LatineEnglish
QUESTION II. Whether the tree of life was of the same species as, and similar to, some one of our trees.1
QUAESTIO II. An arbor vitae fuerit eiusdem speciei, et similis alicui nostrarum arborum.
NODATIO huius quaestionis pendet ex alterius quaestionis paulo infra tractandae explicatione: an vis illa et potentia arboris vitae servandi hominem ab interitu et faciendi quodammodo immortalem fuerit ei supernaturalis (hoc est, non ex natura eius proveniens, sed extrinsecus Dei munere ei concessa), an vero fuerit naturalis, ex intimis eius arboris principiis et ex naturali eius constitutione existens eique naturaliter inhaerens. Nam si vis illa et admirandus ille effectus erat supernaturalis, nihil prohibet eam arborem fuisse similem aliarum: potuit enim Deus effectum illum supernaturalem per quamlibet arborem, vel ficum vel pyrum vel prunum, operari; quoniam princeps causa efficiens et operans illum effectum non erat vel natura vel naturalis aliqua proprietas alicuius arboris, sed erat divina potestas assistens arbori vel per arborem sic operans. Non enim quia umbra praetereuntis Petri sanabat aegrotos, ideo illa differebat specie ab umbris aliorum hominum; aut quia semicinctia et sudariola Pauli propulsabant morbos et daemones ab hominibus, idcirco diversam aliis cingulis et sudariis speciem habebant; nec quia Baptismi aqua eluit animi sordes, propterea specie distingui ab aliis omnibus aquis censenda est.
The knot of this question depends on the explication of another question, to be treated a little below: whether that force and power of the tree of life, of preserving man from destruction and making him in a way immortal, was supernatural to it (that is, not proceeding from its nature, but granted to it from without by the gift of God), or whether it was natural, existing from the inmost principles of that tree and from its natural constitution, and inhering in it naturally. For if that force and that wondrous effect was supernatural, nothing prevents that tree from having been similar to the others: for God could have worked that supernatural effect through any tree whatever—whether fig or pear or plum—since the chief efficient and operating cause of that effect was not the nature or any natural property of some tree, but was the divine power assisting the tree, or so working through the tree. For not because the shadow of the passing Peter healed the sick did that shadow differ in species from the shadows of other men; nor because the kerchiefs and aprons of Paul drove off diseases and demons from men did they have a species different from other girdles and cloths; nor, because the water of Baptism washes away the filth of the soul, is it to be reckoned distinguished in species from all other waters.2
SIN autem illa vis et effectus arboris vitae naturalis erat et ex propria eius arboris natura profluens, profecto existimare convenit eam arborem extra ordinem fuisse aliarum omnium arborum, nec cuiusquam earum natura et specie similem. Etenim diversa operatio et effectus naturalis arguunt diversam vim et potentiam efficientem; diversa vis efficiens arguit diversam naturam. Cum igitur admirandus ille effectus arboris vitae in nulla ceterarum arborum adhuc visus sit, concluditur arborem vitae omnium aliarum arborum fuisse dissimilem. Praeterea, virtus naturalis alicuius arboris in cunctis eiusdem speciei arboribus communiter inest, differens fortasse tantum secundum magis et minus: quae tamen differentia arboribus extranea et adventitia est, scilicet quae aut ex benigniori caelo aut ex fertiliori solo aut ex meliore hominis cultura eis contingit; eiusmodi autem differentia Paradisi arboribus, quae illa omnia habebant paria, inesse non poterat. Ergo, quia (tanquam probabilius infra dicturi sumus) virtutem et effectum illum arboris vitae fuisse naturalem, dicendum est nunc arborem illam fuisse singularem et talem qualis nulla eius speciei vel intra paradisum vel extra inveniretur.
But if that force and effect of the tree of life was natural and flowing from the proper nature of that tree, then it is surely fitting to judge that that tree was outside the order of all other trees, and similar to none of them in nature and species. For a diverse operation and natural effect argue a diverse efficient force and power; a diverse efficient force argues a diverse nature. Since, therefore, that wondrous effect of the tree of life has hitherto been seen in none of the other trees, it is concluded that the tree of life was dissimilar to all the other trees. Moreover, the natural power of some tree is commonly present in all trees of the same species, differing perhaps only according to more and less: which difference, however, is extraneous and adventitious to the trees, namely that which befalls them either from a kinder sky, or from a more fertile soil, or from better cultivation by man; but such a difference could not be present in the trees of Paradise, which had all those things equal. Therefore, because (as we shall say below as more probable) that power and effect of the tree of life was natural, it must now be said that that tree was singular, and such as none of its species would be found either within paradise or outside.3
ILLUD tamen dubitari posset, an Arbor vitae fuerit una duntaxat numero, an vero multae fuerint...
