Leo the Grammarian

^A I pray that this miracle not seem trifling to your ears, but let us be attentive in mind, for what is most pleasing will now be spoken. ^A

The mother, having suffered greatly and being eager to assist her dearest son—oh, what a new thing, oh, what an ineffable miracle!—saw that he was no longer handless, nor was he footless as he was before; rather, he appeared quite active and capable in both respects. For he leaped with his feet and supported the boy with his hands, and having raised him up, found him already sober and freed from the terrible vexation of the demon. Thus the woman, having miraculously obtained a double benefit in the space of a single hour, and being overcome by the pleasure and the miracle, had no idea either what to do or what sort of gratitude she might render for such a benefit. Wherefore, despairing of anything else, she withdrew to her own home.

ANNO DOMINI 949.

LEONIS GRAMMATICI ANNALES.

ANNO DOMINI 951

ANONYMOUS LIFE OF ST. CLEMENT BISHOP OF THE BULGARIANS.

CIRCA THE MIDDLE OF THE XTH CENTURY

MOSES BAR-CEPHA

SYRUS

BISHOP IN BETH-RAMAM AND BETH-CENO, AND CURATOR OF SACRED MATTERS IN MOZAL, THAT IS, SELEUCIA OF THE PARTHIANS.

NOTITIA.

A liturgy under the name of Moses Bar-Cepha exists in almost all the codices of the Syrian Jacobites, among whom his memory is most celebrated, as he is an illustrious theologian from their Church. He is the one whose work on Paradise

The very learned Andreas Masius translated this into Latin; his version was first published by the Plantin press and later transferred to the *Bibliotheca Patrum*. But who this Moses was or when he lived, Masius did not teach us, nor have we been able to discover it with certainty from elsewhere. It is evident that he lived long before Dionysius bar Salibi, since the latter frequently refers to his testimonies in his Commentary on the four Gospels and elsewhere; it is further proven that he was younger than James of Edessa and the other Serughite, because he cites their opinions in the same work. Masius, however, was greatly deceived when he supposed that he lived not long after John Chrysostom, since he cites Severus, clearly the leader of the Monophysites of Antioch. But Margarinus Binius erred more gravely still, who brought him down to the times of Julius II and Paul III—a monstrous anachronism—since that other Moses was from Mardin, wrongly called a disciple of his in Syrian matters by Masius. Possevinus is no better. Certainly, it is agreed that he was a Monophysite, just as were those whom he calls upon for the sake of honor and testimony: Severus, James of Edessa, and the other Serughite. It is probable that he was a bishop, based on the Liturgy attributed to him; for the Syrians do not recognize liturgies as composed by, or even ascribed to, anyone other than bishops or patriarchs, as is manifest from the index of those which we have translated. Naironus writes that he lived in the tenth century, but offers no proof for this conjecture of his.

TO THE READER: ANDREAS MASIUS

MOSES BAR-CEPHA, SYRIAN BISHOP, COMMENTARIES ON PARADISE, TO FATHER IGNATIUS

PROEMIUM

we proceed to treat of paradise, led by your piety, will, and persuasion. In this treatment, we shall also conduct ourselves in such a way that both the discourse is accurate and clear, and each chapter is distinct in itself and divided part by part, so that the readers may more easily understand everything, and may not lose anything from their memory through forgetfulness; in so far as the true God, who enlightens every man coming into this world, will assist our efforts, go before us, and guide our speech. Therefore, the words which the prophet Moses spoke concerning the origin of paradise are these: *And the Lord God planted a paradise in Eden from the beginning: and there He placed Adam whom He had fashioned*. But before we explain the words of the blessed Moses, we must discuss in this first part of our Commentary twenty-seven chapter-arguments, in the first of which it will be dealt with: Whether paradise is a corporeal thing, or a spiritual one. Second, it will be shown what a corporeal paradise is, and what a spiritual one. Third, it will be proven that it is reasonable that the books of the Old Testament should be interpreted not only by the things themselves, but also mystically and figuratively. Fourth, it will be declared whether paradise is to be explained first from the corporeal thing itself, or in a mystical way. Fifth, it will be told on which day, among those six days in which God founded this corporeal and visible structure, the corporeal paradise was founded. Sixth, the reason will be opened for which God founded this corporeal paradise. Seventh, it will be investigated whether paradise is in heaven or on earth. Eighth, it will be weighed whether paradise is in this tract of lands which we inhabit, or in another. Ninth, it will be proven that this region of the earth in which paradise exists is higher and more eminent than this one of ours. Tenth, it will be dealt with concerning the kingdom of heaven, whether it is on earth or in heaven. Eleventh, it will be discussed how the kingdom of heaven differs from paradise. Twelfth, it will be treated whether paradise exists within the habitable orb of lands, or outside it. Thirteenth, in what region finally paradise is. Fourteenth, it will be debated how men, if they had crossed the Ocean sea, would have come from that region in which paradise is, to this one which we inhabit; and whether Adam lived near Jerusalem, or not. Fifteenth, it will be disputed how great is the extent of paradise. Sixteenth, what Eden is, and why paradise is called by the name of paradise. Seventeenth, it will be investigated whether the trees and fruits of paradise were similar to those which grow in this soil of ours, or different from them. Eighteenth, it will be shown what the mode of paradise's use is, or what it will be even after the resurrection of the dead. Nineteenth, it will be declared what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was, which God had forbidden to Adam: and for what reason it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Twentieth, it will be disputed what the tree of life was, and why it is called of life. Twenty-first, it will be dealt with concerning that river which irrigated paradise, and about the four rivers into which it was divided. Twenty-second, it will be told what would have happened to Adam, if he had observed the commandment. Twenty-third, it will be explained how long Adam and Eve would have remained in paradise, before they would have emigrated thence into the heavenly kingdom, if they had obeyed the commandment. Twenty-fourth, it will be proven that men would have had to be increased in number in paradise, if Adam and Eve had obeyed the law, and that those two would not have remained there alone. Twenty-fifth, it will be debated whether Adam and Eve, and their posterity henceforth, would have produced offspring through the union of their bodies, or without embraces. Twenty-sixth, it will be declared how Adam and Eve, and the rest who were to be born from them, would have experienced pleasure in paradise. Twenty-seventh, it will be dealt with concerning the serpent who attacked and deceived Eve. Twenty-eighth, finally, those words will be interpreted which the blessed Moses left written concerning paradise and those things which were done in paradise, not indeed mystically, but in such a way that the things themselves are explained.

PART ONE.

CHAPTER FIRST.

the doctors of sacred matters who have declared it to be even of an incorporeal nature have lied. It follows therefore from the things already said that paradise is not so corporeal as to have nothing incorporeal in it. Furthermore, we oppose those who claim that paradise pertains only to the understanding of the mind and is entirely incorporeal with these six arguments. First, it would have affected Adam’s body with absolutely no sense of pleasure, but only his soul, and this line of reasoning we have used recently as well. Second, the words of Moses concerning paradise, which note corporeal things, would be false: of such a kind are ^A that the Lord God planted paradise in Eden from the beginning; that He placed there the Adam whom He had fashioned; that He brought forth from the earth every tree pleasant to the sight and suitable for food, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; that Adam and Eve took fig leaves and made themselves loincloths; that they hid themselves among the trees of paradise, and other things of this kind set forth by Moses concerning paradise. Third, unless paradise had corporeal things in it as well, how could waters have flowed from it to irrigate the lands and been suitable for human use? Fourth, from the things which Moses left written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is certain that Adam had a body compacted of clay, ^B and that it was placed by God in paradise; therefore, the place in which that body stood was also corporeal. Fifth, it is necessary that paradise be corporeal, because Enoch and Elijah remain in it, as master Ephrem affirms in that work in which he interprets the book of Genesis, that is, concerning the origin of things, and in those sermons also which he wrote concerning paradise. For since those men are corporeal (as they who are still bound by the chains of this life), it is consistent that they should dwell in corporeal places as well. Sixth, finally, there exists the authority of men of learning, most worthy of trust, by which it is affirmed that paradise is corporeal. We rightly conclude, therefore, that it is false that paradise falls under the sole understanding of the mind, and that it is clearly of the number of those things which are incorporeal. Finally, against those who judge that there are two paradises, one corporeal and the other incorporeal, we object with Moses, who placed Adam not in two paradises, but in one; nor, again, did he write that he was cast out by God from two, but from one. To this, our Lord Christ promised not two paradises, but a single one to the thief, saying: Today you will be with me in paradise. Nor is it reasonable that we should abrogate our faith in such sayings and written oracles, but apply it to those things which are neither spoken nor written in the sacred Books. Therefore, there are not two, but one paradise. And thus far we have covered these three diverse opinions of men concerning paradise; our own view, however, is that there is one paradise, not two: and that this one paradise is of a double condition, corporeal and incorporeal, ^C or rather of that which is perceived by sense, and that which is perceived by the reason and the understanding of the mind; which indeed our view can be demonstrated by these arguments: Adam was composed of soul and body, therefore the paradise, which had been created for his enjoyment, needed also to be of a double condition, so that as it was corporeal, it might recreate the body; as it was incorporeal, it might recreate the soul of Adam. Then, blessed Ephrem explained the book of the prophet Moses with a double interpretation; one of which is mystical, and draws out the hidden meanings; the other treats of the things themselves as described by Moses. But also holy Cyril testified that the legal ceremonies, even if they were celebrated in the thing itself, nonetheless contained something mystical and hidden. Furthermore, the venerable doctors of sacred matters have spoken in part of a corporeal paradise, and others of an incorporeal one; nor indeed was it without reason that they did so, since it was of both conditions. For Gregory the Theologian ^D treats mystically of paradise in that oration which he composed on the Nativity of Christ, where he says that Adam was a husbandman in paradise, of immortal plants, namely of the divine notions themselves, both the simpler and the more perfect ones; likewise, the tree was the meditation of the soul, so far as he himself indeed meditates. Likewise, Gregory Nyssen speaks mystically in his Commentary on Man, chapters 20 and 21. Similarly, Philoxenus of Mabbug, in a sermon on the meditation which concerns the tree of life; for he says that there are hidden meanings and mental meditations regarding paradise. Finally, master Jacob of Edessa, in that sermon which he published concerning Theology, says that Moses spoke figuratively concerning paradise. Again, master John wrote concerning the corporeal paradise in an oration to which he gave the title: Why that tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and what that saying of Christ means: Today you will be with me in paradise, for he builds up that it was a corporeal paradise with many arguments, saying among other things that paradise was beheld by Adam’s eyes, heard by his ears, and finally observed by his mind, and other things of this kind. Similarly, master Severus in his 22nd oration, On the Epithronion, concludes that paradise was corporeal, while he himself also affirms that Adam beheld it with his eyes and heard it with his ears. For he heard, he says, those words of God to him: Of every tree which is in paradise, you may eat, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: and therefore he was able to behold it, yet was prohibited from partaking of it. Gregory the Theologian again, in an oration on patience, speaks in this manner of the corporeal paradise: Wood against wood; of the cross, against the wood of the knowledge of good and evil. It is therefore consistent that either both trees were corporeal, or both were devoid of a body, and subject to the understanding.

