QUESTION IV. Whether that power of the tree of life, of preserving man from corruption, was natural to it, or supernatural.¹

QUAESTIO IIII. An illa vis arboris vitae servandi hominem a corruptione fuerit ei naturalis, an supernaturalis.

"This too I add: that, although it was corporeal food, yet that tree afforded such food that the body of man might be strengthened with stable health—not as from other food, but by a certain hidden inspiration of wholesomeness. For surely, although it was ordinary bread, yet it had something more, by one cake of which God delivered a man from the want of hunger for the space of forty days. Do we doubt to believe that, through the food of some tree—for the sake of a certain higher signification—God afforded to man that his body should not be changed for the worse by infirmity or by age, or even slip into its setting [death]: He who afforded to human food itself so wonderful a state, that in earthen vessels the failing meal and oil should renew themselves, and not fail?"³

Illud quoque addo, quanquam corporalem cibum, talem tamen illam arborem praestitisse, quo corpus hominis sanitate stabili firmaretur, non sicut ex alio cibo, sed nonnulla inspiratione salubritatis occulta. Profecto enim, licet usitatus panis, aliquid tamen amplius habuit, cuius una collyride hominem Deus ab indigentia famis dierum quadraginta spatio vindicavit. An credere dubitamus, per alicuius arboris cibum, cuiusdam altioris significationis gratia, homini Deum praestitisse ne corpus eius vel infirmitate vel aetate in deterius mutaretur aut in occasum etiam laberetur: qui ipsi cibo humano praestitit tam mirabilem statum, ut in fictilibus vasculis farina et oleum deficientes reficerent, nec deficerent?

"[...which state was theirs from the tree of life which] in the midst of paradise stood together with the forbidden tree, was afforded to them by the wonderful grace of God; yet they took other foods also, besides the one tree which had been forbidden." And a little below: "They were fed by other foods which they took, lest their animal bodies feel any trouble by hungering and thirsting. But of the tree of life they tasted for this reason: lest death should anywhere creep upon them, or, worn out by old age, they should perish when the spans of time were run—the other things being as it were for nourishment, that one for a sacrament: so that the tree of life may be understood to have been in the corporeal paradise just as, in the spiritual—that is, intelligible—paradise it is the Wisdom of God, of which it is written, 'It is a tree of life to those who lay hold of it, and blessed are they who hold it.'" And further on, in chapter 23 of the same book: "Adam," he says, "was kept from the necessity of death not by that absolute and indissoluble immortality, but by the tree of life, and was retained in the bloom of youth."⁵

[...qui status eis de ligno vitae quod in me]dio paradisi cum arbore vetita simul erat, mirabili Dei gratia praestabatur; tamen et alios sumebant cibos, praeter unam arborem quae fuerat interdicta. Et paulo infra: Alebantur aliis cibis quos sumebant, ne animalia corpora molestia aliquid esuriendo ac sitiendo sentirent. De ligno autem vitae propterea gustabatur, ne mors eis undecunque subreperet, vel senectute confecti decursis temporum spatiis interirent, tanquam cetera essent alimento, illud sacramento: ut sic fuisse accipiatur lignum vitae in paradiso corporali, sicut in spirituali, hoc est intelligibili paradiso Sapientia Dei, de qua Scriptum est, Lignum vitae est his qui apprehenderint eam, et qui tenuerint eam, Beati. Et infra 23 cap. eiusdem libri: Adam, inquit, non immortalitate illa absoluta atque indissolubili, sed ligno vitae a mortis necessitate prohibebatur, atque in iuventutis flore retinebatur.

"Some," he says, "were of profit to the body, for its nutrition and sustenance, about which Moses said in general, God brought forth from the soil every tree sweet to eat. Other trees were of profit to the soul of man—of this kind was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whose fruit was forbidden to man, namely to prove his obedience: from which fruit, if, obedient to God's precepts, he had abstained, without doubt he would have attained the most sweet fruit of immortality. Of the third kind was the tree of life, to be of profit to the man himself (that is, to the compound of soul and body): namely, bestowing perpetual life on man, and making the conjunction of body and soul indissoluble. Of these two trees only does Moses make proper mention, on account of their singular and wonderful effects, for which God had placed them in the midst of paradise, near to each other: that man, beholding the tree of life, might be the more keenly incited by love of immortality to the observance of the divine law; and, seeing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, might by the fear of death, as by a kind of bridle, be held in obedience to the divine precepts. But it was called the tree of life, not on account of the effect which it itself had, but of that to which it was ordained, and which without doubt it would have had, if man had persevered in the grace of God."⁸

