QUESTION III. Why it was called the tree of life, and whether it truly bestowed immortal life on man — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

QUESTION III. Why it was called the tree of life, and whether it truly bestowed immortal life on man.¹

QUAESTIO III. Cur dicta sit arbor vitae, et an vere largiretur homini vitam immortalem.

AUGUSTINUS Eugubinus in sua Cosmopoeia dictam esse putat arborem vitae non effective, quod vitam faceret immortalem, sed significative, quia symbolum esset et signum immortalitatis Adamo (si legem Dei custodiret) propositae. Verum Eugubino adversantur omnes ferme tam Graeci quam Latini scriptores, summo consensu immortalem vitam effectum illius arboris futurum fuisse interpretantes. Dicebatur igitur arbor vitae, non quod vitam daret non viventi (neque enim vitam praeberet nisi fructum eius comedenti; comedere autem tantummodo est viventium); nec vocabatur arbor vitae quod vitam hominis foveret et sustineret (id enim omnium bonorum et salubrium ciborum commune est); nec quia multo longiorem vitam faceret ea quam nunc vivunt homines: hoc enim praestiterunt homini ante dilu[vium]...

Augustinus Eugubinus, in his Cosmopoeia, thinks it was called the tree of life not effectively, because it made life immortal, but significatively, because it was a symbol and sign of the immortality set before Adam (if he should keep the law of God). But against Eugubinus stand almost all writers, both Greek and Latin, who by the highest consensus interpret that immortal life was going to be the effect of that tree. It was called the tree of life, therefore, not because it gave life to the non-living (for it would furnish life only to one eating its fruit, and eating belongs only to the living); nor was it called the tree of life because it cherished and sustained man's life (for this is common to all good and wholesome foods); nor because it made life much longer than that which men now live: for this herbs and trees afforded to man before the flo[od]...²

...[ante dilu]vium herbae et arbores, etiam quae extra paradisum erant: nam cum ante diluvium nullus esset usus carnium, sed cibus ex plantis tantummodo caperetur, quosdam hominum illorum ultra nongentesimum annum vitam produxisse legimus. Quinetiam credere par est fructus arborum quae erant in paradiso vim habuisse prorogandi vitam humanam fortasse ad millesimum et quingentesimum annum, etiamsi homo in paradiso habitans fructum arboris vitae non comedisset.

...before the flood the herbs and trees did, even those which were outside paradise: for since before the flood there was no use of flesh-meats, but food was taken only from plants, we read that some of those men prolonged their life beyond the nine-hundredth year. Indeed it is fitting to believe that the fruits of the trees which were in paradise had the power of prolonging human life perhaps to the one-thousand-five-hundredth year, even if man, dwelling in paradise, had not eaten the fruit of the tree of life.³

CUR igitur praecipue illa arbor cognominata est arbor vitae? Tostatus super 13 cap. Gen. quaest. 175 censet propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quod fructus eius vim haberet servandi hominem a morte in omne tempus et faciendi eum immortalem. Hoc probat ipse primum testimonio Scripturae, quae in tertio capite huius libri narrat idcirco Adamum ex paradiso eiectum esse et interclusum illi aditum ad arborem vitae, ne videlicet eius fructum comedens viveret in aeternum: esus igitur illius arboris vitam homini praestabat aeternam. Idem confirmat eo argumento, quod Adam, si Dei praecepto paruisset, nunquam moriturus erat; mortem namque Deus ei tanquam poenam legis violatae interminatus est. Quocirca Paulus ad Romanos 5 propter peccatum affirmat mortem in mundum intrasse; et in libro Sapientiae cap. 1 scriptum est mortem non esse a Deo factam, sed eam diaboli invidia obrepsisse homini. Ergo in statu innocentiae non fuisset homo moriturus; mortem autem ab homine fructus arboris vitae propulsabat. Deinde, si arbor vitae tribuebat homini vi[tam]...

