Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Grace of the First Man
Chapter 18: That the tree of life could have conferred perfect immortality
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Gratia Primi Hominis. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The last question remains, “of the power and efficacy of the tree of life.” For there are two judgments of the Fathers on this matter. One is St. Augustine's, whom the scholastic theologians for the most part follow: that the tree of life was instituted for warding off the death which is wont to befall from old age. For although through common foods that moisture is repaired which we received from generation, and which is assiduously consumed by the action of natural heat, yet that foreign substance which from the nourishment accrues to the pre-existing moisture is never of so great virtue as was that which has been lost; and so little by little the nourishing power is diminished, and at last utterly perishes, and, it perishing, the life of the living thing is extinguished. St. Augustine, then, will have the use of the tree of life to have been this: that it strengthened the nourishing power, and in that way defended man from old age and death. “Food was at hand,” says he, book 14 On the City of God, chapter 26, “lest he hunger; drink, lest he thirst; the tree of life, lest old age dissolve him; no disease within, no blow from without, was feared.” See the same, book 6 On Genesis, chapter 25; book 8, chapter 5; book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 3 [al. 21]; and book 13 On the City of God, chapter 20.
The other judgment is of many of the ancient Fathers, and (unless I am deceived) very conformable to holy Scripture and to reason. This judgment teaches that the tree of life had this power: that, even once tasted, it would bring perfect immortality, such as we shall have after the resurrection; and that therefore it was not to be taken before men were to be translated from the state of grace, in which they could not die [rather: could avoid dying], to the state of glory, in which they could die no more. The interlinear Gloss, on those words, “Lest perhaps he take of the tree of life,” etc., speaks thus: “The number of the elect being fulfilled, they were to taste of the tree of life, and so to pass over to the blessed state.” Rupert, book 3 on Genesis, chapter 30: “By no means, as some think, was the tree to be frequented of necessity, as a transitory medicament for prolonging life; but, this once taken, the body would live forever.” Theodoret, question 26 [al. 28] on Genesis, writes that the tree of life was placed in the midst of paradise as the prize of obedience; and the prize of obedience was not to be the strengthening of the nourishing power, but perfect immortality. St. John Chrysostom (whom Theodoret seems to have imitated), homily 18 [al. 16] on Genesis, writes that there were two trees in paradise wonderful beyond the rest: one of death, the other of life; the former as the wages of disobedience, the latter as the prize of obedience. From which it follows that, as the tree of knowledge, which was the tree of death, once tasted, brought the necessity of dying, so also the tree of life, once tasted, would bring an eternity of living. St. Irenaeus, book 3 against Heresies, chapter 37 [al. 23], writes that Adam was expelled from paradise that he might not be able to touch the tree of life — and that not so much from indignation as from mercy, lest, namely, he become wretched forever, and his evil be irreparable: “He cast him out of paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life — not grudging him the tree of life, but pitying him, that he might not continue forever a transgressor, and that the sin which surrounded him might not be immortal, and the evil endless.” The same has St. Hilary, in the commentary on Psalm 68, on those words, “they have persecuted him whom thou hast smitten”: “He had not spared that first Adam, of the slime of the earth, whom after his fault he cast out of paradise, lest, touching the tree of life, he should remain in an eternity of punishment.” The same St. Gregory Nazianzen briefly signifies in these words, oration 2 on Easter: “Thence (Adam, cast out of paradise, and separated from the tree of life) gains something — death, namely, and the cutting off of sin, that the evil might not be immortal; and the punishment becomes mercy.” See to the same purpose St. Jerome, on chapter 65 of Isaiah; St. Cyril, book 3 against Julian, about the middle; Eucherius, book 1 on Genesis; and Rupert, book 3 on Genesis, chapter 29.
