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. [Sidenote: _Reas. 3._] [Sidenote: _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. [Sidenote: _Reas. 4._] [Sidenote: _Tom._ 3. _l._ 3. _c._ 19. _p._ 156.] [Sidenote: _Hieronym. in_ Job. _c._ 24.]