^A If, perhaps, anyone should object, citing this same Gregory, who in his oration on the Nativity of Christ interprets that tree of the knowledge of good and evil mystically, and calls it meditation, let him know that he was not ignorant that paradise is of a double nature; and therefore he interpreted that tree sometimes as a true reality, and at other times in a mystical sense, which he thought he ought to do especially in that sermon where he was celebrating the Nativity of Christ. For since he had set himself the goal there of teaching the people that it is not the care of bodies but of souls that should be attended to in sacred sermons and processions, and that doors should not be wreathed, nor streets adorned, and he related other such things there, he was led by the very sequence of his speech to explain that tree also as something to be contemplated figuratively. Thus also the master Ephrem, in his Commentary where he interprets the book of Genesis according to the things themselves, affirms that paradise also existed in reality. Furthermore, divine Cyril, in that Commentary which he composed on the prophet Isaiah, deems that Adam, once he had departed from paradise, dwelt first in Judea. But you will say that Cyril speaks there of the mystical exit of Adam; yet the things which he adds do not permit this: for he says that after he had traversed various places, he at length died in Jerusalem. Therefore, in reality he had wandered here and there, and consequently, he had in reality gone out of paradise. Moreover, John the monk in his sermon on the downfall of this world and the coming new world, shows by many arguments that what is written concerning paradise is consistent with being understood as pertaining to the things themselves; among other things, he uses these words: "What were the riches of Adam in paradise? Were they not fruit-bearing trees, lush with leaves on which the first parents fed, and a river with flowing waters quenching their thirst; some of which, according to Moses, were spread out above this earth, and others beneath it?" For if there is anyone who thinks that the trees in paradise were not corporeal, the divine Scripture ought to have supplied sufficient light to his discerning mind, which clearly affirms through Moses regarding paradise, that Eve, the mother of the human race, took the fruit and ate it. For how could she have plucked that which did not fall under the touch, or taken that which was incorporeal, since that which is devoid of a body cannot be divided, because it is of an incorporeal nature? That John left these things, and many others in that place, by which he teaches that paradise was corporeal: which is also testified to clearly enough by the words of Moses when he writes in Genesis: "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as the garden of God." For he did not mean ^B a paradise that exists only in the mind, that is, an incorporeal one, when he compared it with the region of the Jordan, but rather one which existed in reality and was embodied. Then another prophet also prophesied concerning paradise in this manner: "Before it was the paradise of God, but after it was like a devastated field." Therefore, from all these things which we have hitherto said, it is evident that there is indeed one paradise, but of a double condition, corporeal, I say, and incorporeal; that is, it pertains both to the senses themselves and to the understanding of the mind: and therefore it is false that it falls either under the sense alone, or under the understanding alone, or finally that there exist two ^C paradises altogether.

CHAPTER II. - What is the corporeal and what is the spiritual paradise.

*The corporeal paradise.* Now indeed, after we have demonstrated that there is one paradise, not two, but that it is of a double condition, corporeal and incorporeal, it follows that we should teach which is the corporeal paradise and which is the incorporeal. We therefore posit that the corporeal paradise consists of many trees of every kind, admirable in their variety and beauty, and abounding in leaves and fruits that excite the greatest desire for them, situated in a balanced and most pleasant place: and furthermore a huge and ample river by which they are watered, and finally the place itself, which is spacious, pleasing, and suitable for the use and habitation of men.

On the other hand, we define the paradise that looks to the understanding of the mind, and which we call incorporeal, as that life which is conducted excellently according to the mind, through temperance and holiness, full of the meditation of things both divine and created; from which cares, sorrows, and groans are far removed, while joy, gladness, and exultation are concomitantly present. For those who dwell in this paradise live a life that is clearly blessed and angelic, and are illuminated by the rays of divine knowledge, like the angels. That paradise is therefore double: in as much as it was corporeal, it delighted the body of Adam and Eve; but in as much as it was incorporeal and looked to the mind, it refreshed their souls. For just as corporeal food nourishes the body in the things which God created, so also does thought about God himself nourish the soul endowed with reason. For science and knowledge are the nourishment of the mind just as bread is the nourishment of the body.

CHAPTER III.

*It is consistent to interpret the Scripture of the Old Testament mystically. -* There are some among the heretics who contend that it is by no means fitting that the scriptures of the Old Testament should be interpreted mystically, and otherwise than of the things themselves; and they gravely accuse those who do otherwise. But if you were to maintain this, as a consequence there are many ^D absurdities that you would be forced to accept. For in the first place, the Old Testament...

will contain nothing but mere, naked history and will be entirely devoid of the mystical senses of the Holy Spirit; secondly, the opinion of Manes and Marcion will be confirmed, who used to say that the Old Testament was by no means from the author of God, the Father of Christ. Furthermore, if hidden, arcane senses were not contained within it, how could the ancient fathers, prophets, and other holy men have understood that Christ was to come one day, and how could they have been affected by such great joy on that account? Finally, if we think in this way with those heretics, we certainly fall into Judaism; for the Jews, as those who are devoid of the Holy Spirit, embrace no senses other than those which are corporeal and crass. But in truth it is clear from the things we now set forth that the sacred Books are to be explained even in arcane and mystical ways. For if the fact that the Jews were to be captured, taken into exile, and then liberated and led back to their homeland were events that in very truth served as figures, then the divine prophets were commanded to predict them by certain figures and types, so that, evidently, the providence of God might even then be recognized: as may be seen in Ezekiel regarding the taking of the brick, the dividing of the hairs of the beard and head, and the lying on his sides 6; likewise in Isaiah regarding the wearing of sackcloth and the stripping of the body 7; furthermore, in Jeremiah regarding the yoke and the bonds 8; and finally, in Hosea 9 regarding the taking of an adulterous wife and a harlot; and so it is with many other things which it is not worth the effort to recount now: how much more reasonable shall we consider it to be that in the Law and the prophets those wonderful and most excellent works, which can never be praised enough, which the Word of God, Christ, performed while He dwelt in the flesh, and which He promised would happen to us in that eternal world, the most certain hope of which we enjoy, were pre-announced! To this end, was it not beforehand that God, by mystical means, showed Moses the tabernacle, which was to last for a short time, regarding its corporeal ornamentation, when it was to be built on the mountain itself? Certainly, those words which, after he had come down from the mountain, He spoke to him here, point to this, saying: "See that you do all things according to the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain." 10 What of Gideon’s fleece 11? What of Elisha’s jar 12? Were there not, beyond the very things that were taking place, other meanings also hidden within them? What of the wheat, the chaff, and the winnowing fan which John the Baptist mentions 13? Are they to be taken only for the things themselves, and was there not rather some secret thing which he meant to signify by them? Indeed, our Lord Himself says that Abraham longed to see His day, and he saw it and rejoiced 14, even though he could not have looked upon it in any other way than through a type and mysteries, such as that one where he was commanded to sacrifice his son 15; for that sacrifice figuratively showed the day of Christ.