Why, then, was that tree especially surnamed the tree of life? Tostatus, on the 13th chapter of Genesis, question 175, judges that it was called the tree of life for this reason: that its fruit had the power of preserving man from death for all time, and of making him immortal. This he proves first by the testimony of Scripture, which in the third chapter of this book narrates that Adam was for this reason cast out of paradise, and his access to the tree of life closed off—namely, lest, eating its fruit, he should live forever: the eating of that tree, therefore, afforded man eternal life. He confirms the same by this argument, that Adam, if he had obeyed God's precept, would never have died; for God threatened death to him as the penalty of the violated law. Wherefore Paul, to the Romans 5, affirms that through sin death entered into the world; and in the book of Wisdom, chapter 1, it is written that death was not made by God, but that it crept upon man through the envy of the devil. Therefore in the state of innocence man would not have died; and the fruit of the tree of life warded off death from man. Then, if the tree of life bestowed on man li[fe]...⁴

...[si arbor vitae tribuebat homini vi]tam sex vel decem mille annorum, etiam in omne tempus tribuere potuisset: si enim homo per decem millia annorum vitam incorruptam et ab omni malo integram, neque senescens neque aliquatenus tabescens et deficiens, ageret, profecto simili ratione in reliquum omne tempus vivere posset. Praeterea, si permansisset homo in statu innocentiae propter esum huius arboris, nulla senectutis incommoda, nullas aetatis molestias, nullos naturae defectus unquam sensisset: ergo nec fuisset unquam moriturus. Mortem enim naturalem praecedit senectus; multa quoque incommoda labentis naturae et deficientis vitae et inclinantis iam ad interitum aetatis, nuncia mortis, praecurrunt, sicut ait Paulus ad Hebraeos scribens 8: Quod antiquatur et senescit, prope interitum est. Ad hoc, si fructus illius arboris vitae reficiebat hominem, restituens eum in aequalem sanitatem, firmitatem, integritatem et vigorem ei quem ab initio habuit, idque toties praestabat quoties in cibum vel medicamentum sumebatur: nullo igitur tempore vires et vigor vitae poterant hominem deficere, nisi ab esu illius arboris abstinuisset, quod sine magno scelere facere non poterat.

...if the tree of life bestowed on man a life of six or ten thousand years, it could also have bestowed life for all time: for if man could lead, through ten thousand years, a life incorrupt and whole from all evil, neither aging nor in any way wasting and failing, then surely by a like reasoning he could live for all the remaining time. Moreover, if man had remained in the state of innocence on account of eating this tree, he would never have felt any discomforts of old age, any troubles of age, any defects of nature: therefore he would never have been going to die. For old age precedes natural death; and many discomforts of declining nature and of failing life and of an age now inclining toward destruction—heralds of death—run before it, as Paul says, writing to the Hebrews 8: What is made old and grows aged is near to destruction. To this, if the fruit of that tree of life restored man, re-establishing him in the same health, firmness, wholeness, and vigor which he had from the beginning, and afforded this as often as it was taken for food or medicine: at no time, therefore, could the strength and vigor of life fail man, unless he had abstained from eating that tree, which he could not do without great wickedness.⁵

CONFIRMAT hanc sententiam auctor quaestionum veteris et novi Testamenti, vulgo putatus Augustinus, et eo nomine citatus a S. Thoma in prima parte quaest. 97 art. 1. Is enim in quaestione 19 ita scribit: Quamdiu homo in Creatoris lege duravit, dignus fuit edere de arbore vitae...

This opinion is confirmed by the author of the Questions on the Old and New Testament, commonly thought to be Augustine, and cited under that name by Saint Thomas in the first part, question 97, article 1. For he, in question 19, writes thus: As long as man endured in the Creator's law, he was worthy to eat of the tree of life...⁶

"[As long as man endured in the Creator's law, he was worthy to eat of the tree] of life, so that he could not die; for the body was not such that it would seem impossible for it to be dissolved, but the taste of the tree of life checked the corruption of the body. Finally, even after sin he could have remained indissoluble, if only it had been permitted him to eat of the tree of life: for how did he have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? For the immortal needs neither food nor drink; for food afforded strength, but the tree of life, in the manner of a medicine, prevented all corruption. For thus it was for man like an impregnable wall." Thus he.⁷

[Quamdiu homo in Creatoris lege duravit, dignus fuit edere de arbore] vitae, ut mori non posset; nec enim corpus tale erat quod dissolvi impossibile videretur, sed gustus arboris vitae corruptionem corporis inhibebat. Denique etiam post peccatum potuit indissolubilis manere, si modo permissum esset illi edere de arbore vitae: nam quomodo immortale corpus habebat, quod cibo sustentabatur? Immortalis enim non eget cibo neque potu; cibus enim vires praestabat, vitae autem arbor, medicinae modo, corruptionem omnem prohibebat. Sic enim homini erat quasi inexpugnabilis murus. Sic ille.

