Moses bar-Cepha, the Syrian

^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]...

^A should perish, even if not guilty. God struck the serpent with curses so that He might inflict pain on Satan, who was speaking through the serpent; just as He afflicted the legion by destroying the pigs: for as soon as Satan saw the serpent deprived of its feet and slithering on the ground, he was tormented by bitter anguish. Furthermore, He also cursed the serpent because it had been the cause of sin for Adam and Eve; just as a beast of burden was buried under stones with which a man had mingled his own body, because it had been the cause of evil; for it is written: "Lo, evil comes, but woe to him through whom it comes." To this end He cursed the serpent on account of Satan, just as He cursed the earth on account of Adam. Moreover, He also cursed the serpent for this reason, that Adam and Eve (when they saw what a great penalty the serpent was suffering from the divine curse, deprived of feet and crawling upon its belly) might reflect and understand into what grave error they had fallen, and what a great sin they had committed by obeying the serpent: and consequently, for the future, they would be held in great fear. But let it be useful for those who propose this question to use this mutual question: Do you truly ask, for the sake of defending the serpent, why he was smitten with a curse when he had not been gifted with free will and had done nothing evil? Tell me, I pray, in turn: Why did beasts, cattle, and birds perish in the flood, which had not sinned? Or what did the sheep, oxen, and birds deserve, which were daily sacrificed though innocent? What had Job’s cattle committed, which, although innocent, were handed over to be devoured by fire? Why did Christ permit the legion of pigs to be suffocated in the sea, which had not sinned? Why were doves and turtledoves sacrificed and offered for the expiation of sins of which they themselves were devoid? Why was a sheep sacrificed for the redemption of the people, or a goat slaughtered for the impiety of the church, or an ox for an impious priest, when neither the sheep, nor the goat, nor the ox had sinned? Why were the most innocent prophets subjected to insults, nay, even to death, on behalf of the people? What of Christ? Did He not sustain the punishment of the cross for our sins? Why, then, do you carp at the penalty of the serpent? Would you consider it more just if God had struck Adam with a curse, but had meanwhile kept the serpent free from all harm and punishment? Would Adam appear to you to have been worthy of being deprived of such great glory and such great honor, while the serpent went unpunished or unmutilated of its feet? But now they will say: Why at least was Satan not also cursed at the same time as the serpent? Indeed, we answer that God did not on that account curse Satan ^B because of the weakness of the Hebrews, lest Moses should reveal the spirit lurking within the serpent; for fear, namely, that they might imagine there was some power opposed to God that could do something against God's will by relying on greater strength. For this reason, also, no mention is made by Moses of angels until the age of Agar, lest the Jews suspect there were many gods. Furthermore, although God did not openly curse Satan, yet we affirm that it was done by Him most especially in a hidden and concealed manner. For while He was explicitly execrating the snake, He was silently lashing Satan with curses; as we shall prove later, God willing. For indeed, those words of Christ in the Gospel clearly judge the curse of Satan: "Because the prince of this world is already judged." And elsewhere: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels." The tenth question is why Moses wrote that the serpent was more cunning than the beasts of the field, and not more prudent. To this we answer that prudence is akin to virtue, but cunning to vices. And among the beasts, some are duller, others cunning; nor did Moses here pronounce the snake the most cunning by comparison to humans, but when compared to other beasts; for to humans their own proper wisdom and prudence are traditionally attributed, who otherwise by far exceed not only other living creatures but even the snakes themselves in craft and ingenuity.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

(15*) But the blessed Moses wrote about paradise in this manner: "And the Lord God had planted a paradise in Eden from the beginning." And if paradise had been founded before Adam, nonetheless, with Adam already created, Moses treats of the planted paradise, namely because he returns to the previous history. For since he had not yet departed from the narrative of those things of which he was speaking in the six days, he returns now to complete that narrative, and for that reason he treats here, after the creation of Adam, of a paradise which had otherwise been founded before him. Now, however, as for what paradise is, and why it was planted by God, and on what day, and in what place—whether on the earth or in heaven, and in what region of the world it was placed—those other matters pertaining to this have been discussed by us above with our arguments. But Eden is a pleasant place, and diverse with trees of every kind, in which place God had prepared and arranged the paradise. For these words: "And the Lord God had planted a paradise," clearly show that it was by no means planted and arranged by man, just as Noah planted a vineyard, or as mortals now plant paradises and gardens; but that God Himself, by His own concern and command, had planted it, just as the Psalmist David says when speaking of God: "And the cedars of Lebanon which He planted."