^B Furthermore, the bronze serpent which Moses hung up before the eyes of the people in the desert 16 is interpreted by Christ Himself in a mystical sense regarding His own cross, when He says: "Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up." 17 Again, the waters of which He speaks while conversing with the Samaritan woman, saying: "The waters that I shall give him will become in him fonts springing up unto eternal life" 18, were surely not in reality corporeal waters, but were mystical. Finally, the apostle Paul also interprets the two wives of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, in an arcane sense, saying that they are figures of the two testaments 19. Similarly, he explains figuratively the rock which accompanied the Israelites and poured forth water for them to drink when he says 20 that that rock was Christ. From all these things, therefore, it is to be concluded that the books of the Old Testament ought to be interpreted not only according to the things themselves, but also mystically and figuratively and in more recondite ways.

CAPUT IV.

CAPUT V.

^A Paradise, therefore, was created before Adam and was, as it were, a bridal chamber prepared and furnished by God. For the fact that Moses makes mention of the created paradise after the creation of Adam has to do with his need to return to a narrative about the planting of paradise that had not yet been sufficiently explained, and he thought it necessary to complete it; it is not as though it were made after Adam was created.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VIII.

^A is the dwelling place of the blessed spirits, more excellent than the firmament; the firmament is more excellent than paradise; and paradise is more excellent than the land we inhabit. There exists, therefore, one land of paradise, and another is this land of ours; yet they differ not in nature, but in the subtlety and excellence of their matter. This can also be demonstrated by an argument drawn from the nature of things. For Adam was not created in this thick and dense place full of matter which is outside of paradise; he was placed by God, for he had not yet gone astray or sinned; nor, on the other hand, was he placed in those most excellent places, the heaven or the firmament, for he had not yet performed any good work. But what was fitting, God did: He placed him in a location which held itself in the middle between both—that is, in paradise. For this place is not as pure and pristine as the firmament, nor, on the other hand, does it consist of as coarse and compacted matter as this, our land, which is outside of paradise. And indeed, for this reason it seems he was placed by the Creator God in such a middle location, in order that, if he were obedient and observed the commands, he might be raised up into the firmament, a place more excellent and purer than paradise; but if he did not obey the commands, but sinned and strayed from the law which his Creator had imposed upon him, he would be cast down into this accursed, coarse, and dense land which we now inhabit outside of paradise. That paradise was in a middle location is also testified to by Philoxenus, the Bishop of Mabug, in the sermon which he wrote concerning the contemplation of the tree of life, in these words: "Paradise was so planted by God that it occupies a middle place; for whatever is above it is either heaven or conforms to heaven: again, whatever is below it is either earth or pertains to the earth." Indeed, of such a nature was the condition and composition of man, that the place in which he was to be set had likewise to be of such a nature; for its state was such that the choice of good and evil was placed in the will of man: now, one who is in such a state stands in the middle between both, neither created wholly from good, nor, on the other hand, entirely from evil, but according to his own free will, he possesses in himself potentiality for either side. And such indeed was the condition of Adam, and such was his knowledge of the tree of good and evil: wherefore the condition of paradise was also of this kind, namely, located in the middle, so that above it were the spirits free from embodiment and matter, who are understood by reason alone, and whatever is outside of all composition: but below it were the beasts and the flocks, and the rest that lack reason. Paradise itself, however, was to remain in the middle between these and those, and in this way to correspond to the constitution of man, who himself consisted of both soul and body. So far he. You notice, therefore, that this learned writer has shown by a clear argument that paradise is placed in the middle; and that it is neither endowed with such a subtle tenuity as those things which exist above it, nor, on the other hand, with that coarseness of matter of which those things that are placed below it are composed. Paradise, therefore, did not exist on this land of ours which we inhabit, but on another; not indeed one differing in its own nature, but in original purity. For he says: "Someone may object ^B to us that it is impossible that—since all land is of one and the same nature and essence—one part of it could be subtle, pure, and sincere, while the other could be coarse, impure, mixed, and confused. But we respond that this can perfectly well happen; for in waters, which are all of the same essence, some are clear, others turbid; some are sweet and pleasant to drink, others bitter and unfit for drinking: likewise in air, we experience some that is thick and dense, and some that is liquid and tempered with natural purity; and again, some of a healthy and pleasant temperature, and some of noxious intemperance and unpleasant odor: finally, no one will deny that all the members of our body are indeed of one and the same nature; and yet the eye is clear and bright, but the hand is a coarse and material structure; and so the same holds true in parts of the earth, in that, namely, one part is pure and simple and void of all excrement, and thin and subtle, as was that of paradise; while the other is coarse, mixed, and excrementitious, of which sort is this land which we have outside of paradise. For you detect this very same thing in oil and in wine: even though these consist of one and the same essence, yet some of their parts are seen to be more liquid and clarified and as it were more percolated, such as those that are furthest from the dregs, while others, again, are seen to be more turbid, more feculent, and altogether more impure—namely, those which are closer to the dregs."

CHAPTER IX.

That the land in which paradise is, is more sublime than this of ours. ^C Furthermore, we assert that the land in which paradise is, exists much higher and more sublime than this which we inhabit; and that it is so is evidenced by those four great rivers which, having risen in the land of paradise, are carried through this, our own land, away from that one. For unless that land stood higher, it could not be that those rivers, borne from there in a precipitous course beneath the great sea, at length burst forth and scattered through this region cultivated by us. It is certain, therefore, that those rivers, because they flow from a high place, are themselves compelled and constricted by their own precipitous flow, and consequently are carried with force beneath the earth and the great sea, and, because of that very force by which they underwent their descent, they spring up again in this land of ours and flow through it. For that those four rivers (I speak of the Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon, and Pison) are carried beneath the sea, and finally emerge in this land which we inhabit, is also testified to by the lord Ephrem in his ^D Commentaries on Genesis, and with him others. It is clear, therefore, from these things that the land in which paradise is situated is much more eminent and sublime than that which we occupy.

CHAPTER X.

Of the celestial kingdom in which the just shall be filled with pleasure, whether it is on the earth or above the heaven. — As for that celestial kingdom which is destined for the delights of the just

after they have revived, as our Lord says, it is proved by many arguments that it is not on earth, but above the heaven (that is, above the firmament), which is immediately above us. For first, the very word by which the celestial kingdom is named by the Lord—not terrestrial—argues this; then, that same Lord said: *I go to prepare a place for you* [John xiv, 2]. And: *Where I am, there also shall my minister be.* Now there is no doubt that Christ truly ascended into heaven. Furthermore, the divine Paul writes in these words: *But you have come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of myriads of angels, and to the Church of the firstborn who are written in heaven* [Heb. xii, 22, 23]. And elsewhere: *For we know that if this our earthly house, that is to say the body, is dissolved, we have a structure from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven* [II Cor. v, 1]. In addition to this, John the monk, in the earlier discourse which he wrote about the new world, says thus: Truly that celestial kingdom of Christ was not under the firmament, but above the heaven, where the orders of the powers exist. It is clear, therefore, that the celestial kingdom in which the blessed will enjoy pleasure after they have revived is situated above the heaven (that is, the firmament), ^B which is what appears above us.

CAPUT XI. That the celestial kingdom is one thing, and paradise another.

CAPUT XII. Whether paradise is in this circle of lands which mortals inhabit, or outside it.

CAPUT XIII. In what region of the world paradise is situated.

^A we answer, that Basil and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and besides these, the master Severus, and many others, are of the opinion that paradise exists in the Oriental region of the earth. For Basil, in his sermon on that passage of Paul, "In everything give thanks," writes to this effect: "Therefore we stood turned toward the Orient while praying, so that we might accustom our eyes to contemplating paradise, and thereby seek out our pristine home." Gregory of Nyssa, in the sermon he composed on the Lord’s Prayer, says thus: "We turn ourselves toward the Orient, not merely because God is visible there, for He is everywhere and is not contained by any particular place, since He occupies everything equally, but because our pristine home is in the Orient—I speak of that life which we led in paradise, from which we subsequently fell; for God preserves paradise in Eden, in the Orient. When, therefore, we direct the vision of our eyes toward the Orient, and bring to our minds our fall, by which we fell from those most blessed places, we rightly offer this prayer of yours to you," etc. Finally, the master Severus, in the discourse in which he discusses why we adore turned toward the Orient, has set forth these things: "Because paradise is in the Orient, and from there we went forth, and we hope to return to our ancient home," etc. There are also some who believe that it is established from this that paradise is in the Orient, because those who wish to construct temples or houses looking toward the Orient describe them in such a way that the building is faced toward the sun in the month of Nisan, truly because the sun rises over the place of paradise in that month. And some of these observe the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan, as if the rays of the sun might leap straight from the eastern windows on that day; others, however, observe the fourth, and they think this happens because the sun was created on that day and began its course. But Ephrem says that paradise encompasses the whole earth, and is situated beyond the Ocean in such a way that it surrounds the entire globe of the lands from every region, not otherwise than as the sphere of the moon girdles the moon. These are just about his own words, which he uses in that disputation of his: "Because paradise is set far away beyond our sight, and there is not such sharp keenness in our eyes that we might reach it; if you wish to make an attempt concerning it, you could easily compare it to the circle surrounding the moon, and thus you would comprehend it in your understanding: for in this way it encompasses both sea and land within itself." ^{B C}

CHAPTER XIV.