Similia scribit ipse Augustinus libro 13 de Civitate Dei cap. 20 et 23, affirmans hominem, nisi peccasset, esu ligni vitae liberatum iri a necessitate moriendi et perpetuo in flore iuventutis conservatum iri. Idem videtur significare Chrysostomus homil. 18 in Genesim, et Rupertus lib. 3 de Trin. cap. 30, ubi ait quod semel sumptus ille fructus praestabat immortalitatem: quod est incredibile, quia naturale est ut calor naturalis agendo patiatur, et conficiendo alimentum eius vis hebetetur atque minuatur.

Augustine himself writes similar things in book 13 of the City of God, chapters 20 and 23, affirming that man, unless he had sinned, would by the eating of the tree of life have been freed from the necessity of dying, and would have been preserved perpetually in the bloom of youth. Chrysostom seems to signify the same, homily 18 on Genesis, and Rupert in book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 30, where he says that that fruit, taken once, afforded immortality: which is incredible, because it is natural that the natural heat, in acting, should suffer, and that in digesting the nourishment its force should be blunted and diminished.⁸

VERUM Scoti in 2 lib. Sententiarum distinct. 19 quaest. 1 longe diversa est sententia. Argumentatur illic Scotus arborem vitae non habuisse vim conservandi vitam hominis infinito tempore, sed usque ad aliquod modo definitum tempus: quo exacto, translatus fuisset homo in vitam spiritualem et omnino immortalem. Potentia enim illius arboris finita erat, ergo effectus quoque finitus, nec ad infinitum tempus efficax: poterat enim Deus aliam arborem illa praestantioris et maioris potestatis creare, quare effectus eius longioris et diuturnioris fuisset durationis. Omne item agens physicum in agendo patitur et debilitatur: quare etiam in statu innocentiae calor naturalis homini in ipsa nutritione aliisque actionibus aliquem defectum passus tandem debilitatus esset; nec fructus arboris vitae converti potuisset in nobiliorem statum quam erat manducantis ipsum, qui quidem iam erat debilitatus. In hanc sententiam inclinare videtur Beatus Thomas prima parte quaestione 97 articulo 4, et ibidem Caietanus.

But the opinion of Scotus, in the second book of the Sentences, distinction 19, question 1, is far different. There Scotus argues that the tree of life did not have the power of preserving man's life for an infinite time, but up to some time defined in a certain way: which being completed, man would have been translated into a spiritual and wholly immortal life. For the power of that tree was finite, therefore its effect too was finite, and not efficacious for an infinite time: for God could have created another tree of more excellent and greater power, whereby its effect would have been of a longer and more lasting duration. Likewise every physical agent, in acting, suffers and is weakened: wherefore even in the state of innocence the natural heat in man, having suffered some defect in nutrition itself and other actions, would at last have been weakened; nor could the fruit of the tree of life have been converted into a nobler state than that of the one eating it, who indeed was already weakened. To this opinion Blessed Thomas seems to incline, in the first part, question 97, article 4, and Cajetan there.⁹

EGO, ut opinionem Scoti probabiliorem iudicem, vel uno illo maxime ducor argumento: si arbor vitae vim habuisset conservandi hominis vitam ad infinitum tempus, fore illam vim et potentiam plane otiosam, inanem et supervacaneam, frustraque ei arbori tributam. Cum enim homo in statu innocentiae non esset vitam in terris aeternam acturus, sed constituisset Deus eum ad tempus quoddam longissimum (definitum tamen, puta ter vel quater mille annorum) in terris vivere, postea vero in statum meliorem commutatum vitam ducere omni aevo in caelis beatissimam: erat profecto rationi consentaneum ut arbor vitae potentiam haberet servandi hominem incorruptum et integrum usque ad illud tempus praescriptum; ultra vero illud tempus nec opus erat homini, et fuisset sine ullo usu atque omnino supervacuum. Deus autem et natura (inquiunt Philosophi) nihil frustra, nihil sine causa, nihil ad nullum usum et finem faciunt. Et cum corpus humanum sit intrinsece corruptibile quadru[plici]...