^A And indeed it is evident from this that the paradise was planted by God Himself, as Scripture says, from the beginning. It follows in Moses: "And He placed there the Adam whom He had fashioned." The fact that he says, "And He placed there the Adam," is proof of the glory which God attributed to Adam while He was settling him in paradise, pleasant with various trees, so that he might delight himself therein, and not, like other animals lacking reason, be left on the earth to graze.

Furthermore, what is added: "Whom He had fashioned," leads us to these thoughts: first, that God did not create the body of Adam from the earth alone, but fashioned and composed it from the four elements (certainly, pottery is not made without water); then, that He did not bring forth the body of Adam from the earth by his mere word alone, just as He had brought forth herbs and the other animals and the various kinds of fish from the waters by his word alone; but that He fashioned and formed it with His own hands, which is a matter indeed of the highest importance, showing man, beyond all other things, to be adorned with glory by God. Moreover, that Adam was not conceived in a womb and afterwards born, as we see people procreated today, but existed as created by the hands of God. Furthermore, just as He had created the bodies and souls of the beasts and wild animals, and of those creatures that use flight and swimming, both from the earth and the waters—all of which lack reason—He did not act in this way for Adam: rather, He composed his body from the dust, but created his soul from nothing. Finally, that from the beginning there was not a crowd of men, peoples, and nations on the earth as you see today; but God first fashioned one person (I mean Adam himself), then from him formed a woman, and thus in turn through man and woman the human race was procreated: and all these things we understand from that word: "He had fashioned," which Moses used.

In what habit God appeared to Adam and Eve

But it will be worth the effort to know in what habit God appeared to Adam, whether while He was fashioning his body, or while He was imposing the law upon him, or when He was creating Eve from the rib removed from him, or finally when, walking in paradise, He addressed His voice to them at the decline of the day. The opinion of Philoxenus of Mabug is that, before Adam had sinned against the commandment of God, God appeared to him neither through an angel nor through any corporeal object, but represented Himself to him; not that Adam could perceive the appearing God through the senses of his body, but through the intelligence of his mind. For although the soul indeed inhabited the body of Adam, nevertheless, just like the incorporeal angels, it was able to discern those things which are carried above all body and corporeal matter: and since the senses of Adam's soul were still intact and not defiled by sin, He presented Himself to the eyes ^B of his mind, and to the hearing of his intelligence. But it follows in Moses: "And He placed there the Adam whom He had fashioned." It is said that it could not happen, as previously stated, that the appearing God should fall into any sense of the body. But it is the opinion of others that God offered Himself corporally (if I may say so) to the senses of Adam's body, for this reason, that in this way and by no other could he mentally track and understand divine apparitions: for God, the creator of his body, had lowered Himself to his humility, and thus appeared to him, being otherwise immense; whence it follows that they say further that God showed Himself visible to Adam in a human and, in that respect, kingly and truly most august form; and although He has neither hands, nor feet, nor face, nor mouth, yet, lowering Himself as if He were gifted with all these, He was seen by Adam, and thus formed him with His hands, which (as we have said) pertains to the glory and dignity of him who was being formed. But let the reader weigh these two opinions in his own judgment, and whichever he prefers, let him retain it, omitting the other.