Quaedam, inquit, proderant corpori ad eius nutritionem et sustentationem, de quibus Moses in universum dixit, Produxit Deus ex humo omne lignum ad vescendum suave. Alia arbores proderant animae hominis, huiusmodi erat arbor scientiae boni et mali, cuius fructus interdictus est homini, scilicet ad probandam eius obedientiam: a quo fructu, si praeceptis Dei obediens abstinuisset, proculdubio dulcissimum immortalitatis fructum esset adeptus. Tertii generis fuit arbor vitae, ipsi homini (hoc est, coniuncto ex anima et corpore) profutura: quippe tribuens perpetuam homini vitam, et indissolubilem faciens corporis et animae coniunctionem. Harum duntaxat duarum arborum proprie meminit Moses, propter singulares et admirandos earum effectus, propter quos Deus eas posuerat in medio paradisi, inter se propinquas: ut aspiciens homo arborem vitae, amore immortalitatis ad observantiam divinae legis acrius incitaretur; cernens autem arborem scientiae boni et mali, mortis metu tanquam freno quodam in divinorum praeceptorum obedientia contineretur. Dicta est autem arbor vitae, non ob effectum quem ipsa habuit, sed ad quem ordinabatur, et quem sine dubio habuisset, si homo in Dei gratia perseverasset.

"Nor ought it to be a wonder that by the fruit of that tree man could be disposed for immortality: since there are many aromatics, such as myrrh and bals[am]..."¹⁰

Nec mirum esse debet, eius arboris fructu potuisse hominem disponi ad immortalitatem: cum multa sint aromata, veluti myrrha et bals[amum]...

"...myrrh and balsam, which preserve bodies incorrupt for a very long time. Therefore, just as our Sacraments do not create grace, but the Divine power assisting them, in their lawful reception, infuses grace: so the fruit of that tree did not give immortality, but the Divine power, when that fruit was eaten, bestowed immortality on man." Thus far Bonaventure.¹¹

...[myrrha] et balsamum, quae longissimo tempore corpora servant incorrupta. Ergo sicut Sacramenta nostra non creant gratiam, sed Divina virtus ipsis assistens in eorum legitima perceptione gratiam infundit: sic fructus eius arboris non dabat immortalitatem, sed Divina virtus, cum fructus ille comedebatur, immortalitatem homini largiebatur. Hactenus Bonaventura.

"The tree of life had naturally this power, that whoever ate of its fruit would be clothed with perpetual soundness, to be wearied by no infirmity, nor anxiety, nor senile weariness."¹³

Lignum vitae hanc naturaliter virtutem habebat, ut qui ex eius fructu comederet, perpetua soliditate vestiretur, nulla infirmitate vel anxietate vel senili lassitudine fatigandus.

"The tree of life had in itself a nature to perpetuate life for man, if it were fittingly eaten. For man was made both mortal and immortal: immortal indeed, because he could not die, through the sustenance of food which he needed; but mortal, because he could perish through external violence. But God had so fortified him within, by the tree of life taken as food, and without, by the divine power, that he could not die: within, [barring] the gate of negligence by human reason; without, barring the gate of violence by the divine guard—so that, unless man, abusing his reason, should open the gate of negligence, nothing harmful would ever enter to him through the gate of violence. But because he would not take care to keep the gate committed to him, God deservedly abandoned the guard of it." Thus Hugh.¹⁵

Lignum vitae habuit in se naturam ut perpetuaret homini vitam, si competenter ederetur. Factus est enim homo et mortalis et immortalis: immortalis quidem, quia poterat non mori per cibi sustentationem quo egebat; mortalis autem, quia perire poterat per extrinsecam violentiam. Sed Deus ita munierat eum intus per lignum vitae sumptum in cibum, et extra per divinam potentiam, ut posset non mori: intus, portam negligentiae per rationem humanam; extra, portam violentiae obserans per divinam custodiam, ut nisi homo ratione abutens portam negligentiae aperiret, nunquam per portam violentiae aliquid ei noxium intraret. Sed quia noluit sibi cavere ut servaret portam sibi commissam, merito Deus eius deseruit custodiam. Haec Hugo.

"...because the power of any body whatever is finite; and the greater any power is, the more durable an effect it imprints. Whence the power of the tree of life could not extend itself to this, that it should give the body a power of lasting for an infinite time, but only up to a determinate time, which being ended, either man would be translated to a spiritual life, or he would have needed to take again of the tree of life." Thus Thomas.¹⁷

...propterea quod virtus cuiuscumque corporis est finita; et quanto aliqua virtus est maior, tanto imprimit durabiliorem effectum. Unde non poterat virtus ligni vitae ad hoc se extendere, ut daret corpori virtutem durandi tempore infinito, sed tantummodo usque ad determinatum tempus, quo finito vel homo translatus esset ad spiritualem vitam, vel indiguisset iterum sumere de ligno vitae. Sic Thomas.