I, that I may judge the opinion of Scotus the more probable, am drawn most of all by that one argument: if the tree of life had had the power of preserving man's life for an infinite time, that force and power would be plainly idle, vain, and superfluous, and bestowed on that tree in vain. For since man in the state of innocence was not going to lead an eternal life on earth, but God had appointed him to live on earth for a certain very long time (definite, however—say three or four thousand years), and afterward, changed into a better state, to lead a most blessed life in the heavens for all ages: it was surely consonant with reason that the tree of life should have the power of preserving man incorrupt and whole up to that prescribed time; but beyond that time it was not needed by man, and would have been without any use and entirely superfluous. But God and nature (say the Philosophers) do nothing in vain, nothing without cause, nothing for no use and end. And since the human body is intrinsically corruptible in a four[fold]...¹⁰

...[quadru]plici nomine: quia ex materia, quia ex elementis, quia ex partibus heterogeneis contrariisque coagmentatum est, quia denique calor eius debilior fit in dies, et ex repugnantia alimenti et ex impuritate humoris alimentaris qui est pabulum eius: cum igitur ita se habeat corpus humanum, non potest fieri naturaliter ut non aliquando corrumpatur. Nec opinor ex ullo cibo vel medicina posse fieri calorem et humorem nativum ita perfectum et purum sicut est ab ortu hominis. Nec multiplicanda sunt miracula de illa arbore sine necessitate, cum secundum nostram opinionem praeclare constent omnia quae vel in Scriptura vel a Patribus de ea traduntur. Ita sentit Caietanus in prima parte quaest. 97 art. 4, et Durandus in secundo dist. 19 articulo primo.

...for a fourfold reason: because it is compounded of matter, because of [the] elements, because of heterogeneous and contrary parts, because, finally, its heat becomes weaker by the day, both from the resistance of the nourishment and from the impurity of the alimentary moisture which is its fuel: since, therefore, the human body is so disposed, it cannot naturally come about that it not at some time be corrupted. Nor do I think that from any food or medicine the native heat and moisture can be made as perfect and pure as it is from man's birth. Nor are miracles about that tree to be multiplied without necessity, since according to our opinion all the things which are handed down about it, whether in Scripture or by the Fathers, stand clearly. So holds Cajetan in the first part, question 97, article 4, and Durandus in the second [book], distinction 19, article one.¹¹

INTELLIGENDUM hoc loco est tres omnium animantium dissolutionis atque interitus esse causas. Prima causa est, quod earum corpora rebus contrariis et inter se pugnantibus constant: conflata enim et coagmentata sunt ex quatuor elementis, ex quatuor humoribus, ex partibus item non solum diversis sed etiam adversis, contrarias naturas, affectiones et vires habentibus. Cerebrum enim frigidissimum est, cor calidissimum, mollis et humida caro, os durum et siccum: contrariarum autem rerum consociatio et copulatio ad breve aliquod tempus constare potest, sed cum violenta sit, indissolubilis et sempiterna esse non potest. Altera causa est, quod calor naturalis insitus animantibus, ipsiusque animae ad omnes functiones eius naturale et generale quoddam instrumentum, cohaeret humori nativo tanquam pabulo quo pascitur et sustentatur, ipsum continenter conficiens atque consumens: qui licet per cibum et potum resarciatur, non tamen secundum eam puritatem et synceritatem quam primo habuit. Et quia omne agens physicum in agendo patitur, ipse quoque calor naturalis non agit sine passione, quo fit ut paulatim debilitetur: hinc oritur corruptio sanitatis, infirmitas virium, imbecillitas sensuum, senectutis incommoda, et malorum omnium extremum mors. Tertia causa versatur in iis quae extrinsecus homini perniciem et exitium important: in his numerari debet aër pestilens, aqua obruens et suffocans, ignis adurens, saeva et venenata animalia, inimici homines, daemones, et ut verbo dicam quicquid est ex quo potest homini extrinsecus interitus accidere.

It must be understood at this point that there are three causes of the dissolution and death of all living things. The first cause is, that their bodies consist of contrary things, warring among themselves: for they are blended and compounded of the four elements, of the four humors, and likewise of parts not only diverse but even adverse, having contrary natures, affections, and powers. For the brain is coldest, the heart hottest, the flesh soft and moist, the bone hard and dry: but the association and coupling of contrary things can hold together for some short time, but, since it is violent, cannot be indissoluble and everlasting. The second cause is, that the natural heat implanted in living things, and a kind of natural and general instrument of the soul itself for all its functions, clings to the native moisture as to the fuel by which it is fed and sustained, continually digesting and consuming it: which, although it is repaired by food and drink, is not so according to that purity and integrity which it had at first. And because every physical agent suffers in acting, the natural heat too does not act without suffering, whereby it comes about that it is gradually weakened: hence arises the corruption of health, the weakness of the powers, the feebleness of the senses, the discomforts of old age, and the last of all evils, death. The third cause is engaged in those things which bring destruction and ruin upon man from without: among these must be numbered pestilent air, water overwhelming and suffocating, burning fire, savage and venomous animals, hostile men, demons, and—to say it in a word—whatever there is by which destruction can befall man from without.¹²

