OT § 4

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. With this conclusion, Scripture addresses those who assert that the world always existed without a beginning, or those who believe that the world was indeed made by God, but from material not made by God, but which was coeternal with the Creator and without beginning. For it says the generations of the heavens and the earth are the very order of divine institution, by which their adornment through the works of six days reached that level of perfection which has been described above, according to what the Creator himself said in the Decalogue of His law: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them (Exodus 20:11); what follows, however: On the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew, should by no means appear contradictory to the statement of God that has been mentioned, but should be clearly understood because here Scripture put the day for all that time in which the primordial creation was formed. For neither in one of those six days was heaven made, or illuminated by the stars, and the earth separated from the waters and clothed with trees and grasses; but Scripture, according to its custom, put the day for time, in the same way the Apostle, when he says: Behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2), signifies not one specific day, but the whole time in which we labor in the present life for eternal salvation. And the prophet speaks not of one specific day, but of the multiplied time of divine grace: In that day the deaf shall hear the words of this book (Isaiah 29:18). Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how on this day God made the heaven, and the earth, and all the plants of the field, and every herb of the region, unless perhaps we would say that all creation was made simultaneously in formless matter, as it is written: He who lives forever created all things together (Ecclesiasticus 18:1), but this he surely did before any day of this age, when he created the heaven and the earth in the beginning, when even if the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss, nevertheless in the very nature of earth and of the abyss, that is, of waters, these things lay hidden as it was by seminal substance, which were not to be produced all at once by the work of the Creator from them afterwards; therefore, if we say this, the noted question reverts to the same conclusion, that we understand the appellation of the day as the signification of time, that is, when God created all these things simultaneously in the beginning: On the day, he says, that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. But if on the day he speaks of, we understand that time is designated, when before any day of this age all things were made simultaneously, the sense appears straightforward that both the grass and all the trees were made in the very substance of the earth causally before they visibly arose or sprouted from the earth. Otherwise, if we take the appellation of the day, as we more consistently judge, for the signification of the time in which this world was made and adorned through six days, we can understand because now Scripture wanted to explain more openly how it previously said that the earth brought forth green grass and bearing seed according to its kind, and the tree yielding fruit. For these things were not produced by the earth at the beginning of things as they are now, where with the presence of irrigation the earth spontaneously brings forth fruit arranged by God; but by an entirely more wondrous work of the Creator, before any fruits arose from the earth by growing, or germinated, the fields, mountains, and hills were suddenly covered with grasses and trees, having the suitable height, spreading branches, the shade of leaves, and the abundance of fruits, which they received not gradually by arising from the earth or sprouting, and advancing by the growth of increment, but suddenly by existing from it. For the following words also seem to support this meaning, where it is said:

After speaking about the Sabbath rest, and how God had blessed and sanctified this day, Scripture returns to the narrative of the initial establishment of creation, this time passing over, with only a few words, things it had already spoken of and recounting at greater length matters it had previously omitted. Thus it begins to describe the history of creation for a second time: "These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created on the day that God made heaven and earth. None of the trees of the field was yet in existence, and the vegetation had not yet sprouted, seeing that He had not yet caused rain to fall on the earth, and Adam was not there to work on the earth. A fountain went up and irrigated the surface of the earth." [ Gen. 2:4 ]

You should realize, reader, that even though the days of creation were completed and Scripture had pronounced a blessing on the Sabbath day that had been sanctified and had brought it to a close, it now reverts to narrating the very beginning of the acts of creation, even though the days of these acts had come to an end.

"These are the generations of heaven and of earth," [ Gen2:4 ] that is to say, this is the narrative of the establishment of heaven and earth "on the day that the Lord made heaven and earth, for none of the trees of the field had yet come into being, and the vegetation had not sprouted." [ Gen. 2:5 ] It is quite true that these had not been created, seeing that these were made on the third day. [ cf. Gen. 1:9-13 ] Now it was not without reason that Scripture introduced on the first day mention of things created on the third.

Understand, O hearer, that although the days of creation were finished and God had blessed the sabbath day, which was sanctified, and he had completed his account, Moses still returned to tell the story of the beginning of creation even after the days of creation had been finished. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth," that is, this is the account of the fashioning of heaven and earth on the day when the Lord made heaven and earth, for as yet "no plant of the field was in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up." Even if these things were not actually created on the first day—for they had been made on the third day—still Moses did not rashly introduce, on the first day, the report of those things that were created on the third day. For Moses said, "No plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." Because everything that has been born and will be born from the earth will be through the conjunction of water and earth, Moses undertook to show that no plant or vegetation had been created along with the earth, because the rain had not yet come down. But after the great mist rose up from the great abyss and watered the whole face of earth and after the waters had been gathered together on the third day, then the earth brought forth all the vegetation.

Notice again, I ask you, the insight of this remarkable author, or rather the teaching of the Holy Spirit. I mean, after narrating to us detail by detail all the items of creation and going through the works of the six days, the creation of human beings and the authority granted them over all visible things, now he sums them all up in the words, "This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth when they were created." It is worth enquiring at this point why it is he calls it the book of heaven and earth in view of the fact that the book contains many other things and teaches us about a greater number of matters about the virtue of good people, about God's loving kindness and the considerateness he demonstrated in regard both (99c) to the firstformed human being and to the whole human race, and about a lot of other things it would be impossible to list right now. Don't be surprised, dearly beloved; after all, it is the custom with Holy Scripture not to describe every thing to us in detail in every case but rather to begin with a summary of related items and to leave further detail to be considered by rightminded listeners as they take in what is said. So that you may learn this is the case, I will make it clear from the very verses just now read. What I refer to is this: notice Sacred Scripture taught us in detail in the preceding verses the creation of everything, but now, instead of mentioning them all, it says: "This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day God made heaven and earth," and so on. Do you see how it con fines the whole account to heaven and earth, leaving us to get from them a sweeping view of all the other things? (99d) I mean, when it said heaven and earth, it included everything together in those words, both things on earth and things in heaven. So, just as in its account of created things it doesn't mention them all one by one but gives a summary of related items and makes no further attempt to describe them to us, so too it called the whole book the book about the origins of heaven and earth, even though it contains many other things, evidently leaving us to work out from the reference to these two that all visible things are of necessity contained in this book, both those in heaven and those on earth.

I mean, when it said heaven and earth, it included everything together in those words, both things on earth and things in heaven. So just as in its account of created things it doesn't mention them all one by one but gives a summary of related items and makes no further attempt to describe them to us, so too it called the whole book the book about the origins of heaven and earth, even though it contains many other things, evidently leaving us to work out from the reference to these two that all visible things are of necessity contained in this book, both those in heaven and those on earth.

When "the earth brought forth the green herb." But concerning the production of plants, Augustine's opinion differs from that of others. For other commentators, in accordance with the surface meaning of the text, consider that the plants were produced in act in their various species on this third day; whereas Augustine (Gen. ad lit. v, 5; viii, 3) says that the earth is said to have then produced plants and trees in their causes, that is, it received then the power to produce them. He supports this view by the authority of Scripture, for it is said (Genesis 2:4-5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that . . . God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew." Therefore, the production of plants in their causes, within the earth, took place before they sprang up from the earth's surface. And this is confirmed by reason, as follows. In these first days God created all things in their origin or causes, and from this work He subsequently rested. Yet afterwards, by governing His creatures, in the work of propagation, "He worketh until now."Now the production of plants from out the earth is a work of propagation, and therefore they were not produced in act on the third day, but in their causes only. However, in accordance with other writers, it may be said that the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days, but the reproduction among them of like from like, to the government of the universe. And Scripture indicates this in the words, "before it sprung up in the earth," and "before it grew," that is, before like was produced from like; just as now happens in the natural course by the production of seed. Wherefore Scripture says pointedly (Genesis 1:11): "Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed," as indicating the production of perfection of perfect species, from which the seed of others should arise. Nor does the question where the seminal power may reside, whether in root, stem, or fruit, affect the argument.

Why after mentioning heaven and earth does this passage add "vegetation of the field and food" while remaining silent about so many other things that are in heaven and earth or even the sea, unless it wants "vegetation of the field" to be understood as an invisible created thing such as the soul? For "field" is often used figuratively in Scripture to represent the world.… Further on it adds "before they were upon the earth," which means "before the soul sinned." For once the soul was soiled with earthly desires, it was as if the soul was born on the earth, or its essence derived from the earth.

Now God also makes the vegetation of the field, but by raining upon the earth; that is, he makes souls become green again by his word. But he waters them from the clouds, that is, from the writings of the prophets and apostles.

For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. For who does not see that these things could not have been said about the first creation of the earth when it was still void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss? Was it necessary to narrate about the rain not descending upon the earth at that time, when neither it could yet receive the rain nor the air could give it, because the places of both were still completely filled with water? Nor could a mist go up from the earth to water it, so long as the whole was covered by the abyss; whence, if I am not mistaken, it remains to be understood that by the name of the day above, when it is said: On the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, etc., the time of those first six days is intimated, in which all the creation of the world was formed, where it rightly remembers that God had not rained upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, that we may understand how much the first sprouting of the earth differed from the modern. For now the earth spontaneously germinates by the irrigation of rains, and by the industry and cultivation of men many things grow in gardens and orchards and woods; but the first creation of herbs and trees was completed very differently, in which by the new command of the supreme maker, the earth, which appeared dry, was suddenly filled far and wide with various kinds of fruits without rain and without human labor; but a mist, it says, went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. From this source and its ascent to the earth we will speak, let us first see that the initial sprouting of the earth, which the aforementioned sentence recalls, was made without any watering of the waters, by God's command. The irrigation of this source, however it was, came after the earth was clothed with herbs and trees, which is proved by the very syllables of the Scripture itself, which after it said in the past tense that the Lord God created heaven and earth and every shrub of the field and every herb of the region, it immediately appended with the pluperfect tense: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, showing that before the creation of shrubs and herbs, God had not sent rain; but what was done afterward, it immediately appended with the imperfect tense saying: for a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground, signifying by the declension of the verb that this was not done once but often, since it did not say "rose" but "would rise"; while it is said that a stream would rise from the earth that would water its entire surface, it is rightfully inquired in what order it would rise; nor is there anything to prevent it from being believed that it thus ascended and returned by turns to water it, as even today the Nile annually ascends to water the plains of Egypt, just as once the Jordan watered the land of Pentapolis, about which Scripture says: "it was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord" (Genesis 13:10), and like Egypt before God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; as, according to Saint Augustine, it is said of some wonderful alternation of certain springs that they flood at fixed intervals of years so as to irrigate the entire region, which at other times provides sufficient drinking water from high wells. Why then should it be incredible, as he also says, if the whole earth was then watered from a single head of the abyss, alternating flowing and ebbing? For if, he says, the vastness of the abyss itself, excluding the part called the sea, surrounds the land with evident height and bitter waves in that only part which the land contains in concealed recesses, from where all fountains and waters distribute themselves in various tracts and veins, and burst forth in their respective places, Scripture wished to call it a fountain rather than fountains, due to the unity of nature, and through innumerable paths of caverns and crevices ascending from the earth, and everywhere watering the whole face of the earth with distributed locks, not in a continuous form like the sea or a lake, but as we see waters running through the channels of rivers and the bends of streams, and overflowing to cover nearby areas, who would not accept this unless he is troubled by a contentious spirit? Indeed, it can also be understood that the whole face of the earth was thus watered, just as it is said that a whole garment is colored with a face, even if not continuously but spotted; especially since then at the dawn of the earth many plains were likely to exist where widely bursting streams could be scattered and spread. Therefore, concerning the magnitude or multitude of this fountain, whether it had a single eruption from somewhere, or because of some unity in the hidden depths of the earth from which all waters upon the earth spring forth, it is called one fountain for all great and small fountains, rising from the earth through all its dispersions, and watering the whole face of the earth; or more likely, since it does not say a single fountain but says a fountain was rising from the earth, placing singular for the plural, that we thus understand many fountains throughout the entire earth, watering their own places or regions: just as a soldier is mentioned, and many are understood, just as the locust and the frog are mentioned in the plagues by which the Egyptians were struck, although there was an innumerable number of locusts and frogs, let us not labor further on this. When it was said that God created herbs and shrubs, without yet descending rain, nor man existing to till the ground, consequently, the creation of man is introduced and it is said: The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Here, therefore, the creation of man is described more broadly, who was indeed made on the sixth day; but there his creation was briefly mentioned, which is more fully expounded here, namely that he was made in the substance of body and soul, of which the body was formed from the dust of the ground, while the soul was created from nothing by God's inspiration; and also the woman was formed from his side while he was sleeping. In which statement, the poverty of the carnal sense is to be avoided, lest we perhaps think that God formed the body of man from the dust with corporeal hands, or breathed into the face of the formed with a mouth and lips so that he might live and have the breath of life. For even the Prophet when he says: Your hands have made me and fashioned me (Psalm 119:73), spoke this in a figurative rather than a literal sense, that is, according to the custom by which men are accustomed to work. For God is Spirit, nor is it believed by the uninstructed that His simple substance is composed of the lineaments of corporal members. Therefore, God formed man from the dust. Whom he commanded to be made from the dust by His word. He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living being, creating in him the substance of soul and spirit in which he might live. For it is rightly understood that God breathed into the face of man the breath by which he would live, just as it is understood above: God called the light day, meaning that He made it to be called day by men. Well, indeed, it is said that God breathed into man's face to make him a living being, because surely the spirit infused into him contemplates external things, as it is located in the frontal part of the brain where all the senses are distributed. For even the sense of touch, which is spread throughout the whole body, is also shown to have its way from the same frontal part of the brain, which is led backwards through the top and neck to the spinal cord. Moreover, this agrees with what was said above about man.

"On the day God made heaven and earth," the text goes on, "before any grass of the field appeared on the earth or any crop of the field sprouted, since God, you see, had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no human being to till the soil; a spring (100a) used to flow out of the ground and water the whole face of the earth." , [ Gen 2:5 ] Great is the treasure concealed in these brief words hence the need for us to unfold the meaning of the text with great sagacity, under the guidance of God's grace, and to lead you to share in this spiritual wealth. The Holy Spirit, after all, in his foreknowledge of future events wishes to prevent anyone's being able to engage in controversy later on, and in opposition to Sacred Scripture to set notions from their own reasoning against the dogmas of the Church; so now again, after teaching us the order of created things what was created first and what second and the fact that from the earth in compliance with the Lord's word and direction the earth produced plants and was stirred into pangs of fertility, without depending on the sun for assistance (how could it, after all, the sun not yet being created?) nor on the moisture from showers, nor on human labor (100b) (human beings, after all, not having been brought forth), accordingly once again he makes mention of all the items one by one so as to stop the unbridled tongue of people spoiling to make a show of their shamelessness. What in fact does he say? "On the day God made heaven and earth before any grass of the field appeared on the earth or any crop of the field sprouted. God, you see, had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no human being to till the soil; a spring used to flow out of the ground and water the whole face of the earth." He intends to convey the fact that by his word and direction things not existing previously were brought into existence, and what had not been, came into view all of a sudden. 'Crop' means what springs from the soil: when it says 'crop' it means plants of all kinds. And in teaching us about showers, again Sacred Scripture added, "God, you see, had not sent rain on the earth " that is to say, no showers had so far been sent from on high. (100c) And after this it finally shows us that there was no dependence on human labor either: "There was no human being," it says, remember, "to till the soil" [ Gen 2:5 ] as if to shout aloud and tell every one coming later: Listen to this and learn how everything springing from the earth was produced, and don't think it was all due to the care of people working the soil, nor attribute its birth pangs of fertility to them but to the word and direction given it from the beginning by the Creator. All this happens that you may learn that there was no dependence on the assistance of the other elements for the growth of its plants; instead, what was required was the direction of the Creator. What is really remarkable and surprising is that the one who now by his own word awakens the earth to germination of so many plants and demonstrates his own power surpassing human reasoning, this same earth, heavy as it is (100d) and supporting such a huge universe on its back, he rested on the waters as foundation, as the inspired author says, "He who rests the earth on the waters as foundation." [ Ps 136:6 ] What human reasoning could arrive at this design? I mean, when people build their houses and have in mind to sink foundations, they first dig a hole: if on reaching some depth they see a trace of dampness, they take every step to remove it all and only then sink the foundations. By comparison with this the Creator of all creates everything in a way contrary to humankind so that you may learn even from this his ineffable power and the fact that, when he wishes, the very elements can be seen to per form in a way contrary to their own abilities in compliance with the Creator's wishes. To make this subject clearer to you, let us make you familiar with the preceding point and then pass on to the next. You see, it is contrary to the nature of the waters to carry a heavy body in this way; and, again, it is foreign to the earth to take its position on such a foundation. Why do you marvel at this? After all, if you take it into your head to study each created thing, you will encounter the infinite power of the Creator and the fact that by his own will he governs all visible things. This, in fact, can be seen happening also in the case of fire: though it has the capacity to burn up, and it prevails over everything, consuming all material of stone, wood, iron and other bodies with ease, yet when the Creator so directed, it left untouched delicate and perishable bodies and, in fact, kept the children unharmed in the middle of the furnace. [ Dan 3 ] Don't be surprised if it left these bodies untouched and if, in fact, this irrational element demonstrated (101b) the kind of restraint that cannot be described. You see, it did not so much as harm their hair; instead, it formed a circle around them and kept them inside it; the substance of the fire, as it were, responded in obedience, and in compliance with the Lord's direction it kept those excellent children safe and sound, so that they moved about in the furnace with such ease as though strolling through a meadow or garden. And, lest anyone think that what they saw was not a fire at work, the loving Lord for that purpose did not hamper its efficacy; instead, he allowed its burning qualities to remain active, rendering his servants proof against its harmful effect but ensuring that those who thrust them in might learn the extent of the power of the Lord of all: the fire showed its force against them, burning and consuming them as they stood outside the furnace while at the same time encircling the children inside. Do you see how, whenever the Lord wishes, (101c) each of the elements changes its properties into the very opposite? The Lord, you see, is also Creator, and he governs everything according to his own will. Do you want to see this very thing happening also in the case of the waters? Well, just as in the present case the fire refrained from harming the people right inside it, on the one hand, neglecting to exercise its own power, while, on the other hand, it exercised that power in the case of those who happened to be outside it, in like manner we will see the waters drowning some but giving way be fore others so that they crossed over in safety. Remember in this connection, I ask you, Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and the people of the Hebrews, how the latter by the Lord's command and under the leadership of the great Moses crossed the Red Sea in this way as though across dry land, whereas the Egyptians with Pharaoh wanted to go the same way as the He brews, (101d) but were submerged and drowned. Thus even the elements know how to respect the Lord's servants and to keep in check their own impulse. Let us hear an account of the number of times we have betrayed our own salvation through being hot-tempered, and angry, and a prey to the other passions through our indifference, and let us imitate the great obedience of these elements, irrational though they are, while we are endowed with the gift of reason. After all, if fire, which has such capacity to burn, which is so fierce, left untouched in that fashion delicate and perishable bodies, what allowance can be made for human beings not prepared to check their own rage despite the Lord's command and eliminate resentment against their neighbor? What is even worse is the fact that fire, while having this property mean, to burn did not demonstrate this capacity, whereas the human being, a creature gentle, and rational, and mild, behaves in a manner contrary to its nature and through indifference (102a) casts itself in the mold of the wild beasts. Hence even Sacred Scripture, with these sorts of disturbing passions in mind, in many places applies the names of brutes and of wild beasts to those gifted with reason: some times it calls them dogs on account of their shameful and headstrong behavior "Dumb dogs are they," it says, remember, "unable even to bark" [ Isa 56:10 ] at other times horses on account of their unbridled appetites "They turned into rutting horses, each neighing after his neighbor's wife" [ Jer 5:8 ] at other times asses for their folly and stupidity-- "He has resembled the monsters that lack all intelligence," it says, remember, "and has become like them" [ Ps 49:13 ] --at other times lions and leopards on account of their greed and rapacity, at other times serpents because of their deceit-- "Poison of serpents," it says, "on their lips " [ Ps 140:3 ] -- whereas at other times it called them snakes and vipers on account of their venom and malice, as blessed John cried aloud in these words: "Snakes, brood of vipers, who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come?" [ Matt 3:7 ] (102b) And it adds other names appropriate to the various passions in the hope that eventually they may feel ashamed of this behavior and turn back to their true nobility, coming to terms with their true nature and giving the laws of God pride of place before their own passions to which through sloth they have given themselves up.

The earth in compliance with the Lord's word and direction produced plants and was stirred into pangs of fertility without depending on the sun for assistance (how could it, after all, the sun not yet being created?), nor on the moisture from showers, nor on human labor (human beings, after all, not having been brought forth).

The gentle face of the earth, that is, the dignity of the earth, may be correctly viewed as the mother of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, who was watered by the Holy Spirit, who is signified in the Gospel by the term water.

By means of diffusion, as of brightness out of light, of heat out of fire, of a river out of its headspring, of rain out of a full or humid cloud. In the first diffusion, equality is lacking, for brightness is not the same as light. In the second, closeness is lacking, for heat is not close to fire, since it is the principle neither of its form nor of its origin, but is merely an accident. In the third, simultaneity is lacking, for a spring diffuses itself by flowing, and not all at once. In the fourth, fullness is lacking, for not all of the rain is drawn out of a cloud, but only successive drops. Now, join these four conditions to a single diffusion, one of splendor having equality, of heat having closeness and substantiality, of a river or fountain having simultaneity, and of rain having fullness: and in this way, you will have a trace of the eternal generation.

Hence, the Son is sometimes compared to brightness: "Being the brightness of His glory," etc.; at other times, to a flame, as in Moses' bush which represented the person of the Son; or again, as a river or spring: "But a spring rose out of the earth. A river rose in Eden." Again, He is sometimes compared to rain: "For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth," etc. And, later: "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth," that is, from the Father's heart.

For it says, "The trees were not in existence and the vegetation had not yet sprouted, seeing that the Lord had not caused rain to fall on the earth. A fountain went up from the earth to irrigate the surface of the earth." [ Gen2:5,2:6 ] Since everything was and is born through the interaction of water and earth, Scripture took care to indicate that trees and vegetation were not created at the same time as the earth, seeing that rain had not yet fallen. But after the great fountain of the great primordial deep had gone up and irrigated the entire surface of the earth, then, once the waters had been gathered together on the third day, the earth gave birth to all sorts of vegetation on the very same day.

The waters over which the darkness had been spread on the first day are the same as those which issued from this fountain, covering, in a twinkling of an eye, the entire earth. This is the fountain which was opened up in the days of Noah, covering over all mountains on the earth. Now this fountain did not come up from under the earth, but from the earth, for it explicitly says "the fountain was coming up"--not from beneath the earth, but " from the earth." That these waters in the earth do not precede the earth in time is testified by the fact that the earth carries them in its womb.

So "the fountain went up from the earth," as Scripture says, "and it irrigated the surface of the entire earth." [ Gen2:6 ] The earth then produced trees, vegetation and plants. It was not the case that God was unable to generate everything from the earth in any other way, but, because it was His will that the earth should give birth through the agency of water, He provided an initial beginning for this process, corresponding to the way in which it would be carried on until the end.

Having spoken about what had been omitted and left untold on the first day, Scripture reverts to the description of Adam's fashioning as follows: "And Adam was not there to work on the earth." [ Gen. 2:5 ] Indeed he was not in existence during all the days prior to the sixth, because it was on the sixth day that he was created. [Gen. 1:26-7, 31]

Christ is that spring of which the prophet says, "It irrigates and waters the whole earth." But Christ irrigates the whole universe, both visible and invisible; with the spring of life he waters the substance of everything that exists. Yet insofar as he is life, he is Christ; insofar as he waters, he is the Holy Spirit; insofar as he is the power of vitality, he is Father and God; but the whole is one God.

The saying that man and animals have a like beginning in generation is true of the body; for all animals alike are made of earth. But it is not true of the soul. For the souls of brutes are produced by some power of the body; whereas the human soul is produced by God. To signify this it is written as to other animals: "Let the earth bring forth the living soul" (Genesis 1:24): while of man it is written (Genesis 2:7) that "He breathed into his face the breath of life." And so in Ecclesiastes 12:7 it is concluded: "(Before) the dust return into its earth from whence it was; and the spirit return to God Who gave it." Again the process of life is alike as to the body, concerning which it is written (Ecclesiastes 3:19): "All things breathe alike," and (Wisdom 2:2), "The breath in our nostrils is smoke." But the process is not alike of the soul; for man is intelligent, whereas animals are not. Hence it is false to say: "Man has nothing more than beasts." Thus death comes to both alike as to the body, by not as to the soul.

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [Genesis 2:7] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Therefore the soul is not blood, because blood is of the flesh; nor is the soul a harmony, because harmony of this sort is also of the flesh; neither is the soul air, because blown breath is one thing and the soul something else. The soul is not fire, nor is the soul actuality, but the soul is living, for Adam "became a living soul," since the soul rules and gives life to the body, which is without life or feeling.

First of all, the fact that God formed man from the mud of the earth usually raises a question about the sort of mud it was or the kind of material the term mud signifies. Those enemies of the Old Book [the Manichaeans], looking at everything in a carnal manner and therefore always being in error, bitingly find fault with this point as well, namely, that God formed man from the mud of the earth. For they say, "Why did God make man from mud? Did he lack a better and heavenly material from which he could make man, that he formed him fragile and mortal from this earthly corruption?" To begin with, they do not understand how many meanings either earth or water has in the Scriptures, for mud is a mixture of earth and water. Also we say that the human body began to waste away and to be fragile and mortal after sin. But the Manicheans abhor in our body only the mortality that we merited as punishment. But even if God made man from the mud of this earth, still what is there that is strange or difficult for God in making the human body such that it would not be subject to corruption if, in obedience to God's commandment, he had not willed to sin? For we say that the beauty of heaven was made from nothing or from formless matter, because we believe that the Maker is almighty. Why is it strange that the almighty Maker could make the body from some sort of mud of the earth so that before sin it afflicted man with no trouble or need and wasted away from no corruption?