^A when he had crossed over into this land of ours, gave the skull to his firstborn son, Shem, and that his posterity buried it in Jebus (as being their own possession). These things, therefore, are said by those who opine that paradise exists beyond the Ocean sea; but as for those who think that paradise is placed within the Ocean, and that we are not hindered from it by the sea but by impassable and impenetrable mountains, they say partly that the descendants of Adam came on foot from that region into this of ours, and partly that they were carried hither by a wandering ark.

CHAPTER XV. How ample is the space of paradise.

Whether paradise is situated in the Eastern region, as Basil, Gregory, Severus, and many others have said, it must necessarily have been very spacious and ample; for that great river by which it was watered gives credibility to that fact. For if this river, where it sufficiently waters paradise, is divided into four great rivers, which wash with their course a great part of this world which we inhabit, it is certainly logical that, before it was led away and dispersed into those four great rivers, it was most maximum, most ample, and most deep. Now, from the magnitude of the river, it is concluded that paradise, which is watered by it, is also most ample. But if (which is the opinion of Ephrem) paradise encompasses our entire earth on every side along with the Ocean, there is truly no room for doubt left but that it is most ample and most extensive.

CHAPTER XVI. What Eden is, and why paradise is called paradise.

Eden has the meaning of 'voluptuousness' among the Hebrews, and it is credible that the Greeks formed their own word ἡδονή from it. Furthermore, Eden is an ample and spacious place, so named because it is delicate and adorned with many and various trees. But paradise is called paradise because it is a place cultivated with many most beautiful plants, enjoyable to both the sense of smell and taste, and plainly fitting, suitable, and accommodating as a dwelling and seat and pleasure for men; for mortals have been accustomed to call such a place paradise. Wherefore the blessed Moses also named the region of the Jordan 'paradise,' because it was pleasant and sightly at that time. Moreover, just as the region of Eden excels all other lands, so also that part of it in which paradise is situated surpasses all other places that Eden contains: for there is no soil in Eden more excellent than that in which paradise is planted.

CHAPTER XVII. Whether the trees and fruits of paradise were such as this earth of ours brings forth, or different from these.

Furthermore, we affirm this also, that neither the trees nor ^B the fruits of paradise (even if they are called trees and fruits) were at all of the kind which are produced here among us; but they were far more excellent, more elegant, and larger. For we are led to conclude this by these reasons. Firstly, those fruits were not subject to the divine curse nor condemned, like these of ours; secondly, if in this detestable and unhappy earth of ours, there were other places with more excellent trees and better fruits than others, how much more should it be considered that the trees and fruits of paradise were much more excellent and better than these of ours! And indeed, Philoxenus also approves of this opinion of ours in that oration which he left written concerning the tree of life; for speaking of paradise and its plants, he says: They are in no way subject to the curse and condemnation; for these were pronounced only upon the land which is outside of paradise, after the law was violated by Adam, so that paradise itself remained immune, just as it remains immune and free unto this very day, and for that reason the most delicate and most beautiful trees exist even in it.

CHAPTER XVIII. To what use paradise serves, either now or after the resurrection.

But some scholars of the disciplines are accustomed to ask what is the use of paradise even now, or what it will be in the future, after mortals have revived with their bodies. To these we answer that paradise was first created and planted by the Creator ^C God so that Adam with his own might dwell in it. But when they sinned against the command of their Creator, they were cast out and expelled from it. From that time forth until the advent of Christ, Enoch and Elijah dwelt in paradise; but after the advent of Christ the King, it serves, moreover, for this purpose: that in it dwell the souls of just and pious men, and of those who by the torments of their body proved their faith in Christ, and who, being faithful, loved God—stripped of their bodies until the day of resurrection: which we showed in that discourse which we composed about the soul. For the Lord took up the soul of the thief to it, for He said to him: Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise. Furthermore, after the day of the resurrection, there will be no use for it at all, but it will remain superfluous and empty. Now, lest anyone think these things said by us are based on conjecture, it is pleasing to affirm this with some reasons. Firstly, it is certain that other places dedicated to the spirit, of the kind from which the devil with his forces fell, also remain empty and superfluous to this day: furthermore, that part of heaven, the half which the just will inhabit after the resurrection, is still empty; moreover, the entire orb of the earth itself remained deserted through the scarcity of men for as long as the languages were divided, except for the one region of Babylonia. ^D

moreover, even in this present time, there are very many places in the world that are inhabited neither by men nor by angels, and likewise many seas that are unnavigable. Finally, after the resurrection there will be no need for the sun, or the moon, or the other stars, or even for any living creatures at all, neither serpents nor birds. Lastly, after the resurrection no one among the just will remain on the earth, since they will ascend above the firmament, but only the ungodly who are to die will be left there. Therefore, just as we say that there is nothing absurd, inconsistent, incomplete, or gaping in all these matters as they stand; so likewise you should not establish that there is anything deformed or gaping in the fact that Paradise will serve no purpose after the resurrection. Furthermore, kings often build magnificent structures at great expense, which, after they have served their purpose, are thereafter left empty, and yet those buildings are by no means considered to have been erected rashly or thoughtlessly. Who, then, would accuse God, the most prudent dispenser of all things, of thoughtlessness, for having created Paradise for Adam’s sake, and having placed him in it so that he might live in pleasure, only to cast him out when he sinned, and leave it empty? ^A

Chapter XIX. Of what sort the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was, which God had forbidden to Adam, and what the reason for its name is.

The blessed Moses wrote in his first book to this effect: "And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, Of all the trees of Paradise thou mayest eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat: for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die." And a little later: "And the woman took of the fruit of the tree, and did eat; and gave to her husband, who also did eat." Here three questions offer themselves to be investigated, the first of which is why that tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the second, what good is, and what evil; the third, of what kind that tree was. Therefore, as concerns the first point, that is, the reason for the name, we say that it was by no means called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it itself was endowed with the knowledge by which it could discern between good and evil, nor even because it imparted the knowledge of that matter to Adam. For you may understand that the tree was utterly devoid of such knowledge even from this: that it was not endowed with even a brute (let alone a rational) soul. For if it were brute, it would have had to be slaughtered first, like other animals, before our first parents could eat of it; and that it entirely lacked a rational soul is most certain, since it was gifted with no faculty to use things at its own discretion, nor did it receive from the Creator any law, such as He imposed upon those things which He endowed with reason. Wherefore, if the tree lived by neither of the aforementioned souls, it is concluded that it possessed no knowledge within itself by which it could discern good from evil. ^B Furthermore, that it gave no knowledge itself to Adam is certain, since he had already been embellished with the knowledge of good and evil long before; for he was composed of a rational soul which excels in the judgment of good and evil. For this purpose, the law was commanded to Adam, such as is rightly imposed only upon those who know the distinction between good and evil: for otherwise (which God forbid!) he would have had grounds for complaint, had He prescribed a law to one who was utterly devoid of all judgment. Furthermore, if Adam had not already been imbued with such knowledge at that time, how could he have given names to the living creatures? How could he recognize Eve, his wife, and say of her: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," etc. Finally, Adam was touched by a desire for divinity, and for the sake of obtaining it, he tasted of that tree: wherefore it is necessary that the knowledge of good and evil was within him, as he understood the excellence and dignity of divinity, and strove for it. Moreover, God considered him as made in His own image and likeness, and had made him most perfect among all that lived. But who would deny that he who had been so created by God was endowed with judgment (that is, the knowledge of good and evil)? For that he was seduced by the fraud of the evil demon did not happen because of an ignorance of good and evil; but because he himself was seduced and indulged his own desire. For even now, those who sin do by no means sin as if devoid of all knowledge—for why else would such be condemned?—but they are seduced by their own affection. ^C Finally, it could not be that the tree could imbue Adam with that which it itself lacked. It is perfected, therefore, from what has been said thus far, that the tree was not called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it itself possessed any skill in distinguishing good from evil, or because it imparted such knowledge to Adam as he ate of it. But since we have yet to explain why it was given that name, it must be said what is to be understood by the words good and evil. Good, therefore, is obedience itself; but evil is the vice contrary to obedience, namely, rebellion. For the words of the Law show that obedience is good: "Love the Lord thy God"; for from love and charity obedience is born. Good, therefore, is obedience. Again, that evil is rebellion is proven by those words of God: "My people have done two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have digged to themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water." ^D Now truly we say that the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because through it, when the risk was actually taken, Adam acknowledged good and evil. But you will say, from this it is inferred that Adam would have been devoid of the knowledge of good and evil if he had not tasted of that tree. But we respond that Adam certainly knew that obedience was good, and rebellion was evil, as one who was created in the likeness of God and endowed with reason.

