in the tree by some supernaturall inherent qualitie, as sun drie of the auncient fathers holde; or els the tree was a sacrament of Gods diuine grace, by which man might haue liued eternal∣ly if he had neuer sinned, as other learned writers think. Which latter opinion I preferre for the better, as which I iudge to be saint Austens; yet the former is probable, and can not easily be refeiled.
The second Section, of mans sustentation.
Meate was necessarie for mans sustentation, euen in the state of innocencie; and it should euer so haue continued, albeit man had neuer sinned: for to this end did God plant so many trees in paradise, giuing man leaue to eate thereof: neither after sinne came any newe necessitie to eate, but a speciall modification of eating was annexed thereunto: for, before sinne, man did eate without labour; but after sinne, he was appointed to eate with the sweate of his browes.
The third Section, of eating flesh.
Albeit the eating of flesh before the floud was not in vse, as not then approued for good; yet after the floud, to eate flesh was granted vnto man. Why it was then prohibited, and after the floud granted, no infallible reason can be alleaged; yet two pro∣bable coniectures may be yeelded in that behalfe: the one, be∣cause in the beginning mens bodies were stronger, and so nee∣ded lesse norishment; the other, because in those dayes, the earth brought foorth better, and more wholesome fruits.