Scripture says, "And he breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul." If up to this point there was only the body, we should understand that the soul was at this point joined to the body. Perhaps the soul had been already made but was still as if in the mouth of God, that is, in his truth and wisdom. But it did not depart from there as if separated by places, when it was breathed forth. For God is not contained by place but is present everywhere.

We ought to understand this passage so that we do not take the words "he breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul" to mean that a part, as it were, of the nature of God was turned into the soul of man.… The nature of God is not mutable, does not err and is not corrupted by the stains of vices and sins.… Scripture clearly says that the soul was made by the almighty God and that it is therefore not a part of God or the nature of God.

After his resurrection, when he first appeared to his disciples, he said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." About this giving, then, it was said, "The Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified." "And he breathed upon their face." The One who first gave life to man by breathing and raised him up from the mire and by breathing gave a soul to his members is the same One who breathed upon their face that they might rise up from the slime and renounce filthy works.

"And he breathed into his nostrils," that is to say, he placed in man some share of his own grace, in order that he might recognize likeness through likeness. Nevertheless, being in such great honor because he was created in the image of the Creator, he is honored above the heavens, above the sun, above the choirs of stars. For which of the heavenly bodies was said to be an image of the most high God?

In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them. For what is said to be in the image of God is understood correctly only in the soul; what is added as male and female is understood correctly only in the body. Therefore, those who think that the soul is a part of God should not be listened to, as if the soul of man were a part of God, and could neither be taken away by itself nor by anyone, nor be compelled by any necessity to do or suffer anything evil, nor be changed at all for better or worse. But that breath of God, which animated man, was made by Him, not from Him, just as neither is man's breath a part of man, nor does man make it from himself, but it is taken and emitted from the aerial vapor. But God was able to make from nothing, and He could make it living and rational, which man cannot do; although some think that the first man was not animated when God breathed into his face, and he became a living soul, but that he received the Holy Spirit at that time. However credible any of these hypotheses may be shown to be, we should not doubt that the soul is not a part of God, nor that it was created or issued from His substance, but that it was made from nothing.

The body of the first man was so fashioned and from the slime of the earth formed, that nevertheless it was subject to the soul and in its own way proportionate, proportionate, I say, with respect to an equal temperament, with respect to a most beautiful and manifold organization, and with respect to uprightness of stature. In order that the power of God might be manifested in man, He made him from natures most greatly distant, conjoined into one person and nature — such as are the body and the soul, of which one is a corporeal substance, while the other, namely the soul, is a spiritual and incorporeal substance, which in the genus of substance are most greatly distant. In order that the wisdom of God might be manifested therein, He made such a body that it would have proportion in its own way to the soul. In order that it might be conformed to the vivifying soul, it had an equal temperament, not from weight or mass, but from the equality of natural justice, which disposes toward the most noble mode of life. In order that it might be conformed to the soul as moving through the manifold variety of powers, it had a manifold variety of organs with the highest beauty and artfulness and flexibility; as is evident in the face and in the hand, which is the "instrument of instruments." In order that it might be conformed to the soul as tending upward toward heaven, it had uprightness of stature and the head raised upward, so that bodily uprightness might bear witness to mental uprightness.

So that the goodness and benevolence of God might be manifested in man, He made man without any stain or fault and without any punishment or misery. For since the First Principle is at once most good and most just; because most good, He ought not to have made man other than good, and thereby innocent and upright; because most just, He ought not to have inflicted punishment on one who had absolutely no sin: and thereby He constituted for that rational soul such a body as would be so obedient to it that there would be in it no struggle of rebellion, no proneness to concupiscence, no diminution of vigor, no corruption of death: so also it would be so conformed to the soul that, just as the soul was innocent and yet could fall into fault, so the body would be impassible and yet could fall into punishment; and therefore it was able not to die, and it was able to die; it was able to have sufficiency, and it was able to have want; it was able to obey the soul, and it was also able to have rebellion and struggle against it.

In the New Testament, after the universal scripture and the course of time, Christ was formed, as was man on the sixth day, that He may "have dominion over the fish of the sea," and "the birds of the air." As the Psalm says, "what is man that You should be mindful of him, or the son of man that You should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yes, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fishes of the sea," etc. And in order that it be understood of Christ, the Apostle says: "You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor." And there follows: "But we do see Him who was made 'a little lower than the angels,' namely, Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of His having suffered death." Man was created out of a virgin soil that had never received blood, which signifies Christ born of the Virgin; and as Eve was formed out of Adam's side, so also the Church, out of the side of Christ. But since Christ never sinned, how can Adam's transgression correspond to Him? There must be transference from the head to the body.

We read in Genesis 2:7 that God formed man of the dust and breathed life into him. For all the first writer knew of it, this passage might merely illustrate the survival, even in a truly creational story, of the Pagan inability to conceive true Creation, the savage, pictorial tendency to imagine God making things 'out of' something as the potter or the carpenter does. Nevertheless, whether by lucky accident or (as I think) by God's guidance, it embodies a profound principle. For on any view man is in one sense clearly made 'out of' something else. He is an animal; but an animal called to be, or raised to be, or (if you like) doomed to be, something more than an animal. On the ordinary biological view (what difficulties I have about evolution are not religious) one of the primates is changed so that he becomes man; but he remains still a primate and an animal. He is taken up into a new life without relinquishing the old. In the same way, all organic life takes up and uses processes merely chemical. But we can trace the principle higher as well as lower. For we are taught that the Incarnation itself proceeded 'not by the conversion of the god-head into flesh, but by taking of (the) manhood into God'; in it human life becomes the vehicle of Divine life. If the Scriptures proceed not by conversion of God's word into a literature but by taking up of a literature to be the vehicle of God's word, this is not anomalous.

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated... Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say "I" and "me", which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgements of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism, flooding every part of it with light, and was not, like ours, limited to a selection of the movements going on in one part of the organism, namely the brain.

Even the most extreme evolutionists do not attempt to deduce any evolutionary views about the origin of religion from him. Even in trying to prove that religion grew slowly from rude or irrational sources, they begin their proof with the first men who were men. But their own proof only proves that the men who were already men were already mystics. They used the rude and irrational elements as only men and mystics can use them. We come back once more to the simple truth; that at some time too early for these critics to trace, a transition had occurred to which bones and stones cannot in their nature bear witness; and man became a living soul.

It is little use to compare the head of the man with the head of the monkey, if it certainly has never come into the head of the monkey to bury another monkey with nuts in his grave to help him towards a heavenly monkey-house.

The soul is the breath of God, a substance of heaven mixed with the lowest earth, a light entombed in a cave, yet wholly divine and unquenchable.… He spoke, and taking some of the newly minted earth his immortal hands made an image into which he imparted some of his own life. He sent his spirit, a beam from the invisible divinity.

God made the inner person; he molded the outer. "Molding" is suitable for clay, but "making" is [fitting] for an image. So on the one hand, he "molded" flesh, but on the other, he "made" the soul.

"God took of the dust of the earth and fashioned man." In this world I have discovered the two affirmations that man is nothing and that man is great. If you consider nature alone, he is nothing and has no value; but if you regard the honor with which he has been treated, man is something great.

Others, on the contrary, marking the order of the making of man as stated by Moses, say that the soul is second to the body in order of time, since God first took dust from the earth and formed man, and then animated the being thus formed by his breath. By this argument they prove that the flesh is more noble than the soul, that which was previously formed [more noble] than that which was afterward infused into it.… Nor again are we in our doctrine to begin by making up man like a clay figure and to say that the soul came into being for the sake of this, for surely in that case the intellectual nature would be shown to be less precious than the clay figure. But as man is one, the being consisting of soul and body, we are to suppose that the beginning of his existence is one, common to both aspects, so that he should not be found to be antecedent and posterior to himself, as if the bodily element were first in point of time and the other were a later addition.

Above, the text says that God created; here it says how God created. If the verse had simply said that God created, you could have believed that he created [humanity] as he did for the beasts, for the wild animals, for the plants for the grass. This is why, to avoid your placing him in the class of wild animals, the divine word has made known the particular art which God has used for you: "God took of the dust of the earth."

"And God formed man of the dust of the ground." And what does this import? Are we to say, according to the opinion of some, that there were three men made, one spiritual, one animal, and one earthy? Not such is the case, but the whole narrative is of one man. For the word, "Let us make," is about the man that was to be; and then comes the word, "God made man of the dust of the ground," so that I he narrative is of one and the same man. For then He says, "Let him be made," and now He "makes him," and the narrative tells "how" He makes him.

But I don't know how I strayed from the thread of the sermon on to these matters. Come now, let us return at this late stage to the preceding point, and let us see what else this blessed author wants to teach us today. You see, after saying, "This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth," he presses on and describes further for us with great detail the creation of the human being. Since he had briefly said above, "God made the human being; in God's image he made them," [ Gen 1:26 ] he now says, "God shaped the human being from the dust of the earth, (102c) and breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive." [ Gen 2:7 ] A mighty saying, giving rise to great wonderment, and beyond the limits of human under standing: "God shaped the human being," it says, "taking dust from the earth." Just as in the case of all the visible creatures I kept saying that the Creator of all performs everything in a manner contrary to human nature so as to demonstrate his ineffable power through this as well, so too in the case of the formation of the human being we will find this taking place. I mean, notice how he rested the earth on the waters, some thing human reasoning does not without faith succeed in accepting, and that whenever he wishes he succeeds in converting the properties of all things to their opposite, as we have shown. Well, this very same thing Sacred Scripture now reveals to us happening in the case of the formation of the human being as well: "God shaped (102d) the human being," it says, "taking dust from the earth." What is that you say? Taking dust from the earth he shaped the human being? Yes, it says; it did not simply say 'earth' but 'dust,' something more lowly and substantial even than earth, so to say. You think the saying amazing and incredible; but if you recall who is the creator in this case, you will no longer withhold faith in the event but marvel at the Creator's power and bow your knee to it. If, on the other hand, you chanced to put your mind to these matters in light of the limitations of your powers of reason, you would likely get this strange idea into your head, namely, that a body could never be made from earth a brick or a pot, yes, but never could such a body be made. Do you see that unless we take into account the Creator's power and suppress our own reasoning which betrays such limitations, we will be unable to accept the sublimity of the message? After all, the words require the eyes of faith, spoken as they are (103a) with such great considerateness and with our limitations in mind. You see, that very remark, "God shaped the human being, and breathed," is properly inapplicable to God; yet because of us and our limitations Sacred Scripture expresses it in that way, showing considerateness to us, so that, having been thought worthy of the considerateness, we might be enabled to arrive at that sublime level of thought.' "God shaped the human being," it says, "taking dust from the earth." Finally, from these words spring no little instruction in humility, as long as we are prepared to be alert to it. I mean, whenever we consider where our nature derived the beginning of its subsistence, even if we put our brains to it thousands of times, we are humbled and chastened, and in our efforts to plumb our being we learn to respect proper limits. For this reason, God, caring for our salvation, thus directed the tongue of the sacred writer for our instruction. (103b) You see, when Sacred Scripture said in its previous statement, "God made the human being; in God's image he made them," [ Gen 1:26 ] he gave him complete control of visible things lest out of ignorance of the composition of his own being he might conjure up inflated notions of his own importance and transgress the limits proper to him. Hence, when Scripture comes back to the point it teaches us also the manner of our composition and the beginning of our creation, and whence the first human being was produced and how it was produced. After all, into what depths of madness would we not have tumbled if, despite this teaching and despite the knowledge that the human being takes the beginning of its composition from the earth as do the plants and the irrational beings (though its formation and the bodiless being of the soul has given it a marked superiority, thanks to God's loving kindness, (103c) this constituting after all the basis of its rationality and its endowment with control over all creation), if then with this knowledge this creature shaped from the earth had conjured up the notion of its equality with God owing to the serpent's deceit, and if the blessed author had been content with his first account and had not repeated himself in teaching us everything with precision,16 into what depths of madness would we not have tumbled? The result is that we gain the greatest possible degree of instruction in philosophy from learning whence we derive the composition of our being from the very outset. "God shaped the human being," the text says, "taking dust from the earth, and breathed into him a breath of life." Since it was explaining to human beings who were unable to understand in any way other than we ourselves can understand, it employs this kind of concreteness of expression,'' and intends also to teach us that the Lord's loving kindness intended that this creature shaped from the earth (103d) should have also a rational being by reason of a soul, by means of which this living thing emerged complete and perfect. "He breathed into him a breath of life," the text says; the creature shaped from the earth, it means, was endowed with this breath as a vital force, and this became the origin of the soul's being. At any rate, the text added: "The human being became alive." That shaped thing, that creature from the dust, received the breathing of the breath of life, and "it became alive." the text says. What is the meaning of "became alive"? Enjoying vital force, having limbs to its body that respond to this vital force and obey its will. But I have no idea how we upset that arrangement, and how such an onset of evil occurred as to oblige it to follow the bidding of the flesh, (104a) so that what should in the manner of a queen have presided and exercised rule we have unseated from her throne and forced to obey the pleasures of the flesh, ignorant as we are of its nobility and the degree of pre eminence it has the good fortune to be accorded. I mean, think of the order of its formation, I ask you, and consider what this shaped thing was before the Lord's breathing which meant a breath of life for it and resulted in its becoming alive. Simply a lifeless shell, without vital force, and useful for nothing, so that its total makeup and its succession to such great esteem all stems from that action of breathing made upon it by God. Lest you think this happened from things al ready created at that time instead of from something that happens each day at the present time, consider, I ask you, how after the departure of the soul this body appears odious and unpleasant? (104b) How repulsive, how much reeking with stench, how marked by complete deformity this creature that previously when it had the soul to conduct it was bright, graceful, marked by beauty of form, abounding with intelligence, enjoying great aptitude for the performance of good deeds. So, with this in mind, and realizing the nobility of our soul, let us be guilty of no behavior unworthy of it nor defile it with unfitting actions, subjecting it to the thrall of the flesh and showing so little appreciation and regard for what is so noble and endowed with such preeminence. After all, because of the soul's being, we who are intertwined with a body can, if we wish (104c) and under the influence of God's grace, strive against disembodied powers, can walk on earth as though coursing across heaven, and pass our lives in this manner, suffering no inferiority. How that can be, I will tell you. You see, when people prove, despite entanglement with a mortal body, to live the same life as those supernal powers, how will they not be deemed worthy of grace from God for keeping untarnished the soul's nobility, though subject to the body's necessities. Who could possibly prove, someone says, to be of such character? Quite likely this thing is thought unlikely by us be cause of the extreme paucity of our virtue. But if you are pre pared to learn that this is not out of the question, consider, I ask you, those who have been pleasing to the Lord from the beginning up to the present time (104d) the mighty John, son of infertility, citizen of the desert; Paul, the world's teacher; and the whole series of saints, who happened to have the same nature as ourselves, subject to the same necessities of the body and no longer consider the thing to be impossible, nor be apathetic where virtue is concerned, but accept such opportunities as the Lord leaves for laying hold of virtue with ease. Our loving Lord, you see, knowing the weakness of our purpose and our tendency to fall, has left us great remedies in the reading of the Scriptures so that we might constantly apply them to ourselves and recall the lives of those great and wonderful men. Thus we may be led to imitation and not neglect virtue, but (105a) rather avoid evil and do everything so as not to prove ourselves unworthy of those unspeakably good people. May this be the good fortune of all of us, thanks to the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power and honor, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.

It was pleasing to God's love of humanity to make this thing created out of earth a participant of the rational nature of the soul, through which this living creature was manifest as excellent and perfect. "And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," that is, the inbreathing communicated to the one created out of earth the power of life, and thus the nature of the soul was formed. Therefore Moses added "And man became a living soul"; that which was created out of dust, having received the inbreathing, the breath of life, "became a living soul." What does "a living soul" mean? An active soul, which has the members of the body as the implements of its activities, submissive to its will.

Thus when you hear that God "breathed into his face the breath of life," understand that just as he brought forth the bodiless powers, so also he was pleased that the body of man, created out of dust, should have a rational soul which could make use of the bodily members.

From the earth he formed his body and by his own inbreathing gave him a rational and understanding soul, which we say is the divine image.… The body and the soul were formed at the same time—not one before and the other afterward, as the ravings of Origen would have it.

The soul has its origin in the breath of God and did not come from matter. We base that statement on the clear assertion of divine revelation, which declares that "God breathed the breath of life into the face of man, and man became a living soul."

Thus you read the word of God, spoken to Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." If God forms us in the womb, he also breathes on us as he did in the beginning: "And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life." Nor could God have known man in the womb unless he were a whole man.

When we hear Moses' writings describe how God took dust from the earth with his hands in order to make man, we try to understand what such language might mean. It means this: the whole of God had a special interest in the creation of the human nature. The great prophet proclaims this very thing, since everything else in creation was made by spoken command. Man, however, was made by God's "hands." … Just like an embryo is planted in the mother's womb and develops from the material which has surrounded it from the beginning, so also God wanted to take the material for the human body from the earth. Thus, clay became flesh and blood, and skin, and nerves, and veins, and arteries, and the brain, and bone marrow and supporting bones, and so on.

Nevertheless, we can find out who was the Creator of this Paradise. We read in Genesis that 'God planted a garden to the east and he put there the man he had formed.' [ Gen 2:8 ] Who had the power to create Paradise, if not almighty God, who 'spoke and they were made' [ Ps 32:9 ] and who was never in want of the thing which He wished to bring into being? He planted, therefore, that Paradise of which He says in His wisdom: 'Every plant which my Father has not planted will be rooted up.' [ Matt.15:13 ] This is a goodly plantation for angels and saints. The saints are said to lie beneath the fig tree and the vine. [ Mich 6:6 ] In this respect they are the type of the angels [ Mark 12:25 ] in that time of peace which is to come. Hence, Paradise has many trees that are fruit-bearing, with plenty of sap, and vigor. Of these it is said: 'All the trees of the woods shall rejoice.' [ Ps 95:12 ] The woods flourish ever with the green shoots of merit, just like that 'tree which is planted near the running waters, whose leaf shall not fall off,' [ Ps 1:3 ] because its fruit is plenteous. Here, then, is Paradise. The place where it is planted is called delight; wherefore holy David says: 'Thou shalt not make them drink of the torrent of thy pleasure,' [ Ps 35:9 ] for you have read that 'a river rose in Eden watering the garden.' [ Gen 2:10 ] These woods, therefore, which were planted in Paradise are watered by the outpouring of the waters of that spirit concerning which He says elsewhere: 'The stream of the river maketh the city of God joyful.' [ Ps 45:5 ] Here is that city of Jerusalem which above is free, [ Gal 4:26 ] in which the different merits of the saints come to fruition. In this garden, therefore, God put the man He had formed. Take note that He placed man there not in respect to the image of God, but in respect to the body of man. The incorporeal does not exist in a place. He placed man in Paradise, just as He placed the sun in heaven, awaiting lordship over the heavens, just as the creature expects the revelation of the sons of God. [ Rom 8:9 ] Hence, if Paradise is a place where shrubs have opportunity to blossom, then Paradise has a certain vital force which receives and multiplies seeds in which each and every virtue is planted, and where flourishes the tree of life which is called Wisdom. Of this, Solomon says that Wisdom arose not of the earth but of the Father: 'For she is the brightness of eternal light' and 'the emanation of the glory of the almighty God.' [ Wisd 7:25-26 ]

If paradise, then, is of such a nature that Paul alone, or one like Paul, could scarcely see it while alive and still was unable to remember whether he saw it in the body or out of the body, and moreover heard words that he was forbidden to reveal—if this be true, how will it be possible for us to declare the position of paradise which we have not been able to see and, even if we had succeeded in seeing it, we would be forbidden to share with others? And again, since Paul shrank from exalting himself by reason of the sublimity of the revelation, how much more ought we to strive not to be too anxious to disclose that which leads to danger by its very revelation! The subject of paradise should not, therefore, be treated lightly.

In the Scriptures some things are related in such a way that they seem to be following the order of time or occurring in chronological succession, when actually the narrative, without mentioning it, refers to previous events that had been left unmentioned. Unless we understand this distinction, we shall fall into error. For example, we find in Genesis: "And the Lord God planted a paradise of pleasure in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." This last mentioned event would seem to have occurred after God had made man and placed him in paradise. After both of these facts have been mentioned briefly (that is, that God planted a paradise and there "placed man whom he had formed"), the narrative turns back by means of recapitulation and relates what had been planted and that "God brought forth out of the ground all manner of trees fair to behold and pleasant to eat of."

For this reason we all look to the east in our prayers, but few know that this is because we are seeking the ancient fatherland, which God planted in Eden, toward the east.

Now the Lord God had planted a garden of pleasure from the beginning, in which He placed the man whom He had formed. Surely, it is to be believed that God planted the garden from that very beginning, from which He commanded all the earth, after removing the waters that covered it, to produce herbs and fruit-bearing trees, in which He placed man on the sixth day, on which He had also formed him. Nor should there be any doubt that the garden in which the first man was placed, although it holds the type either of the present Church or of the future homeland, nevertheless must be understood according to the literal meaning, to be sure, a most pleasant place, shaded by fruitful groves, and also large, and fruitful with a great spring. However, because our edition, which is translated from the Hebrew truth, has "from the beginning," while in the ancient translation it is put "towards the East," some wish that the location of the garden is in the eastern part of the world, although separated by a great distance, either by the Ocean or by lands, from all the regions now inhabited by the human race. Therefore, not even the waters of the flood, which most deeply covered the entire surface of our world, could reach it. But whether it is there or elsewhere, God knows, we are only permitted to doubt that this place was and is earthly. Finally, with the following words, Scripture more fully explains how God planted it, saying:

It should be noted that as a fruit delights both sight and taste, it delights the sense of sight mostly by its excellence and beauty, but the sense of taste, by its sweetness and flavor. Likewise, these theories sustain the intellect by their beauty, and the affective dispositions by their sweetness. This is what Scripture suggests when it says: The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the east, and He put there the man He had formed, etc. This is said as a recapitulation on the seventh day, since the planting was done on the third day.

There follows: The Lord God made to grow out of the ground all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that it would sustain the intellect by its beauty and the affective dispositions by its sweetness. But consummation was to come about in the tree of life, provided caution was exercised in regard to the tree of knowledge. The soil, therefore, is Scripture which brings forth all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight, as regards the intellect, and good for food as regards the affective dispositions, that is, the manifold theories both delighting and sustaining. In the heavenly paradise, there is no planting, except of eternal reasons, and although there is sustainment in the fact of the predestination of all the saints, I will rejoice rather over my own. And this is what the Lord suggests: "Rejoice rather in this, that your names are written in heaven." Paul could speak of the heavenly paradise, because he was caught up to the third heaven. We do not know, but we speak of the earthly paradise.

So on the sixth day "the Lord fashioned dust from the ground into Adam, and He breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and Adam became a living being." [ Gen2:7,2:8,2:9 ] Although animals, cattle and birds came into being at the same moment that they received life, in Adam's case God honored him in a variety of ways: first, because it is said that God "fashioned him with His hands and He breathed a soul into him" [ Gen2:7 ] ; He also gave him authority over Paradise and what is outside Paradise; and He wrapped him in glory and gave him reason, thought and an awareness of the Majesty.

Having spoken of the honored way in which Adam was fashioned, Scripture turns to describe Paradise and Adam's introduction into it: "And the Lord planted Paradise in Eden of old, and He placed there Adam whom He had fashioned. " [ 2:8 ]

Eden is the land of paradise, and God had already planted it on the third day. Moses explains this by saying, "The Lord caused every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food to sprout forth from the earth." And to show that he was talking about paradise, he added, "And the tree of life was in the midst of paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Now these things we are under the necessity of setting forth at length, in order to disprove the supposition of others. For some choose to maintain that paradise is in heaven, and forms no part of the system of creation. But since we see with our eyes the rivers that go forth from it which are open, indeed, even in our day, to the inspection of any who choose, let every one conclude from this that it did not belong to heaven, but was in reality planted in the created system. And, in truth, it is a locality in the east, and a place select.

(Verse 8.) And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east. Instead of paradise, in Hebrew it has the word 'hortum' which means garden. And Eden is translated as 'deliciae'. Symmachus translated it as a flourishing paradise. Also, what follows, 'in the east', in Hebrew it is written as 'Mecedem', which Aquila translated as 'ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς', and we can say 'from the beginning'. Symmachus, however, uses 'ἐκ πρώτης', and Theodotion uses 'ἐν πρώτοις', which also signifies not the east, but the beginning. From this it is most clearly shown that before God made heaven and earth, He had already established paradise, as it is read in Hebrew: But the Lord God had planted a paradise in Eden from the beginning.