There were also some among the heretics who said that two Adams were created by God; and they gather this from the fact that Moses makes mention of two, saying that the one was created on the sixth day, and the other here after the sixth day; for to him pertain those words: "And the Lord God fashioned Adam from the dust of the earth." But as for this one, they say that Moses does not even speak of dust, but simply that He placed Adam there whom He had fashioned. But we answer them: from the fact that Moses had previously said that Adam was created on the sixth day, then, having omitted that narration while it was still incomplete, he passed on to the mention of the seventh day, whence he returns, to complete that previously begun history, it is by no means consistent to think that two Adams were created by God, but one. For he did the same also concerning the beasts, the trees, the paradise, and the river watering it. Since he had not yet left the history of those things finished, he turns back here to complete it. Furthermore, we answer them also that neither Moses, nor any of the prophets, or apostles, or evangelists ever mentioned that two Adams were created and brought into existence by God, but only one.

Moreover, it must be known that the Old Testament has been translated from Hebrew into the Greek language by many translations: indeed, it has been rendered into Syriac by one interpretation from the Hebrew itself, and by another from the Greek. But what the cause of so many translations was, and which of them ought to be esteemed as better than the others, we have discussed, along with other arguments of that kind, in that book which we previously wrote ^C on the six days. Therefore, in that Greek translation which is of the Seventy interpreters, those words of Moses stand written thus: "And the Lord God had planted a paradise in Eden from the east, and He placed there the man whom He had fashioned." ^D

Those interpreters therefore call the east that region of the earth from which the sun rises; for in that tract, as Basil and his brother Gregory attest, and the Lord Severus also, He had planted and set the paradise. But as regards the name itself, by which those LXX interpreters call him Adam here (for they call him Bar-Noso), there are three terms which Scripture almost always uses in this and the earlier passage for the designation of Adam: Noso, Bar-Noso, Adam. And it calls him Noso, when it says: "Let us make Noso" (that is, man) "to our image and according to our likeness"; but Adam when it says: "And God created Adam to His own image," and "He placed there the Adam whom He had fashioned." Finally, Bar-Noso, here (let us follow the translation of the LXX interpreters). He placed there the Bar-Noso (that is, the son of man) whom He had fashioned. And these three names differ among themselves in such a way that Noso properly denotes the entire race of men; whereas Bar-Noso signifies one who is born of man, that is, the son of man: and Noso is indeed taken in the plural, while Bar-Noso is taken (if I may say so) in the singular, and they look respectively to the species and the individual. Furthermore, concerning the word Adam, most of us Syrians say that it is a particular appellation of man, and represents one person; but others think that in Hebrew it is a specific name, and embraces the whole human race in its notion, just as we said before in our Commentary on the six days. Again, there are others who think the name Adam was taken from the very body of man, and was properly imposed upon him because it was fashioned from the earth which is called Adamotho: whereas Noso looks peculiarly to the soul. But what that word for earth, Adamotho, means, has been explained by us in that place as well. ^C