CONTRA praedictas tres causas mortis, Deus hominem in statu innocentiae potentissimis remediis et validissimis praesidiis usque adeo munierat et armaverat, ut, siquidem permansisset ipse in Dei gratia, nihil mali quod ex causis illis proficisci posset ei timendum esset. Etenim contra primam causam mortis dederat Deus animae hominis vim quandam supernaturalem, qua posset anima res illas contrarias, ex quibus compositum est corpus hominis, in debita temperatione et aequabilitate omni tempore continere. De hac virtute S. Thomas quaestione 97 artic. primo primae partis ita scribit:

Against the aforesaid three causes of death, God had so fortified and armed man in the state of innocence with the most powerful remedies and the strongest defenses, that, if indeed he himself had remained in the grace of God, nothing of evil which could proceed from those causes would have to be feared by him. For against the first cause of death God had given to the soul of man a certain supernatural power, by which the soul could keep those contrary things, of which the body of man is composed, in due temperament and balance at all times. Concerning this power, Saint Thomas, in question 97, article one, of the first part, writes thus:¹³

"The body of the first man was not indissoluble by any vigor of immortality existing in it, but there was in the soul a certain power, supernaturally given by God, by which it could preserve the body from all corruption, as long as the soul itself remained subject to God: which was reasonably done. For since the rational soul exceeds the proportion of corporeal matter, it was fitting that in the beginning a power be given to it, by which it could preserve the body above the nature of corporeal matter." Thus Saint Thomas.¹⁴

Corpus primi hominis non erat indissolubile per aliquem immortalitatis vigorem in eo existentem, sed inerat animae vis quaedam supernaturaliter divinitus data, per quam poterat corpus ab omni corruptione praeservare, quandiu ipsa Deo subiecta mansisset: quod rationabiliter factum est. Quia enim anima rationalis excedit proportionem corporalis materiae, conveniens fuit ut in principio ei virtus daretur, per quam corpus conservare posset supra naturam corporalis materiae. Haec S. Thomas.

Cuius sententiae ratio haec est: nam cum anima rationalis ex se haberet vim informandi corpus in omne tempus (quippe quae suapte natura immortalis est), corpus autem humanum, quia est mortale, non sit per se capax immortalis vitae, quo esset debita et aequalis proportio inter corpus et animam, data est animae a Deo supradicta illa virtus servandi corpus ab omni corruptione.

The reason of this opinion is this: for since the rational soul of itself had the power of informing the body for all time (inasmuch as it is by its own nature immortal), but the human body, because it is mortal, is not of itself capable of immortal life, then—so that there might be a due and equal proportion between body and soul—there was given to the soul by God that aforesaid power of preserving the body from all corruption.¹⁵

VERUM de hac virtute multi, nec sine causa, valde ambigunt: videtur enim vel ipsa vel arbor vitae fuisse supervacanea, cum alterutra sola servando homini a corruptione et morte sufficiens esset. Nec facile intellectu est quemadmodum illa virtus animae posset corpus humanum sine adiumento arboris vitae ab omni corruptione semper conservare. Nos hac de re in alio libro (quem de Creatione et felici statu primorum hominum secundum hunc edemus) nostram sententiam explicabimus. Contra secundam causam mortis provisum erat homini in statu innocentiae per arborem vitae, quae praeter id quod omnium alimentorum commune est (hoc est, alere et nutrire hominem) duplicem aliam habebat vim, et utramque profecto admirandam: quippe fructus cum edebatur ab homine tantam alimenti bonitatem habebat, ut non solum repararet ac reficeret humorem naturalem, sed etiam primigeniam eius puritatem et integritatem ei restitueret; praeterque calorem ita corroborabat et confirmabat, ut non sineret eum paulatim obtundi, debilitari et languere, unde sensuum, virium, denique ipsius vitae defectus existit.