I SEE YOUR INSATIABLE interest, your great enthusiasm and eager attention, and the way you are all coming to spiritual teaching expectant and impatient. On the other hand, I am conscious of my own great inadequacy. Still, I am anxious to lay before you this mean and pal try table frequently, and in fact daily, trusting that you will readily receive what is said, stimulated as you are with your own enthusiasm. One can see this happening in the case of material nourishment: whenever guests come to dinner with a keen appetite, they eat with great relish whatever is placed before them, no matter if the meal happens to be paltry and the? host ungenerous whereas when the diners have indifferent appetite, no matter if the meal is sumptuous and the menu varied, it is wasted on them since they can't do justice to the good things provided. Here today, however, your enthusiasm has in fact been enlivened through God's grace and the repast is a spiritual one; so we, too, are enthusiastic in speaking to you, knowing that we bring these divine teachings to attentive listeners. The farmer is like this, too: he gives the soil all the attention he is capable of digging the furrows, hauling the plough, rooting out thorns so when he finds the pasture rich and fertile, he sows the seed lavishly; buoyed up already with high hopes he counts the days to the sprouting of the crop, recalling the productivity of the land and expecting a harvest far in excess of the sowing. That is the way we behave, too: we see your enthusiasm increasing day by day, your interest blossoming, and your zeal bearing fruit. We have high hopes of you, and with greater enthusiasm and zeal ourselves we strive as far as we are able to contribute to the building up of your love, to God's glory and the pride of God's church. (105d) So come now, if you please, let us recall the few things said yesterday, and move on in turn to today's reading. We need to say what it was we were discussing yesterday, how far we got, and where we stopped. "God formed the human being, taking dust from the earth, and he breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive." [ Gen 2:7 ] What I was saying before I will say now, and will not cease saying continually, that great and unspeakable is the kindness of the Lord of all creatures towards us men. He displayed great considerateness for the sake of our welfare, and bestowed great honor on this creature namely, the human person and made plain in words and deeds that he exhibits greater care of human beings than of other visible things. There is no reason why I should not presume on your goodness to explore the same theme today, too. For, just as with grains of incense, the more they are moved about with your fingers, the greater fragrance they give out, so it is with the Scriptures in our experience: the more you devote yourself to studying them, the more you are able to discover the treasure hidden in them, and thereby gain great and unspeakable wealth. "God." it says, "formed the human being, taking dust from the earth." Do you notice straightway the difference in the way the sentence opens? In the case of all the other creatures blessed Moses taught us the manner of creation, saying, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light;" [ Gen 1:3 ] "Let the firmament be made;" [ Gen 1:6 ] "Let the water be gathered together; [ Gen 1:9 ] "Let the stars be made;" [ Gen 1:14 ] (106b) "Let the earth put forth a crop of vegetation;" [ Gen 1:11 ] "Let the waters bring forth reptiles with living souls;" [ Gen 1:20 ] and "Let the earth bring forth a living thing." [ 24 ] Do you see how they were all created by a word? Let us notice instead what it says in the case of the creation of human beings. "God formed the human being." [ Gen 2:7 ] Do you see how, by the considerateness shown in the words he uses on account of our limitations, it teaches us both the manner of the creation and the difference, and all but shows us (so to speak in human fashion) man being shaped by God's hands as another author says, "Your hands made me, and formed me." [ Job 10:8 ] You see, if he had simply ordered that the human per son spring out of the earth, then the object of the order would merely have been produced, would it not? Instead, for the purpose of communicating to us lasting teaching through the manner of creation (106c) to avoid an impression false to reality, everything is explained precisely in this way, and the text reads, "God formed the human being, taking dust from the earth." Even in this detail notice the regard for us. I mean, he does not simply take some soil, but dust, the finest grains of soil, so to say, and this very dust of the earth by his own design he changed into the human kind of body. You see, just as he brought into being the very substance of the soil when it did not exist, so now, at will, he changed the dust from soil into body. At this it is good to exclaim what was said by blessed David, "Who will speak of the wonders of the Lord, and bring to our ears all his praises?" [ Ps 106:2 ] namely, that from dust he produced such a creature and elevated it to such eminence, and that he displays such marks of regard for it right from the outset, revealing in all this his own loving kindness. The text says, "He breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive." In this regard some senseless people, moved by their own reasoning, and having no regard for what is proper to God nor any appreciation of the considerateness revealed in the words, try to say that the soul comes from the substance of God. Such madness, such stupidity! What false paths has the devil prepared for those bent on following him! To realize it, consider how these paths lead in quite different directions. Some seize on a reading of the text, "He breathed," to say that souls come from the substance of God, whereas others on the contrary say they change into the substance of the worst of brute beasts. What could be worse than such folly? Since their reasoning is dulled, and (107a) they miss the true meaning of Scripture, they are like men blinded in the eyes of their mind, stumbling in various directions down cliffs: some accord the soul excessive esteem, others depress it unduly. Because if they wanted to assign a mouth to God on the score of Scripture's saying, "He breathed into him," they would have to equip him with hands too, since it says, "He formed the human being." Anyhow, in case by wanting to make a display of these people's stupidity we, too, find ourselves induced to utter unseemly remarks, let's have done with their folly and turn aside from such idiocy; let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don't get completely absorbed in the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness. So recognizing our limitations, and the fact that what is said refers to God, let us accept the words as equivalent to speaking about God; let us not reduce the divine to the shape of bodies and the structure of limbs, but understand the whole narrative in a manner appropriate to God. For the deity is simple, free of parts and shape; should we form an impression from ourselves and want to ascribe an arrangement of limbs to God, we would be in danger of falling into the irreverence pagans are guilty of. So when you hear Scripture saying, "God formed the human being," think of the same power as was responsible for "Let it be made;" likewise when you hear the sentence, "He breathed into him a breath of life," reason this way too, that just as he created the incorporeal beings, (107c) So he decided this body made from the dust should have a rational soul and be able to use a body's limbs. You see, this body created in the Lord's design was like an instrument needing someone to activate it, rather like a lyre that needs someone who can by his own skill and artistry raise a fitting hymn to the Lord through his own limbs, as though by the strings of the Lyre. The text says: "He breathed into him a breath of life, and the human being became alive." What is the sense of that, "He breathed a breath of life"? The body made this way, it is saying, he wanted to have a living force and he so directed; this became for the creature a living soul in other words, full of movement, with the ability to display its own skill through the movement of its limbs. "Let the waters produce reptiles with living souls." and at once the living beings emerged from the waters; likewise in the case of the earth in the same terms: "Let the earth produce a living being." Not so, however, in the case of the human person: first its body is created from the dust, and afterwards the power of life is given to it, and this is the being of the soul. Accordingly Moses said about the beasts. "Its blood is its life." [ Lev 17:11 ] But in the case of the human person its being is incorporeal and immortal, and has a great superiority over the body, to the same extent as incorporeal form surpasses the corporeal. Perhaps, however, someone may say: Why is it that, if the soul is more important than the body, the lesser is created first, and then the greater afterwards? Don't you see, dearly beloved, that even in the process of creation this very sequence is followed? That is to say, just as heaven and earth, the sun and moon, and everything else is created, including the brute beasts, and after all these the human per son, the one destined to enjoy control of all of them, in the very same way in the actual creation of the human person the body is produced first and then the soul, greater though its importance is. The procedure is the same with the brute beasts: though they are destined to be useful in the service of human beings, they are created before them so that the ones intended to enjoy the use of these beasts will find them ready for service. So, too, the body is created before the soul, so that when the soul is produced according to God's ineffable wisdom, it will be able to display its own vital forces through the movement of its body. The text goes on: "The Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and placed in it the human being he had formed." When the Lord of all had demonstrated his characteristic loving kindness in creating the one for whom everything had been provided, and setting him in its midst, immediately he began to bestow on this human person deeds of kindness. "God," it says, "planted a garden in Eden in the east." Notice here, dearly beloved, that unless we take the words in a manner appropriate to God, we will inevitably be trapped in a deep pitfall. I mean, what would be likely to be said about this sentence, too, by those rash enough to interpret in human fashion everything said about God? "God planted a garden," it says. What does that mean, pray? did he have need of tools, and gardening, and every other skill to beautify the garden? Not at all. Rather, in this case too, we need to understand the word "planted" in this sense namely, that he commanded a garden to be created on the earth so that the human being he had produced should live in the garden. I mean, to prove that he created the garden for human beings, listen to Scripture itself saying, "God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and placed in it the human being he had formed." [ Gen 2:8 ] The reason blessed Moses inserted the name of the place in the text was that it would not be possible for those inclined to take things lightly to deceive the ears of the simple and say the garden was not on earth but in heaven, and dream up wild theories of that kind. You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and far fetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and such considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us some thing like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn't let the listener go astray. On the other hand, since the majority of listeners apply their ears to the narrative, not for the sake of gaining some profit but for enjoyment, they are at pains to take note of things able to bring enjoyment rather than those that bring profit. So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture. And when, dearly beloved, you hear that "God planted a garden in Eden in the east," take the word "planted" in a sense appropriate to God, namely, that he commanded this happen; and, about the next phrase, believe that a garden came into being, and in that place that Scripture indicated. Not to believe in the contents of Sacred Scripture, and introduce instead other views from one's own reasoning, is in my opinion to bring great peril to those rash enough to at tempt it. "He placed in it, " the text says, "the human being he had formed." Notice at once the regard he shows towards him. Having created him outside the garden, he immediately brought him in so as to provide him with an experience of his kindness through the things in the garden; he was introduced into the garden so that he might know the regard God had for him through the actions done there. "He placed in it the human being he had formed." The word "placed" let us interpret this way: he ordered him to live there in order that what he saw and his way of life should give him much pleasure, and should awaken him to an expression of thanks in consideration of all the kindness he had received without ever doing anything to deserve it. So don't let the reading "placed" disturb you; it is, after all, the unfailing custom of Scripture to employ human ways of speaking for our sake and for our benefit. To be convinced of this, notice how previously, in the case of creation of the stars, it used the same term in saying "He placed them in the firmament of heaven." [ Gen 1:17 ] not that we should think of them fixed in heaven (for each of them pursues its own path moving from place to place), but to teach us that he commanded them to be in heaven just as he commanded the human being to live in the garden.

And when, dearly beloved, you hear that "God planted a garden in Eden in the east," take the word planted in a sense appropriate to God—namely, that he commanded this happen—and about the next phrase, believe that a garden came into being in the place that Scripture indicated.

There was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Paradise. This was so because 'God made to grow a tree pleasant to sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' [ Gen 2:9 ] We shall see later whether this tree, like the others, was pleasant to sight and good for food. The question will be more fittingly discussed at the point where, on tasting the fruit of this tree, we find that man was deceived. Meantime, we should no[t] reproach ourselves for not being able to know precisely the reasons behind these facts. We should not form a hasty judgment in respect to this product of creation, if it presents to our intellect what seems to us--like the creation of serpents and certain poisonous creatures-difficult and incomprehensible. In fact, we are unable, owing to human weakness, yet to know and understand the reason for the creation of each and every object. Let us, therefore, not criticise in holy Scripture something which we cannot comprehend. There are very many things which must not be subjected to the judgment of our intellect. Rather, these should be surveyed from the lofty heights of Divine Providence and from the intentions of God Himself. Without prejudice, then, to what we shall say hereafter, set it down as a first principle that the subject of this tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to you a displeasing one. After men had tasted of this tree, they realized that they were naked. [ Gen 3:7 ] Nevertheless, I will state for your benefit that as a consummation of God's creation this tree grew in Paradise and that it was permitted by God, in order that we might be able to know the preeminence of good. How could we learn to know that there was a difference between good and evil, if there existed no knowledge of good and evil? We could not have come to realize that evil was evil, unless there was knowledge of good, and that there could not be knowledge of good, unless there was actual good. Again, we could not have know[n] what in itself was good, unless there was knowledge of evil. Take an example from the nature of the human body. There exists as a matter of fact a certain bitter and poisonous substance which has been discovered to have a general salutary effect on the health of men. Hence, what we regard as evil frequently turns out to be not in every respect evil, but to be advantageous for general use. Just as poison exists in a part of the body but has a beneficial effect on the body as a whole, so God established the knowledge in part of what is good and evil, in order that the whole might be benefitted. Hence it follows that the serpent in Paradise was certainly not brought into being without the will of God. In the figure of the serpent we see the Devil. That the Devil existed even in Paradise we are informed by the Prophet Ezekiel, who in discussing the Prince of Tyre says: 'Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God.' [ Ezek 28:13 ] We maintain that the Prince of Tyre stands for the Devil. Shall we, therefore, accuse God because we cannot comprehend the treasures-with the exception of those which He has deigned to reveal-of His majesty and wisdom which lie hidden and concealed in Christ? Yet He did reveal to us the fact that the wickedness of the Devil is fruitful for man's salvation. This would not be the Devil's intention, but the Lord makes the wickedness of him who stands in opposition to us contribute something to our salvation. The wickedness of the Devil has caused the virtue and patience of one holy man to shine in a clearer light. The justice of Job was so disciplined and exercised by the wickedness of his opponent that eventually he gained the crown of victory over his adversary, the Devil. No one is crowned 'unless he has competed according to the rules.' [ 2 Tim 2:5 ] Joseph's chastity, too, would never have been recorded for us, if it did not happen that a woman, the wife of his master and friend, incited and goaded by the Devil's allurements, had not played with his affections. [ Gen 39:17 ] This woman finally endeavored to bring about his death. This event added more to the fame of a man who by his continence faced death in defense of chastity. Do you desire to know God's plan? Here is an instance. Through the instrumentality of the Devil there was once an occasion when a just man prepared to perpetrate manslaughter. The situation was one that involved the murder of one's own son. Yet, for all that, the Lord tempted Abraham in this wise. He demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son to Him. By reason of this temptation he was able to prove himself faithful to the Lord, since compliance to his vow and not pity for his beloved son brought about repeal of the order. [ Gen 22:1 ] There was, therefore, in Paradise a tree of knowledge of good and evil which appeared to the eye to be beautiful and to the taste to be edible. It was not actually good to eat, for its fruit appeared to have a harmful effect on man. What is injurious to individuals may nevertheless have a beneficial effect on men as a whole. The Devil, for example, did harm to Judas, [ Luke 22:3 ] but he bestowed the wreath of victory on all the other Apostles, inasmuch as they were able to face and overcome the force of his temptation. Accordingly, let it not be a subject of reprehension or doubt that the Devil existed in Paradise. As a matter of fact he was powerless to bar from the saints the way of their ascent. As one who had the right of possession, he did not evict the just from their habitation. It may be that he turned away from the occupancy of that high estate some who were in fact slothful and vicious. There is a recorded event that arouses to a much greater degree our regard and our admiration. This is the fact that the Devil was excluded from the prayers of the saints as the result of an event which was to take place: 'I was watching Satan fall as lightning from heaven.' [ Luke 10:18 ] Let us, therefore, not fear one who is so weak that he is destined to fall from heaven. He actually received the power to tempt us but not the competency to subvert us, except when our weak and unassisted will falters because it is powerless to summon aid. For that reason we need to know what was the nature of the deceit inflicted on the first man. We ought to know, too, the method and manner of the Devil's procedure and what in man he thought was subject to temptation, so that we, in knowing this, may proceed to take precautions. Many people nevertheless are of the opinion that the Devil was not in Paradise, although we read that he stood with the angels in heaven. [ Zech. 3:1 ] These persons interpret the statement of Scripture according to their own fancy. In this way they put aside any objection which they may have to the words of Scripture. We stand by the conviction held by one who preceded us that sin was committed by man because of the pleasure of sense. We maintain that the figure of the serpent stands for enjoyment and the figure of the woman for the emotions of the mind and heart. The latter is called by the Greeks aisthesis . When according to this theory, the senses are aisthesis deceived, the mind, which the Greeks call nous , falls into error. Hence, not without reason the author to whom I refer [Cf. Philo, De opificio mundi 59; Legum allegoriae I 29.] accepts the Greek word nous as a figure of a man and aisthesis as that of a woman. Hence, some have interpreted Adam to mean an earthly nous . In the Gospel the Lord sets forth the parable of the virgins who awaited the coming of the bridegroom with either lighted or extinguished lamps. Thus He exemplifies either the pure emotions of the wise or the impure senses of the unwise. [ Matt 25:1 ] If Eve, that is, the emotions of the first woman, had kept her lamp lighted, she would not have enfolded us in the meshes of her sin. She would not have fallen from the height of immortality which is established as the reward of virtue.

And the Lord God brought forth from the soil every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is understood to have been done on the same day on which, at God's command, the earth also brought forth the other fruit-bearing trees. But it is necessarily repeated here so that we could understand the nature of the place of paradise, especially because there needed to be a special reference to the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; in one of which was a sign to man of the obedience he owed, in the other the sacrament of eternal life, which he would merit through this very obedience. And indeed the tree of life was so called because it had this power, as we said, divinely received, that whoever ate from it would have their body strengthened with stable health, never changing for the worse through any infirmity or age, nor even falling into decline; but this was done physically in such a way that it was also a figure of a spiritual sacrament, that is, of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it is said in the praise of wisdom: "She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her" (Proverbs 3:18). And in the Apocalypse of Saint John: "To him that overcomes, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God" (Revelation 2:7). Which is openly to say: To him who overcomes the temptation of the ancient serpent, by which Adam was overcome, I will give what I would have given to Adam if he had overcome, so that he may be eternally refreshed by the present vision of the glory of Christ, and thus be touched by no onset of death, because evidently the Lord Christ, the power and wisdom of God the Father, is in the paradise of the heavenly kingdom, whom He also deigned to promise to the thief confessing Him on the cross along with the other saints. And the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Saint Augustine says of this tree: "To me, considering again and again, it cannot be said how much that sentiment pleases, that the tree itself was not harmful for food. For He who had made all things very good had not established anything bad in paradise, but the transgression of the command was evil for man. Nevertheless, it was fitting that man, put under the Lord God, should be prohibited from something, so that his virtue for deserving his Lord was obedience itself, which I can most truly say is the only virtue for every rational creature acting under the power of God; and the first and greatest vice for destruction is the will to use one's own power, which has the supreme name of vice in disobedience. Therefore man could not think or feel that he had a Lord unless something was commanded to him. That tree, therefore, was not evil, but it was called the tree of the knowledge of discerning good and evil; because if after prohibition man should eat from it, in the transgression of the command the man would learn by the experience of punishment what the difference was between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience. Therefore this should indeed be taken not in a figurative sense, but as a certain real tree, to which the name was not given from the fruit or apple that grew from there, but from the actual matter, which, when touched contrary to the prohibition, was to follow."

The tree of life was also given for continual nourishment, and finally for perfect transformation through perpetual immortality. There would be a consumption of nutrimental moisture through the action of heat: there would also nonetheless be a restoration through the nourishment of the trees of paradise, restored through the tree of life, that is, with the radical moisture preserved: which tree indeed had this virtue, on account of which, as Augustine says, it was not only for food but also as a Sacrament. The incorruption and immortality of Adam's body came principally from the soul as from that which contains and influences, from the body's good and balanced constitution as from that which disposes and receives, from the tree of life as from that which vivifies and assists, and from the governance of divine providence as from that which conserves inwardly and protects outwardly.

Of this central Person, it is said in Genesis: "The Lord God made to grow out of the ground all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden." In reference to which Augustine writes that of all the things that were made, it was said: "Let there be, He made it," and so it was--excepting light, of which God said "Let there be light," and there was light--for they were produced first in all eternity from Eternal Art, second in the intelligent creature, and third in the material world.

The Word expresses the Father and the things He made, and principally leads us to union with the Father who brings all things together; and in this regard He is the Tree of Life, for by this means we return to the very fountain of life and are revived in it. But if we stoop to a knowledge of things acquired by experimenting them, investigating beyond what is conceded to us, we fall from true contemplation and taste of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as did Lucifer. For if Lucifer, in contemplating this Truth, had been led back from the knowledge of creatures to the unity of the Father, he would have turned dusk into dawn and would have enjoyed daylight. But because he fell for the love and desire of his own excellence, he lost the day. And Adam did the same. Now, this Center is one that produces knowledge, it is the Truth, that is, the Tree of Life, while the other truth is an occasion of death, when a man falls for the love of created beauty.

The third mode of generation is by means of propagation, and this in a fourfold way: as of a growth coming from a seed, a tree from a root, a conceived offspring from the belly or womb of the mother, or children from a begetting father. In the first mode of generation, formal beauty is lacking, for in the seed the form is vague and hidden. It is not so in the case of the Son. In the second, conformity is lacking, for although there is a single root, it is different in shape from the branches even though they produce a single tree. In the third, actuality is lacking, for although the mother is in a certain sense the active principle of the offspring, yet she is much more of a passive principle. In the fourth, eternal coexistence is lacking.

Now, take away these defects and suppose first formal beauty. In this sense, there is Isaiah: "The branch of the Lord will be luster and glory, and the fruit of the earth will be honor and splendor." Second, suppose conformity: The Son conforms to the Father to the point that He is "the tree of life... in the midst of the garden." Hence, in Proverbs: "She is a tree of life to those who grasp her." Third, suppose actuality: in this sense, you have the Psalm: "With Thee is the principality in the day of Thy strength, in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot Thee. From the womb," says the Psalmist, which is in relation to the warmth of the Father's bosom, from which He does not withdraw. Fourth, suppose eternal coexistence. In this sense, there is the Psalm: "This day I have begotten You," that is in eternity, or in My eternal today.

"The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the East, and He put there the man He had formed. The Lord God made to grow out of the ground all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The trees pleasant and good represent the sacraments of Scripture which have great beauty. Yet they are not seen as beautiful except through the conformity of the symbol with the thing represented. For these trees are beautiful because ordained.

It is true that in this regard there comes the danger of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that, after dismissing the tree of life by reason of the sweetness of emotions, the soul may wander around other sciences and go so far that it can no longer come back but is excluded from the delights of paradise and loses the flavor of the tree of life. To eat of the tree of life by means of these enlightenments is to be sustained, so that a man seeks nothing but the intelligence of truth, the mood of piety, and the enjoyment of sweetness, that is, the solace of contemplation. But when a man forgets these things and delights in the pursuit of inquisitiveness, he only wants to know; and out of this is born the arrogance of vanity when he looks down upon other men. And upon this there follows the conflict of lawsuits, because he considers himself dishonored when someone stands up to him: and he is always ready to fight any opponent. And in such a way true life is taken away from man, as occurred with Adam, or rather, with the woman who was inquisitive and wanted to be like God. Therefore, they made themselves coverings and blamed another for their sin, Adam blaming God for having given him such a wife, and the woman blaming the serpent. Hence these enlightenments must enter the affective dispositions in order that the intellect be straightened.

And so, progressing little by little, Scripture explains how the Antichrist will be, first, most filthy, etc. Hence, next to the tree of life was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: for the latter promised good and rendered evil, wherefore it will turn into a serpent, a dragon and a beast. In all these mysteries, there is some relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for the Trinity must shine forth mostly through their works.

It should be noted that as a fruit delights both sight and taste, it delights the sense of sight mostly by its excellence and beauty, but the sense of taste, by its sweetness and flavor. Likewise, these theories sustain the intellect by their beauty, and the affective dispositions by their sweetness. This is what Scripture suggests when it says: The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the east, and He put there the man He had formed, etc. This is said as a recapitulation on the seventh day, since the planting was done on the third day.

There follows: The Lord God made to grow out of the ground all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that it would sustain the intellect by its beauty and the affective dispositions by its sweetness. But consummation was to come about in the tree of life, provided caution was exercised in regard to the tree of knowledge. The soil, therefore, is Scripture which brings forth all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight, as regards the intellect, and good for food as regards the affective dispositions, that is, the manifold theories both delighting and sustaining. In the heavenly paradise, there is no planting, except of eternal reasons, and although there is sustainment in the fact of the predestination of all the saints, I will rejoice rather over my own. And this is what the Lord suggests: "Rejoice rather in this, that your names are written in heaven." Paul could speak of the heavenly paradise, because he was caught up to the third heaven. We do not know, but we speak of the earthly paradise.

Thirdly, through the two trees which grew in the midst of Paradise, scripture shows that there are two states, one mortal and mutable, and one immortal and immutable. For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a type of this world as a school of discipline—and the tree of life is a type of the future state, in which neither death nor change has any power.

The Church, setting forth the likeness of paradise, includes within her walls fruit-bearing trees, whereof that which does not bring forth good fruit is cut off and is cast into the fire. These trees she waters with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels, wherewith, by a celestial inundation, she bestows the grace of saving baptism. Can any one water from the Church's fountains who is not within the Church? Can one impart those wholesome and saving draughts of paradise to any one if he is perverted, and of himself condemned, and banished outside the fountains of paradise, and has dried up and failed with the dryness of an eternal thirst?

Now Eden is the land of Paradise. By "of old" Scripture means that He planted it on the third day; it explains this with the words "the Lord caused to sprout from the earth every kind of tree that is beautiful to look upon and good to eat" [ Gen2:9 ] ; and to show that this refers to Paradise, it says, "and the Tree of Life was in the midst of Paradise, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil." [ Gen2:9 ]

Christ is brought up to the tree and nailed to it—yet by the tree of life he restores us. Yes, he saves even a thief crucified with him; he wraps all the visible world in darkness.

Now if wisdom is the tree of life, Wisdom itself indeed is Christ. You understand now that the man who is blessed and holy is compared to this tree—that is, he is compared to Wisdom. Consequently, you see too that the just man, that blessed man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked—who has not done that but has done this—is like the tree that is planted near running water. He is, in other words, like Christ, inasmuch as he "raised us up together and seated us together in heaven." You see then that we shall reign together with Christ in heaven. You see too that because this tree has been planted in the garden of Eden, we have all been planted there together with him.