and provided with the capacity to judge the things he had conceived in his mind. Yet, he learned this very thing afterwards, by the experience of the thing itself, when it had happened and he had tasted the forbidden fruits. Just as Cain was not ignorant that murder was an evil thing before he had perpetrated it; yet he learned this very fact more clearly later by the experience of the thing, once the homicide had been committed, when he was punished with fleeing instability. Indeed, we ourselves know what things are evil before we label them as evil; but when we have actually committed them, then we understand in reality that they are evil; and indeed much more certainly then, when we pay the deserved punishment for them. In short, just as we are not unaware that sickness is an evil long before we fall ill, and yet, once the experience has occurred, we recognize this fact more closely and deeply when we are vexed by sickness; and as everyone knows that health is good even when they lack it, yet when they enjoy health, they understand by experience more certainly of what kind and how great a good it is: so too Adam knew, before he had tasted of the forbidden tree, that obedience was good and rebellion evil; yet when he had rebelled, he recognized this very fact more rightly by experience as his teacher. For by the judgment by which he was cast out from the goods of paradise, and relegated to this cursed earth, he learned through the trial how great a good obedience was, and conversely how great an evil rebellion. Therefore, it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because through it Adam experienced what was good and what was evil, and in reality acknowledged that obedience was good and rebellion evil. ^C But, someone will say, let us grant that Adam was experienced in what was good and what was evil through that tree, yet it does not seem a just reason for why the tree itself would be called the knowledge of good and evil, which would have no knowledge in itself. We respond that it is the custom of Holy Scripture to accommodate names to both places and times for those things which are owed to the things themselves occurring in those places and times. Thus they called a certain well "of contention," ^D although the well had not contended, but the shepherds had contended with one another concerning the well itself. And again, another well "of swearing," not as if it itself had sworn, but because oaths had been made concerning it. Similarly, they called a certain heap of stones "the heap of testimony," which could not speak any testimony, but because the pact between Jacob and Laban had been performed at it. Finally, Jacob named Bethel "the host of God," although the place itself was not the host of God, but because he had seen the host of God in that place. To the same manner, therefore, that tree was nicknamed the knowledge of good and evil, not because it held such knowledge in itself or produced it in Adam, in which he had already excelled before, but because through that tree he was experienced in the thing itself, and (so to speak) effectively [504 A] it had been taught what was good and what was evil, since he had learned it also by the experience of the thing, when it had happened and he had tasted the forbidden fruits. And through it he clearly recognized the reason for good and evil by the very effect of the deed, and learned how much good was placed in observing the mandate of God, and how much evil, conversely, in transgressing it. For Scriptural writing called obeying the precept "good," and not obeying it "evil." Let these things, therefore, be enough said concerning the reason for the name; now it remains that we weigh of what kind that tree might have been. There are some who think that the thing of which Adam tasted was not a tree, but the venereal embrace by which he mingled his body with his wife; and for this reason they say that the offspring of the woman was made subject to pain by the sentence of God; nor did that precept, "Do not eat of that tree," mean anything other than, "Do not cohabit, but live holily and without all Venus"; and "The day you eat of it, you shall die," means the day you shall mingle bodies. However, that this opinion is by no means true, even this sufficiently argues, that they were driven from that paradise in their entire virginity. Therefore, others judge this tree to have been wheat, and for that reason Christ also gave his own body in bread: that by the same thing by which the debt had been contracted, it might also be paid. Again, others contend that it was a vine, and for that reason Christ gave his own blood in wine for the expiating of the injury of the first parents. But we think these things are not true; for wheat is called a crop, not a tree, as neither is a vine. Therefore Philoxenus of Mabug, in his oration on the tree of life, and many others, think that the tree was a fig, from which, although it was forbidden to Adam, he did not abstain. To this opinion we also subscribe as more truth-like. For it is credible that, as soon as they had eaten of that tree, struck by shame from the fact that it was close at hand, they provided themselves with aprons with which to cover their shameful parts, and that it was made from fig leaves the Scripture itself attests. For it cannot be deemed likely that they, having passed over the tree which was closest, hurried to another situated far away; from whose leaves, once fashioned, they covered their nakedness. And therefore that tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a fig tree; which, when they were ordered not to eat of it, they did not obey the edict. Yet there are those who want it to have not been a fig at all, but rather a tree of some new and unusual kind, far more excellent than the others; whose fruits had been forbidden to Adam: and they conclude this by this reasoning, because Adam sinned by eating and was punished. For (they say) by eating a common fruit, he would neither have sinned nor deserved punishment. But to these we respond: When any thing is prohibited by law, one is not to relate the excellence or dignity or utility and indignity of the thing, while anything is either eaten or omitted, to sin or to justice, or to punishment or reward, but [alt-version omitted]

^A solely to observe obedience and rebellion here. For example: the divine Maccabees, when they abstained from swine’s flesh, and suffered many evils on that account, did not regard the swine’s flesh itself, nor did they abstain from it as a vile and contemptible food; but they turned their mind to the divine command, which they determined must be observed by all means, and by no means transgressed. And the martyrs have endured many torments because they refused to taste of the offerings to the gods; not because they had any regard for that food which was prepared from the victims, but so that they might not pollute their own conscience against God. Thus, the divine Paul allows us to eat of foods without discrimination, as long as we are ignorant of what kind they are; but he orders those who are aware to abstain, obviously because the matter lies not in the foods themselves, but in the conscience of those who eat them. Therefore, Adam did not recognize his sin from the value or dignity of the tree from which he tasted, but from his own rebellion; and he was punished clearly not for the nature of the food tasted, but because of the violated law. For in observing or violating the law consists all justice and injustice; and not in the matter itself concerning which the law was enacted. That tree of the knowledge of good and evil, therefore, of which Adam ate, was a fig tree. Here, again, someone might object: If the tree that was tasted brought death to Adam, it deserves to be considered a murderer and an enemy of God; for whereas God fashioned Adam and gifted him with life, the tree destroyed him and snatched away his life. But to this, it is easily answered that it was not the tree, but the rebellion that brought death to Adam. For it is also written in the law: "He who uses curses against father or mother shall die." Yet no one would say that the curses themselves inflict death upon the one who insults a parent with them, and separates his soul from his body: but rather that the impiety is the cause of death for him. To this, at Horeb, death was prescribed for the people, should anyone touch the boundary of Mount Sinai: yet it is by no means to be thought that anyone was killed by Mount Sinai, but rather by the violated command. Finally, if some king should forbid someone entry into this or that city under penalty of death, and it happens further that he does not abstain from that city, and is consequently punished with death by the king: who would say that he was killed by the city, and not rather that he perished by his own rebellion? Nor, indeed, did the manna of the Israelites—which, when kept on the night of the Sabbath, did not rot, whereas on other nights it was corrupted—rely upon the night of the Sabbath itself to preserve it, or the others to destroy it: but the whole matter depended upon the observed and violated command. Therefore, it was not the tree or the eaten fruit that produced death for Adam, but rebellion itself. ^B However, Philoxenus of Mabbug is of the opinion, as is evident, that neither that tree nor its fruit nor the tasting of it brought death to our first parents: for if, he says, the food had thus destroyed them, as herbs which are wont to kill those by whom they are devoured, they would have perished either then, while they were eating, or after. Nor, again, did they incur death because of rebellion alone: seeing that David, though he transgressed in three ways—by adultery, by wrath, and by homicide—was nevertheless not punished, but obtained pardon from God for his sins; but rather, that the aspiration for divinity was the cause of death for them. For as soon as (he says) the serpent had said to Eve: "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," if you taste of that tree, she immediately, with the greatest greed, took the fruit and ate of it: wherefore it is not to be thought that Eve, enticed by the flavor of that food, violated the command of God, but because she hoped she would become a goddess and ^C affected divinity, that she both ate it and offered it to her husband. But neither was Adam lured by that fruit and food into transgressing the command, when there were in paradise many other trees from which he could have satiated his lust (if such a thing had gripped him) or, for the sake of any food at all, having spurned and neglected God his creator, obeyed the insidious demon: but that he himself, also struck by the ambition for divinity, transgressed and ate from the forbidden tree. For unless he had had a mind perturbed by that affection, he says, he would easily have opposed to his wife other arguments of this kind: "Why does the serpent, who promises us divinity from the tasted tree, not eat of it himself first, and become a god? Now, indeed, neither do I see you, as you have eaten, to have become a goddess: how then can I myself hope for divinity if I eat? And what power has a tree, which even lacks a soul, to make gods of those who eat of it? As if indeed it could surpass its own creator!" But he answered his wife nothing of the sort, nor did he argue with her concerning the matter: because he himself was also held by folly, overcome by the desire for divinity. It is deduced, therefore, that neither the tree nor the fruit of the tree nor the food, nor the rebellion, brought destruction to our first parents, but their own mind by which they transgressed, that is, the very ambition for divinity. For the devil also fell with his hosts by this same ambition: for he said: "I will place my seat above the stars of God, and I will be like the Most High"; and because of this very sin they were cast down and plummeted from heaven. Thus far Philoxenus. But we say that the transgression itself was the cause of death for Adam, and we prove this by two reasons, of which this one is taken from the word of God. For God said to Adam: "On the day that you eat of the tree, you shall die." The second is this: If, with the hope of divinity offered, the demon had not been able to deceive Adam and Eve, without a doubt he would have driven them to transgression by the promise of immortality; and thus they would have fallen into death in any manner whatsoever by violating the command of God, which he himself had threatened to them; therefore, to have broken the command of God was the cause of their destruction. But why,

they ask, did God impose a law upon Adam, when He knew he would not observe it? Indeed, had the law not been given to him, he would have fallen into a much greater evil than that which befell Satan, especially since he was dwelling in such a royal palace, the very paradise abounding in all delights. ^A A law, therefore, which he was not going to obey was commanded to him, lest he should fall into a greater evil than that into which he fell by the law being given. There are, however, many other reasons for the prescribing of that law which, God willing, we shall explain later.

