that writes badly. Yet even this, though less reasonable, is in
its way a lust of revenge, and is, so to speak, a mysterious kind
of shadow of [the great law of] retribution, that they who do evil
should suffer evil. There is therefore a lust for revenge, which
is called anger; there is a lust of money, which goes by the name
of avarice; there is a lust of conquering, no matter by what means,
which is called opinionativeness; there is a lust of applause,
which is named boasting. There are many and various lusts, of
which some have names of their own, while others have not. For
who could readily give a name to the lust of ruling, which yet has
a powerful influence in the soul of tyrants, as civil wars bear
witness?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