Behold still another form of kindness out of regard for this creature. (109c) You see, since he wanted him to live in the garden, he ordered various trees to come forth from the earth, that could both delight him with their appearance and be pleasing to the taste. "Every tree." it says, "beautiful to behold" that is, in appearance "and good to eat;" in short, they had the ability to please him through their appearance and to provide much pleasure through their taste, and by their great abundance offered considerable good cheer to the one in a position to enjoy them. You see, it says, "Every tree," whatever name you give it, he made come forth. Do you recognize here a life free of any care? Do you see a wonderful existence? Like some an gel, in fact, man lived this way on earth, wearing a body, yet being fortunately rid of any bodily needs; like a king adorned with scepter and crown and wearing his purple robe, (109d) he revelled in this life of freedom and great affluence in the garden. "The tree of life in the middle of the garden," the text goes on to say, "and the tree for knowing good and evil." After teaching us that, according to the Lord's command, the earth produced every tree, lovely to behold and good to taste, it says next: "The tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree for knowing good and evil." The good Lord, you see, knowing as creator the harm that would in due time be likely to arise from this condition of great freedom, brought forth the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree for knowing good and evil, since before long he would be imposing on him abstinence from the tree so that man might realize that he owed enjoyment of them to divine love and goodness, and that God was Lord (110a) and creator of his nature as of all visible things. Beforehand, therefore, he made mention of the tree, and next he tells us the names of the rivers and their division, so to say, and that from that source, which irrigated the garden, others led off in four directions and thus marked out the regions of the earth. Perhaps, however, those people who like to talk from their own wisdom do not concede again that these rivers are rivers, or these waters really waters, but propound some different interpretation to people ready to lend them their ears. Let us, however, I beg you, not be convinced by them, but block our ears against them; let us instead place our credence in Sacred Scripture and heed what is told us there; let it be our concern to lay its sound teachings in our soul and be scrupulously careful about them and about our life, (110b) so that our life may witness to the teachings and the teachings may declare the integrity of our life. After all, it will be of no avail for us to get teachings right if we neglect life; nor will we be able to gain any value for our salvation if we have life but neglect right teachings. It is necessary, you see, if we would wish to avoid hell and reach heaven, to be distinguished for both correctness of doctrine and attention to life. What good, after all, tell me, is a tree reaching to the sky and bearing leaves aplenty if it is devoid of fruit? So, too, with the Christian: correct doctrine is of no benefit unless one attends to the business of living. Accordingly Christ declared such people blessed: "Blessed is the one who does and teaches." [ Matt 5:19 ] I mean, far more dependable and trustworthy than the teaching of words is teaching in action. Such persons, (110c) in fact, even without uttering a word, or else without being seen, can teach others, in the one case by the silent witness of their appearance and in the other through the sense of hearing; they will enjoy God's goodwill in great measure, promoting as they do the glory of their Lord, not only through their own efforts but also through those who notice them. Such persons raise thanks and praise to the God of all on a thousand tongues and in many mouths; for it is not only those who know them, the witnesses of their life, that will admire them and their Lord, but strangers who hear about it from others, people living far away and distant foreigners, not only friends but foes as well, who will respect the eminence of their virtue. Such is its efficacy, you see, that it stops the mouths of adversaries and bridles their tongue. And just as people with poor sight (110d) flinch from looking at the sun's rays, likewise evil will never be able to confront virtue, but will yield ground, turn away, and admit defeat. Convinced then of this, let us hold fast to virtue, and pass our lives safely, taking care to avoid the slightest appearance of sin in word or deed. In this way, you see, we will never fall into the worst of sins if we avoid small ones; and with the passage of time we will be able under the influence of help from on high to attain the pinnacle of virtue, escape any future punishment, and gain eternal reward, through the grace and loving kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power and honor, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.

Paradise is, therefore, a land of fertility-that is to say, a soul which is fertile-planted in Eden, that is, in a certain delightful or well-tilled land in which the soul finds pleasure. Adam exists there as nous [mind] and Eve as 'sense.' Take note of what this soul of ours has in the nature of defense against natural and weak tendencies or against situations which might be unfavorable to us in our attempts to avoid danger. There was a fount which irrigated the land of Paradise. [ Gen 2:10 ] Is not this stream our Lord Jesus Christ, the Fount as well as the Father of eternal life? It is written: 'For with thee is the fountain of life.' [ Ps 35:10 ] Hence: 'From within him there shall flow living waters.' [ John 7:38; cf. Isa 58:11 ] We read of a fountain and a river which irrigates in Paradise the fruit-bearing tree that bears fruit for life eternal. You have read, then, that a fount was there and that 'a river rose in Eden,' [ Gen 2:10 ] ,/cite that is, in your soul there exists a fount. This is the meaning of Solomon's words: 'Drink water out of thy own cistern and the streams of thy own well.' [ Prov 5:15 ] This refers to the fount which rose out of that well-tilled soul, full of pleasant things, this fount which irrigates Paradise, that is to say, the soul's virtues that blossom because of their eminent merits. 'The river,' we are told, 'is separated into four branches. The name of one is Phison which encircles all the land of Hevila, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good, bdellium and onyx there. The name of the second river is Gihon. This river encircles all the land of Ethiopia. The name of the third river is Tigris, which river flows by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.' [ Gen 2:10-14 ] There are, therefore, four rivers. Phison-so called by the Hebrews, but named Ganges by the Greeks-flows in the direction of India. Gihon is the river Nile, which flows around the land of Egypt or Ethiopia. The land enclosed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is called Mesopotamia because it lives between these two rivers. This name conveys its location even to far-distant peoples and, besides, expresses popular belief. But how is the fount called the Wisdom of God? That this is a fount the Gospel tells us in the words, 'If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink.' [ John 7:37 ] Wisdom is a fount according to the Prophet: 'Come and eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you.' [ Prov 9:15 ] As Wisdom is the fountain of life, it is also the fountain of spiritual grace. It is also the fountain of other virtues which guide us to the course of eternal life. Therefore, the stream that irrigates Paradise rises from the soul when well-tilled, not from the soul which lies uncultivated. The results therefrom are fruit trees of diverse virtues. There are four principal trees which constitute the divisions of Wisdom. These are the well-known four principal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice. The wise men of this world have adopted this division from us and transferred it to their writings. Hence, Wisdom acts as the source from which these four rivers take their rise, producing streams that are composed of these virtues. Phison, therefore, stands for prudence. Hence it has pure gold, brilliant rubies, and topaz stones. We often refer to wise discoveries as gold, as the Lord says, speaking through the Prophet: 'I gave to them gold and silver.' [ Hosea 2:8 ] Daniel says of the wise: 'If you sleep among the midst of the lots, you shall be as the wings of the dove covered with silver and the hinder parts of her back like to gold.' [ Ps 67:14 ] In this way one who puts his trust in the aid of the Old and New Testament can by resourceful inquiry attain the inmost secrets of the Wisdom of God. Here, therefore, is found pure gold, not the metal which is melted, which belongs to this earth, and is subject to corruption. In this land, we are told, there is found the brilliant ruby stone in which there exists the vita spark of our souls. Here, too, is the topaz stone which by the nature of its color reveals an effect of greenness and vitality. Plants which are alive give forth green sprouts, while those that are dead are sapless and dry. The earth grows green when it is in bloom. The seeds, too, sprout forth green shoots in their periods of growth. The river Phison is rightfully given first place. The Hebrews call it Pheoyson, which means 'change of mouth,' because it flows even through Lydia and not merely around one nation, for Wisdom, which is of benefit to all men, is productive and useful. Hence, if a person were to leave Paradise, this river of Wisdom would be the first object he would meet. Thus he may not become inert and arid and his return to Paradise may be facilitated. Many men resort to this river, which is considered to have marvelous beauty and fecundity. Accordingly, it is regarded as a figure of Wisdom, which confers manifold fruits in the coming of the Lord of Salvation. It flows, too, to the very ends of the earth, because, by Wisdom all men have been redeemed. Wherefore it is written: 'Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth and their words unto the end of the world.' [ Ps 18:5 ] The second river is Gihon, by which, when they were sojourning in Egypt, was laid down the law of the Israelites that they should depart from Egypt, [ Exod 12:11 ] and having girded their loins they should as a sign of temperance partake of a lamb. It is fitting that the chaste and the sanctified should celebrate the Pasch of the Lord. For that reason, the observance of the Law was first carried out beside that river, the name of which signifies an opening of the earth. Therefore, just as an opening absorbs the earth and whatever defilements and refuse there may be in it, in like manner chastity tends to consume all the passions of the body. Appropriately, then, the observance of the established Law first took place there, because carnal sin is absorbed by the Law. And so Gihon, which is a figure of chastity, is said to surround the land of Ethiopia in order to wash away our lowly bodies and quench the fires of our vile flesh. The meaning of Ethiopia in Latin is 'holy and vile.' What is more lowly, what is more like Ethiopia, than our bodies, blackened, too, by the darkness of sin? The third river is the Tigris, which flows by the Assyrian land. To this river the deceiver Israel was dragged as a prisoner. This river is the swiftest of all rivers. The Assyrian dwell by it, guarding its course-for this is the meaning of its name. Hence, those who by their fortitude hold in check the guileful vices of the body and direct themselves to higher things are thought to have something in common with this river. For that same reason fortitude emanates from that source in Paradise. Fortitude in its rapid course tosses aside everything standing in its path and like this river is not hindered by any material obstacle. The fourth river is the Euphrates, which means in Latin 'fecundity and abundance of fruits.' It presents a symbol of Justice, the nourishment of every soul. No virtue produces more abundant benefits than Equity or Justice, which is more concerned with others than with itself, neglecting its own advantages, and preferring the common good. Many derive Euphrates from the Greek apo tou euphrainesthai --that is, from a 'feeling of gladness,' because the human race rejoices in nothing more than it does in Justice and Equity. The question as to why, although the location itself of other rivers is reported, we have no description of the regions through which the river Euphrates flows calls for an answer. The waters of this river are considered to have a vital quality which fosters growth and increase. Wherefore, the wise men among the Hebrews and the Assyrians called this river Auxen [increase] in contradistinction to the water of other rivers. The opposition has been well established between wisdom and malice, fortitude and irascibility, temperance, and other vices. Justice, on the other hand, is the most important as it represents the concord of all the other virtues. Hence it is not known from the places from which it flows, that is to say, it is not known in part. Justice is not divisible into parts. It is, as it were, the mother of all virtues. In these four rivers are symbolized, therefore, the four principal virtues. It may well be said that these virtues have been the determining boundary lines for the four great ages of the world. This, in fact, is the topic of the discourse which follows. The first age, then, is the age of Wisdom. This period extends from the beginnings of the world up to the time of the Flood. The Lord has given us the names of the just men of this age. Abel was so called, and so was Enos, a man made to the image of God, who hoped to invoke the name of the Lord God. Henoch, also, whose name in Latin means 'grace of God,' was carried up to heaven, [ Gen 5:24 ] and Noe, who was a just man [ Gen 6:9 ] and one who might be called a guide to tranquillity.[Cf. Isidore, Etym. 7.6:15] The second age of the world is that of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob, and a number of other patriarchs. This was a period in which religion flourished in its more temperate and purest form. Pure was Isaac, a son given to Abraham according to promise, not as an offering of the body, but as a gift of divine beneficence. In him there is found the figure of Him who is pure as the Apostle teaches. 'The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.' [ Gal 3:16 ] He does not say, "And to his offsprings," but as of one, "And to thy offspring," who is Christ.' The third age lies in the period of the Law of Moses and in the time of the other Apostles. 'For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, of Barac, of Samson, of David and of Samuel, Elias and Elisaeus, who by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, recovered strength from weakness, became valiant in battle and captured the camps of aliens.' [ Heb 11:32-34 ] Not without reason, then, do these men stand as types of fortitude. Further on we are told: 'They were sawed asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword. They went about in goatskins, destitute, distressed, afflicted-of whom the world was not worthy-wandering in deserts, mountains, caves and holes in the earth.' [ Heb 11:37,38 ] Appropriately, therefore, do we set these men down as types of Fortitude. The figure of Justice is, according to the Gospel, a meritorious one, because 'it is unto salvation to everyone who believes.' [ Rom 1:16 ] Hence, the Lord Himself says: 'Permit us to fulfill all justice.' [ Matt 3:15 ] She is truly the prolific parent of the other virtues. Yet, whoever possesses any of the above mentioned principal virtues has the other virtues, also, since these virtues are so connected as to form a unit. Surely, Abel, a just and courageous man, Abraham, a man of great patience, the Prophets, men of the greatest wisdom, and Moses, a man of great learning, considered that the ingloriousness of Christ brought far greater honor than the treasures of Egypt. Who was wiser than Daniel? Solomon, too, sought wisdom and merited it. [ 1 Kings 3:8 ] Enough has been said, therefore, on the subject of the four rivers of virtue whose waters are salutary. We have discussed, too, the reason why Phison is said to have not only the gold, but also the ruby and the topaz stone, of that goodly land. We propose now to develop the latter topic. Since Enos in his wisdom yearned to know the name of God, he seems to us to stand for gold that is good. [ Gen 4:26: 5:24 ] Henoch, who was borne aloft and did not see death, can be likened to a ruby stone of pleasant odor which holy Henoch by his works offered to God, thus exhaling in his active and exemplary life something akin to sweetness. Noe, on the other hand, like the green topaz stone, suggests a color which represents life, since he alone at the time of the Flood preserved in his ark the vital seed of the formation of the world to come. Paradise, a land watered by many rivers, is then appropriately situated in the East and not in the regions facing it. This reference to the East is significant, for the rising sun may be compared to Christ [ Matt 24:27 ] who flashed forth a gleam of eternal light which exists in Eden, that is, in a land of delight.

And a river went out of the place of delight to water the paradise. That is, those beautiful and fruitful trees that shaded the whole land of that region, where it is believed to have been made as in this land we inhabit, the Nile waters the plains of Egypt, wherefore, as we also mentioned above, it was said of the land of Sodom, which was wholly watered like the paradise of the Lord, and like Egypt (Genesis XIII, 10). And surely with provident arrangement, the Lord and Creator of things wished to have some likeness in our world to that homeland which we were created to possess in the first parent, so that he might warn us by a nearby example to merit a return thereto, and especially by that river which is known to emanate from paradise. For the Nile, which waters Egypt, is itself the Gihon, which is remembered to proceed from paradise in what follows. Just as also, when the same cities of Sodom were overturned, which were once watered like the paradise of the Lord, he provided an example of those who act impiously, so that we might flee the most certain paths of the perdition of the wicked, by shunning their eternal torments through vigilance.

Because outside the unity of faith and charity, which makes us children and members of the Church, no one can be saved: therefore, if the Sacraments are received outside her, they are not received unto salvation, although they are true Sacraments; but they can become useful if one returns to holy mother Church.

Whence Augustine against the Donatists writes: "The Church, compared to paradise, shows us that people can indeed receive her baptism even outside, but that no one can either obtain or retain the salvation of blessedness outside her. For the rivers from the fountain of paradise, as Scripture testifies, also flowed abundantly outward: for they are mentioned by name, and through which lands they flow, and that they are situated outside paradise, is known to all; nor yet in Mesopotamia or in Egypt, where those rivers reached, is there the happiness of life that is spoken of in paradise. Thus it happens that, although the water of paradise is outside paradise, blessedness nevertheless is not found except within paradise. So therefore the baptism of the Church can exist outside the Church, but the gift of the blessed life is found only within the Church."

The four cardinal virtues are symbolized by the four rivers of paradise, in so far as they are originated by faith. A river stands for the grace of the Holy Spirit poured out into these four virtues: Phison corresponds to temperance, Gehon to prudence, Tigris to fortitude, and Euphrates to justice. Phison represents the rational power, Gehon the concupiscible, Tigris the irascible, and Euphrates the whole soul.

By means of diffusion, as of brightness out of light, of heat out of fire, of a river out of its headspring, of rain out of a full or humid cloud. In the first diffusion, equality is lacking, for brightness is not the same as light. In the second, closeness is lacking, for heat is not close to fire, since it is the principle neither of its form nor of its origin, but is merely an accident. In the third, simultaneity is lacking, for a spring diffuses itself by flowing, and not all at once. In the fourth, fullness is lacking, for not all of the rain is drawn out of a cloud, but only successive drops. Now, join these four conditions to a single diffusion, one of splendor having equality, of heat having closeness and substantiality, of a river or fountain having simultaneity, and of rain having fullness: and in this way, you will have a trace of the eternal generation.

Hence, the Son is sometimes compared to brightness: "Being the brightness of His glory," etc.; at other times, to a flame, as in Moses' bush which represented the person of the Son; or again, as a river or spring: "But a spring rose out of the earth. A river rose in Eden." Again, He is sometimes compared to rain: "For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth," etc. And, later: "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth," that is, from the Father's heart.

After having spoken of Paradise and the day on which it was planted, as well as the introduction into it of Adam, and the Tree of Life and its companion, Scripture turns to describe the river which goes out from its midst, and how it is divided up outside Paradise into four sources: "A river was issuing from Eden to irrigate Paradise. " [ Gen2:10 ] Notice that here too it calls the delightful land of Paradise "Eden."

Had that river not first irrigated Paradise it would not have divided up into four sources outside it. I think it was perhaps for purposes of convenience that it was said to "irrigate," seeing that the spiritual trees of Paradise do not require any irrigation by water. But if, despite their being spiritual, they nevertheless absorbed something of those blessed and spiritual waters there, I should not object to such an opinion.

The taste of the water of the four tributaries which flow from that river is not like the taste of the head of the source. For if water varies in taste in our countries, all of which are subject to the sentence of the curse, how much more would one expect the taste in the blessed land of Eden to be different from that of the land which was laid under the curse of the Just One as a result of Adam's transgression?

Moses turned to write about the river that flowed out from paradise and that, once outside of it, divided into four distinct sources, saying, "A river flowed out of Eden to water paradise." Here too Moses calls the delightful land of paradise Eden. If that river had indeed watered paradise, it would not have divided into the four rivers outside it. I would suggest that it was perhaps due to convention that it is said "to water," since the spiritual trees of paradise had no need of water. But if someone should say that because they are spiritual, they drink from the blessed and spiritual waters there, I would not quarrel over this. The four rivers that flowed from that river were not similar in taste to the headspring. For if the waters of our lands vary, all being placed under the sentence of a curse, how much more distinct should the taste of the blessed land of Eden be from the taste of that land that had been placed under the curse of the Just One due to Adam's transgression of the commandment?

Awe-inspiring, in truth, are the mysteries of the church. Awesome truth is its altar. A fountain sprang up out of paradise, sending forth not only visible streams but also spiritual streams arising as a fountain from this high tableland. Alongside this fountain there have grown, not willows without fruit but abundant trees reaching to heaven itself, with fruit ever in season and remaining still incorrupt. If someone is intensely hot, let him come to this fountain and cool down this feverish heat. It dispels parching heat and gently cools all things that are very hot—not only those literally inflamed by the sun's heat but also those set on fire by sin's burning arrows. It does so because it takes its beginning from above and has its source from there, and from there it is fed. Many are the streams of this fountain, streams that the Paraclete sends forth; and the Son becomes its custodian, not keeping its channel open with a mattock but by making our hearts receptive.

Perhaps, however, those people who like to talk from their own wisdom do not concede again that these rivers are rivers or these waters really waters but propound some different interpretation to people ready to lend them their ears. Let us, however, I beg you, not be convinced by them but block our ears against them; let us instead place our credence in sacred Scripture and heed what is told us there.

Then there is the ocean that encircles the entire earth like a sort of river and to which it seems to me that Scripture referred when it said that "a river flowed out of paradise." It has sweet potable water and supplies the seas, but because the water remains stagnant in the seas for a long time it becomes brackish. The sun and the waterspouts are constantly drawing up the less dense water, and from this the clouds are formed and the rain comes, the water becoming sweet by filtration. This ocean is divided into four heads, of four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; this is the Ganges of India. The name of the second is Gehon; this is the Nile, which comes down from Ethiopia into Egypt. The name of the third is Tigris, and of the fourth, Euphrates.

Now is manifested the reason of the truth why the fourth day is called the Tetras, why we fast even to the ninth hour, or even to the evening, or why there should be a passing over even to the next day. Therefore this world of ours is composed of four elements-fire, water, heaven, earth. These four elements, therefore, form the quaternion of times or seasons. The sun, also, and the moon constitute throughout the space of the year four seasons-of spring, summer, autumn, winter; and these seasons make a quaternion. And to proceed further still from that principle, lo, there are four living creatures before God's throne, four Gospels, four rivers flowing in paradise; four generations of people from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ the Lord, the Son of God; and four living creatures, viz., a man, a calf, a lion, an eagle; and four rivers, the Pison, the Gihon. the Tigris, and the Euphrates. The man Christ Jesus, the originator of these things whereof we have above spoken, was taken prisoner by wicked hands, by a quaternion of soldiers. Therefore on account of His captivity by a quaternion, on account of the majesty of His works,-that the seasons also, wholesome to humanity, joyful for the harvests, tranquil for the tempests, may roll on,-therefore we make the fourth day a station or a supernumerary fast.

"The river," we are told, "is separated into four branches." The name of one is Pishon, which encircles all the land of Hevila, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx are there. The name of the second river is Gihon. This river encircles all the land of Ethiopia. The name of the third river is Tigris, which river flows by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. There are, therefore, four rivers. Pishon—so called by the Hebrews but named Ganges by the Greeks—flows in the direction of India. Gihon is the river Nile, which flows around the land of Egypt or Ethiopia. The land enclosed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is called Mesopotamia because it lives between these two rivers. This name conveys its location even to far-distant peoples and besides expresses popular belief. But how is the fount called the Wisdom of God? That this is a fount the Gospel tells us in the words "If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink." Wisdom is a fount according to the prophet: "Come and eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you." As Wisdom is the fountain of life, it is also the fountain of spiritual grace. It is also the fountain of other virtues that guide us to the course of eternal life. Therefore, the stream that irrigates paradise rises from the soul when well tilled, not from the soul that lies uncultivated. The results from it are fruit trees of diverse virtues. There are four principal trees that constitute the divisions of Wisdom. These are the well-known four principal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice. The wise men of this world have adopted this division from us and transferred it to their writings. Hence, Wisdom acts as the source from which these four rivers take their rise, producing streams that are composed of these virtues.Pishon, therefore, stands for prudence. Hence it has pure gold, brilliant rubies and topaz stones. We often refer to wise discoveries as gold, as the Lord says, speaking through the prophet: "I gave to them gold and silver." Daniel says of the wise: "If you sleep among the midst of the lots, you shall be as the wings of the dove covered with silver and the hinder parts of her back like to gold." In this way one who puts his trust in the aid of the Old and New Testament can by resourceful inquiry attain the inmost secrets of the Wisdom of God. Here, therefore, is found pure gold, not the metal that is melted, which belongs to this earth and is subject to corruption. In this land, we are told, there is found the brilliant ruby stone in which there exists the vital spark of our souls. Here, too, is the topaz stone that by the nature of its color reveals an effect of greenness and vitality. Plants that are alive give forth green sprouts, while those that are dead are sapless and dry. The earth grows green when it is in bloom. The seeds, too, sprout forth green shoots in their periods of growth. The river Pishon is rightfully given first place. The Hebrews call it Pheoyson, which means "change of mouth," because it flows even through Lydia and not merely around one nation, for Wisdom, which is of benefit to all men, is productive and useful. Hence, if a person were to leave paradise, this river of Wisdom would be the first object he would meet. Thus he may not become inert and arid and his return to paradise may be facilitated. Many men resort to this river, which is considered to have marvelous beauty and fecundity. Accordingly it is regarded as a figure of Wisdom, which confers manifold fruits in the coming of the Lord of salvation. It flows to the very ends of the earth, because by Wisdom all have been redeemed. Thus it is written: "Their sound has gone forth into all the earth and their words unto the end of the world."

Which then is divided into four heads: the name of the first is Pishon. It is established, according to the most certain authorities, that the sources of all these rivers, which are said to go out from paradise, are known in our land. The source of the Pishon, which is now called the Ganges, is indeed in the places of the Caucasus mountains; but the Nile, which the Scripture, as we have said, names Gihon, now far from Mount Atlas, which is the furthest end of Africa to the west. Furthermore, the Tigris and Euphrates from Armenia, from where it is believed that the place of paradise itself is most distant from human knowledge, and from there the four parts of the waters are divided; but those rivers, whose sources are said to be known, are somewhere beneath the earth and after passing through extended regions erupt in other places, where they are reputed to be known in their sources. For who is unaware that some waters are accustomed to do this? But it is known there where they do not run under the earth for long. Finally, historians report that the same rivers Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile are taken up in many places of the earth, and after some interval reemerging, continue their usual course; which is also believed to be done by the Lord as a sign of that course by which they come to us from paradise through the more hidden channels and longer veins of the earth. Now Phison is interpreted as change of mouth, and rightly, because indeed it shows another appearance for our benefit, that is, much more humble than it has in paradise.

This is the one which encircles the whole land of Havilah. This is the region of India, deriving its name from being settled after the flood by Havilah, son of Joktan, who was the son of Eber the patriarch of the Hebrews, whom Josephus also reports with his brothers possessed the land from the river Cephen and the region of India to the place called Hieria.

The river Phison separates all the countries of India [lying along its course] from the country of the Huns. In scripture the Indian region is called Euilat (Havilah). For it is thus written in Genesis: Now the river goeth out from Eden to water Paradise. And from there it was parted and became four heads. The name of the first is Phison (Pishon); that is it which compasseth the whole land of Euilat, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is the carbuncle and the jasper stone; where the writer clearly calls the country Euilat. This Euilat, moreover, is of the race of Ham. For thus again it is written: The sons of Ham, Cush and Misraim, Phut and Caraan the sons of Cush, Sabâ and Euilat; that is the Homerites and Indians, for Sabâ is situated in the Homerite country, and Euilat is in India. For the Persian Gulf divides those two countries. And that country has gold according to sacred scripture. It has also the pezerôs which Scripture calls anthrax (carbuncle) and the jasper stone, by which it designates the leek-green stone. Clearly therefore does divine scripture, as being really divine, relate these things, even as the whole of our treatise goes to show.

(Verse 11.) The name of one is Phison. They believe this to be the river Ganges in India.

(Verse 12.) Where (or There) is the carbuncle and the green stone. Some have translated carbuncle as βδέλλιον and the green stone as ὄνυχα.

There is found gold, and the gold of that land is good. Pliny the Elder reports that the regions of India abound in gold veins more than other lands, whence even their islands took the names Chryse and Argyre from the abundance of gold or silver.

In that place are found bdellium and onyx stone. Bdellium is, as Pliny the Elder writes, an aromatic tree, black in color, of the size of an olive, with oak-like leaves, fruit like the fig, and its nature is such that it exudes gum. Its tear is bright, somewhat white, light, sticky, uniformly waxy, and easily softened, with a bitter taste, a pleasant smell, and more fragrant when soaked in wine. The book of Numbers also mentions it, saying, "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its color was like bdellium" (Num. XI, 7), that is, bright and somewhat white. Onyx, on the other hand, is a precious stone, so called because it has a whiteness mixed within it like a human fingernail. The Greeks call a fingernail "onyx." Arabia produces it, but Indian onyx has sparks with white bands surrounding them; Arabian onyx, however, is black with white bands. The ancient translation has for these a carbuncle and a prasinus stone. The carbuncle, as its name suggests, is a stone of fiery color, which is said to illuminate the darkness of night. The prasinus stone has a greenish appearance and derives its name from the Greek word for leek, which they call "prason."