But indeed, one might ask why the very heavy punishment of death followed Adam’s sin, which did not seem to be most grave. To this we respond first that he committed a more heinous crime than the punishment he sustained; for that rebellion consisted in a complex variety of offences: ignorance, error, pride, incredulity, calumny, and finally, contempt. Ignorance, in that he became like the brute beasts, though he else thrived in wisdom and reason. Error, in that he was seduced by the words of his insidious impostor. Pride, also, for he affected divinity. Furthermore, incredulity, for he did not believe the events which his Creator God had threatened to him. Calumny, finally, as he attacked his own Parent. Lastly, contempt; for he despised, spurned, and neglected the law commanded to him. ^B Nor should the food he took be viewed by an evaluation of that crime, but rather that, having spurned God his Maker, he violated His commands; and on the contrary, he valued the words of his insidious enemy. That, indeed, must be called to mind, for thence the offence arose. That was great and had to be paid for with a most grave punishment, not on Adam’s head alone, but propagated to the entire posterity. Just as Esau, who (as the Apostle says) found no place for repentance; not, surely, because he had eaten some unusual thing (for he had only eaten lentils), but because he had followed his own desire and had despised God his author.

CHAPTER XX.

^A For encouraging Adam to obey the law, therefore, that tree was called the tree of life, so that by the word of life he might be just as much spurred on to obey what had been prescribed by God, as he had been deterred from rebelling by the word of death a short while before; and such grace and reward would also plainly answer in opposition to the punishment, and life to death. This judgment is also approved by Saint Severus in his 33rd oration on the epithronium, where, speaking of the cross of Christ, he says: "That other tree (I mean the tree of life) was to have brought about the glory of Adam, had he not been overcome by the desire of untimely food, and had he not disobeyed the edict," etc. But someone might ask why, if Adam were to be compliant, the kingdom or a state of incorrupt and immutable life was not promised to him instead. We answer that he could not have been capable of such perfect discipline as soon as he was created. For if, after all that teaching of the Law and the prophets, certain of the Jews fell into the sect (as they call it) of the Sadducees, and denied the resurrection of the dead and other sound dogmas, how much more must we suppose that Adam, in the very rudiments of his creation, was incapable of that absolute doctrine by which he could have been persuaded that some sublime reward—namely, the heavenly kingdom—remained for those who loved God and were observers of his commandments? Just as we do not address our young children who we send to school to be educated, because their intellect is as yet raw and not yet mature, with words of this kind: "Apply yourself to your studies, so that you may grow into a prudent and learned man, and emerge as a leader of your people"; but rather we encourage and entice them to attend school and learn their letters with mere blandishments: in such a way, God, too, was prescribing a law to Adam, whom He had recently created, by which he might learn to revere Him, and if he should transgress that law, He denounced death: but if he should observe it, He promised that He would grant him the tree of life, from which, once he had tasted, he would attain immortality and live an eternal life. Was He not, therefore, saying to a man as yet raw and untaught: "I am about to give you, who follow my commands, the heavenly kingdom"? But He pointed out the tree as if with a finger, desirable in its pleasant appearance and adorned with its fruit, which He called the tree of life, and promised him that if he were compliant, he would eat of it and become immortal. Nor is there any reason why anyone should marvel at this in Adam, when not even to the Jews themselves, after the various precepts and institutions of the Law, was the ^B heavenly kingdom promised by God, if they should obey His words, but rather a land flowing with milk and honey, and fertile in trees and fruits, such as pomegranates, olives, palms, etc. What wonder, then, if God showed an edible tree to Adam, upon whom He had but recently imposed a law, and which He called the tree of life, with the promise added that if he remained in obedience, he would, upon tasting it, escape death and become immortal? Therefore, it is clear from what has already been said that the name of life was given by God to that tree so that He might by that name no less animate Adam to observe the law already prescribed to him and render him inclined to it, than He had deterred him from rebelling a short while before by the name of death. But let these things suffice regarding the reason for the name. Furthermore, as to what kind that tree was, we have not read of any of all the teachers who has explained what it was like in reality and in its bodily condition; for we find many who interpret it mystically, and we too, relying on God, when we explain the representation of paradise in the progress of this work, will set forth those things which pertain to the mysterious meanings of this tree. We frankly confess, therefore, that we have not yet learned what kind of tree that was which was called the tree of life, although we are certainly persuaded that it existed in reality as a corporeal thing, and we have learned the name itself from the book of creation, which, as we have already demonstrated, was given to him to incite Adam to obedience; but its species itself, and what the fruits were like, and with what sort of leaves it was adorned, we have not yet attained by our learning.

CHAPTER XXI.

^A seeing that those four rivers, having left paradise, fall under the depths of the Ocean, and finally surge and bubble up in this world cultivated by us, these words signify: *And from there it is divided, and comes out into 4 heads.* Finally, when Moses adds that the name of one river is Phison, and that it circles the entire land of Havilah; and of another, Gehon, which traverses the entire region of Ethiopia; that the third is named Diclat, and that it flows toward Assyria; and finally that the fourth is called Euphrates: he sufficiently indicates that those four rivers, after they have left paradise, fell under the earth, and finally burst forth and surge in this orb cultivated by us. Therefore, what we have said, both about that one river and the four others derived from it, conforms with the opinion of Moses, the divine man. But someone will urge: How can it be that those four rivers, having exited paradise, are precipitated under the depths of the Ocean, and from there finally burst forth in this land of ours? To this we first respond that those things which are thought by us to be impossible are easy for God; but that course of the four rivers which we have described, and other things of that kind, are a divine work, not a human one. Then we also wish to answer this: paradise is located in a much higher region than this our earth exists; and so it happens that the rivers fall from there down a precipice with as much impetus as you cannot express in words, and driven and pressed by that impetus they are snatched under the depths of the ocean, from where they again leap out and bubble up in this orb cultivated by us. For those who labor to lead water on high, and to pour it out from high and erect channels as if by siphons, prepare for themselves from a long distance a waterfall or precipice, an abrupt and difficult high slope, by which they are tumbled down under the earth with great impetus: under which, after they have been compressed and have flowed for some distance by their own impetus, finally through those channels they leap upward with the great force by which they are urged from that precipitous fall. That these things are so, the lord Ephrem also affirms, and with him other doctors; therefore we also willingly agree. Moreover, as to what concerns the taste, whether the same remains in those waters among us which was in paradise, or not at all: we do not hesitate to pronounce that in paradise they are most pleasing and most sweet to the taste, but having progressed thence, they lose much of their sweetness, and on the contrary contract sharpness, since that soil of paradise is blessed and happy by the great prayer of God; but this of ours, on the contrary, is unhappy and sad by curse. How much therefore there is a difference between that fountain which all bless, and that which no one does not detest; by so much differs in sweetness and pleasantness the flavor of those rivers as it is in paradise, from that which they obtain among us. For if our waters, since they are of one and the same nature, become sweeter, more bitter, more insipid, and more salty according to the nature of the soil ^C through which they flow, why shall we not think that those rivers too, while they flow through that most blessed and happy place, paradise, have a most pleasant and most sweet flavor; but in this tract of our execrable earth, they remit much of that sweetness? Furthermore, blessed Moses has clearly explained the names of those four rivers, and the places through which they are carried, and other things pertaining to the same subject, so that they were things not unknown in that age: for he says: *The name of one is Phison, which flows around the entire land of Havilah, there is gold, and the gold of that region is excellent; there is Bdellium, and the beryl stone*; as if he were to say: One of those four rivers ^D is called Phison, which, where it is derived from that huge river watering the middle of paradise, and has received itself into the land under the depths of the Ocean, again leaps forth, flashes, and bubbles up in the Western region of the world, from where, seeking the North, it washes the whole dominion of the Indians (for by the name of Havilah this is signified), and finally ends in the sea. In Greek, Phison is called the Ganges. But many say that the sand of the bank of this river and even its bed abounds in excellent gold, and in precious gems: for the Hebrew word, *Bedolah*, signifies pearls. The name of the second river is Gehon. It traverses the entire land of Chus, that is, Ethiopia; this is also called by some Sichor, the Greeks call it the Nile: which, having departed from the great river, and having fallen under the depths of the sea, finally leaps forth and bubbles up in the southern territory, and having traversed the entire region of the Ethiopians, is finally discharged into the Adriatic; which sea washes the borders of Egypt. The third river is Diclat, that is, the Tigris, which flows toward Assyria. The fourth is Perath, that is, the Euphrates. And these two also, led away from that greater one, and merged under the sea, finally emerge in the middle of this our world, flowing among neighboring fountains, and Diclat washes the eastern region of Mesopotamia; which, as it has accompanied Perath for some time in the nearby tract, both flow into the great sea of southern Bosra.

