A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Why the tree of life was ſo called, and whether it had truly the propertie of making a man immortall.
AS it is truly ſaid of the bread of life, the Sacrament (I meane) of the Lords Supper, that it doth not concurre phyſically with any real influence vntounto the grace of God inherent in our ſoules in this life, or to the eternitie of bleſſedneſſe in the life to come, but that it is only a ſigne of the one, and a pawne and pledge of the other, to wit, of grace in this life, of an eternall poies of glory in the other: ſo many holding the tree of life to be a figure or type of the bread of life, hauehave with proportion held of them both, to wit, that neither of them were phyſicall and reall cauſes of their effects, but onelyonly morall. Hence it is that Eugubinus aboue alleaged in his Coſmopoeia thinketh that it was called the tree of life, non effectiuè quòd vitam faceret immortalem, not becauſe it did really cauſe or ſhould hauehave cauſed immortalitie in man; ſed ſignificatiue tantùm, becauſe it ſhould hauehave beene a ſigne and token only of immortalitie, if he had not tranſgreſſed the commandement of his Creator: a probable opinion certainly, or which cannot eaſily bee refuted; for although all almoſt Writers and Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church doe agree, that the effect of this fruit was immortalitie, yet in the manner how, they doe not agree. So therefore if wee agree of the thing, it is not materiall how wee hold of the manner of concourſe. As in like manner wee doubt not to ſay of the bread of life, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that certainly it containeth the cauſe of life Chriſt, but how it containeth him, who can expreſſe? This exceedeth the naturall capacitie of Angels, the other of the type alſo the reach of man. Agreeing therefore about the things, why ſhould wee ſo contend to expreſſe the manner, which in no wiſe can be expreſſed, becauſe it is not expreſſed in the booke of life, and therefore cannot be neceſſary to eternall life.
Neuertheleſſe (if I may coniecture in things ſo hidden) I deeme the contrary much more probable, to wit, that this tree of life was not onelyonly a type or token of immortalitie, but that really it was a cauſe ſufficient to hauehave produced immortalitie: my reaſon, or rather congruence (becauſe no concludent reaſon can be giuen in this point) is, becauſe it was the moſt perfect figure (as the Fathers affirme) of that moſt excellent tree, which for all eternitie is planted in the celeſtiall Paradiſe, to wit, of Chriſt, who ſaith of himſelfe,Apoc. 2. cap. Vincenti dabo edere, to him that ouercommeth (to wit himſelfe) I will giuegive to eat, what will he giuegive? himſelfe, to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradiſe of the eternall God, not carnally, as carnall men dreame, but ſpiritually in the bread of life, as hee himſelfe doth affirme of himſelfe. As therefore he who is the tree of life, or rather the author of life, or to ſpeake more properly, life it ſelfe, euen as he is in the Sacrament of life, doth heere truly in this miſerable life produce in vsus the life of grace, as a preſent pawne of our future glory: ſo it ſeemeth moſt probable that the other tree of life (as a moſt perfect figure of this) planted in the terrene Paradiſe, had the like inherent vertue, for to perpetuate, or at leaſt to prolong the liues of Adam and his poſteritie, as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradiſe.
But whether this fruit of the tree of life was ſufficient to perpetuate our life, or only to prolong it for ſome determinate time,Abulenſis ſuper Geneſ. c. 13. quaeſt. 175. Scotus li. 2. ſent. diſt. 19 quaeſt. 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7. art 4 & Caiet. ibid. many diſpute probably for both opinions.
Toſtatus vponupon the 13. chapter of Geneſis, q. 175. is moſt peremptorie for this perpetuitie; Scotus, Thomas, Caietan and Durand, for a very long time, but not for eternitie, becauſe that is the naturall meaſure of nature, this the ſupernaturall of him who is aboue all nature. Secondly, ſeeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cauſe, the effect could not bee ſupernaturall: for though effects be often inferiour to their cauſes, yet neuer the cauſes vntounto the effects; the reaſon, becauſe no cauſe can giuegive that which it hath not, neither any effect hauehave any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cauſe: wherefore if the tree of life was (as without queſtion it was) a naturall tree, as the Laurell, Cypreſſe, and other trees be, it could not hauehave as connaturall, the ſupernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man.
Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philoſophie, that omne agens phyſicum in agendo patitur & debilitatur, that eueryevery naturall cauſe doth ſuffer ſome detriment euen in and by his owne action: conſequently therefore, though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conſerued by the vertue of this excellent fruit, yet at length it ſhould hauehave failed, and thence finally mortalitie ſhould hauehave followed, as a neceſſary effect of ſo forcible a cauſe.
Laſtly, it is not likely that God, who is the author and firſt rule of nature, doth produce any thing fruſtrate in nature: ſeeing therefore the fall of man was patent vntounto him euen from all eternitie, to what end ſhould he prouide an eternall cauſe for a temporary effect?
But if this argument had any force, it ſhould force alſo our aduerſaries to the like, if not a greater inconuenience; for who doubteth but that God knew alſo the little time that man was to perſiſt in his grace? and yet neuertheleſſe he gaue him that fruit, which was ſufficient for the preſeruation of his life for many a yeere, as our aduerſaries hold, why then might hee not likewiſe for all eternitie? is it becauſe of the impoſſibilitie? at non impoſsibile Deo omne verbum, to God nothing is impoſſible, which doth not imply contradiction, but what contradiction is in this? is it, that here naturall philoſophie is contradicted? omne agens in agendo patitur & debilitatur, eueryevery agent doth decay euen by his owne action; but ſeeing the author of nature is aboue nature, why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature? or though in the compaſſe of nature, yet beyond our naturall capacitie, which is ſo ſmall, that wee ſcarcely or very imperfectly vnderſtand things of farre inferiour degree, yea ſuch as are within our ſelues: why therefore ſhall wee deny vntounto God that which we doe not vnderſtand in our ſelues? My reſolution therefore is that of Abulenſis, Propterea dictam eſſe arborem vitae, quòd fructus eius vim haberet ſeruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus, & faciendi eum immortalem, that this tree was therefore called the tree of life, becauſe it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life, and the vnion of the body and ſoule for euer, if we had not loſt the ſupernaturall grace, which was the vnion of our ſoules with God; but ſeeing wee wilfully ſeparated our ſelues from our ſupernaturall life, it was moſt iuſt that wee ſhould alſo be depriued of the naturall: hence therefore is that which Paul ſo often preacheth, mortem in mundum intraſſe propter peccatum, that death entred into the world by the doore of ſinne, which doore if we had debarred to ſinne, the grace of God ſhould hauehave beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vsus, and the tree of life ſhould hauehave cauſed the like betweene our bodies and ſoules; and this of his owne nature eternally, though de facto wee needed it but only temporally, both ſuppoſing our fall, as likewiſe not ſuppoſing any at all; for if we had not fallen or ſinned in our firſt father, wee ſhould certainly after ſome number of yeeres hauehave been tranſlated from that terrene Paradiſe, which was our firſt though temporary habitation, vntounto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen; and this ſhould hauehave heene without any aſſault of death, becauſe we had alwaies liued in God, who as hee would then hauehave preſerued vsus by his grace from the corruption of ſinne, would alſo hauehave preſerued vsus from this corruption, which was only the effect of ſinne, according to that of the Apoſtle, The wages of ſinne is death: the wager being the deuill, our ſoules are bought and ſold; ſold away for nothing (ſinne being nothing but a priuation of being) but bought againe by the death of the moſt precious of mortall liues, which in no wiſe ſhould hauehave beene neceſſary, if wee had not beene loſt, or fallen from our firſt grace and innocencie.