The second river is Gihon, by which, when they were sojourning in Egypt, was laid down the law of the Israelites that they should depart from Egypt, and having girded their loins they should as a sign of temperance partake of a lamb. It is fitting that the chaste and the sanctified should celebrate the Pasch of the Lord. For that reason, the observance of the law was first carried out beside that river, the name of which signifies an opening of the earth. Therefore, just as an opening absorbs the earth and whatever defilements and refuse there may be in it, in like manner chastity tends to consume all the passions of the body. Appropriately, then, the observance of the established law first took place there, because carnal sin is absorbed by the law. And so Gihon, which is a figure of chastity, is said to surround the land of Ethiopia in order to wash away our lowly bodies and quench the fires of our vile flesh. The meaning of Ethiopia in Latin is "holy and vile." What is more lowly, what is more like Ethiopia, than our bodies, blackened, too, by the darkness of sin?

And the name of the second river is Geon. It is the one which goes around all the land of Ethiopia. The name of the third river is Tigris. It goes towards the Assyrians. The fourth river is Euphrates. Therefore, concerning the Euphrates, where it goes or what lands it circles, it does not say, because, flowing nearby the land of promise, it was very easily known to the people of Israel, who were placed there and were to read this. But since a return to heavenly places is open to us through the waters of regeneration, it is sufficiently fitting to the dispensation of divine piety that this very element, through which we are led back to the upper homeland, is common to us with paradise, where the first man was placed, and just as grace invisibly recreates us in preparation for the entrance to the heavenly kingdom: so also invisibly from paradise through the veins of the earth the very water through which we are recreated flows forth to the Lord's world. Just as the Spirit breathes where He wills, and you hear His voice, but do not know where it comes from or where it goes (John 3:8); thus it was fitting that the water which the Holy Spirit sanctifies those whom He wills, should come to us by unknown ways from paradise, and return to unknown places to us, because it is known to have its origin from the paradise of pleasure.

The third river is the Tigris, which flows by the Assyrian land. To this river the deceiver Israel was dragged as a prisoner. This river is the swiftest of all rivers. The Assyrians dwell by it, guarding its course—for this is the meaning of its name. Hence those who by their fortitude hold in check the guileful vices of the body and direct themselves to higher things are thought to have something in common with this river. For that same reason fortitude emanates from that source in paradise. Fortitude in its rapid course tosses aside everything standing in its path and like this river is not hindered by any material obstacle.

The fourth river is the Euphrates, which means in Latin "fecundity and abundance of fruits." It presents a symbol of justice, the nourishment of every soul. No virtue produces more abundant benefits than equity or justice, which is more concerned with others than with itself, neglecting its own advantages and preferring the common good. Many derive Euphrates from the Greek apo tou euphrainesthai, that is, from a "feeling of gladness," because the human race rejoices in nothing more than it does in justice and equity. The question as to why, although the location itself of other rivers is reported, we have no description of the regions through which the river Euphrates flows calls for an answer. The waters of this river are considered to have a vital quality that fosters growth and increase. Wherefore the wise men among the Hebrews and the Assyrians called this river Auxen ["increase"] in contradistinction to the water of other rivers. The opposition has been well established between wisdom and malice, fortitude and irascibility, temperance, and other vices. Justice, on the other hand, is the most important as it represents the concord of all the other virtues. Hence it is not known from the places from which it flows, that is to say, it is not known in part. Justice is not divisible into parts. It is, as it were, the mother of all virtues. In these four rivers are symbolized therefore the four principal virtues.

Now these four rivers are as follows: the Pishon, that is, the Danube; the Gihon, that is, the Nile; the Tigris and the Euphrates. In between these we live. Even though the regions from which these flow are known, this does not apply to the head of the source; for Paradise is situated on a great height, and the rivers are swallowed up under the surrounding sea, descending as it were down a tall water pipe; having passed through the ground beneath the sea and reached this earth, the earth then spouts forth with one of them in the West-the Danube, or Pishon-the Gihon in the South, and the Euphrates and Tigris in the North.

The four rivers, then, are these: the Pishon, which is the Danube; the Gihon, which is the Nile; and then the Tigris and the Euphrates, between which we dwell. Although the places from which they flow are known, the source of the spring is not known. Because paradise is set on a great height, the rivers are swallowed up again, and they go down to the sea as if through a tall water duct, and so they pass through the earth that is under the sea into this land. The earth then spits out each one of them: the Danube, which is the Pishon, in the west; the Gihon in the south; and the Euphrates and the Tigris in the north.

Note, now, the person who was taken and the land where he was formed. The virtue of God, therefore, took man and breathed into him, so that man's virtue will advance and increase. God set him apart in Paradise that you may know that man was taken up, that is to say, was breathed upon by the power of God. Note the fact that man was created outside Paradise, whereas woman was made within it. This teaches us that each person acquires grace by reason of virtue, not because of locality or of race. Hence, although created outside Paradise, that is, in an inferior place, man is found to be superior, whereas woman, created in a better place, that is to say, in Paradise, is found to be inferior. She was first to be deceived and was responsible for deceiving the man. Wherefore the Apostle Paul has related that holy women have in olden times been subject to the stronger vessel and recommends them to obey their husbands as their masters. [ 1 Peter 3:1 ] And Paul says: 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin.' [ 1 Tim 2:14 ] This is a warning that no one ought to rely on himself, for she who was made for assistance needs the protection of a man. [ Gen 2:18 ] The head of the woman is man, who, while he believed that he would have the assistance of his wife, fell because of her. [ 1 Cor 11:3 ] Wherefore, no one ought to entrust himself lightly to another unless he has first put that person's virtue to the test. Neither should he claim for himself in the role of protector one whom he believes is subservient to him. Rather, a person should share his grace with another. Especially is this true of one who is in the position of greater strength and one who plays the part of protector. We have advice of the Apostle Peter, wherein he recommends that husbands pay honor to their wives: 'Husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives considerately, paying honor to the woman as to the weaker vessel and as coheir of the grace of life that your prayers be not hindered.' [ 1 Peter 3:7 ] Therefore man was placed in Paradise, while the woman was created in Paradise. The woman, even before she was deceived by the serpent, shared grace with a man, since she was taken from a man. Yet 'this is a great mystery,' [ Eph. 5:32 ] as the Apostle said. Wherefore he traced the source of life from it. And so Scripture refers only to man in the words: 'He placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.' [ Gen 2:15 ] The act of tilling and the act of keeping are one and the same thing. In tilling there is a certain exercise of man's virtue, while in keeping it is understood that the work is accomplished, for protection implies something completed. These two acts are required of man. In this way, it is generally assumed, man can seek after something new and may keep what he has acquired. Philo, on the other hand, limited in his interpretation of this Scriptural passage to its moral aspect, since, because of his Jewish tendencies, he did not understand its spiritual import. He maintained that the two aspects were those of tilling the fields and of protecting the home. Although, he said, Paradise did not require labor in the fields, the first man, even in Paradise, undertook a kind of toil so as to furnish a law for future ages by which to bind us to the performance and to the preservation of our bounden duty and to the function of supporting hereditary succession.[Cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Gen 1:14] Both these point of view, the moral and the spiritual, are exacted of you. The prophetic psalm instructs you regarding this: 'Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, they watch in vain that keepeth it.' [ Ps 126:1 ] It is obvious that the laborers are those who engage in the actual operation of building, while the watchers are those to whom the duty of protecting the perfected work is entrusted. Hence the Lord said to the Apostles, as if they were on the point of perfecting their work: 'Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.' [ Matt 26:41 ] By this He meant that the function of a nature that was perfected along with the grace of abundant virtue should be preserved and that no one, even one who has attained some perfection, ought to feel really secure of himself unless he remains vigilant.

Although man was placed in paradise so as to work and guard it, that praiseworthy work was not toilsome. For the work in paradise is quite different from the work on the earth to which he was condemned after the sin. The addition "and to guard it" indicated the sort of work it was. For in the tranquility of the happy life, where there is no death, the only work is to guard what you possess.

The Lord God took the man whom He had formed and placed him in the paradise of pleasure, to work and keep it. What He said, to work and keep it, seems to refer to the place where it was said, And there was no man to till the ground. Truly we also, in exposing this word, let us place the words of the holy Father Augustine. "What was he to work or keep?" he said. "Did the Lord perhaps want the first man to do agriculture? Or is it not believable that He condemned him to labor before sinning? Indeed, we would think so, unless we saw some people work the land with so much delight of mind, that it would be a great punishment for them to be called away from it. Whatever delights agriculture had, then of course it was far greater, when nothing adverse happened to the land or the sky. For it was not the affliction of labor, but the exhilaration of the will, when those things which God created would thrive more joyfully and fruitfully with the help of human work, from which the Creator Himself would be more abundantly praised, who had given the reasoning and skill of working to the soul set in an animal body, as much as would suffice for a willing soul, not as much as the necessity of the body would force the unwilling." To work and keep it, he said, to keep the same paradise for himself, lest he permit anything for which he would deserve to be expelled from there. Finally, he also receives the command, so that he keeps the paradise for himself, that is, by observing it, he would not be thrown out from there. For rightly is anyone said not to have kept his property, who acted in such a way that he lost it, even if it is safe for another who either found it or deserved to receive it. There is another sense in these words, which I think should not undeservedly be put first, that God was working and keeping the man himself; just as a man works the ground, not to make it the ground, but to make it cultivated and fruitful, so God works the man whom He created as a man, so that he may be just, if the man does not depart from Him through pride. Therefore God placed the man in the paradise of pleasure, to work and keep it. He was to work, that is, to be good and blessed: and to keep it, that is, to be whole, by humbly submitting himself to His domination and protection.

It should be noted that the Church was placed in paradise, like the first man, "to till it," in such a way that no one would say "that anything he possessed" was "his own." For it began in a state of great perfection that is observed today in the religious life, for the love of Christ was still recent, and in those days "a large number also of the priests accepted the faith." This Church, meaning the one that began with the Jews, because they were converted at one time by the three thousand, and at another, by the five thousand, possessed the "tree of life," that is, faith, because "My just one lives by faith." It also had the "tree of knowledge," that is, the Law, which remained with them for seeing and reading, and not for eating. Much more: for "the day you eat of it, you must die." And so you may see the tree of knowledge, but not eat of it, or else you would destroy what Christ had done; and death would necessarily come in, for "the letter kills." Hence Paul says: "I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you."

According to others, time is divided into five: and this is established by Christ who referred to five summonses: "The kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard." The five summonses were in the morning, and at the third, sixth, ninth and eleventh hours. The morning saw the beginning of the creature, for God placed man in Paradise and commanded him "to till it and to keep it." But man had as yet neither mattock nor hoe: but he was able to make them out of the trees that were obedient to him. The second summons was under the scourge, until Noah who preached that man be more careful; the third, under Abraham who was a worshiper of God and a builder of altars, and it lasted until Moses; the fourth, under Moses through the Law and the prodigies, and it lasted until Christ; the fifth, under Christ and through Christ by means of penance—and He called all men to it and also to the wedding feast.

It is fitting to work within sacred Scripture and to train the mind. As Seneca says, "Many have I found who trained their body, but few their mind." In Genesis it is said that "the Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it." Such a training is a spiritual disposition towards devotedness.

For according to the first institution of nature, man was created fit for the repose of contemplation, and therefore God placed him in a paradise of delights. But turning away from the true light toward a changeable good, he was bent over by his own fault, and his entire race by original sin, which infected human nature in a twofold manner, namely the mind with ignorance, and the flesh with concupiscence; so that man, blinded and bent over, sits in darkness and does not see the light of heaven, unless grace with justice comes to his aid against concupiscence, and knowledge with wisdom against ignorance.

Genesis 2: God placed man in paradise, that he might work: likewise, in chapter 3 of the same it was said to man sinning: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread, etc. Therefore the precept concerning labor regards man according to nature as instituted and according to nature as fallen, therefore according to all times; but it especially regards the man who is able by himself and cannot supply through another; but such is the able-bodied poor man: therefore such a one is bound to labor manually.

Having spoken of Paradise and the rivers which issue from it and divide up, Scripture turns to speak of the entry of Adam into Paradise and the law which was laid down for him, as follows: "The Lord God took Adam and left him in the in the Paradise of Eden to till it [or worship Him] and keep [or guard] it." [ Gen2:15 ]

With what did he till it, seeing that he had not agricultural implements? And how would he have been able to till it, seeing that he could not have managed it himself? And what would he have to clear from it, seeing that there were no thistles or thorns there? Again, how could he have guarded it, since he could not walk right around it? And from what was he guarding it, seeing that there was no thief trying to enter it? Now the barrier which came into existence at the transgression of the commandment testified to the fact that no guard was required as long as the commandment was kept.

So Adam had nothing to keep there except for the law which was laid down for him. Nor was any work entrusted to him apart from preserving the commandment that he had been given. But should someone say that he had these two things to do as well as the commandment, I would not oppose him.

And all the time I was thinking what a shame it was that he was not sticking his spade into his own garden, instead of mine: he knew about the earth and the underworld of seeds, the resurrection of Spring and the flowers that appear in order like a procession marshalled by a herald. He possessed the garden intellectually and spiritually, while I only possessed it politically. I know more about flowers than coal-owners know about coal; for at least I pay them honour when they are brought above the surface of the earth. I know more about gardens than railway shareholders seem to know about railways: for at least I know that it needs a man to make a garden; a man whose name is Adam. But as I walked on that grass my ignorance overwhelmed me--and yet that phrase is false, because it suggests something like a storm from the sky above. It is truer to say that my ignorance exploded underneath me, like a mine dug long before; and indeed it was dug before the beginning of the ages. Green bombs of bulbs and seeds were bursting underneath me everywhere; and, so far as my knowledge went, they had been laid by a conspirator. I trod quite uneasily on this uprush of the earth; the Spring is always only a fruitful earthquake. With the land all alive under me I began to wonder more and more why this man, who had made the garden, did not own the garden. If I stuck a spade into the ground, I should be astonished at what I found there...and just as I thought this I saw that the gardener was astonished too.

Generally, the moral substance of liberty is this: that man is not meant merely to receive good laws, good food or good conditions, like a tree in a garden, but is meant to take a certain princely pleasure in selecting and shaping like the gardener. Perhaps that is the meaning of the trade of Adam. And the best popular words for rendering the real idea of liberty are those which speak of man as a creator. We use the word "make" about most of the things in which freedom is essential, as a country walk or a friendship or a love affair. When a man "makes his way" through a wood he has really created, he has built a road, like the Romans. When a man "makes a friend," he makes a man. And in the third case we talk of a man "making love," as if he were (as, indeed, he is) creating new masses and colours of that flaming material an awful form of manufacture. In its primary spiritual sense, liberty is the god in man, or, if you like the word, the artist.

(Verse 15.) And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of delight. For delight, in Hebrew, it is called Eden. Therefore, the Seventy have interpreted it as delight. But Symmachus, who had just before translated it as flourishing paradise, here puts it as 'in the garden of the shore', which also signifies pleasantness and luxury.

TODAY AGAIN, IF you don't mind, we will continue in the direction of yesterday's sermon, and apply ourselves to the task of drawing out from there the thread of spiritual teaching for your benefit. There is, you see, great force concealed in the words read just now; we need to go into them at great depth and study them all with precision so as to reap the benefit they offer. To make a comparison with people trying to discover gems in the sea: they submit to such toil and trouble and expose themselves to the buffeting of the waves in order to light upon the object of their search. Consequently, we should apply our minds much more diligently to the task of discovering what lies concealed below the surface of the words, and thus lay hold of these valuable gems. Don't be concerned, dearly beloved, to hear reference to depths. In this case, you see, there is no unruly surge of waves; instead, there is the grace of the Spirit shining upon our minds, making possible for us an effortless discovery of what we seek and rendering every difficulty light. So whereas, on the one hand, the discovery of those other gems brings to one who chances upon them a benefit that is not extraordinary, on the other hand, it often results in injury and proves to be the cause of countless shipwrecks: the searcher does not gain joy from the discovery to the same extent as he is afflicted by unpleasantness in his discovery on account of the glances he attracts to himself from envious onlookers, exciting the greedy to enmity against him. To this extent the discovery of that type of stone, far from simply bringing no advantage to one's life, also proves the occasion of numerous contests. It lays the groundwork for greed, you see, it stokes the furnace of cupidity and lays siege to the soul of those caught up in it. In the case of these spiritual stones of great value, on the contrary, no such problem is to be feared; instead, the wealth to be won from them is beyond telling, the pleasure from them is proof against defect and surpasses by a great margin all joy accruing to human beings from that other source. Listen to David's words on the subject: "Your sayings are more to be desired than gold and much precious metal." [ Ps 19:10 ] Do you see how he made open reference to those materials considered more valuable than others yet was not only dissatisfied with this comparison but added the word "much" and thence he clarified for us at that point the superiority involved: "More than gold," the text says, "and much precious metal." The reason that he made reference to these substances was not for the reason that the divine sayings are to be desired to that extent alone but because he recognized that only these substances enjoy the utmost preeminence in human estimation hence by referring to them he demonstrated the superiority intended and the ardor of the desire felt for the sayings of the Spirit. So that you may learn that it is the unfailing practice of Sacred Scripture to compare the benefit that comes from it with perceptible realities and thus demonstrate the superiority of the former, listen also to what follows. He went on, at any rate, to add: "And sweeter than honey and a honeycomb." In this case, too, the reference is not for the reason that they are sweeter only to that extent, or can provide only that kind of sweetness, but because he had nothing else among material things to compare to the sweetness of the divine sayings hence by referring to them he showed again their superiority and declared the sweetness of the spiritual teachings to be greater. You will find Christ, too, applying the same norm in the Gospels. When he was speaking to the disciples, remember, they were anxious to learn the meaning of the parable of the man sowing good seed in the field and his enemy throwing weeds in among the grain, so he explained to them the whole parable in detail, asking who was the man sowing the good seed, what was the field, what were the weeds and who scattered them, who were the harvesters and what was the harvest. When he had clarified all that for them, he then said, "Good people will be as brilliant as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" [ Matt 13:43 ] not for the reason that good people will have only that kind of brilliance, but to show that they will have much greater brilliance; he mentioned that kind because it is impossible to find a stronger image than that from among visible things. So when we hear something like that, let us not stop short at the literal level; instead, let us reason from the perceptible and visible realities to the superiority of spiritual realities in particular. Accordingly, if it is possible to discover the keener desire and the more heightened sweetness in this case (these sayings being, after all, divine and spiritual, and thus capable of prompting in the soul great spiritual joy), let us with great yearning and strong desire apply our ears to the words so that we may gain from them for ourselves true wealth and welcome many seeds that will germinate into right thinking about God, and thus make our way home. Let us, therefore, listen to what has been read today. Keep your mind ever attentive, however, I ask you, shake off all sloth and concerns for things of this life, and thus heed the words spoken l hey are, after all, divine laws brought down from heaven for our salvation. To make a comparison: when letters are read out from our emperor, there is complete silence, all din and tumult hushed, everyone standing with eager attention and desire to hear what it is the imperial letters convey; anyone making the slightest noise or interrupting the flow of the reading runs the greatest risk.' Much more in this present case is there need to stand in fear and trembling, maintain utter silence, and rid yourselves of confusion in your thinking so that you may be able to understand what is said, while the King of heaven may accept your responsiveness and deem you worthy of greater favors. Accordingly, let us see what blessed Moses teaches us to day also, telling us this as he does, not only by his own tongue but under the inspiration of the grace of the Spirit. He says: "The Lord God took the human being that he had formed." Right from the outset he has nicely put the two terms together: he didn't just say, "The Lord," and stop there, but added, "God," teaching us something that had escaped our notice and lain concealed in the text, so that we might realized that whether we hear "Lord" or "God" there is no difference in the names. This point, however, I am not making without reason: my purpose is that when you hear Paul saying, "There is one God the Father, from whom all things come, and one lord Jesus Christ, for whom all things exist," [ I Cor 8:6 ] you won't think there is a difference in the expressions, one referring to a greater and the other to a lesser. Hence Scripture employs these names interchangeably so that people inclined to controversy may have no encouragement to assail orthodoxy with a figment of their own imagination. That you may learn that Sacred Scripture says none of these things with distinction and discrimination in mind, notice precisely what emerges from this very sentence under consideration. "The Lord God took," it says. To whom does the heretic want this to refer? The Father alone. Very well, then. Listen to Paul's words: "There is one God the Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord Jesus Christ, for whom all things exist." Do you see how he applies the word "Lord" to the Son? So would they say the word "Lord" is greater than "God"? See how anomalous this is, and the extent of the blasphemy it provides a basis for. You see, whenever people are unwilling to take the consequences of following the norm of Sacred Scripture, wishing to make room for the vagaries of private reasoning, they upset their sense of balance and undermine the solid orthodoxy of dogmas with endless disputes and questioning. "The Lord God took the human being that he had formed," the text says, "and placed him in the garden of delights to till it and watch over it." See the extent of the providence he employs in regard to the human being he has created. I mean, after blessed Moses taught us yesterday that, to quote him, "God planted the garden and placed in it the human creature" in other words, he wanted him to have his dwelling place there and pass his days in enjoyment of the garden today he goes on to show us God's unspeakable love manifested in his regard. Taking up this theme he says: "The Lord God took the human being he had formed and placed him in the garden of delights." He did not simply say, "In the garden," but added, "of delights," so as to reveal to us the exceeding pleasure he enjoyed from living there. And after saying, "He placed him in the garden of delights," he said, "to till it and watch over it." A mark, this, of great solicitude. I mean, since life there was filled with every delight, was a pleasure to behold and a thrill to enjoy, he arranged accordingly that the human being should till the garden and watch over it lest he be unsettled by the exceeding indulgence ( "Idleness," Scripture says, remember, "has been the teacher of every evil" [ Sir 33:28 ] ). Well, why, do you ask, did the garden require attention by him? I'm not telling you that, but in fact God wanted him for a while to take some slight care that was appropriate in both watching and tilling. If, after all, he had been relieved of all need to work, he would have fallen a victim to great indulgence and at once have slipped into sloth; whereas in fact by performing some work that was painless and without difficulty he would be brought to a better frame of mind. That phrase, "to watch over it," is not added idly: it is an instance of considerateness in expression to the effect that he might be fully aware that he was subject to a master who had regaled him with such enjoyment, and along with that enjoyment entrusted him with its protection. God, you see, creates everything and arranges it for our salvation, and as well as that presents us with enjoyment and relaxation. If on account of his exceeding love he prepared those ineffable goods before creating us as he himself says, "Come, you blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you before the foundation of the world" [ Matt 25:34 ] much more will he provide us with everything in this world in generous measure.

How would God have placed what was altogether imperfect in paradise to work and guard it? For he who is capable of tending "the tree of life" and everything that God planted and caused to spring up afterwards would not reasonably be called imperfect. Perhaps, then, although he was perfect, he became imperfect in some way because of his transgression and was in need of one to perfect him from his imperfection. And the Savior was sent for these reasons.

Tilling the earth, keeping the commandments of God and fidelity to those commandments was the "labor" of God.… Just as believing in Christ is a "work," so also was Adam's faithful keeping of God's command. If he touched the tree, he would die, but if he did not, he would live. "Work" was keeping the spiritual words.… The text says "work" and "protect it." From what? There were no thieves, travelers or people with bad intentions. "Protect it" from what? From himself. Do not lose it by transgressing the command. Instead, he would preserve the commandment and in so doing preserve himself in paradise.

In the beginning man was created with a nature inclined to work, for in paradise Adam was enjoined to till the ground and care for it, and there is in us a natural bent for work, the movement toward the good. Those who yield themselves to idleness and apathy, even though they may be spiritual and holy, hurl themselves into unnatural subjection to passions.