CHAPTER XXII

Three places founded by God for Adam

sum, and this earth which is outside of paradise: and this for the most just reason, namely that it should delight him when accomplished by Him in paradise, and at the same time serve as a trial, whether he would be obedient in observing the law, or a rebel; and that to the obedient the reward of a cultivated precept would be given, namely the celestial kingdom, into which he would be raised up from paradise, so that there, free from all mortality, he might lead a life in the highest pleasure; but the rebel and transgressor would be thrust down from paradise into this cursed earth. For angels also perform commands, and are obedient to the divine will, not without the hope of a reward which will be given to them after the general resurrection of mortals: therefore, if the angels perform the worship of God with that hope, Adam also and Eve, with all their posterity, should have obeyed the divine law in paradise with this hope, and cultivated virtue, because thence they were to be raised up to the kingdom of heaven. It follows therefore that, just as they were cast down into this detestable earth because of their sin and the violated law of God, so if they had remained observers of the law, it would have come to pass that they would have ascended to the celestial kingdom, and therein would have lived for the everlasting age in delights. That these things are so, Gregory the Theologian testifies in the oration which he wrote for the new Sunday, in these words: "If we had remained what we were, and had observed the law of God, we would have become that which we were not, through the approach, namely, to the tree of life after the tree of knowledge." But what were they to become? They were to become immortal, and be admitted closer to God. Philoxenus further, in his oration on the contemplation of the tree of life, writes thus: "God leads us into the knowledge of the mysteries of the cross not only through the instinct of nature and the authority of Scripture, but also through the very paradise which He planted, which was the first dwelling place of our race." For as the seat of the angels is heaven, and the place of the demons after their fall is the air (being placed, namely, in the middle position); furthermore that of brute animals and of men after the law was violated is this earth in which we now dwell; finally, that of fish and of all swimming creatures is the waters; and lastly, the body of the soul into which it was first inspired: so also paradise had been destined to be the domicile of men before they had sinned. Moreover, when Adam had received therein a light and easy-to-observe command, if he had obeyed it, he was to be raised up thence to heaven: that being spurned, and the word of God neglected, he not only lacked heaven, which otherwise would have been common to him with those incorporeal hosts; but he was even thrust down through ignominy from paradise, which was the middle place, into this earth subject to sin, so that he might dwell in it with brute beasts. Moreover, the lord John, in an oration against those who think that the world is governed by demons, left written to this effect: "If Adam was to be cast out of paradise, why was he gifted with paradise by God from the beginning?" For our sake, indeed, it had to happen so. For if those first ^A parents had taken heed for themselves and their Lord, and had acknowledged Him, and obeyed His commands, and retained the modesty and humility of mind, they would by no means have lost that dignity and ornament with which they had been endowed. Finally, the lord James of Batnae, in his oration on Adam ejected from paradise, left these things written: "God had created Adam, not that He might cast him out of paradise, but that he might possess paradise as if by hereditary right, and might rule in it; for this purpose He had fashioned man, since for his sake He had even created the world itself: for which reason, as soon as he was created, he began to inhabit paradise, when as yet there was no mention of nuptials." And he soon after adds: "And as they were to live in paradise, so also they were to live in heaven in the sweetest communion and familiarity with God, etc." It is gathered therefore from these words of the holy Fathers and approved authors that Adam and Eve, if they had remained observers of the divine mandate and had not sinned, were to have been raised up into the celestial kingdom above the firmament, where, endowed with perfect immortality, they would have lived in eternal pleasure. Indeed, this is equally certain and consistent with reason; for as they were eliminated from paradise on account of the sin of the violated law, and thrust down into this cursed earth, so if they had obeyed the divine commands, and had thereby been rendered just, they were to be endowed with this reward; namely, that they should emigrate from paradise into the celestial kingdom, which had been prepared for them since the foundation of the world, as the Lord says, for the posterity of Adam and Eve.

Chapter XXIII.

multiplication which exists in the nature of the angels would have been effective, in those who are a little lower ^A than the angels (that is, in men), to extend their path toward multiplying the human race up to the number defined by the counsel of the Creator.

CHAPTER XXIV.

They are also accustomed to ask this, who are possessed by a desire for knowing things: would the first parents have remained alone in paradise if they had observed the law, or would men have increased in number by having procreated offspring? To whom we wish to reply that they would have begotten, and would have been multiplied in very great number: and that this is certain from the very blessing with which God had accompanied them, when He said: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it." For since those words contain at once a commandment and a favorable prayer, who would doubt that both God's prayer and commandment were intended to be fully performed? Therefore it is concluded that Adam and Eve would have propagated a numerous offspring, and would not have dwelt in paradise alone, had they remained obedient.

CHAPTER XXV.

Furthermore, regarding what is wont to be asked—whether men in paradise would have applied themselves to the begetting of children through the venereal embrace, or without nuptials: we say that just as our very nature is skillfully fecundated, increased, and multiplied by the secret counsel of God its Creator, so also the entire human race was to be fecundated, increased, and multiplied, and indeed without intercourse. For the angels also became many, yet without nuptials, and Adam and Eve had been born without Venus; to this, one may even now see many kinds of animals propagated without coitus, such as the genus of worms, and of gnats, and many others besides. This opinion is also approved by Gregory of Nyssa, in his Commentaries on the Composition of Man, chapter 18, saying: "Some say that if there had been no embrace in paradise, human souls would not have been in great number. We, however, say that man before the sin was committed was as an angel, but fell through sin; for the resurrection itself is a return to the pristine condition. Therefore if after the resurrection we shall be like angels, it follows that such we were also before the sin. But angels are not joined in embrace; therefore neither would men have been so joined had they not sinned: but just as the angels are thousands of millions without nuptials, and exceed the number ^B of myriads of myriads, so we too, had not that angelic state in us been changed, would have had no need of marriage for our multiplication."

But that same method by which the nature of the angels is multiplied is in the human race, which is a "little lower than the angels" (Ps. VIII, 5; Hebr. II, 7), which would have been effective to increase to the number that was defined by God's counsel. But if anyone truly asks for the reason and method of procreating souls without nuptials, let him in turn tell us by what means the angels exist, for in this way men would have been multiplied without congress, as the angels. The same Nyssen, chapter 14 of that work, has it thus: "If you ask me how so many thousands of men could have been procreated if there had been no intercourse, I will ask in turn of you, who was Adam procreated from, who was Eve, when no nuptials had intervened? What then? Shall I say that the method of their birth was one way, and that of all mortals to come was to be another? Truly, such a method of generation ^C is not to be explained: for this is what is being asked, whether there would have been need of marriage for God to multiply the human race on earth, or not at all." Thus far from Nyssen. But also Master James of Botnam: "From what nuptials (he says) I ask, was Adam produced? What pains did he himself suffer to bring forth Eve? Thousands of millions of angels stand before God, yet not one of them was carried in a womb, or brought into the light with the pains of a pregnant belly: much more therefore must it be thought that God the Creator would have procreated men without nuptials, just as He also created those first parents, from whom all this posterity of the human race has been born." And a little further down: "What then, tell me, did intercourse profit Abraham for procreating offspring? None at all surely, seeing that he had given his labor to this for so many years in vain, and used these words before God even then: 'Lord, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I am childless?' Therefore, just as God then produced so many thousands of men from the dead body of that old man, so if from the beginning they had obeyed God's commandments, and had abstained from seeking the tree, the method of fecundating the human race would not have been wanting to God." It is concluded therefore from these things that have been said thus far, that men in paradise would in reality have propagated [their kind] without any nuptial embrace, but in the way that God, their sole Creator, knows.

CHAPTER XXVI.

But just as they would have been produced without intercourse, and would have been increased in number in paradise, so they would have spent their life there in true pleasure, and in parts infinitely greater than that which mortals enjoy today in its maximum, being ^D experts in [escaping] all labor, disturbance, trouble, pain, and finally disease and sickness. For they would have eaten from the trees of paradise, and would have drunk the drink from that greatest and sweetest river of paradise without any dissension or strife between them; such as the angels themselves, and such as

Adam and Eve lived, before the law was given, in perfect peace, charity, and harmony. For to those pleasures which we mortals now enjoy, there is attached for each person its own trouble, just as to a more abundant meal there is the evil of indigestion; to a more plentiful drink, nausea; to good health, adverse weakness; to strength, infirmity; to the beauty of the body, deformity; and so in other things as well. But in paradise there would have been no such vicissitude of things; for there pure pleasure would have existed, and troubles would have been totally absent, as those which eventually sprang up after the commandment of God was violated. Therefore, they would have been affected by greater delights from the food and drink there than those by which mortals are soothed today.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Concerning the serpent that attacked and deceived Eve.