This, however, could be doubted: whether the Tree of life was only one in number, or whether there were many...4
...[an vero multae fuerint] eiusdem illius speciei, eiusdem potentiae ac effectus arbores. Tostatus in caput 13 Genesis qu. 163 negat fuisse plures una. Nam si fuissent, inquit, plures una, vel illae fuissent intra paradisum vel extra: non extra paradisum, sic enim potuisset homo post peccatum ex illis edens mortem effugere; frustra igitur tanta Deus custodia aditum paradisi praemunivisset—eo scilicet consilio, ut inquit Scriptura, ne in posterum homo fructum illius arboris comedens in aeternum viveret. Nec intra paradisum erant multae arbores vitae: tum quia ubicumque Moses loquitur de hac arbore vitae (loquitur autem non semel in secundo et tertio capite huius libri) semper eam vocat numero singulari, Arborem vitae; tum quod ait eam fuisse in medio Paradisi, quod in multis arboribus vere dici non potest. Satis autem erat una arbor vitae ad id propter quod erat instituta, hoc est, non in cibum quotidianum hominis ad eum alendum et nutriendum, sed comparata erat in modum medicinae seu cibi medicati adversus naturales defectus qui processu aetatis homini accidunt, et contra eorum defectuum terminum qui est mors: itaque fructum illius arboris bis aut ter in anno satis fuisset homini comedere.
...or whether there were many trees of that same species, of the same power and effect. Tostatus, on the 13th chapter of Genesis, question 163, denies that there were more than one. For if there had been more than one, he says, they would have been either within paradise or outside: not outside paradise, for thus man could, after sin, by eating from them have escaped death; in vain, therefore, would God have fortified the entrance of paradise with so great a guard—namely, with this purpose, as Scripture says, lest thereafter man, eating the fruit of that tree, should live forever. Nor were there many trees of life within paradise: both because, wherever Moses speaks of this tree of life (and he speaks of it more than once, in the second and third chapters of this book), he always calls it by the singular number, the Tree of life; and because he says it was in the midst of Paradise, which cannot truly be said of many trees. And one tree of life was enough for that for which it was instituted—that is, not for the daily food of man, to feed and nourish him, but it was provided in the manner of a medicine, or medicated food, against the natural defects which befall man with the advance of age, and against the terminus of those defects, which is death: and so it would have been enough for man to eat the fruit of that tree twice or thrice a year.5
MIHI, ut probabile est a Deo (casus et lapsus Adae praescio) unam duntaxat in paradiso arborem vitae esse procreatam (quid enim opus erat pluribus?), ita fit admodum credibile, si status ille felicissimus quem vocant innocentiae vel iustitiae originalis in omnibus Adae posteris perdurasset, numerosissime multiplicato genere humano pariter quoque multiplicatum iri arborem vitae: non enim tantae hominum multitudini unica arbor, ne ad usus quidem tantum medicinales, satis esse potuisset.
To me, as it is probable that by God (foreknowing the fall and lapse of Adam) only one tree of life was procreated in paradise (for what need was there of more?), so it becomes quite credible that, if that most happy state which they call of innocence or of original justice had endured in all the posterity of Adam, the tree of life would have been multiplied likewise, the human race being most numerously multiplied: for one single tree could not have been enough for so great a multitude of men, not even for medicinal uses alone.6
Translator’s notes
- The second question on the tree of life: was it the same species as, and similar to, one of our familiar trees—or a unique kind? ↩
- The question's knot depends on a later one: was the tree of life's power (to preserve man from death and make him somehow immortal) **supernatural** (granted from outside by God, not from its nature) or **natural** (from its own intrinsic constitution)? If supernatural, the tree could be like ordinary trees—God could work that effect through any tree (fig, pear, plum), the chief cause being the divine power assisting it, not the tree's nature. Three analogies of ordinary things made instruments of divine power without changing species: **Peter's healing shadow** (Acts 5:15), **Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons** that drove off diseases and demons (Acts 19:12), and **baptismal water** that cleanses the soul—none differing in species from ordinary shadows, cloths, or water. ↩
- But if the power was **natural**, the tree must have been outside the order of all others, like none in nature or species—since a different natural effect argues a different efficient power, hence a different nature, and that wondrous effect is seen in no other tree. Moreover, a tree's natural power is shared by all of its species (differing only by degree, and that only from extrinsic factors—climate, soil, cultivation—all equal in Paradise). So, since (as Pererius will argue below as more probable) the tree's power was *natural*, the tree must have been **singular**, of a kind found nowhere else in Paradise or outside it. ↩
- Marginal gloss: "An fuerit una duntaxat Arbor vitae, an multae." A sub-question is raised: was there only one tree of life, or many of the same kind? Continues onto next page (catchword "nume"). ↩
- **Tostatus** (Gen 13 q.163) denies there was more than one tree of life: if many, they would be inside or outside Paradise—not outside (else man could escape death after sin, and God's guarding of the entrance would be pointless), nor many inside (Moses always uses the singular "the tree of life," and says it was "in the midst," which cannot apply to many). One sufficed for its purpose: not daily nourishment, but a medicine against the defects of age and against death itself—so eating its fruit twice or thrice a year would have sufficed. ↩
- Marginal gloss: "Auctoris coniectura." **Pererius's conjecture:** since God foreknew Adam's fall, He probably created only one tree of life (no need of more); but had the state of innocence endured in all Adam's posterity, the tree of life would have multiplied along with the vastly multiplied human race—since one tree could not have sufficed for so great a multitude, even for medicinal use alone. ↩