For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. "And God said," "and God made," "and God saw;" but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: "And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed;" Genesis 2:15 "And the Lord God commanded Adam." Genesis 2:16 Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. [Against Hermogenes 3]

Why did He use the singular 'thou shalt eat' when He bade them eat of every tree, and, again, when He bade them eat of the tree of good and evil, why did He use the plural 'You shall not eat'? This is no trifling question. This problem can, in fact, be solved by the authority of the Scriptures if you study them carefully. Scripture refers to something good and something that should be done. What is good is naturally associated with what should be done. On the other hand, what is base is separate and unrelated to what should be done. And so the Lord, aiming always at oneness, gave orders in accordance with this principle. Hence He achieves oneness who 'has made both one' [ Eph 2:14 ] -He not only made both one, for He bade us to be 'one body and one Spirit.' [ Eph 4:4 ] 'The firstborn of every creature,' [ Col 1:15 ] since He is in union with the faith, is always closely joined to the Father, because 'the Word was with God.' [ John 1:1 ] Wherefore He says: 'I and the Father are one,' [ John 10:30 ] in order to show His union with the Father in majesty and in dignity. But He bade us to be one and transfused into us by the adoption of grace the likeness of His own nature and His own oneness, saying: 'Father, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and thou in me.' [ John 17:22 ] When He prescribes a good, therefore, He does it to one person, saying, 'Thou shalt eat,' for the oneness cannot be gainsaid. Where, however, He says that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil should not be tasted, He speaks in effect to several people: 'You shall not eat.' What has been prohibited has general application to several people. But I have another opinion on this matter. I am able to discover the meaning of what we are discussing in the very words of God Himself. Adam alone was bidden to taste of every tree and it was foreseen that he would follow that injunction. In the plural sense, and not in the singular, God sees that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil should not be tasted. He knew that the woman would sin. Thus, by using the plural, God points out that they will not follow the injunction, because, where there are many, there are differences of opinion. If we look into the sense of the words as expressed in the Septuagint [plural form, Vulgate has singular] the meaning is clear. Symmachus, however, takes both expressions in a singular sense. This is explained by the fact that in the Law, God, addressing His people, uses the singular: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord' and 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.' [ Deut 6:4,5 ] I am not influenced by the interpretation of Symmachus, who could not see the oneness of the Father and Son, although at times both he and Asylas admitted it in their discussions. The fact that God addresses in the singular number a people who will later contravene His commands should not lead us to think that I am dissenting from my former statement, inasmuch as the Jewish people, regarded as a single person, violated the injunctions imposed upon them. We have here a law of the Spirit whereby God addresses the people in divine language. In this case we should consider not so much the words as their prophetic import. Wherefore He says: 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of his dam.' [ Exod 34:26 ] From this point on, the celestial precepts present no great difficulty. However, there has been raised by several authors a question which we ought to answer lest simple minds be led astray by erroneous interpretation. Many authors, like Apelles in his thirtyeighth volume,[Apelles; cf. Harnack TU 6.3:116]propose the following questions. How is it, for example, that the tree of life has more power for giving life than the breath of God? Again, if man is not made perfect by God and each person acquired by his own effort a more perfect state of virtue for himself, does it not seem that man would gain for himself more than God had bestowed on him? Then they make the objection that, if man had not tasted death, he certainly could not be aware of what he had not tasted. What man had not tasted was something unknown to him. Accordingly, he could not be afraid of that of which he had no knowledge. To no purpose, therefore, did God inflict death as a punishment on men for whom it holds no fear. We should be aware of the fact, therefore, that where God has planted a tree of life. He has also planted a tree of life in the midst of Paradise. It is understood that He planted it in the middle. Therefore, in the middle of Paradise there was both a tree of life and a cause for death. Keep in mind that man did not create life. By carrying out and observing the precepts of God it was possible for man to find life. This was the life mentioned by the Apostle: 'Your life is hidden with Christ in God.' [ Col 3:3 ] Man, therefore was, figuratively speaking, either in the shadow of life--because our life on earth is but a shadow--or man had life, as it were, in pledge, for he had been breathed on by God. He had, therefore, a pledge of immortality, but while in the shadow of life he was unable, by the usual channels of sense, to see and attain the hidden life of Christ with God. Although not yet a sinner, he was not possessed of an incorrupt and inviolable nature. Of course, one who afterwards lapsed into sin was far from being as yet in the category of sinner. Hence, he was in the shadow of life, whereas sinners are in the shadow of death. According to Isaias, the people who sinned sat in the shadow of death. [ Isa 9:2 ] For these a light arose, not by the merits of their virtues, but by the grace of God. There is no distinction, therefore, between the breath of God and the food of the tree of life. No man can say that he can acquire more by his own efforts than what is granted him by the generosity of God. Would that we had been able to hold on to what we had received! Our toils avail only to the extent that we take back again what was once conferred on us. The third objection, that one who has not tasted death cannot fear it, finds its solution in our common experience. There is an instinct innate in all living creatures which impels them to dread even what they have not yet experienced as harmful. Why is it that doves, even at the moment of their birth, are terrorized at the sight of a hawk? Why are wolves dreaded by sheep and hawks by chickens? In irrational animals there is a certain innate fear of creatures of a different species to the extent that, even though these animals are irrational, they have a feeling that death is something to be shunned. Such being the case, how true is it that the first man, fully and indubitably endowed with reason, should be conscious of the fact that death is something to be avoided! There are some, again, who suggest for solution difficulties such as the following. For example, they maintain that refusal to obey an order is not always wrong. If the order is a good one, then the act of obeying is commendable. But if the order is a wicked one, it is not feasible to obey it. Therefore, it is not always wrong to disobey an order, but it is wrong to refuse to obey an order that is good. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a creation that is good, since God had knowledge of good and evil. Hence He says: 'Indeed! The man has become like one of us.' [ Gen 3:23 ] If, therefore, possessing the knowledge of good and evil is good and if what God has is a good, it would appear that the prohibition to prevent man from making use of it is not a righteous one. Such is their argument. But, if they were to realize the real significance and force of the word 'knowledge' as they should- 'The Lord knew who belong to him,' [ Num 16:5 ] that is, He knew those surely among whom He dwells and walks, who were made one out of so many-then certainly these people would know that knowledge is not to be interpreted merely as superficial comprehension, but as the carrying out of what ought to be accomplished. Man ought to obey the command. A failure to obey is a violation of duty. The man, therefore, who disobeys falls into error because violation of duty is a sin. Even if these people should agree to a modified meaning of the word 'knowledge' and consider that an imperfect comprehension of good and evil was prohibited, in that respect, too, there is a violation of duty in not complying with the command. The Lord God has made it clear that even an imperfect comprehension of good and evil should be prohibited. Another problem: The man who does not know good and evil differs in no respect from a little child. A judge who is just does not consider a child to be guilty of crime. The just Creator of the world would never have found fault with a child for his lack of knowledge of good and evil, because a child cannot be charged with a violation of a law. In the preceding passage, however, we have said that, once you accept the fact that there is a knowledge that is imperfect, then knowledge of good and evil may be taken in two senses. It is certainly false to hold that the man who does not know good and evil is not different from a child. If it is wrong to maintain that such a man does not differ from a child, then Adam is not to be thought of as a child. If he was not a child, then surely he is liable to sin, inasmuch as he is not a child. If he is subject to sin, then punishment follows the sin, because the man who cannot avoid sin is reckoned to be liable to punishment. It can even happen that the person who has no knowledge of good and evil may not be a child: 'For before the child knew good and evil, he refused the evil.' [ Isa 7:16 ] Again we read: 'For before the child knew to call his father and mother, he will receive the strength of Damascus and the toils of Samaria.' [ Isa 8:4 ] Perfect, therefore, is the man who performs a good deed even if he has not attained the knowledge of good and evil, just as 'many are a law to themselves' [ Rom 2:14 ] even before they know the Law. Was the Apostle before he learned: 'Thou shalt not lust,' quite unaware that concupiscence was a sin? On this point he says: 'I did not know sin save through the Law. For I had not known lust unless the Law had said, "Thou shalt not lust."' [ Exod 20:17; Rom 7:7 ] Even a child can become by the law of nature perfect in that respect before he knows that concupiscence is a sin or admit the sin of concupiscence. Hence, God willed that man know the nature of evil in a superficial fashion lest, being imperfect, he may be unable to avoid evil. By not obeying a command we are subject to blame. We are thus led to admit our error. Again, if we are referring to a very profound knowledge of good and evil which in itself makes for perfection [Schenkl points to a lacuna in the manuscript here] a little child is not, like a grown-up, immediately to be chastised, because he has not yet reached a capacity to understand. Again, more criticisms crop up.[From Apelles; cf. Harnack, op. cit ] There is the objection that a person who does not know good and evil is unaware that disobedience to a command is in itself an evil, nor is he aware that obedience to a command is itself a good. Hence it is argued that the person who is in this respect ignorant is deserving, not of condemnation, but of pardon. What we have already maintained above presents a ready solution to this problem. Man is capable of realizing that the utmost deference should be given to his Maker because of what God had already conferred on him, namely, the fact that God had breathed on him and that he was placed in the Garden of Delight. Wherefore, if he was ignorant of the meaning of good and evil. Nevertheless, since the Creator of such mighty things had declared that one should not eat of the tree of good and evil, loyal adherence should be given to Him who gave the command. It was not a question of technical knowledge, but of fidelity. He certainly was aware that God was in a position of preeminence and, as such, heed should be paid to His command. Although he did not understand the precise significance of the commands, he was conscious of the fact that deference should be paid to the person of the Commander. This conviction on his part stemmed from nature. He was as yet incapable of discriminating between good and evil. Wherefore the woman answers the serpent: 'Of the fruit of all the trees in the garden we shall eat, but of the fruit in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it.' [ Gen 3:2,3 ] She knew, herefore, that the command must be obeyed. Hence she said: We shall eat of every fruit which the Lord ordered, but God has given an order that one should not eat of the tree in the middle of the Garden, lest he die. Wherefore, she who knew that the command should be obeyed was surely aware that it was wrong not to comply with the command and that she would be justly condemned for her refusal to obey. One more point. The circumstances connected with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were such as to convince us that both good and evil were recognized. We are led to believe from the evidence of Scripture that such was the case: 'When they both ate, their eyes were opened and they realized that they were naked,' [ Gen 3:6,7 ] that is, the eyes of their mind were opened and they realized the shame of being naked. For that reason, when the woman ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil she certainly sinned and realized that she had sinned. On realizing this, she should not have invited her husband to share in her sin. By enticing him and by giving him what she herself had tasted she did not nullify her sin; rather, she repeated it. Certainly it stands to reason that she did intend to lure the person whom she loved to share in her punishment. She should be expected to ward off from one who was unaware of it the danger of falling into a sin of which she had knowledge. Yet this woman, knowing that she could not remain in Paradise after the Fall, seems to have had a fear that she alone would be ejected from the Garden. Hence, after the Fall, they both went into hiding. Being aware, therefore, that she would have to be separated from the man she loved, she had no desire to be deceived. Another point. Knowledge of evil does not make evil. An act is necessary to complete its conditions. There is no immediate connection between the knower of what is evil and the doer. He is guilty who does what he knows to be evil. Either anger or cupidity is the customary means of arousing a person to perform an evil act. It does not necessarily follow that one who has knowledge of evil, unless he is the victim of anger or cupidity, will do what he knows is wrong. To repeat what we have said, the incentives to sin are anger and cupidity. To these we may add extreme fear, which itself may give rise to cupidity, inasmuch as everyone is anxious to avoid what is the cause of his fear. With reason, therefore, have we established that the incentives to the other vices are anger and cupidity. Let us consider, then, whether Eve was aroused to wrong-doing by these incentives. She was not angry with her consort. She was not a victim of cupidity. Again, she merely erred in giving her husband to eat of what she had already tasted. Cupidity had been at first responsible for her error in inducing him to eat and it was the occasion for the subsequent sin. This can be explained in the following way. She was unable to desire what she had already eaten and, after eating she acquired a knowledge of evil. She ought not, therefore, have made her husband a partaker of the evil of which she was conscious; neither should she have caused her own husband to violate the divine command. She sinned, therefore, with forethought, and knowingly made her husband a participant in her own wrong-doing. If it were not so, what is related of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be found to be in error, if it were established that, after she ate of that tree, she was without knowledge of evil. But, if what Scripture says is true, cupidity was the motive of her act. Many, however, are of the opinion that she should be excused for the reason that, because she loved her husband, she was afraid that she would be separated from him. They offer this as grounds for her cupidity: namely, that she desired to be with her husband. Still another problem arises.[From Apelles: cf. Harnack. op. cit. ] From what source did death come to Adam? Was it from the nature of a tree of this sort or actually from God? If we ascribe this to the nature of the tree, then the fruit of this tree seems to be superior to the vivifying power of the breath of God, since its fruit had drawn into death's toils him on whom the divine breath had bestowed life. If we maintain that God is the responsible cause of death, then we can be held to accuse Him of inconsistency. We seem to accuse Him of being so devoid of beneficence as to be unwilling to pardon when He had the power to do so, or of being powerless if He was unable to forgive. Let us see, therefore, how this question can be resolved. The solution, unless I am mistaken, lies in the fact that, since disobedience was the cause of death, for that very reason, not God, but man himself, was the agent of his own death. If, for example, a physician were to prescribe to a patient what he thought should be avoided, and if the patient felt that these prohibitions were unnecessary, the physician is not responsible for the patient's death. Surely in that case the patient is guilty of causing his own death. Hence, God as a good physician forbade Adam to eat what would be injurious to him. Another point. To know what is good is better than to be ignorant of it. It is fitting that a person who knows what is good know, also, what is evil, in order that he may know the means to avoid it and, by taking the necessary precautions, that he may act with discretion. Again, it is not sufficient to know merely what is evil, lest, although you know what is evil, you may find yourself deprived of what is good. It is best, therefore, that we know both so that, since we know what is good, we may avoid evil. Again, from the fact that we are aware of evil we may give our preference to the charm of what is good. Moreover, we ought to know both so that our knowledge may be profound and so that we may put in practice what we know, act and acknowledge to be in perfect balance. Besides, Scripture points out that more is expected of him who has general knowledge of both than of him who is ignorant of them. [ Luke 13:47,48 ] Knowledge of what you cannot achieve or avoid is a grievous thing. Grievous, too, is knowledge which is not put into practice and into operation to its fullest extent. Without knowledge of what is harmful or beneficial to a patient and without the power of being able to utilize to the best advantage that knowledge, a physician is likely to act in such a way as to lose his reputation. Hence, knowledge is not salutary unless it is put into practice in the best possible way. Still another point. Not without reason was the tree of knowledge of good and evil grown in the middle of the Garden, and the prohibition against it was unnecessary if it was grown for each and every man. This tree was designed for the use of just one man, who received the command that he make use not only of that tree, but of the other trees besides. You can find many, even countless, instances in which a person can, because of ignorance of procedure, suffer real harm. Wealth itself will be found to be unprofitable to a rich man if he refuses to set in a generous fashion toward the poor. He may shut out the needy and deprive them of assistance and, because of his superior powers, he may extort for his own purpose what belongs to another. The very possession of beauty and of physical charm is more likely than deformity to lead one to vice. For that reason, therefore, does anyone desire to have children who are unsightly rather than handsome? Or desire their offspring to be povertystricken rather than well-to-do? There are many instances of this sort which are not to be ascribed to the lack of wisdom in the giver, but to the person who misuses the gifts. The fault lies not so much in the person who makes the gifts as in the person who makes use of them. Another problem.[From Apelles] Did God know that Adam would violate His commands? Or was He unaware of it? If He did not know, we are faced with a limitation of His divine power. If He knew, yet gave a command which He was aware would be ignored, it is not God's providence to give an unnecessary order. It was in the nature of a superfluous act to give to Adam, the first created being, a command which He knew would not at all be observed. But God does nothing superfluous. Therefore, the words of Scripture do not come from God. This is the objection of those who do not, by interposing these questions, admit the authenticity of the Old Testament. But these people are to be condemned out of their own mouths. Since these same persons concede the authenticity of the New Testament, they must be convinced by evidence to believe in the Old. If they see that God is consistent in His commands and in His deeds, it is clear that they must concede that both Testaments are the work of one Author. The following example should convince them that a command to one who will disobey is not something superfluous or unjust. The Lord Himself chose Judas, one who, He knew, would betray Him. If these men think that he was chosen unwisely, they restrict the power of God. But they cannot hold this opinion, since Scripture declares: 'For Jesus knew who it was who should betray him.' [ John 6:65 ] These defamers of the Old Testament should therefore hold their peace. Possible objections on the part of the Gentiles who do not admit this evidence stand in need of a response. Since the Gentiles demand a rational explanation, here is the reason why the Son of God either gave a command to one who is going to disobey it or has chosen one who is going to betray Him. The Lord Jesus came to save all sinners. [ Luke 19:10 ] He was bound to show concern even for the wicked. Accordingly, He was bound not to disregard one who was to betray Him. He wished that all might take note that in the choice even of His betrayer He was offering a sign for the salvation of all of us. No injury was done to Adam in that he received a command, or to Judas because he was chosen. God did not lay it down as a necessary consequence that one should disobey and the other should betray Him. Both could have abstained from sin if they had guarded what they had received. Hence, although He knew that all the Jews would not believe, He stated: 'I have not come except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' [ Matt 15:24 ] The fault is, therefore, not in the one issuing the command; the sin is rather in the one who disobeys. God's intent was this: He wanted to show to everyone that He willed to give freedom to all mankind. I do not mean to maintain that He did not know of the disobedience to come. Rather, I contend that He did know, but that He should not for that reason be subject to reproach for a betrayer who met death. God should not be accused of being the cause why both lapsed. In fact, both stand convicted and condemned, because one received a command not to fall into sin, and the other was enrolled among the Apostles in order that he, as the result of kindness, might change his intention to betray. At some time in the future when the other Apostles would be found wanting, he might well become a source of comfort to all. In effect, there would not exist any sin if there were no prohibition. Without the existence of sin there would be no such thing as wrong-doing or, perhaps, even virtue, which could not have any cause for existence or for preeminence without the aid of unrighteousness to offset it. What is sin, if not the violation of divine law and the disobedience to heavenly precepts? Not by the ear, but by the mind, do we form a judgment regarding injunction from above. But with the Word of God before us we are able to formulate opinions on what is good and what is evil. One of these we naturally understand should be, as evil, avoided, and the other we understand has been recommended to us as a good. In this respect we seem to be listening to the very voice of the Lord, whereby some things are forbidden and other things are advised. If a person does not comply with the injunctions which are believed to have been once ordained by God, he is considered to be liable to punishment. The commands of God are impressed in our hearts by the Spirit of the living God. We do not read these orders as if they were recorded in ink on a tablet of stone. [ 2 Cor 3:3 ] Hence, in our own thought we formulate a law: 'For if the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what the law prescribes, those having no law of this kind are a law unto themselves. They show the work of the law written in their hearts.' [ Rom 2:14,15 ] There is something, therefore, like the Law of God which exists in the hearts of men. These same people raise another objection. Instead of that command which we said was established in the mind of man, they would maintain that this very impression in our minds by God was itself the prescription of a divine law. The question is raised: Did the Creator of man know that man would fall into sin and so implanted those opinions of what is good and evil in the mind of man or was He unaware that this would happen? If you concede that He did not know of it, you attribute to God something alien to His majesty. If, on the other hand, you maintain that, although God was aware that man would sin, He impressed in man's mind a realization of what is good and evil, so that he would be unable, because of the admixture of evil, to live forever then in one case you imply that God was not prescient and in the other that He was not beneficent. From this the conclusion is reached that man was not the creation of God. We have already stated that these men maintain that God had not imposed a command. Now they say that man was not created by God, because God did not create evil. Man, on the other hand, had a mental conception of evil, inasmuch as he was enjoined to abstain from evil. In this way they venture to assert that there were two gods: one who is good; the other, the Creator of man. We must follow the lines of their own logic in formulating our reply. If they hold that man was not made by God, because man is a sinner, and if they recoil from conceding this point, lest a good God may not seem to the creator of sinners (because they do not believe that God is good who made a sinner) , then let them declare whether this artificer of man has in their opinion also been made by God? If, as they state, this artificer of man was created by God, how can it be possible that a God who is good is also the agent of evil? If the creator of a sinner is not good, then more serious implications result if we postulate the maker of him who is the artificer of a sinner. A God who is good is bound to prevent the birth of him who shall have to introduce the substance of sin. But if they maintain that this artificer was not created, than the problem arises as to whether a God who is good could or could not in any way prevent the growth of evil. If such a God cannot do this, then He is powerless. Inasmuch as such inconsistencies follow our line of argumentation and since the heretics get involved here, also, let us attempt a solution of the problem of why God allowed adversity to enter into this world through an artificer who either did or did not spring from Him, although He had the power to prevent it. Accordingly, while still holding that the God who is good and the one who is the artificer are one and the same, let us make clear what are the provinces of each. We should at the same time try to meet the objections of those who raise such a question as this: How is it possible that a God who is good has permitted not only adversity to enter this world but has allowed it, too, to be in such a state of disorder? [From Apelles] In truth, this objection would be valid only if this evil so affected the nature of our soul and the secret places of our hearts that riddance was impossible and if, again, this poison had left such deep wounds in our hearts and souls that medication was of no avail. [Cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses 1:190] In fact, this grievance of theirs could be more aptly expressed by stating that, although God is omnipotent, He has permitted man to die. But since God in His pity has reserved for us the means of obtaining remedy for our sins and still has not rid us of all possibilities of contagion, then let us reflect on the following points. Would it be an unjust and unreasonable act if God, fearful, as it were, of man's frailty and mortality, permitted us to be tempted in such wise that, through penitence for our sins, grace compounded would return once more to our hearts? Again, would it be unjust if man, conscious and fearful of his own frailty (since he found that he could so easily deviate from the orderly path of divine commands) and fearful, too, lest he let loose these heavenly mandates which like a helm guide his soul-would it be unjust if man should finally attribute the recovery of the helm to divine pity and by his safe return acquire some grace as well? Now let us investigate the reason why God considered that a command should be given concerning the two classes of trees: the one to be eaten and the other which it was forbidden to eat. Thus, He laid down to man injunctions on the ways of attaining that wonderful and happy life, following which he might not have to suffer death. There are some who think that i[t] was totally inappropriate for the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things to lay down that command and that it was definitely unsuited to the inhabitants of Paradise, because life there was like that of the angels. And so we can conclude that the food provided for eating there was not earthly and corruptible, because those who do not drink or eat 'will be as the angels in heaven.' [ ] There is no merit, therefore, in food, because food does not commend us to God. Neither is there great danger therein, because 'what goes into the mouth does not defile a man but it is what comes out of the mouth.' [ Matt 22:30; 15:11 ] Undoubtedly, then, it would appear that the precept [is quite unworthy] of such a great Creator unless you take this food to mean prophetic food, because as a great reward the Lord makes this promise to His saints: 'Behold my servants shall eat and you shall be hungry.' [ Isa 65:13 ] This is the food that makes for eternal life. Whoever is deprived of this will suffer death, since the Lord Himself is the living and heavenly Bread which gives life to this world. Hence He speaks: 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life eternal.' [ John 6:50; cf. 6:54 ] The bread was, therefore, meant for a certain person. Instructions were given that it should be eaten b[y] the inhabitants of Paradise. Who is that person? We are told who that person is: 'Man ate the bread of angels.' [ Ps 77:25 ] The bread is good if you do the will of God. Do you wish to know how good that bread was? The Son of God Himself eats of that bread of which He says: 'My food is to do the will of my father who is in heaven.' [ John 4:34 ]

Knowing once more how the will of man could sway to either side, in anticipation God secured the grace given them by a command and by the place where he put them. For he brought them into his own garden and gave them a law so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care, besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven. But if they transgressed and turned back and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death that was theirs by nature, no longer to live in paradise but cast out of it from that time forth to die and abide in death and corruption.

And He commanded him, saying: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat. It is not to be believed that there was anything naturally evil in that tree, as we have also taught above, but man was forbidden from that which was not evil, so that the very observance of the command itself would be good for him and its transgression evil. Indeed, the sinner desired nothing but to not be under the dominion of God when that was committed concerning which only the command of the ruler should have been regarded, which, if it alone were regarded, what else but the will of God would have been loved? What else but the will of God would have been preferred to the human will? Nor can it happen that one's own will does not fall upon man with the weight of a great ruin, if he exalts it by preferring it to the superior will. This man experienced, who scorned the precept of God; and by this experience he learned what difference there is between good and evil, namely, the good of obedience, but the evil of disobedience, that is, of pride, defiance, perverse imitation of God, and harmful freedom. However, the name was given to this in which it could happen from the very matter, as said above.

Although to Adam it was said "For the day you eat of it, you must die," today you have been faithful. Today will bring you salvation. The tree brought ruin to Adam; the tree [of life] shall bring you into paradise. Fear not the serpent; he shall not cast you out, for he has fallen from heaven. I say not to you, "This day you shall depart," but "This day you shall be with me."

In the very midst he planted the Tree of Knowledge, endowing it with wonder, hedging it in with dread, so that it might straightway serve as a boundary to the inner region of paradise. Two things did Adam hear in that single decree: that they should not eat of it and that, by shrinking from it, they should perceive that it was not lawful to penetrate further, beyond that tree.

If you really read the fairy-tales, you will observe that one idea runs from one end of them to the other—the idea that peace and happiness can only exist on some condition. This idea, which is the core of ethics, is the core of the nursery-tales. The whole happiness of fairyland hangs upon a thread, upon one thread. Cinderella may have a dress woven on supernatural looms and blazing with unearthly brilliance; but she must be back when the clock strikes twelve. The king may invite fairies to the christening, but he must invite all the fairies or frightful results will follow. Bluebeard's wife may open all doors but one. A promise is broken to a cat, and the whole world goes wrong. A promise is broken to a yellow dwarf, and the whole world goes wrong. A girl may be the bride of the God of Love himself if she never tries to see him; she sees him, and he vanishes away. A girl is given a box on condition she does not open it; she opens it, and all the evils of this world rush out at her. A man and woman are put in a garden on condition that they do not eat one fruit: they eat it, and lose their joy in all the fruits of the earth.

This great idea, then, is the backbone of all folk-lore—the idea that all happiness hangs on one thin veto; all positive joy depends on one negative. ... It is surely obvious that all ethics ought to be taught to this fairy-tale tune; that, if one does the thing forbidden, one imperils all the things provided. ... Instead of finding (like common books of ethics) a rationalistic basis for each Commandment, they find the great mystical basis for all Commandments. We are in this fairyland on sufferance; it is not for us to quarrel with the conditions under which we enjoy this wild vision of the world. The vetoes are indeed extraordinary, but then so are the concessions. The idea of property, the idea of some one else's apples, is a rum idea; but then the idea of there being any apples is a rum idea. It is strange and weird that I cannot with safety drink ten bottles of champagne; but then the champagne itself is strange and weird, if you come to that. If I have drunk of the fairies' drink it is but just I should drink by the fairies' rules.

It is logically possible, to play croquet too well to enjoy it at all. If you could put this blue ball through that distant hoop as easily as you could pick it up with your hand, then you would not put it through that hoop any more than you pick it up with your hand; it would not be worth doing. If you could play unerringly you would not play at all. The moment the game is perfect the game disappears.

Any one can see it who will simply read "Grimm's Fairy Tales" or the fine collections of Mr. Andrew Lang. For the pleasure of pedantry I will call it the Doctrine of Conditional Joy. Touchstone talked of much virtue in an "if"; according to elfin ethics all virtue is in an "if." The note of the fairy utterance always is, "You may live in a palace of gold and sapphire, if you do not say the word 'cow'"; or "You may live happily with the King's daughter, if you do not show her an onion." The vision always hangs upon a veto. All the dizzy and colossal things conceded depend upon one small thing withheld. All the wild and whirling things that are let loose depend upon one thing that is forbidden. Mr. W.B. Yeats, in his exquisite and piercing elfin poetry, describes the elves as lawless; they plunge in innocent anarchy on the unbridled horses of the air--

"Ride on the crest of the dishevelled tide, And dance upon the mountains like a flame."

It is a dreadful thing to say that Mr. W.B. Yeats does not understand fairyland. But I do say it. He is an ironical Irishman, full of intellectual reactions. He is not stupid enough to understand fairyland. Fairies prefer people of the yokel type like myself; people who gape and grin and do as they are told. Mr. Yeats reads into elfland all the righteous insurrection of his own race. But the lawlessness of Ireland is a Christian lawlessness, founded on reason and justice. The Fenian is rebelling against something he understands only too well; but the true citizen of fairyland is obeying something that he does not understand at all. In the fairy tale an incomprehensible happiness rests upon an incomprehensible condition. A box is opened, and all evils fly out. A word is forgotten, and cities perish. A lamp is lit, and love flies away. A flower is plucked, and human lives are forfeited. An apple is eaten, and the hope of God is gone.