But about this power many, and not without cause, greatly doubt: for it seems that either it or the tree of life was superfluous, since either one alone would be sufficient for preserving man from corruption and death. Nor is it easy to understand how that power of the soul could preserve the human body always from all corruption without the help of the tree of life. We shall explain our opinion on this matter in another book (which we shall publish, after this one, On the Creation and Happy State of the First Men). Against the second cause of death, provision had been made for man in the state of innocence by the tree of life, which, besides that which is common to all foods (that is, to feed and nourish man), had two other powers, and both indeed wonderful: for its fruit, when it was eaten by man, had so great a goodness of nourishment that it not only repaired and restored the natural moisture, but also restored to it its original purity and integrity; and besides, it so strengthened and confirmed the heat that it did not allow it to be gradually blunted, weakened, and to languish—whence comes the failure of the senses, of the powers, and finally of life itself.¹⁶

CONTRA tertiam causam mortis quae ingruit extrinsecus, prospectum erat homini dupliciter: primo quidem per humanam providentiam (tunc enim homo excelluisset ratione et prudentia, scientiaque discernendi salutaria et convenientia sibi ab iis quae noxia erant et perniciosa, eaque praecavendi et declinandi); deinde aderat illi singularis Dei providentia et cura, Angelorum item custodia, qua quae ab illo provideri non poterant extrinsecus nocitura penitus arcebantur: nullum illi periculum imminebat ex animalibus, cum essent omnia mansueta eique subiecta; nihil a daemonibus timendum erat, adversus quos praesidio Angelorum defendebatur; non ab aliis hominibus, in nullo enim tunc voluntas nocendi aut incommodandi alteri homini fuisset. Sed de his satis.

Against the third cause of death, which assails from without, it had been provided for man in two ways: first indeed by human providence (for then man would have excelled in reason and prudence, and in the knowledge of discerning the wholesome and fitting things for himself from those that were noxious and pernicious, and of guarding against and avoiding them); then there was present to him the singular providence and care of God, and likewise the guard of the Angels, by which the harmful things from without, which could not be foreseen by him, were utterly kept off: no danger threatened him from the animals, since they were all tame and subject to him; nothing was to be feared from the demons, against whom he was defended by the protection of the Angels; nor from other men, for in no one then would there have been the will of harming or troubling another man. But enough of these things.¹⁷

ILLUD praeterea quaeri potest: si esus illius fructus vitae non ad infinitum sed ad finitum tempus servabat hominis vitam, quantum esset futurum illud tempus. Crediderim futurum fuisse minimum ad octo vel decem [millia annorum]...

This, moreover, can be asked: if the eating of that fruit of life preserved man's life not for an infinite but for a finite time, how great that time would be. I would believe it would have been at least up to eight or ten [thousand years]...¹⁸

...[octo vel decem] millia annorum: quod sic argumentari licet. Status hominis ante peccatum instructior et efficacior fuisset ad producendam hominis vitam, comparatione status hominis post peccatum ante diluvium, quam fuit hic status comparatione eius status in quo nunc est homo (quia uterque hic status est hominis peccatoris habentis corpus infirmum et mille malis obnoxium); sed in statu hominis ante diluvium vita fuit decuplo longior quam est nunc (nam fere nongentos annos excedebat): ergo in statu innocentiae vita hominis fuisset decuplo longior quam fuit ante diluvium. Sed hoc intelligi volumus quantum pertinet ad vim et efficaciam arboris vitae et vigorem naturae humanae in eo statu: nam quamdiu hominem Deus vitam in terris agere vellet, ne divinari quidem potest.

...eight or ten thousand years: which it is permitted to argue thus. The state of man before sin would have been more equipped and more effective for prolonging man's life, by comparison with the state of man after sin before the flood, than this [pre-flood] state was by comparison with that state in which man now is (because both of these states are of sinful man, having an infirm body and subject to a thousand evils); but in the state of man before the flood life was tenfold longer than it is now (for it exceeded nearly nine hundred years): therefore in the state of innocence man's life would have been tenfold longer than it was before the flood. But we wish this to be understood as far as pertains to the force and efficacy of the tree of life and the vigor of human nature in that state: for how long God would have willed man to lead his life on earth cannot even be divined.¹⁹