Nor can it be answered to those places of the Fathers that their opinion is that Adam was cast out of paradise lest, by returning often to the tree of life, he should preserve the nourishing power, and in that way never die. For if the tree of life had had no other power than of strengthening and preserving the nourishing power, it not only would not have made men immortal after Adam's sin, but would have profited altogether little for length of life; seeing that after Adam's fall the greatest part of men are extinguished before old age by fever, plague, famine, the sword, a fall, and other innumerable chances, and most rare are they who die of old age alone. But the Fathers say that men after sin would have been plainly immortal, and perpetually wretched, and their evil endless — such as is the sin and unhappiness of the demons — if they could have touched the tree of life. The Fathers therefore held that the tree of life did not merely strengthen the nourishing power, but brought perfect immortality. Moreover, that testimony of divine Scripture vehemently favors this judgment: And he said:… lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever, etc. For that particle, “lest perhaps,” as Rupert noted, seems to compel us to understand from this place that the tree of life, even once tasted by chance, would bring perfect immortality. And what certain men say, that God spoke ironically when he said, “and live for ever,” is not probable: both because it is repugnant to the testimonies of the Fathers whom we have cited, and because the casting of Adam out of paradise, and the angel with the flaming sword set to guard the way of the tree of life, sufficiently indicate that God spoke not ironically, but properly and in earnest. And as for what others say, that that “for ever” signifies for a long time, and not in perpetuity, because the Hebrew word olam is here written without the letter vav, it ought to move us little. For that observation of St. Jerome, in the commentary on the first chapter of the epistle to the Galatians, about the words olam written defectively and fully, is true, but not constant; for these words are often confounded, as is evident from this very place. For St. Jerome writes in the place cited that olam without the letter vav signifies a space of fifty years, by which number the time of the Jubilee among the Hebrews was defined; and yet in Genesis 3, where we read, “lest perhaps he take of the tree of life, and live for ever,” that word olam stands without vav, and it is certain that a space of fifty years is not signified by it. For why could it be feared lest Adam should live fifty years by the help of the tree of life, when he lived without the tree of life above nine hundred? There is added, lastly, a reason also. For the tree of life does not seem to have been necessary to preserve men in the state of innocence, lest old age dissolve them: for if, without original righteousness, and outside paradise, amid so many straits and dangers, many lived above nine hundred years — as Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Jared, Mathusala, Noah — certainly with original righteousness, in the most healthful region of paradise, and in the highest tranquillity of body and mind, they could have lived far longer, until, namely, they were to be translated from the state of grace to the state of glory. Nor is it credible that the time of the way and of merit, which in the angels was very short, would in men have been very long. Of these two judgments I confess indeed that this latter seems to me the more probable; though the former, on account of the authority of Augustine and of many Scholastics, I do not deny to be also probable. Both, certainly, I judge can be defended without danger of error. I shall therefore solve two objections which are wont to be made against the latter judgment.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
afferre potuisse. Ultima restat quaestio, « de vi atque effi¬ cacia ligni vita;. » Duae sunt enim de hac re Patrum sententia;. Una S. Augustini, quem CAPUT XVIII. 205 Theologi Scholastici fere sequuntur, lignum vitae institutum fuisse ad arcendam mortem, quae contingere solet ex senio. Quamvis enim per communes cibos reparetur humidum illud, quod ex generatione accepimus, quod¬ que assidue per actionem caloris naturalis absumitur, tamen extranea illa substantia, qua} ex alimento acccclit praeexistenti hu- mido, numquam est tantae virtutis, quantae fuerat illa, quae deperdita est. Ita paulatim vis nutriens diminuitur, ac tandem funditus perit, et ea pereunte vita animalis extingui- tur. Vult igitur S. Augustinus eum fuisse usum ligni vitae, ut vim nutrientem robora- ' ret, et eo modo hominem a senectute, et morte defenderet : « Cibus, inquit lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 26. aderat ne esuriret, po¬ tus ne sitiret, lignum vitae ne illum senecta dissolveret ; nullus intrinsecus morbus, nul¬ lus ictus metuebatur extrinsecus ». Vide eumdem lib. vi. de Genes, cap. 25, et lib. vili, cap. 5. et lib. n. de peccator. mei'itis et re- miss. cap. 3. et lib. xm de civit. Dei, cap. 20. Altera sententia multorum est veterum Patrum, et (nisi ego fallor) valde corformis Scripturae sacra}, et rationi. Docet haec sen¬ tentia, lignum vitae eam vim habuisse, ut vel semel gustatum perfectam ad ferret immor¬ talitatem, qualem habebimus post resurre¬ ctionem, et ideo non ante sumendum fuisse, quam transferendi essent homines de statu gratiae, in quo poterant non mori, ad statum gloriae, in quo non possent amplius mori. Glossa interlinearis in illa verba : Ne forte sumat de ligno vitae, etc., sic loquitur : « Im¬ pleto electorum numero gustaturi erant de ligno vitae, et sic ad beatum statum migra¬ turi. » Rupertus lib. m. in Genes, cap. 30 : « Nequaquam, inquit, ut non ulli arbitran¬ tur, frequentandum erat necessario lignum, tamquam perpetrandae vitae transitivum me¬ dicamentum, sed semel hoc sumpto viveret corpus in aeternum. » Theodoretus quaest. 