This is the tone of fairy tales, and it is certainly not lawlessness or even liberty, though men under a mean modern tyranny may think it liberty by comparison. People out of Portland Gaol might think Fleet Street free; but closer study will prove that both fairies and journalists are the slaves of duty. Fairy godmothers seem at least as strict as other godmothers. Cinderella received a coach out of Wonderland and a coachman out of nowhere, but she received a command--which might have come out of Brixton--that she should be back by twelve. Also, she had a glass slipper; and it cannot be a coincidence that glass is so common a substance in folk-lore. This princess lives in a glass castle, that princess on a glass hill; this one sees all things in a mirror; they may all live in glass houses if they will not throw stones. For this thin glitter of glass everywhere is the expression of the fact that the happiness is bright but brittle, like the substance most easily smashed by a housemaid or a cat. And this fairy-tale sentiment also sank into me and became my sentiment towards the whole world. I felt and feel that life itself is as bright as the diamond, but as brittle as the window-pane; and when the heavens were compared to the terrible crystal I can remember a shudder. I was afraid that God would drop the cosmos with a crash.

Strangely enough, in a sense, the forbidden fruit is often more fruitful than the free. It is more fruitful in the sense of a fascinating botanical study of why it is really poisonous. Thus, for the sake of an example, all healthy people have an instinct against usury; and the Church has only confirmed that instinct. But to learn how to define usury, to study what it is and to argue why it is wrong, is to have a liberal education, not only in political economy, but in the philosophy of Aristotle and the history of the Councils of Lateran. There almost always is a human reason for all the merely human advice given by the Church to humanity; and to find out the principle of the thing is, among other things, one of the keenest of intellectual pleasures. But in any case the fact remains that the Church is right in the main in being tolerant in the main; but that where she is intolerant she is most right and even most reasonable. Adam lived in a garden where a thousand mercies were granted to him; but the one inhibition was the greatest mercy of all.

A charter is the expression of an idea still true and then almost universal: that authority is necessary for nothing so much as for the granting of liberties. Like everything mediæval, it ramified back to a root in religion; and was a sort of small copy of the Christian idea of man's creation. Man was free, not because there was no God, but because it needed a God to set him free. By authority he was free. By authority the craftsmen of the guilds were free. Many other great philosophers took and take the other view: the Lucretian pagans, the Moslem fatalists, the modern monists and determinists, all roughly confine themselves to saying that God gave man a law. The mediæval Christian insisted that God gave man a charter. Modern feeling may not sympathise with its list of liberties, which included the liberty to be damned; but that has nothing to do with the fact that it was a gift of liberties and not of laws. This was mirrored, however dimly, in the whole system. There was a great deal of gross inequality; and in other aspects absolute equality was taken for granted. But the point is that equality and inequality were ranks--or rights. There were not only things one was forbidden to do; but things one was forbidden to forbid. A man was not only definitely responsible, but definitely irresponsible. The holidays of his soul were immovable feasts. All a charter really meant lingers alive in that poetic phrase that calls the wind a "chartered" libertine.

Lie awake at night and hear the wind blowing; hear it knock at every man's door and shout down every man's chimney. Feel how it takes liberties with everything, having taken primary liberty for itself; feel that the wind is always a vagabond and sometimes almost a housebreaker. But remember that in the days when free men had charters, they held that the wind itself was wild by authority; and was only free because it had a father.

[God gave Adam] a law as a material for his free will to act on. This law was a commandment as to what plants he might partake of and which one he might not touch. This latter was the tree of knowledge; not, however, because it was evil from the beginning when planted, nor was it forbidden because God grudged it to us—let not the enemies of God wag their tongues in that direction or imitate the serpent. But it would have been good if partaken of at the proper time. The tree was, according to my theory, contemplation, which is safe only for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter upon, but which is not good for those who are still somewhat simple and greedy, just as neither is solid food good for those who are yet tender and have need of milk.

So he conferred such favors on this creature, first bringing him from nonbeing to being, then deeming it proper to shape his body from dust, and after that as the supreme gesture bestowing on him his incorporeal soul through the action of breathing, then bidding the garden be created and directing him to spend his life there, later, like a loving father who prevents his young child from being unsettled by great relaxation and freedom from care by devising some slight responsibility appropriate to the situation, the Lord God in like manner ordered the task of tilling and guarding for Adam so that along with all those delights, relaxation and freedom from care he might have, by way of a stabilizing influence, those two tasks to prevent him from overstepping the limit. So these things had already happened to the newly created being, whereas what happened in addition makes clear to us again the great and unsurpassed love for him, as well as the considerateness he displays on account of his own goodness. What in fact does Scripture say? "The Lord God instructed Adam." [ Gen 2:16 ] In this case also notice him once more following the same habit so that we might receive a precise statement of the teaching through the repetition of the terms, and no longer tolerate those people presuming to make distinctions in as signing the names ascribing one to the Father and the other to the Son. In fact, since both have the one essence, logically Sacred Scripture can be found applying the same name interchangeably to the Father in one place and to the Son in another. The text says, "The Lord God instructed Adam in these words." At this we very properly are astonished at God's loving kindness beyond all telling, which he reveals to us through this brief sentence. "He instructed," it says. Notice from the outset how much esteem he evidences for the human being. I mean, it didn't say, He commanded, or He ordered, but "He instructed." Just as one friend is said to instruct another about some pressing needs, God, too, in like manner conducts his relationship with Adam, just as if he wants to win him over through this attitude of esteem to obedience to his instructions. "The Lord God instructed Adam in these words: 'From all the trees in the garden you are to eat your fill, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat. On the day that you eat from it you will truly die.'" [ Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17 ] No great difficulty in this instruction. Yet, dearly be loved, sloth is a terrible fault: just as it makes easy things seem hard to us, so enthusiasm and alertness render even hard things easy for us. I mean, what, I ask you, could be simpler than this instruction? What could be greater than the esteem shown here? Provision had been made for his spending life in the garden, for enjoying the beauty of visible things, for gladdening the eye from that experience, and gaining much pleasure from that enjoyment. Consider, after all, how great a thrill it was to see the trees groaning under the weight of their fruit, to see the variety of the flowers, the different kinds of plants, the leaves on the branches, and all the other things you would be likely to chance upon in a garden, especially a garden planted by God. On that account, you see, Sacred Scripture had said previously that "he produced from the earth every tree fair to behold and good to eat." [ Gen 2:9 ] So that we might know that, despite his enjoyment of such plenty, the human being trampled underfoot the instruction given him, out of his great intemperance and sloth. I mean, consider, I ask you, dearly beloved, the high degree of esteem he had lavished upon him, laying for him in the garden a table set apart for him to suit his tastes, in case you might think the same food was supplied for him as for the brute beasts: instead, passing his time in that garden like a king he could revel in its enjoyment, and like a master he had no occasion to mix with those ministering to him but had a life all to himself. "The Lord God instructed Adam in these words: 'From every tree in the garden you are to eat your fill; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat. On the day you eat from it you will truly die" as if to say to him, Surely it's not something harsh and burdensome I'm demanding of you ? While entrusting you with enjoyment of everything, only this one thing I'm instructing you not to touch; but I also decree a severe penalty so that fear of it may help you keep your balance and you may observe the direction given you by me. He did this in the manner of a kindly master entrusting his huge residence to someone and prescribing some humble coin to be given by him as a pledge for keeping the ownership intact for himself. Well, in quite the same way our loving I also lavished on the human being the enjoyment of everything in the garden, and bade him abstain from one tree only so as to be in a position to know that he is subject to the Lord, whom he should obey and to whose commands he should submit. Who could adequately admire the generosity of the common Lord of all? With what great kindness he regales the creature who has not yet anything to show for himself? I mean, he did not confine to half the garden the enjoyment he permitted, nor bid him abstain from most things and retain the enjoyment of the remainder. Instead, he wanted him to partake of everything in the garden and ordered him to abstain from the one tree only, showing through these things he had no other purpose in his actions than that he should be able to recognize the one responsible for such acts of kindness. Notice in this case as well as others God's goodness, how much regard he demonstrates also for the woman due to be formed from man. I mean, though she is yet to be created he gives instruction as though to two people in the words, "'Do not eat from it,'" and, "'On the day ye eat from it you will truly die,'" showing right from the outset that man and woman are one, as Paul also says, "The man is head of the woman." [ Eph 5:23 ] So he speaks as though to two people for this reason, that when later he has formed the woman from man, he may provide the latter with an excuse for acquainting her with God's instructions. I am aware that this question about the tree is commonly debated, and that many people inclined to speak in cautiously endeavor to shift the blame from human beings to God, presuming to ask, Why on earth did he give him the instruction in the knowledge that he would infringe it? and again, Why did he order the tree to be in the garden? and many other such queries. In case, however, at this stage be fore the right time for discussion of the Fall we should seem to be rushing into exegesis about such matters, we ought wait for blessed Moses' account so as to reach that passage by this means at the appropriate stage and raise with you in that regard whatever matters God's grace has communicated, and thus teach you, dear people, the true mind of Scripture. Thus, in your knowledge of the truth of the sacred writings you may both offer to the Lord due praise and also escape at the hands of the guiltless God a share in the sinner's guilt through neglect of him.

For God says, "Of every tree of paradise you shall eat," meaning, I think, by means of all created things you will be drawn up to me, their Creator, and from them reap the one fruit which is myself, who am the true life. Let all things be fruitful life to you, and make participation in me to be the substance of your own existence, for thus you shall be immortal.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the power of discernment by multidimensional vision. This is the complete knowing of one's own nature. Of itself it manifests the magnificence of the Creator, and it is good for them that are fullgrown and have walked in the contemplation of God—for them that have no fear of changing, because in the course of time they have acquired a certain habit of such contemplation. It is not good, however, for such as are still young and are more greedy in their appetites, who, because of the uncertainty of their perseverance in the true good and because of their not yet being solidly established in their application to the only good, are naturally inclined to be drawn away and distracted by their solicitude for their own bodies.

Some have imagined paradise to have been material, while others have imagined it to have been spiritual. However, it seems to me that just as man was created both sensitive and intellectual, so did this most sacred domain of his have the twofold aspect of being perceptible both to the senses and to the mind. For while in his body he dwelt in this most sacred and superbly beautiful place, as we have related, spiritually he resided in a loftier and far more beautiful place. There he had the indwelling God as a dwelling place and wore him as a glorious garment. He was wrapped about with his grace, and like some one of the angels he rejoiced in the enjoyment of that one most sweet fruit which is the contemplation of God, and by this he was nourished. Now this is indeed what is fittingly called the tree of life, for the sweetness of divine contemplation communicates a life uninterrupted by death to them that partake of it.

The Tree of Life stood in the middle of paradise like a trophy. The Tree of Knowledge stood as a contest. If you keep the commandment of this tree, you will receive a prize. So consider this marvelous thought: Every tree in paradise was in bloom, and fruit was in abundance everywhere. Only in the center are the duo of competition and struggle.

For in the beginning of the world He gave to Adam himself and Eve a law, that they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree planted in the midst of paradise; but that, if they did contrariwise, by death they were to die. Which law had continued enough for them, had it been kept. For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo all the precepts which afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, You shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and out of your whole soul; You shall love your neighbour as yourself; You shall not kill; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; False witness you shall not utter; Honour your father and mother; and, That which is another's, shall you not covet. For the primordial law was given to Adam and Eve in paradise, as the womb of all the precepts of God. In short, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have contravened His precept; if they had habitually loved their neighbour—that is, themselves—they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and thus would not have committed murder upon themselves, by falling from immortality, by contravening God's precept; from theft also they would have abstained, if they had not stealthily tasted of the fruit of the tree, nor had been anxious to skulk beneath a tree to escape the view of the Lord their God; nor would they have been made partners with the falsehood-asseverating devil, by believing him that they would be "like God;" and thus they would not have offended God either, as their Father, who had fashioned them from clay of the earth, as out of the womb of a mother; if they had not coveted another's, they would not have tasted of the unlawful fruit. Therefore, in this general and primordial law of God, the observance of which, in the case of the tree's fruit, He had sanctioned, we recognise enclosed all the precepts specially of the posterior Law, which germinated when disclosed at their proper times. For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. [Answer to the Jews 2]

Adam had received from God the law of not tasting "of the tree of recognition of good and evil," with the doom of death to ensue upon tasting. However, even (Adam) himself at that time, reverting to the condition of a Psychic after the spiritual ecstasy in which he had prophetically interpreted that "great sacrament" with reference to Christ and the Church, and no longer being "capable of the things which were the Spirit's," yielded more readily to his belly than to God, heeded the meat rather than the mandate, and sold salvation for his gullet! He ate, in short, and perished; saved (as he would) else (have been), if he had preferred to fast from one little tree: so that, even from this early date, animal faith may recognise its own seed, deducing from thence onward its appetite for carnalities and rejection of spiritualities. I hold, therefore, that from the very beginning the murderous gullet was to be punished with the torments and penalties of hunger. Even if God had enjoined no preceptive fasts, still, by pointing out the source whence Adam was slain, He who had demonstrated the offence had left to my intelligence the remedies for the offence. [On Fasting 3]

What is the difference between saying 'ye shall die' and 'ye shall die the death'? We ought to point out that there is nothing superfluous in the command of God. Here is my solution. Since life and death are contradictory ideas, in unaffected language we say 'we live in life' and 'die in death.' But, if you wish, since life causes life, to double the force of the two concepts, the phrase 'he lives a life' is found in legal documents, and, since death causes death, there is the statement: 'He shall die the death.' [ Ezek 33:14-16 ] These expressions are not redundant, for life is related to death and death to life, because everyone living no law of this kind are a law unto themselves. They show therefore, four categories: to live in life, to die in death, to die in life, to live in death. Since such is the case, we should put aside prejudices due to use and custom, for usage prescribes that the act of dying should be said without distinction of him who dies by death and of him who does so by his life. Accordingly, the Lord selects two of these four distinctive phrases so as to say that the living live, with qualifications as to whether well or ill, and the dying die, without a seeming difference between a good death and a bad one. There is no precise difference in fact between the kind of life or death here referred to. It could include that of irrational creatures or of tiny infants. Putting aside, therefore, conceptions due to common usage, let us reflect on the meaning of 'to live in life' and 'to die in death' and also 'to live in death' and 'to die in life.' I believe that, in accord with the Scriptures, 'to live in life' signifies a wonderful life of happiness and that it seems to point toward an experience of life's natural functions joined and, by participation, mingled with the grace of a blessed life. This concept, 'to live in life,' means 'to live in virtue,' to bring about in the life of this body of ours a participation in the life of blessedness. On the other hand, what does 'to die in death' mean if not the disintegration of the body at the time of death, when the flesh is devoid of its customary function of carrying on life and the soul is unable to partake in life eternal? There is also the person who 'dies in life,' that is to say, one who is alive in body but, because of his acts, is dead. These are the people who, as the Prophet says: 'Go down alive into hell,' [ Ps 54:16 ] and she of whom the Apostle speaks: 'For she is dead while she is still alive.' [ 1 Tim 5:6 ] There remains the fourth category, for there are those who 'live in death' like the holy martyrs who give up their lives so that they may live. The flesh dies, but what is good does survive. Far from us, therefore, be the thought of living as participants in death. On the contrary, we should face death and thus become sharers in life. The saint does not desire to be a participant in this life of ours when he states: 'To be dissolved and be with Christ.' [ Phil 1:23 ] This has been much better stated by another: 'Woe to me that my sojourning has been prolonged,' [ Ps 119:5 ] in grief certainly that he is limited by the fragility of this life, since he hopes for a share in life eternal. Wherefore I can, on the other hand, state that, although 'to live in life' is a good thing, 'to live for life' would be of doubtful benefit. One can speak of 'living for life,' that is, for the life of eternity with its struggle with the life of the body. One can also speak of 'living for life' in another sense. Anyone, even a pious person, can have a desire for this corporeal life of ours. We can take the example of one who thinks that he ought to live so virtuously as to arrive by his good actions at a ripe old age. Many people who are in weak health, but who still find life a pleasurable thing, are in this category. Now that we have examined the meaning of the phrase, 'to live for life,' let us now turn attention to the significance of the phrases, 'to die for death' and 'to live for death,' for it is possible to conceive of people who 'die for death' and who 'live for life.' For the person who 'dies for or to death' is one who so lives as to live for the sake of his own soul, because he is not subject to death. We mean by this one who has been loosed from the bonds of grievous death and one who is not bound by the chains of death eternal. He is dead to death, that is, he is dead to sin. He is dead to punishment for whom living is contrary to punishment, that is, when a person lives for punishment he lives for death. Again, one who dies for punishment dies for death. There is also the case of one who, although placed in this life, dies for life. Such was the situation of the Apostle who said: 'It is now no longer I that live, but Christ in me.' [ Gal 2:20 ] To sin he is dead, but he lives for God, that is, death in him is dead, but living in him is that life which is the Lord Jesus. Good, therefore, is the life of those who live for God and wicked the life of those who live for sin. There is also a middle course of life, as in the case of other living creatures, for which we may cite the Scriptural passage: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind.' [ Gen 1:24 ] There is also the life of the dead: 'The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,' [ Exod 3:6 ] because 'He is not the God of the dead but of the living.' [ Luke 20:37, Mark. 12:26 ] There are those who partake somewhat in both lives, that of the living and of the dead, of whom the Apostle speaks: 'If ye have died with him, ye shall also live with him.' [ 2 Tim 2:11 ] The same Apostle has said: 'For if we have been united with him in the likeness of death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection also. For we know that our old self has been crucified with him, in order that the body of sin may be destroyed, that we may no longer be slaves to sin, for he who is dead is acquitted of sin.' [ Rom 6:58 ] Just as we have said that there are many forms of life, so, too, we may discover many forms of death. An evil death is recorded in the words, 'The soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' [ Ezek 18:20 ] The usual meaning of death appears when we say that a person lived so many years and was laid among his fathers. [ Acts 13:36 ] There is the meaning of death as we have it in the sacrament of baptism: 'For we were buried with him by means of baptism into death.' [ ] Elsewhere we read: 'For if we have died with Christ, we believe also that we shall live together with him.' [ Rom 6:4,8 ] You see how the word 'death' is subject to manifold interpretation, but that this life here is ours to contend with.

Without good reason certain writers are deeply puzzled when they seek to discover how the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could have been so called before man broke God's commandment by touching it and from experience discerning the difference between the good that he lost and the evil that he committed. Now, this tree was given this name so that our first parents might observe the prohibition and not touch it, taking care to avoid suffering the consequences of touching it against the prohibition. It was not because they subsequently went against the commandment and ate the fruit that the tree became the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Even if they had remained obedient and had taken nothing against that commandment, it would be correctly called by what would happen to them there if they had taken the fruit.

God, referring to the forbidden fruit, said to the first man whom he had established in paradise: "In the day that you shall eat of it, you shall die the death." His threat included not only the first part of the first death, that is, the soul's deprivation of God; not only the second part of the first death, that is, the body's deprivation of the soul; not only the whole of the first death in which the soul, separated from both God and the body, is punished; but whatever of death is up to and including that absolutely final and so-called second death … in which the soul, deprived of God but united to the body, suffers eternal punishment.

On whichever day you eat from it, you shall surely die. He did not say, if you eat, you shall be mortal, but on whichever day, he said, you eat from it, you shall surely die. For man died in the soul when he sinned, because God, who is the life of the soul, departed from him, through whose desert the death of the body followed, with the soul departing from it, which is its life, and which death first happened to the same man when he reached the end of the present life not long after he ate the forbidden. It can also be understood that that day in which they sinned brought death upon them, as the Apostle laments saying: For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death (Romans 7:22)? For it is not enough for him to say: Who will deliver me from this mortal body, but from this body of death, he says. As indeed also this: The body is dead because of sin (Romans 8:10); nor did he say there, mortal, but dead, although indeed it is mortal because it is to die, it is not to be believed that those bodies were such, but though they were animal, not yet spiritual, yet not dead, that is, which it must needs be that they should die, which happened on that day when they touched the forbidden tree.

A twofold precept was given to man, namely of nature and of discipline; the precept of discipline: "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat." Obedience is pure when a precept obliges of itself alone, not from any other cause; and such is called a precept of discipline, because through it one learns how great is the virtue of obedience, which by its merit leads to heaven, but by its contrary casts one down into hell. Therefore that commandment was not given to man on account of any need that God had for human service, but to provide a way of meriting the crown through pure and voluntary obedience.

It is said in Genesis: "Of every tree that is in paradise, you shall eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in whatever hour you eat of it, you shall die the death." Adam with his wife contracted the vice of curiosity, when the devil said to them: "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil": he also contracted the vice of carnality, when he ate of the fruit: he also contracted the vice of vanity, when he wished to be as gods.

It should be noted that the Church was placed in paradise, like the first man, "to till it," in such a way that no one would say "that anything he possessed" was "his own." For it began in a state of great perfection that is observed today in the religious life, for the love of Christ was still recent, and in those days "a large number also of the priests accepted the faith." This Church, meaning the one that began with the Jews, because they were converted at one time by the three thousand, and at another, by the five thousand, possessed the "tree of life," that is, faith, because "My just one lives by faith." It also had the "tree of knowledge," that is, the Law, which remained with them for seeing and reading, and not for eating. Much more: for "the day you eat of it, you must die." And so you may see the tree of knowledge, but not eat of it, or else you would destroy what Christ had done; and death would necessarily come in, for "the letter kills." Hence Paul says: "I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you."

When God said: In what day thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die, he pronounced him to have become mortal, for we see that he did not die immediately according to the threat, so that it is evident the words hinted this: Immortal though thou art, thou shalt become mortal.

Having spoken of the introduction of Adam into Paradise and the reason God brought him there, Scripture turns to describe the commandment which was laid down for him, as follows: "And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying: 'You may indeed eat of all the trees in Paradise, but of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat; for on the day you eat of it you will certainly die.' " [ Gen. 2:16-17 ]

This commandment was a light one, for God had given him the whole of Paradise and held back from him but a single tree. If one tree sufficed for someone's sustenance, and many trees were withheld from him, there would still be relief for his distress, seeing that there still existed food for his hunger. But where it is a case of God's giving him many trees when one would have been sufficient, this means that if transgression takes place, it is not as a result of any real need, but because of contempt. So God withheld from him a single tree, hedging it around with death, so that even if Adam were to fail to keep the law out of love for the Lawgiver, at least the fear of death that surrounded the tree would make him afraid of overstepping the law.

(Verse 17) But on whatever day you eat from it, you shall surely die. Symmachus interpreted it better, saying, you shall be mortal.

Adam and Eve, so long as they lived in simplicity, and so long as the faith which was in them had not been made gross through corporeal passions, immediately they heard the command of God they received it, and kept it. For God said to Adam, "Thou shalt not eat; and if thou eatest, thou shalt die; but if thou keepest the command I will give thee everlasting life." And by faith Adam received the command, and kept it, and in his simplicity he did not judge the command. Now when the counsel of the Enemy came and found simplicity, it taught craft and cunning, and sowed in that one simple thought, another thought which was its opposite, in order that he who was one man, and was wholly and entirely sincere in his simplicity, might be divided into two thoughts—the willing and the unwilling, the judging and the being judged, and the being in doubt whether he would do the command or not—and the counsel which the Enemy brought to that childlike and simple man made him to be a judge of God's command to him. Now Adam did not prosper in his judgment because it had destroyed his simplicity, for he stupidly thought it meet to listen to an enemy rather than to a friend, and to one who killed rather than to one who could make alive, and to one who taught wickednesses rather than to one who had been to them a teacher of good things. So long as they existed in their simplicity they hearkened unto the voice of God, but as soon as they wished to act cunningly they became receptacles of the counsel of the Calumniator; for cunning is at the side of Satan, and simplicity is with those who belong to Christ.

Whosoever feareth God taketh heed not to transgress the boundary of the faith of God, and whosoever believeth in God himself draweth nigh to the fear of God, and the man, in whose soul the fear of God dwelleth, himself becometh a watchful guardian of all the commandments. Adam believed in God, and he was not afraid of God; he believed that He was, and he received from Him the law which He delivered into him. And because he cast out the fear of God from his mind, he forsook the faith, and trod the law under foot. For He that ordained the law involved the commandment with fear: "In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt die the death." And because Adam had cast out from him that fear, he believed the crafty one instead of God, and trod under foot the law which had been ordained by the Judge. And not only Adam did God surround with fear that it might be a fence for the keeping of His commandments, but in all generations, to all the commandments which He ordained did He unite fear.

