1. It is but a bare assertion without any proof at all, and he doth but only shelter it under the authority of S. Austin and Gregory, whose authority in many other matters he doth often reject when they agree not with his humour, end and interest. But however they are but testimonia humana; and we are not to regard what the Men are that do speak, so much as to consider the weight and reason of what they do speak.
Reas. 2.
2. He proceeds upon false supposition, that the sensitive appetite and consequently the Phantasie could not be wrought upon nor drawn, but by a sensible and exteriour object, when it is manifest that the sight of the Serpent alone could not have stirred the sensitive appetite; for it is rationally to be supposed as a certainty that Evah had seen the Serpent before that time. Neither could it be the discourse with the Serpent, barely considered as discourse, that could have moved it; for it is certain she had heard, and had had audible, vocal and articulate discourse with her Husband before this time of the temptation. Neither could it be the beholding of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for by the discourse it appeareth that she had before seen it, and it is probable that the tentation was in the view of it, and its species that appeared to her eye of the said tree was the same that it was before. So that it will be as most manifest that the tentation took effect from the strong lie that Satan told her, that their eyes should be opened and they should be as Gods knowing good and evil, and so her deception was first made in her mind and understanding, and thereby the will was drawn, and the sensitive appetite moved, whereupon she took of the fruit of the tree, and did eat. And this may far more reasonably be thought to be brought to pass by a mental discourse and internal motions, than by external collocution, which must first work upon the mind, before that the Phantasie or sensitive appetite could at all be moved or drawn.
Reas. 3.
Vid. Is. Piscar. in locum.
3. If the tentation had been this way that Pererius supposeth it, our first parents could not have been seduced; for Satans argument lay not to perswade Evah, that it was pleasant for the taste or good for the Stomach thereby to have drawn the sensitive appetite and the Phantasie, but that it was good and profitable to make them wise, and to be like Gods, whereby he insnared her understanding with a fallacious and lying argument, thus framed, as learned Piscator lays it down: “That thing which will bring you Divine Wisdom and Felicity, that thing ye ought to make use of. But the eating of this fruit can bring you Divine Wisdom and Felicity: Therefore the eating of the fruit of this tree, ye ought to make use of.” And so the seduction was not at all by the sensitive appetite (that could receive no more benefit by it than by the other fruits in the Garden) but by her understanding being blinded with a specious shew of an apparent (not a real) benefit, and thereby her will drawn and led to put forth her hand, and to eat. And therefore consequently there was no need at all of an extrinsecal tentation, which might and was brought to pass by an intrinsick discourse, working upon her understanding.
Reas. 4.
Tom. 3. l. 3. c. 19. p. 156.
Hieronym. in Job. c. 24.
Tom. 7. p. 187.