Furthermore, concerning the serpent, the divine Moses has spoken thus: *And the serpent was more subtle than all the living creatures of the field which the Lord God had made; and the serpent said to the woman: Truly hath God said, that you should not eat of all the trees of paradise?* ^A Here, ten questions occur to us which must be weighed and examined, of which the first is: whether the serpent was embodied, so that he was visible to the eyes, the one who was conversing with the woman; or whether Satan, displaying the appearance of an embodied serpent, addressed her; or finally, whether Satan, hiding within the serpent, uttered those words to the woman.

Certainly, the master Ephrem in a certain commentary of his says that the serpent was embodied, who addressed the woman: for he says that Satan requested of God that He grant to the serpent the faculty of speech for the sake of tempting Adam; just as he also requested that the riches of Job be permitted to him, so that he might make a trial of his patience. From which it follows that the use of speech was given to that corporeal serpent, as it was to the ass of Balaam; nay rather, Ephrem affirms that not only speech, but even intellect was imparted to that serpent, when God addressed it as one intelligent, stinging it with these curses: *Thou shalt eat dust, and walk upon thy belly.* ^B Cyril, however, in his third oration against the renegade Julian, says that Satan himself transformed himself into the serpent, and thus conversed with the woman; and accordingly, that he himself under the person of the serpent was struck by the divine curses. For Cyril thinks that the demon can at will assume the appearance of either a serpent or any other animal he wishes.

But the master James of Sarug, in his commentary on Adam being driven out of paradise, says that Satan insinuated himself into an embodied and visible snake, and from there conversed with the woman; which opinion we also approve and embrace. For even this argues that this is the truth, that paradise was twofold: corporeal and spiritual, as we have demonstrated by great reasons: and Adam and Eve were likewise of a twofold and composite nature, consisting as they did of body and soul; wherefore it must also be thought that the serpent was twofold: corporeal, if you consider the visible snake itself; but spiritual, if you consider Satan, who escaped all senses and hid within him, and from there spoke the words.

The second question is: whether that snake, into which we said Satan insinuated himself and thus conversed with the woman, was of the genus of reptiles, or of the other living creatures? ^C We believe that it was from the number of the beasts that do not creep, and we are led to this by two arguments. First, Moses says the serpent was more subtle than all beasts; he did not, however, say, than all reptiles. And a little later, God Himself, speaking words to the serpent again: *Cursed (He says) before every beast of the field, and before every animal, and before all reptiles,* it is not said. To this, Adam in the very beginning had given names to the beasts and the birds, as Scripture testifies, but not to the reptiles; and accordingly Eve, having been taught by her husband the name of the beasts, called the serpent—because it was of the genus of beasts—a beast; which name she had, of course, learned from Adam. The serpent was therefore from the genus of beasts, but not of those living creatures which are called reptiles.

The third question is: whether the serpent had feet; and if it had feet, whether it was biped, or whether it was a quadruped? To this question we answer that it was a quadruped, since it was of the genus of beasts (according to Moses); and we see that those living creatures which we are accustomed to call beasts are quadrupeds. And indeed, the master Ephrem, while he explains these things in his Commentaries, says among other things: "Did you wish for Adam to lose his glory; and for the serpent, indeed, not to be punished even in his feet?" ^D The snake was therefore a quadruped: but because it was an instrument of Satan, and the divine execration clung to it, it was made from a beast into a reptile animal, and whereas before it walked on feet, subsequently it crawled on its belly prone: just as Satan, too, because he had transgressed, had exited from being an angel to being a demon; and as the wife of Lot, because she looked back, was transformed from the woman she was before into a statue of salt.

The fourth question is, if Satan insinuated himself into the snake, and from it he himself uttered words to Eve; why is that not written by Moses, but mention is made only of the snake? Here we answer: that Moses served as a recorder of the events, not as an interpreter: and accordingly, as each thing appeared, so it was described by him, and not explained as it really was in itself. But Eve saw the serpent, she heard the serpent speaking with her: this, therefore, Moses himself rendered in his writing, just as elsewhere he called the three whom Abraham saw "men," though they were not men. To this, if the divine Paul, who followed Moses at such an interval of time, when things had already been explained, did not attribute the imposture to Satan but to the serpent, saying: *I fear, as the serpent deceived Eve,* etc., why should not Moses, who preceded Paul by so many ages, justly appear to have attributed the fraud to the serpent? For it is the duty of the author to narrate the events; but the office of an interpreter, [distinct] from the author...

is to explain them. And therefore Moses, who wished to be the author and not the interpreter, rightly narrated that the serpent spoke with Eve, but did not say that Satan had been hidden inside the serpent. The fifth question is, why Satan seduced Adam with his wife. We believe the cause for Satan was the envy with which he pursued them; for when he had fallen from his own sublime dignity and glory, and subsequently saw that Adam was fashioned from clay, yet was made to the image and likeness of God, and possessed dominion over [ ^B ] all things that were on the earth; and furthermore, that he inhabited a paradise full of all delights and enjoyed the fellowship of the angelic hosts, while he himself, on the contrary, was cast down and rejected, he was moved by the greatest envy against Adam and Eve, and seduced them. Doubtless he was agitated by thoughts of this kind: "I, who am spiritual, am an exile, but Adam, who is corporeal, has been received within. I have been driven out and stripped of all glory; he is clothed and vested in glory. I am in the depths, he is in the heights. I am among the beasts, he is among the angels. I am in a vast wilderness, he dwells among the most delightful trees of paradise." These thoughts, I say, impelled him to pursue them with envy and to deceive them; for he understood from what had happened to himself that, if Adam sinned, he would fall just as he himself had fallen before. And from the sin, clearly one of two things would happen to Adam: either he would die, in accordance with the sentence already pronounced beforehand, "In the day that you eat of it, you shall meet death"; or he would be expelled from paradise, and then, having procreated offspring, he would multiply according to that favorable blessing which God had used toward them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply." But if this were to happen to him, then [he expected] that he himself would exercise dominion both over him and over all his posterity. Therefore, he was moved by pure envy to deceive him. The sixth question is, why Satan did not appear to our first parents in human form, or in a divine form (such as our Lord appeared on the mount), or in the figure of larger beasts, such as camels, elephants, and others of that kind; or finally, why he did not use his own proper and native appearance, but had need of an instrument. Certainly, he did not appear in human form because he knew that Eve was not ignorant that there was no man other than herself and her husband; nor did God permit him to simulate a man, lest Eve should have a just excuse for her error, having seen a man like herself by whom she was deceived. Furthermore, he did not appear in a divine figure, or that of larger beasts, because these forms would have struck [the woman] with excessive fear and disturbed her, so that they would not have led her to listen to his words. Finally, he did not attack her in his own natural form, because she would have been even more terrified if she had heard the words of him who deceived the sense of sight; and for this [ ] reason, so that there might be place and faith in his words, he donned that corporal organ, the serpent, and in that guise exhibited himself to be seen. The seventh question is, why Satan chose the serpent for himself as an organ, above other beasts. We say there are many causes for this matter. First, there was no animal more cunning than the serpent for deceiving; which is what divine Moses also signifies with these words: "And the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field." For some living creatures excel in craftiness, like foxes; others are of simple nature, like sheep. Secondly, since the serpent was an animal full of lethal poison, it was fitting that, even because of the correspondence of nature, Satan should mingle his own deadly toxin with the poison of the serpent. Thirdly, so that the same thing might happen to Satan as to that prodigal son: for he, after having fallen from the highest honor, was reduced to such miseries of life that he was compelled to feed swine; so, clearly, Satan, having fallen from his own glory, insinuated himself into a serpent. Fourthly, so that when the serpent would eventually creep upon its belly, that very fact—creeping on the ground—might place before the eyes of men the case of the devil who had lurked in the serpent. Finally, the nature of the serpent kind was so ordered that a certain hidden, as it were, fraternal conjunction of character exists between it and the demons, even if it escapes us. The eighth question is, why God permitted Satan and the serpent to enter into paradise: or rather, in truth, [permitted] Satan to deceive Adam with his wife. To this question we respond that it was permitted for various reasons. For He permitted it while not impeding the liberty of Satan, so that he might use his own will, just as He did not prohibit Ozzias from the holiest of sanctuaries, lest he penetrate into it for pleasure. Furthermore, God allowed those things to happen to show how it was possible that, just as He could abolish Adam—the image and likeness of [His own]—from the earth, so in turn He had permitted this same [Satan] to be able to affect divine majesty through pride and arrogance. Moreover, so that there would be nothing with which Adam’s liberty of will could not struggle; and finally, so that there might be a test for Adam, whether he would observe the divine command or not. Therefore, both the tree itself, and Satan and the serpent, were instruments accommodated for testing the liberty of Adam’s will. The ninth question of this kind is: Why did God curse the serpent, who had committed no crime, while to Satan, who was guilty of the wickedness and noxious, He cursed nothing evil? For the serpent did not use free will, so that it could not fail to present itself to Satan as an instrument. To this we say that the serpent was detested in order that this very thing might be a vexation to Satan, who was using it as an instrument; just as if someone were to break a musical instrument, through which he might torment the one who was playing it; thus, he surely struck down the horse heavily, so that he might throw off the rider at the same time; and he capsized the ship, so that [the sailor]...