For it was a most benignant act of His thus to point out the issues of transgression, lest ignorance of the danger should encourage a neglect of obedience. Now, since it was given as a reason previous to the imposition of the law, it also amounted to a motive for subsequently observing it, that a penalty was annexed to its transgression; a penalty, indeed, which He who proposed it was still unwilling that it should be incurred. Learn then the goodness of our God amidst these things and up to this point; learn it from His excellent works, from His kindly blessings, from His indulgent bounties, from His gracious providences, from His laws and warnings, so good and merciful. [Against Marcion 2.4]

Still another question arises, that concerning the saying of the Lord: 'It is not good for man to be alone.' [ Gen 2:18 ] Recognize the fact, first of all, that, when God created man from the slime of the earth, He did not add: 'God saw that it was good,' [ Gen 1:14 ] as He did in the case of each of His works. If He had said at that time that the creation of man was good, then the other statement that 'it is not good' would be a contradiction in terms, although He had said that the creation of what preceded the formation of man was good. That was the situation at the time of the creation of Adam. But, when He perceived that man and woman were joined together in creation, He did not treat each even then in a special manner, for He soon after states: 'God saw that all he had ever made was very good.' [ Gen 1:31 ] The meaning is clear. The creation of both man and woman is considered to be good. From this question another problem arises. How did it happen that, when Adam alone was created, it was not said that it was good, but when a woman also was made, then are we to understand that everything was good? Whereas God in one case commended the whole of creation, as well as every creature in it (including man who is held to be a part of nature), a special reference to man did not then seem necessary. Wherefore, when Adam alone was created, an assertion that this work was good was not thought to be by any means a fitting climax to a satisfactory achievement. It was said, moreover, that it was not good for man to be alone. Yet we know that Adam did not commit sin before woman was created. However, after creation, she was the first to disobey the divine command and even allured her husband to sin. If, therefore, the woman is responsible for the sin, how then can her accession be considered a good? But, if you consider that the universe is in the care of God, then you will discover this fact, namely, that the Lord must have gained more pleasure for Himself in being responsible for all creation than condemnation from us for providing the basis for sin. Accordingly, the Lord declared that i[t] was not good for man to be alone, because the human race could not have been propagated from man alone. God preferred the existence of more than one whom He would be able to save than to have to confine this possibility to one man who was free from error. Inasmuch as He is the Author of both man and woman, He came into this world to redeem sinners. Finally, He did not permit Cain, a man accused of parricide, to perish before he brought forth sons. [ Gen 4:15-17 ] For the sake, therefore, of the successive generations of men it followed that woman had to be joined to man. Thus we must interpret the very words of God when He said the [NOTE: text wrong, should be that? -CA] it was not good for man to be alone. If the woman was to be the first one to sin, the fact that she was the one destined to bring forth redemption must not be excluded from the operations of Divine Providence. Although 'Adam was not deceived, the woman was deceived and was in sin.' [ 1 Tim 2:14 ] Yet woman, we are told, 'will be saved by childbearing,' 5 in the course of which she generated Christ. Not without significance, too, is the fact that woman was made out of the rib of Adam. She was not made of the same earth with which he was formed, in order that we might realize that the physical nature of both man and woman is identical and that there was one source for the propagation of the human race. For that reason, neither was man created together with a woman, nor were two men and two women created at the beginning, but first a man and after that a woman. God willed it that human nature be established as one. Thus, from the very inception of the human stock He eliminated the possibility that many disparate natures should arise. He said: 'Let us make him a helper like himself.' [ Gen 2:18 ] We understand that to mean a helper in the generation of the human family-a really good helper. If we take the word 'helper' in a good sense, then the woman's cooperation turns out to be something of major import in the process of generation, just as the earth by receiving, confining, and fostering the seed causes it to grow and produce fruit in time. In that respect, therefore, woman is a good helper even through in an inferior position. We find examples of this in our own experience. We see how men in high and important offices often enlist the help of men who are below them in rank and esteem.

The Lord God also said: It is not good for man to be alone, let us make a helper suitable for him. And this speech of God is to be believed to have been made not by a corporeal voice emitted externally into the air, but on earth by the intention of the divine will, through which all things were created, ineffably, according to what we also taught above, where it is written: Let us make man in our image and likeness. But if someone asks for what purpose this helper needed to be made, let him hear the response of Saint Augustine, whose words we have very often included above, with his name silent. He said that nothing else likely occurs except for the sake of begetting children, just as help is for the seed in the earth, so that offspring may arise from both. For it was also said in the first condition of things: He made them male and female, and blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it. This rationale for the condition and union of male and female and the blessing did not fail even after man's sin and punishment. For it is the same according to which the earth is now filled with men who dominate it. Although it is mentioned that they came together and begot after being expelled from paradise; nonetheless, I do not see what could have prevented them from having honorable marriages and an undefiled bed even in paradise, with God providing this to those living faithfully and justly and serving Him obediently and zealously, so that offspring would be begotten from their seed without any disturbing ardor of lust, without any labor and pain of giving birth, not that sons succeeded to dying parents, but so that, with those who begot remaining in some form of condition, and taking bodily vigor from the tree of life which was planted there, those who were begotten would be brought to the same condition, until the definite number was completed, if all lived justly and obediently, then that transformation would take place, so that without any death, the animal bodies converted to another quality, because they would serve the spirit ruling them at every nod, and living only by the spirit giving life without any sustenance of bodily food, they would be called spiritual. For if Enoch and Elijah, in Adam, did not die, carrying the progeny of death in the flesh, and are believed to return to this life to pay their due and to die, and now only live in another life where, before the resurrection of the flesh, before the animal body is transformed into a spiritual one, they do not decline by disease or old age, how much more justly and likely it would be granted to those first humans living without any sin of theirs or their parents, that having begotten children, they would yield to a better state from which, at the end of the age, with all the descendants of the saints, they would be transformed much more happily into the angelic form, not through the death of the flesh, but by the power of God.

Since we do in reality need one another ("it is not good for man to be alone"), then the failure of this need to appear as Need-love in consciousness—in other words, the illusory feeling that it is good for us to be alone—is a bad spiritual symptom; just as lack of appetite is a bad medical symptom because men do really need food.

There is no reason to suppose that self-consciousness, the recognition of a creature by itself as a "self", can exist except in contrast with an "other", a something which is not the self. It is against an environment, and preferably a social environment, an environment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself stands out. This would raise a difficulty about the consciousness of God if we were mere theists: being Christians, we learn from the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity that something analogous to "society" exists within the Divine being from all eternity--that God is Love, not merely in the sense of being the Platonic form of love, but because, within Him, the concrete reciprocities of love exist before all worlds and are thence derived to the creatures.

Again, the freedom of a creature must mean freedom to choose: and choice implies the existence of things to choose between. A creature with no environment would have no choices to make: so that freedom, like self-consciousness (if they are not, indeed, the same thing) again demands the presence to the self of something other than the self.

The minimum condition of self-consciousness and freedom, then, would be that the creature should apprehend God and, therefore, itself as distinct from God. It is possible that such creatures exist, aware of God and themselves, but of no fellow-creatures. If so, their freedom is simply that of making a single naked choice--of loving God more than the self or the self more than God. But a life so reduced to essentials is not imaginable to us. As soon as we attempt to introduce the mutual knowledge of fellow-creatures we run up against the necessity of "Nature".

Why was it that, while all the irrational animals were created by God, male and female at the same time, man alone was not created with the female, but remained quite solitary until the female was made later on? To this enquirer I shall reply that since all the animals were created by God without either the gift of reason, or the capacity of knowing anything, while all the angels, the instant they were created, were rational and knew the Maker of all things from those things which had been produced, one by one, that is, in the six days, it was necessary that man who had been created by God possessed of reason, and as the bond uniting all the creation, should himself be taught to know the Creator of all; but since, as he was not the first but the last of all to be produced, he could neither from the things made before him, nor from himself know God, it was God's pleasure to produce the female not along with him, but afterwards out of him, that he might thereby know that he who had taken out from him a being like himself was his Creator. Wherefore also he threw him into a trance and a deep sleep, in order that by taking his rib from him without trouble and pain as in sleep, he might by the grace of God gain a perception of what had occurred, and celebrate the praises of his Maker, confessing and saying: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh—she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. As then the angels had been created rational, and from the works produced in the six days had been taught to know him who was the cause of them, so of necessity man also was taught through the female, and learned that God was the Maker both of himself and of the universe; but especially as he had beforehand heard God say: Let us make a helpmeet for him.

Inside the paradise, the woman was very diligent; she was also attentive to the sheep and cattle, the herds and droves that were in the fields. She would also help the man with the buildings, pens, and with any other task that she was capable of doing. The animals, even though they were subservient, were not able to help him with these things. For this reason God made for the man a helper who would be concerned for everything for which God himself would be concerned. She would indeed help him in many things.

If we take any other doctrine that has been called old-fashioned we shall find the case the same. It is the same, for instance, in the deep matter of the Trinity. Unitarians (a sect never to be mentioned without a special respect for their distinguished intellectual dignity and high intellectual honour) are often reformers by the accident that throws so many small sects into such an attitude. But there is nothing in the least liberal or akin to reform in the substitution of pure monotheism for the Trinity. The complex God of the Athanasian Creed may be an enigma for the intellect; but He is far less likely to gather the mystery and cruelty of a Sultan than the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet. The god who is a mere awful unity is not only a king but an Eastern king. The heart of humanity, especially of European humanity, is certainly much more satisfied by the strange hints and symbols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the image of a council at which mercy pleads as well as justice, the conception of a sort of liberty and variety existing even in the inmost chamber of the world. For Western religion has always felt keenly the idea "it is not well for man to be alone." The social instinct asserted itself everywhere as when the Eastern idea of hermits was practically expelled by the Western idea of monks. So even asceticism became brotherly; and the Trappists were sociable even when they were silent. If this love of a living complexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to have the Trinitarian religion than the Unitarian. For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence)--to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.

The moment has arrived at long last, however, it would seem, for us to proceed with the theme of the reading. "The Lord God said," the text goes on, "'It is not good for the human being to be alone.'" [ Gen 2:18 ] See how once again it said in the same way as previously, "The Lord God," so that we should rivet the words on our minds and not think the fruit of our human reasoning to be superior to Sacred Scripture. "The Lord God said," it says, "'It is not good for the human being to be alone.'" Notice how the good God does not stop short, but adds kindness to kindness, and, in an abundance of riches, wants to clothe this rational being in every degree of esteem, and along with this esteem to regale him with a life of ease. The text says, remember, "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the human being to be alone. Let us make him a helpmate like himself.'" Notice here again the expression, "'Let us make.'" In other words, just as he said at the beginning in the case of the formation of the human being, "'Let us make a human being in our image and likeness,'" so now, too, on the point of forming woman he employs the same expression, saying, "'Let us make.'" To whom does he address it? Not to any created power, but to the one begotten of him, Wonderful Counsellor, Figure of Authority, Prince of Peace, his only begotten Son. [ Isa 9:6 ] So that Adam may learn that the being in process of being formed is meant to enjoy equality of esteem with him, accordingly just as he said in the man's case, "'Let us make,'" so he now says also, "'Let us make him a helpmate like himself.'" Both expressions, helpmate and like himself have much significance.

At that time God said, "Let us make for him a helper," but in these times God says no such thing. Will he who has received the grace of the Spirit need any other help? How much need of assistance in the future has he who fills out the body of Christ? At that time he made man to the image of God, but now he has united him to God himself. At that time he commanded the man to rule over the fishes and the beasts. Now he has received our firstlings in heaven. Now he has given us the paradise to inhabit it. Now he has opened the gate of heaven to us. At that time man was formed on the sixth day, because the aeon had to be completed. Now he is formed on the first day and from the beginning and in the light.

(17) Why God says, "It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a help meet for him?" [Gen 2:18] By these words God intimates that there is to be a communion, not with all men, but with those who are willing to be assisted and in their turn to assist others, even though they may scarcely have any power to do so; since love consists not more in utility than in the harmonious concord of trustworthy and steadfast manners; so that every one who joins in a communion of love may be entitled to utter the expression of Pythagoras, "A friend is another I."

(18) Why, when God had already said, "Let us make a help for man," he creates beasts and cattle? [Gen 2:19] Perhaps some gluttons and insatiably greedy persons may say that God did this because beasts and flying things were, as it were, necessary food for man, and his meetest helper; for that the eating of meat assists the belly so as to conduce to the health and vigour of the body. But I should think that by reason of the evil implanted in them by nature animals of all kinds, whether terrestrial or flying in the air, were in this age hostile to and contrary to man; but that in the case of the first man, as one adorned with every imaginable virtue, they were, as it were, allies, and a reinforcement in war, and familiar friends, as being tame and domestic by nature, and this was the sole principle of their familiarity with man, for this it was fit that servants should dwell with their lord.

[In goodness God] provided also a help meet for [the man] that there might not be anything in his lot that was not good. For God said that it is not good for the man to be alone. He knew full well what a blessing the gender of Mary would be to him and also to the church.

Examine, now, the reason why God had by this time created out of the earth 'all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air' and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. How account for the fact that God brought merely the beasts of the field and the birds of the air to Adam? Animals were there, we know, each according to its kind. And so it is related further on: 'Adam named all the animals and all the beasts of the field, but he found no helper like himself.' [ Gen 2:19,20 ] How can we explain this other than by saying that the untamed beasts and the birds of the air were brought to man by divine power, while man himself held power over the beasts that were tame and domesticated? The former lay within the province of God's activity. The latter were due to the diligence of man. Besides this, there is a reason why everything was brought to Adam. In this way he would be able to see that nature in every aspect is constituted of two sexes: male and female. Following these observations, he would become aware that association with a woman was a necessity of his lot.

The beasts of the field and the birds of the air which were brought to Adam are our irrational senses, because beasts and animals represent the diverse passions of the body, whether of the more violent kind or even of the more temperate.… God granted to you the power of being able to discern by the application of sober logic the species of each and every object in order that you may be induced to form a judgment on all of them. God called them all to your attention so that you might realize that your mind is superior to all of them.

Now we should not imagine God bringing the animals to Adam in a crudely material way. What I have said in the preceding book about the twofold working of divine Providence should be a help here. We must not suppose that the animals were brought to Adam as when hunters and fowlers seek them out and drive them into their nets when they engage in the chase. Nor was there a command spoken by a voice from a cloud in words that rational creatures on hearing would understand and obey. Beasts and birds have not received such power. But according to their nature they obey God, not by a rational free choice of the will but according to the plan by which God moves all creatures at the appropriate times. Although he is himself unmoved in time, the angels who minister to him understand in his Word what things are to be done at appointed times. And hence, without any temporal motion in God, the angels are moved in time to accomplish his will in the creatures that are subject to them.

God first showed man how much better he was than cattle and all irrational animals. This is signified by the statement that all the animals were brought to him that he might see what he would call them and give them names. This shows that man is better equipped than the animals in virtue of reason, since only reason that judges concerning them is able to distinguish and know them by name. The one idea is an easy one to grasp, for man quickly understands that he is better equipped than cattle. The other idea is a difficult one to grasp, namely, that by which he understands that the rational part in him that rules is distinct from the animal part, which is ruled.

Therefore the Lord God formed out of the ground all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the sky and brought them to Adam. If anyone is concerned because it does not say "formed out of the ground all the animals of the earth and out of the waters all the birds of the sky," but as if He formed both kinds from the ground, then it is said, "The Lord God formed out of the ground all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the sky"; it should be understood in two ways: either that it is now silent about where He formed the birds of the sky from, because it could also be implied that it is possible He did not form both from the ground; but let us understand that He only formed the animals of the earth and the birds of the sky, even if Scripture is silent about where He formed them from; or that He calls the ground universally, along with the waters, just as it is called in that Psalm where, after the praises of the heavens were finished, the speech turns to the earth and says, "Praise the Lord from the earth, sea monsters, and all deeps" (Ps. 148:7), etc. It is not said afterward: "Praise the Lord from the waters." For where all depths which praise the Lord from the earth are, there also are reptiles and winged birds which likewise praise God from the earth according to this universal appellation of the earth, according to which it is said of the whole world: "God who made heaven and earth," whether from dry land or from the waters, whatever is created is truly understood to be created from the earth.

And he brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. It should not be thought carnally that God brought the animals of the earth or the birds to Adam in the same way a shepherd drives his flock from place to place; but it should rather be understood that just as by divine power He created these from the waters when He willed, in the same mysterious will of His power He brought them to man to be seen whenever He willed, just as all kinds of birds or quadrupeds are read to have come to Noah's ark, not gathered by the hand of man, but driven by divine command, and entered it, not knowing themselves for what purpose they were coming, but known by the man who, as they came into the ark, received them, God bringing and commanding.

For whatever Adam called every living soul, that was its name; and Adam gave names to all the animals of the earth, to all the birds of the sky, and to all the beasts of the earth. It is evident that Adam in that language, in which all of mankind spoke until the construction of the tower when languages were divided, named the animals of the earth and the birds of the sky. However, at the destruction of the tower, when God assigned to each nation its own distinct language, it is then to be believed that He also distinguished the names of the animals and other things according to each one's language: although it is also known that later men gave various names to many newfound things per their individual nations as they pleased, and still continue to do so. Finally, about the fish brought to Adam to name, Scripture says nothing, but it is credible that as they were gradually known, they were given different names by men according to the diversity of nations. However, it seems that the first language for the human race was Hebrew, since all the names we read about in Genesis up to the division of languages belong to that language. The reason for bringing all the animals of the earth and the birds of the sky to Adam, for him to see and name them, was to thus show God how much better man was than all irrational animals. For it appears that man, by his very reasoning, is better than beasts, as only reason can distinguish and name them individually, and reason itself is superior.

Having spoken of Adam's entry into Paradise and of the law that was laid down for him, Scripture turns to describe the names which he gave to the animals, as follows: "The Lord fashioned out of the earth all the wild animals and the birds of the sky; and He brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. " [ Gen. 2:19 ]

Moses said, "God brought them to Adam." This happened in order that God might make known the wisdom of Adam and the harmony that existed between the animals and Adam before he transgressed the commandment. The animals came to Adam as to a loving shepherd. Without fear they passed before him in orderly fashion, by kinds and by species. They were neither afraid of him nor were they afraid of each other. A species of predatory animals would pass by with a species of animal that is preyed upon following safely right behind.

He who speaks contemptuously against the humble man and does not consider him an animate creature is like one who has opened his mouth against God. And though the humble man is contemptible in his eyes, his honor is esteemed by all creation. The humble man approaches ravenous beasts, and when their gaze rests upon him, their wildness is tamed. They come up to him as to their Master, wag their heads and tails and lick his hands and feet, for they smell coming from him that same scent that exhaled from Adam before the fall, when they were gathered together before him and he gave them names in paradise. This was taken away from us, but Jesus has renewed it and given it back to us through his coming. This it is that has sweetened the fragrance of the race of men.

I do not want him to be alone, Scripture is saying, but to have some support from company, and not this only but a helpmate suited to him should be produced, hinting at woman. Hence he said, "'Let us make him a helpmate,'" and added, "'like himself,'" so that when shortly you saw wild beasts produced and all the birds of heaven, you would not think reference was made to them. I mean, even if many of the brute beasts helped him in his labors, there was still nothing equivalent to a woman possessed as she was of reason. Hence he said, "'a helpmate like himself,'" and added, "Further, God formed from the earth all the wild beasts of the field and all the birds of heaven; he led them to Adam to see what he would call them, and each name Adam gave a living being, that was its name." [ Gen 2:19 ] It is not idly and to no (116c) purpose that this happens, but on account of what was due to take place shortly afterwards. In his foreknowledge of it, God shows us the great intelligence with which he endowed the being created by him, so that when the event occurs of the transgression of the instruction given by God, you won't think the human being sinned through ignorance but will be in a position to know that it was a sin of sloth. I mean, the fact of his being lavishly endowed with intelligence, learn from what happens now. The text says: "He led them to Adam to see what he would call them." He does this out of a desire to provide us with a demonstration of Adam's great intelligence. And further, "The name Adam gave," the text says, "was its name." This happens, not that we may merely learn of his intelligence but that a symbol of his dominion may be provided through the imposition of the names. You see, (116d) with human beings also this normally constitutes a symbol of dominion when they buy slaves, to change their names. Hence God provides that Adam, too, as their master should give names to the brute beasts. I mean, dearly beloved, don't pass the expression idly by; consider, instead, I ask you, the extent of his intelligence demonstrated by his giving names to such species of winged creatures, reptiles, wild beasts, beasts of burden and the other brute beasts, the tame and the wild, those that inhabit the deeps, those that spring from the earth to all these he gave names that indicated his dominion and that were appropriate to each species as the text says, "Each name Adam gave was its name." Do you see the unrivaled authority? Do you see his lordly dominance? Consider in addition to other factors this event, that lions, panthers, snakes, scorpions, serpents, and (117a) all the other animals fiercer than those, carne in complete subjection to him as to a master and accepted the names, while Adam had no fear of these wild beasts. So let no one call in question what is created by the Lord nor sharpen the tongue against the Creator, rather against his own head -- and say those stupid words, Why were the wild beasts produced? I mean, the imposition of names shows us precisely that all animals, tame included, acknowledged their servitude and the human dominion; after all, those names that he imposed on them remain up to the present time. In this way God determined that we might retain a constant reminder of the esteem which the human being from the outset received from the Lord of all and might at tribute responsibility for its removal to the person who (117b) by sin put an abrupt end to his authority. "Adam gave names to all the cattle," the text goes on, "all the birds of heaven, and all the beasts of the earth." [ Gen 2:20 ] Notice already in this case, I ask you, dearly beloved, his independence of decision and the eminence of his understanding, and don't say he didn't know right from wrong. I mean, the being that has the ability to put the right names on cattle, and birds, and beasts without getting the sequence mixed up, not giving to wild beasts the names suited to the tame ones nor allotting to the tame animals what belonged to the wild ones, but giving them all their right names how could he not be full of intelligence and understanding? Consider finally from this passage how great the force of that breathing, and the intelligence of that incorporeal soul (117c) which the Lord had granted him in constituting such a remarkable rational being of two elements, and intertwining the incorporeal element of the soul with the body, like an excellent craftsman related to his instrument. So, whenever you ponder the extent of this being's intelligence, marvel at the Creator's power. After all, if the visible beauty of heaven prompts a well-disposed onlooker to praise of its creator, much more readily will this rational being, the human person, be able to reason from the manner of its own formation, the eminence of esteem and greatness of gifts accorded it, and thus come to celebrate unceasingly the provider of such ineffable kindnesses and give praise to the Lord for his power. I had in mind to go on to what follows in the text; but in case (117d) we should impair the recollection of what has been said already by an excess of words, it behooves us to conclude the flow of instruction at this point. After all, it is not simply the object of our concern to say a lot of things heedlessly; rather, we speak with this aim in view, that you will keep them constantly riveted in your mind so as not merely to have knowledge yourselves of the contents of the Holy Scriptures, but also become teachers of others, capable of admonishing them. So let each of you, I beseech you, go away from here, in the company of your neighbor reawaken the memory of what has been said, offer him what comes from your own heart and listen to what has been remembered by him. So, recalling everything spoken here, and keeping it in your memory in this way, make your way home, ruminating on these divine teachings; hence you may give all your attention to these matters and occupy your mind with them, and so be able to overcome with ease troublesome passions and escape the devil's wiles. You see, (118a) whenever that evil spirit spies a soul wrapt in the things of God, constantly contemplating them and going over them in mind, he doesn't dare approach; instead, he makes off at speed, repelled by the force of the Spirit as though by some fire. So, in order that we may gain the fullest benefit our selves, may be able to overcome that creature and win grace from God more abundantly, let us occupy our minds with these matters. In this way, you see, everything in our charge will be simplified for us, difficult things will become easy, what seemed threatening will reach a useful conclusion, and nothing on this earth will be able to distress us. I mean, if we concern ourselves with the things of God, he will concern himself with ours, and in complete safety we will navigate the ocean of this life, (118b) and under the guidance of that mighty pilot, the God of all, put into the harbor of his love, to whom be glory and power, now and forever, for unending ages of ages. Amen.

Those names that [Adam] imposed on them remain up to the present time. In this way God determined that we might retain a constant reminder of the esteem which the human being from the outset received from the Lord of all and might attribute responsibility for its removal to a person who by sin put an abrupt end to his authority.

(20) Why did God bring every animal to man, that he might give them their names? [Gen 2:19] He has here explained a great source of perplexity to the students of philosophy, admonishing them that names proceed from having been given, and not from nature; for a natural nomenclature is with peculiar fitness assigned to each creature when a man of wisdom and pre-eminent knowledge appears; and, in fact, the office of assigning the names to animals is one which particularly belongs to the mind of the wise man alone, and indeed to the first man born out of the earth, since it was fitting that the first of the human race, and the sovereign of all the animals born out of the earth, should have the dignity assigned to him. For inasmuch as he was the first person to see the animals, and as he was the first person who deserved to govern them all as their chief, so also it was fitting that he should be their first namer and the inventor of their names, since it would have been inconsistent and mad to leave them without any names, or to allow them to receive names from any one born at a later period, which would have been an insult to and a derogation from the honour and glory due to the first born. But we may also adopt this idea, that the giving of names to the different animals was so easily arranged that the very moment that Adam gave the name the animal itself also heard it; being influenced by the name thus given to it as by a familiar indication closely connected with it.

(21) Why does Moses say, "He brought the animals to Adam, that he might see what he would call them," when God can never entertain a doubt? [Gen 2:19] It is in truth inconsistent with the nature of God to doubt; therefore it does not appear that he was in doubt on this occasion, but that since he had given intellect to man as being the first man born out of the earth and endowed with a great desire for virtue, by which he was made thoroughly wise as if he had been endowed with wisdom by nature, so as to consider all things like the proper Ruler and Lord of all, God now caused him to be influenced to display the proper performance of his task, and saw what was really the most excellent point of his mind. Besides this, by this statement he evidently indicates the perfect free-will existing in us, refuting those who affirm that everything exists by a certain necessity. Or else because it belonged to man to employ the animals, therefore he also gave him authority to give them names.

(22) What is the meaning of the expression, "And whatever he called each living thing, that was the name thereof?" [Gen 2:19] We must consider that Adam gave names not only to all living creatures, but also to plants, and to everything else which is inanimate, beginning with the more excellent class; for the living creature is superior to that which has not life. Therefore the scripture considers the mention of the better part sufficient, indicating by this mention to all who are not utterly devoid of sense, that he in fact gave names to everything, since it was easy to fix names to things without life, which were never likely to change their place, and which had no passions of the soul to exercise, but the giving of proper appellations to living creatures was a more difficult task on account of the motions of their bodies and the various impulses of their souls, in accordance with the imagination and the variety of the outward senses, and the different agitations of the mind from which the effects of their works proceed. Therefore the mind could give names to the more difficult classes of living creatures. And on this account it was a very proper expression to employ, that he gave them names as being easy to name, because they were near.

While Adam had been given the whole earth, he had been given paradise for his home. He could leave and go out of paradise, but there was not a habitable place for humans beyond its borders—only for senseless animals, four-footed animals, wild monsters and crawling bugs. His "basilica" and "palace" was located in paradise. Because of this, God brought the living creatures to Adam; they had been separated from him. For slaves do not always stand in their master's presence; they are present only when needed. The living creatures were named and immediately sent away. Adam, however, remained in paradise.