But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambroſia ſeemed to Ariſtotle of ſmall ground, ſo this for the like reaſon may ſeeme to bee as fabulous: for as Ariſtotle argueth againſt the former, either the Gods vſed this Ambroſia and Nectar for pleaſure only, or alſo for neceſſitie; if only for pleaſure, how then could Ambroſia and Nectar be any neceſſary cauſe of their immortalitie? againe, if for neceſſitie, certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature, and conſequently no Gods, ſeeing that, that which hath need of any thing for his preſeruation muſt neceſſarily be mortall.
After the ſame manner we may argue againſt this fruit of this tree of life, which is ſaid to be ſufficient to cauſe an eternitie of life, à parte poſt, as the Philoſophers ſpeake: for if our immortalitie was onelyonly to be from the tree of life, then queſtionleſſe without it wee had beene mortall, and ſubiect to death; contrary to that of the Apoſtle, Stipendium peccati mors, the wages of ſinne is death: for whether wee had ſinned, or perſiſted in our primatiue grace, all had beene one, wee ſhould naturally hauehave taſted of death, if wee had not eaten of the tree of life. Againe, if it was onelyonly ad melius eſſe, for a better preſeruation of our immortalitie due vntounto that eſtate, and not abſolutely neceſſary for that effect; then conſequently it was not the tree of life in the ſenſe which the Scripture inſinuateth, but an antidote onelyonly againſt death, and not a neceſſary cauſe of eternall life.
I anſwer, that though the argument of Nectar and Ambroſia doth euidently ouerthrow the deitie and immortalitie of the heathen gods, yet doth not the ſimile or compariſon any thing impeach the immortalitie and deitie of the true God, as neither the immortalitie of our firſt parents, due onelyonly vntounto them in their eſtate of innocencie, and which did principally proceed from the true and only immortall God; becauſe that immortalitie of life proceeding from the fruit of life, was to endure no longer with man then man perſeuered in the grace of God, which was giuen him as a pawne of eternall life.
Neither doth this contradict that of the Apoſtle, the wages of ſinne is death: for though death be due vntounto man euen without ſinne according to nature, yet this debt was to bee remitted by originall grace, and the naturall proneneſſe thereunto to be redreſſed by the fruit of life.
Wherefore though the immediate cauſe of our immortalitie in Paradiſe ſhould hauehave beene the tree of life, yet the primarie and principall of all, to which the other was conſequent, was originall grace, whoſe immediate effect was our ſpirituall life, and thereto ſecondarily followed the freedome from any corporall harme, or death; yea and this for euer of his owne nature, though wee had not beene tranſlated thence to a better life: for ſo it is ſaid of Adam, that therefore hee was baniſhed out of Paradiſe, and interdicted the entrance vntounto the tree of life, leſt eating of it hee ſhould liue for euer, Geneſ. 3. chap. 22. v. And the Lord God ſaid, behold, the man is become as one of vsus to know good and euill; and now leſt he put forth his hand, and take alſo of the tree of life, and eat and liue for euer, therefore the Lord God ſent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Hence I conclude with Abulenſis and others, eſum illius arboris ſufficientem habuiſſe virtutem, vt vitam homini praeſtaret aeternam: that this tree of life had ſufficient vertue to prolong a mans life for all eternitie. The which alſo is the opinion of S. Auſtine, Aug. li. 13. de …iuitate Dei, cap. 20. & 23. Chryſ. hom. …3. in Gen. Rupertus …ib. 3. de Trinitate, cap. 30.Chryſoſtome, and Rupertus lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. where hee addeth this more then other Doctors, quòd ſemel ſumptus vitam praeſtitiſſet immortalem, that this fruit of life had beene ſufficient to hauehave cauſed immortalitie of its owne nature, though it had beene but once receiued; the which though it may ſeeme improbable to humane reaſon, yet conſidering the omnipotence of God, and his infinite louelove to man in that eſtate, it cannot at leaſtway appeare impoſſible.