14 benefits of God to Adam.—But indeed, it is worth your while to ponder here accurately in your mind in how many ways God has adorned Adam. First, when he did not exist at all in the nature of things, He created him, and caused him to be something out of nothing. Then, He fashioned him after His own image and likeness. Third, although his nature was far more excellent than that to which the use of hands and speech should be attributed, yet He willed that it be said that He fashioned him with His own hands and addressed him with His voice. Fourth, He adorned him when created with reason, by which he might excel the other animals who lack it. Fifth, He dignified him with the knowledge of Himself. Sixth, He admitted him into His own familiarity, as it were, so that he might delight himself at will, being free and devoted to divine meditations and contemplations. Seventh, He promised him immortality. Eighth, He imbued him with the greatest wisdom. Ninth, He bestowed upon him the gifts of prophecy; for that he was a prophet is evident also from this, that he spoke by prophecy: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman," etc. Tenth, He augmented him with the office of the priesthood; for that he was a priest is known from the words of the psalmist David, when he introduces Adam as if speaking with God and says: "You have fashioned me and placed me upon your hand"; for the priesthood is conferred by the imposition of hands, just as baptism is. Eleventh, He amplified him with a royal and princely endowment; for He says: "And have dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air." Twelfth, He so prepared him that by his mind and intelligence he might be familiar to the angels. Thirteenth, He fashioned him with a light and agile body, not a heavy one, such as he eventually became after the law was violated. Fourteenth, finally, He placed him in paradise, so that he might be delighted therein, and He did not leave him on earth to be born along with other animals bereft of mind: "And the Lord God had caused to spring forth from the earth every tree beautiful to the sight and fair for food"; He had, namely, on the third day brought forth those trees from the earth, when He said: "Let the earth bring forth green herb yielding seed, and fruit-bearing tree," etc. But here he returns to that former narration, about to conclude it, without saying that the paradise itself had also been planted on that third day. However, Moses attributes those words to God: "And He had caused trees to spring forth," so that we might understand that they were not planted by man, as Noah planted a vine, or others other trees; but that they existed by the care, and nod, and command of God Himself, according to that of the psalmist: "And the cedars of Libanus which He planted." But the words can perhaps be read in this manner: Every tree beautiful to look upon, and to be expected for food, for beauty pertains to the sense of seeing, but appetite looks to food. Yet Scripture is accustomed to refer appetite to the eyes, as is that which the evangelist John says in his Epistle: "All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes." And the tree of life in the midst of paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He says the Lord caused two trees to spring forth in the midst of paradise, one of life, the other of knowledge. We must see, therefore, how it could happen that two trees existed in the very center of paradise: for no one will deny that only one can hold the middle place, but for two to exist at once in any middle place is not possible. There are therefore those who say that only one was planted in that middle, the one which is called of life, while the other which is called of knowledge was planted next to that of life. But we object to these with the Scripture itself, which adapts those words: "In the midst of paradise," to both trees, and not to that of life only. For this indeed...

is known, because Eve said to the serpent: "Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, you shall not eat," saith God. It was, in fact, the tree of knowledge, which had been forbidden to them, not the tree of life. It is concluded, therefore, that what is said, "In the midst of paradise," pertains to both trees. Gregory of Nyssa says that these two trees were spiritual, and could be understood only by reason; and no one would doubt that they—not only two, but many—could exist in one and the same middle place. For the power of our mind easily joins things which otherwise could not be comprehended by many at once. But we say that those trees existed physically; and we showed this just now, and that both were placed in the midst of paradise, though not as if in one and the same particular spot, which would have been the center of paradise. For that could not be, and if one existed there, it must needs be that the other was outside that spot, since even profane philosophers affirm that it is impossible for two bodies to be contained in one particular place at the same time; but rather that both were in the midst of paradise in such a way that anyone could rightly say that, with respect to the extreme parts of paradise, they were in the middle. "Middle," therefore, in the context is to be understood not as denoting any specific point, but as if to say: since paradise was most thickly planted with various trees and plants, these two trees were not planted in some corner of it, but existed among other trees in the midst of paradise. But it is also worth knowing whether these two trees were placed next to each other, or separately. Concerning this matter we declare that they were placed next to each other. For the Scripture did not say of Adam: "Lest perchance he approach the tree of life, and take of it, and eat, and live forever"; but it has it in this manner: "Lest perchance he extend his hand, and take." But he who extends his hand toward anything must needs stand close to that thing. Furthermore, from this it is credible that the tree of life existed next to the place where Adam had the struggle and fight against the tree of knowledge, as a reward of victory: so that if he had overcome through self-restraint and had not eaten of the latter, he would soon have been permitted to taste the former, as the palm of victory is wont to be at the ready for the victor. Beyond this, that which can be asked: why did God bring forth those two trees in the midst of paradise, and not rather in some corner of it? We respond, it was done for this reason, because Adam was to dwell in the midst of paradise after having received the command of God concerning the eating of the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But what kind of thing the tree of life was, and why it was so called, and then what the tree of knowledge of good and evil was, and why it was called by that name, along with other reasons of that kind, has been sufficiently explained by us above. ^B And a river went out from Eden to water the paradise. And it was a great and spacious place, to which this name was given, because it was pleasant and spectacular in the variety of its many trees: that part of which excelled all the others in beauty and comeliness was called paradise, most accommodating for the dwelling and delight of men. But how great this was, the great river that flowed from it sufficiently proves, which, after it had flowed out, was divided into four rivers. For if the river itself was great, it is manifest that the paradise which it watered was great and spacious: And thence it was divided, and came out into four heads. After that river had watered paradise, it was drawn off and divided into four rivers, which Moses (because they were known in his own age) describes by their names and by their locations, saying: The name of one is Phison; he it is that compasseth the whole land of Havila. The name, therefore, of one of these four rivers is Phison; or, as the Greek calls it, Dijabis: which river, after it had been torn away from that greater and primary one that waters paradise, and plunged into the earth, traveled even under the very beds of the Ocean, until, bubbling up, it bursts forth in the West, whence, turning back towards the North, it glides through the entire region of the Indians (which Moses calls the land of Havila), and finally ends in the Indian Sea. But there are those who think that Phison was so called from the verb *Phas* (16), because it ceases from a visible flowing, forasmuch as it performs the greater part of its course under many seas. ^C And there is gold, and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium, and the onyx stone. They report that in the greater part of the sand of this river, and upon its very bank, fine gold and admirable pearls are found in abundance. For the Hebrew calls bdellium "gems"; but *berillous*, precious stones. Others think that *bedolath* signifies white pearls; and *berillous*, sardius, topazes, and other gems of that kind. And the name of the second river is Gihon; he it is that compasseth all the land of Cush. The second river has the name Gihon. The Greek calls it the Nile: others call it Sichor. And this river also, as it is separated from that greater one, descends under the Ocean, until it is vomited forth in a spring in the Southern region, and circling around, it washes the land of the Cushites (whom we call Ethiopians) and of the Egyptians, and finally ^D ends in the Adriatic Sea, which is by Egypt. But the name Gihon was obtained from flowing with an inundation; for by this, overflowing its bank, it irrigates the lands surrounding it. And the name of the third river is Diklat, which goeth towards Assyria. The fourth river finally is Perath. The third river is called Diklat, because it is carried impetuously and rapidly upward and downward like a violent and hot man who, in order to break through some narrows, now rises up, and now lets himself down. The fourth river, finally, is called Perath, because it is most fertile. And these two also