Translator’s notes

The third question on the tree of life: why it bears that name, and whether it really conferred immortal life on man. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Cur diceretur Arbor vitae." **Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio** (Eugubinus), in his *Cosmopoeia*, holds it was called "tree of life" not *effectively* (as if it made life immortal) but *significatively*—as a symbol of the immortality offered Adam if he kept God's law. But nearly all writers, Greek and Latin, by greatest consensus hold immortal life was the tree's real *effect*. It was called "tree of life" NOT because it gave life to the non-living (it only fed the living), NOR because it nourished life (common to all wholesome food), NOR merely because it greatly prolonged life—for ordinary herbs and trees did that before the flood. Continues onto next page (catchword "luvium"). ↩
Continuation: ordinary herbs and trees (even outside Paradise) prolonged life before the flood—since men then ate no meat, only plants, some lived beyond 900 years; and Paradise's fruits could probably have prolonged human life to ~1,500 years even without the tree of life. (This sets up the point that the tree of life's name signifies something *more* than mere longevity—true immortality.) ↩
Marginal gloss: "Tostatus putavit Arborem vitae habuisse vim faciendi hominem simpliciter immortalem." Why "tree of life" especially? **Tostatus** (Gen 13 q.175): because its fruit had power to keep man from death forever and make him immortal. Proofs: (Gen 3) Adam was expelled and barred from the tree lest he eat and live forever—so eating it gave eternal life; (argument) had Adam obeyed, he would never have died, death being the threatened penalty—whence **Rom 5** (death entered through sin) and **Wisdom 1** (death not made by God, but crept in through the devil's envy). So in innocence man would not have died, and the tree's fruit warded off death. Continues... ↩
Tostatus's argument continued: if the tree could give a life of 6,000 or 10,000 incorrupt years, it could give life forever (the same reasoning extends without limit). Had man stayed in innocence by eating it, he would never feel old age's ills or any natural defect—hence never die; for old age, with its declining ills ("heralds of death"), precedes natural death—**Heb 8[:13]: "What grows old and ages is near to destruction."** And since the fruit restored man to his original health and vigor each time taken, his strength could never fail unless he abstained from it—which he could not do without grave sin. ↩
The view is confirmed by the author of the *Questions on the Old and New Testament* (commonly ascribed to Augustine—now attributed to **Ambrosiaster**—and cited as Augustine by Aquinas, Summa I q.97 a.1). His q.19 is quoted: "As long as man endured in the Creator's law, he was worthy to eat of the tree of life..." Breaks mid-quotation (catchword "vitae"; signature R3). Resume PDF 359 with "...vitae..." continuing the Pseudo-Augustine quotation. ↩
Conclusion of the block quotation begun on p.317 from the *Questions on the Old and New Testament* (Ambrosiaster, "commonly thought Augustine"): as long as man kept the Creator's law he could not die—not because his body was intrinsically indissoluble, but because the taste of the tree of life checked bodily corruption. Even after sin he could have remained indissoluble had he been allowed to eat of it. (Objection: an immortal body needs no food. Answer: ordinary food gave strength, but the tree of life, *as a medicine*, prevented all corruption—it was for man like an "impregnable wall.") ↩
Marginal gloss: "Sententia Chrysostomi et Ruperti de arbore vitae." Augustine (City of God 13.20 & 23): had man not sinned, eating the tree of life would have freed him from the necessity of dying and kept him perpetually in youth's bloom. Chrysostom (Hom. 18 on Genesis) and Rupert (de Trinitate 3.30) seem to agree—Rupert even holding the fruit, **taken once**, conferred immortality. Pererius rejects that as incredible: it is natural that the body's heat is blunted by acting and digesting food (so the tree's effect could not be permanent from a single eating). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Scotus censuit arborem vitae habuisse vim conservandi hominem in vita ad longissimum aliquod tempus, non tamen in perpetuum." **Scotus** (Sent. 2 d.19 q.1) holds a far different view: the tree did not preserve life for *infinite* time, but only to some definite time, after which man would be translated to a spiritual, wholly immortal life. For its power was finite, hence its effect finite (God could have made a stronger tree with longer effect); and since every physical agent weakens in acting, even in innocence the natural heat would at last weaken, nor could the fruit raise the eater to a nobler state than his own already-weakened one. **Aquinas** (Summa I q.97 a.4) and **Cajetan** incline this way. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Auctor Scoti opinionem sequitur." **Pererius follows Scotus** as more probable, chiefly by one argument: if the tree preserved life for *infinite* time, that power would be idle and superfluous—for man in innocence was not to live on earth eternally, but God set him to live a very long but *definite* time (say 3,000–4,000 years), then to be changed to a better state and live blessed in heaven forever. So the tree reasonably preserved man only to that prescribed time; beyond it the power was needless—and "God and nature do nothing in vain." And since the human body is intrinsically corruptible in four ways... Continues onto next page (catchword "plici"). ↩