2G. in Genes, scribit, lignum vita} positum fuisse in medio paradisi tamquam praemium obedientiae. Non erat autem futurum obe- dientiae praemium corroboratio virtutis nu¬ trientis, sed perfecta immortalitas. S. Joan- nes Chrysostomus (quem imitatus videtur Theodoretus) homil. 18. in Genes, scribit, duas fuisse arbores in paradiso praeter cude¬ ras admirabiles : unam mortis, alteram vita}, priorem in stipendium iuobedientiae, poste¬ riorem in praemium obedientiae. Ex quo sequitur, ut quemadmodum arbor scientiae, quae erat arbor mortis, semel gustata, ne¬ cessitatem attulit moriendi, sic etiam arboY vitae semel gustata, aeternitatem esset alla¬ tura vivendi. S. Irenaeus lib. m. adversus haercsescap. 37. scribit, Adamum de paradiso fuisse ex¬ pulsum, ne lignum vitae attingere posset. Idquc non tam ex indignatione, quam ex misericordia, ne videlicet fieret miser in aeternum, et malum ejus esset irreparabile : « Ejecit, inquit, eum de paradiso, et a ligno vitae longe transtulit, non invidens ei lignum vitae, sed miserans ejus, ut non perseveraret semper transgressor, neque immortale esset quod circa eum, et malum interminabile. » Idem habet S. Hilarius in comment. Psal. Lxvm.in illa verba : Quem tu percussisti, per¬ secuti sunt : « Non pepercerat, inquit, primo illi de terrae limo Adae, quem de Paradiso post culpam, ne lignum vitae attingens in aeternitate poenae maneret, ejecit. » Idem his verbis breviter significat S. Gregorius Na- zianzenus orat. 2. de Pascha : « Inde (Adam de paradiso ejectus, et a ligno vita} separa¬ tus) lucratur quippiam, mortem nempe, ac peccati abscissioncm, ne malum esset im¬ mortale, fitque poena misericordia. » Vide in eamdem sententiam sanctum Hieroymum in cap. 65. Isaiae. S. Cyrillum lib. m. adver¬ sus Julianum circa medium. Eucherium lib. i. in Genes, et Rupcrtum lib. m. in Genes, cap. 29. Neque responderi potest ad ista loca Pa¬ trum, sententiam ipsorum esse, ejectum fuisse Adamum de paradiso, ne saepius re¬ currendo ad arborem vita} conservaret vir¬ tutem nutrientem, et eo modo nunquam moreretur. Nam si lignum vitae non habuis¬ set aliam vim quam roborandi, et conser¬ vandi virtutem nutrientem, non solum non fecisset post peccatum Adae homines immor¬ tales, sed parum omnino profuisset ad vitae diuturnitatem. Siquidem post lapsum Adae maxima pars hominum extinguitur ante se¬ nium febre, peste, fame, ferro, praicipitio, aliisque innumerabilibus casibus : rarissimi sunt, qui solo senio moriantur. Patres autem dicunt, homines post peccatum futuros fuisse plane immortales, et perpetuo miseros et malum eorum interminabile, quale est peccatum, et infelicitas damionum si lignum vitae attingere potuissent. Sentiebant igitur Patres lignum vita} non solam virtutem nu¬ triendi roborasse, sed perfectam immortalita¬ tem attulisse. 206 LIBER I. . Porro favet huic sententiae vehementer testimonium illud Scripturae divinae : Dixit Deus, Ne forte mittat manum suam et sumat cie ligno vitee, et vivat in seternum, etc. (1). Illa enim particula, ne forte , ut Rupertus annotavit, cogere videtur ut ex hoc loco in- telligamus lignum vitae etiam semel casu gustatum, perfectam immortalitatem allatu¬ rum. Quod vero quidam dicunt, Deum lo¬ cutum esse ironice, cum ait, et vivat in seter¬ num , non est probabile, tum quia repugnat testimoniis Patrum quos citavimus, tum quia ejectio Adae de paradiso, et Angelus cum gladio flammeo constitutus ad custo¬ diendam viam ligni vitae, satis indicant Deum non ironice, sed propie, et serio esse locutum. Quod autem alii dicunt, illud : in seternum significare in longum tempus, non autem in perpetuum, propterea quod vox hebraica D59 hoc loco scribatur sine littera 1 parum movere debet. Illa enim observatio S. Hie¬ ronymi in comment. i. cap. epist. ad Gal. de voce 0^9 et obly vera est, sed non perpe¬ tua. Saepe enim confunduntur haec vocabula ut ex hoc ipso loco perspicuum est. Scribit enim S. Hieronymus loc. cit. obj? sine lit¬ tera 1 significare spatium quinquaginta an¬ norum, quo numero definiebatur tempus Ju¬ bilaei apud Hebraeos. Et tamen Genes, m. ubi legimus ; Ne forte sumat de ligno vitse, et vi¬ vat in seternum , habetur vox illa Ob? sine T et certum est ea non significari spatium quin¬ quaginta annorum. Cur enim timeri poterat, ne viveret Adam quinquaginta annos auxi¬ lio ligni vitae, cum vixerit sine ligno vitae su¬ pra nonagentos ? Accedit postremo etiam ratio. Nam non videtur fuisse necessarium lignum vitae ut conservaret homines in statu innocentiae, ne senium eos dissolveret ; si enim absque ju¬ stitia originali, et extra paradisum inter tot angustias et pericula vixerunt multi supra nonagentos annos, ut Adam, Seth, Enos,Cai- nan, Jared, Mathusalem, Noe : certe cum originali justitia, in regione saluberrima pa¬ radisi, et in summa corporis, atque animi traquillitate longe diutius vivere potuissent, quousque videlicet transferendi essent de statu gratiae ad statum gloriae. Neque enim credibile est tempus viae, et meriti, quod in Angelis brevissimum fuit, in hominibus futurum fuisse longissimum. Ex his duabus sententiis fateor equidem hanc posteriorem mihi probabiliorem videri ; quamvispriorem propter Augustini, et Scholasticorum multo¬ rum auctoritatem non negem etiam esse pro¬ babilem. Utramque certe arbitror sine erro¬ ris periculo posse defendi. Solvam igitur duas objectiones, quae contra posteriorem sententiam fieri solent. CAPUT XIX. Solvuntur objectiones.