The human body is intrinsically corruptible in **four** ways: it is compounded (1) of matter, (2) of [the four] elements, (3) of heterogeneous and contrary parts, and (4) its heat grows daily weaker (from the resistance of food and the impurity of its alimentary moisture). So it cannot naturally avoid corrupting at some point; nor can any food or medicine make the native heat and moisture as perfect as at birth. "Miracles about that tree are not to be multiplied without need," since on Pererius's view all that Scripture and the Fathers report stands clearly. So **Cajetan** (Summa I q.97 a.4) and **Durandus** (Sent. 2 d.19 a.1). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Tres causae dissolutionis et interitus animalium." **The three causes of death of all living things:** (1) bodies of *contrary, warring* components—four elements, four humors, adverse parts (brain coldest, heart hottest, flesh soft/moist, bone hard/dry); such a violent union of contraries cannot last forever. (2) The natural heat (the soul's instrument for all its functions) feeds on the native moisture, consuming it; food only partly restores it, never to its original purity—and since every physical agent suffers in acting, the heat weakens over time, breeding loss of health, strength, and senses, old age, and finally death. (3) **External** causes: pestilent air, drowning water, burning fire, savage/venomous animals, hostile men, demons—whatever can destroy man from without. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Contra tres supradictas mortis causas, Deus in statu innocentiae efficacissima antidota comparaverat." Against the three causes of death, God so armed man in innocence with powerful remedies that, had he stayed in grace, he need fear no evil from them. **Against the FIRST cause**, God gave man's soul a *supernatural power* to keep the contrary elements of the body in due temperament and balance at all times. The Aquinas quotation (Summa I q.97 a.1) follows. Continues onto next page (catchword "Corpus"). ↩
Block quotation of Aquinas (Summa I q.97 a.1): the first man's body was not immortal by any inherent vigor, but by a *supernatural power in the soul* (given by God) preserving it from all corruption so long as the soul remained subject to God—fitting, since the rational soul (immortal) exceeds the proportion of corporeal matter, and so was given power to preserve the body above its material nature. ↩
Pererius's gloss on Aquinas's reasoning: the rational soul, being immortal, of itself can inform the body forever; but the human body, being mortal, is not of itself capable of immortal life—so, for a due proportion between body and soul, God gave the soul the power to preserve the body from all corruption. ↩
Many rightly doubt this soul-power: either it or the tree seems superfluous (either alone would suffice), and it is hard to see how the soul's power alone could preserve the body without the tree. Pererius defers his own view to a forthcoming book, *On the Creation and Happy State of the First Men.* **Against the SECOND cause** (decay of heat/moisture), the tree of life provided: besides nourishing, it had two wondrous powers—restoring the natural moisture to its *original* purity, and so strengthening the heat that it never blunted, weakened, or languished (the source of failing senses, strength, and life). ↩
**Against the THIRD (external) cause**, man was doubly provided for: (1) by *human providence*—excelling in reason and prudence to discern the wholesome from the harmful and avoid the latter; (2) by God's *singular providence* and the *guard of the Angels*, which kept off the unforeseeable external harms. No danger from animals (all tame and subject to him), none from demons (the Angels defended him), none from other men (none then had any will to harm). "But enough of these things." ↩
Marginal gloss: "Quamdiu in terris vixisset homo in statu innocentiae." A further question: if eating the fruit preserved life for a finite time, how long would that be? Pererius would believe at least 8,000 or 10,000 [years]. Continues onto next page (catchword "decem"). ↩
The argument for ~8,000–10,000 years: the pre-sin state was more apt for prolonging life (vs. the pre-flood post-sin state) than the pre-flood state was (vs. our present)—since both present and pre-flood states are of *sinful* man with a weak body. But pre-flood life was tenfold longer than now (exceeding ~900 years); so innocence's life would be tenfold longer than pre-flood (~9,000 years). This concerns only the tree's power and human nature's vigor in that state—for how long God would actually have willed man to live on earth cannot be guessed. ↩