once they are derived from that more principal river, having been swallowed up under the Ocean, finally leap forth in the middle of the circle of the lands, with springs not far separated from one another, and having flowed forth, they end in the Southern sea of Bosra itself. Moreover, Assur calls the region Attur, and that of the Ninevites and Bethgarme, and other places adjacent to these round about. But indeed, men ask here, how it could be that these four rivers come from paradise, and having been swallowed up under the Ocean, travel within the bowels of the earth, and finally emerge and are poured forth into this our land! Truly, we have already sufficiently solved this question, and others of that kind. Furthermore, Moses, having explained the narration of those things which pertain to the praise and magnificence of paradise, and [those which pertain] to the huge river by which it is watered, and finally to the diligence of God, the creator and planter thereof, ^B passes on to speak of Adam being introduced into paradise with these words: *And the Lord God took Adam, and placed him in the paradise of Eden.* What appearance God had when He appeared to Adam, we have said recently. But now this must be seen: from where and to where He took him when Scripture says: *And the Lord God took Adam.* Therefore, some think he was taken from Jerusalem and transported into paradise: for they believe he was formed in Jerusalem, where he also died. Others, however, suppose that He took him from a lower and viler place into a sublime and magnificent one, and, as if he were a king created by Him, led him into a royal seat. But in what manner did He take him? Some respond that what Scripture says, *And He took*, means nothing else than that God said to him: "Go," and he went immediately. But others object to these, that it would have been uncertain to Adam from where and to where he ought to go. To whom they respond that it came into his own mind from where and to where he had to go, and where he was to dwell, just as things usually occur to prophets. But others prefer to believe that God appeared to Adam in human form, and having grasped him, transported him into paradise. But you will say: whether by a vision of the mind or by a human figure He appeared to him, and thus transferred him, there would have been need of a great span of time to complete this journey. Therefore, it is our opinion that God formed Adam outside of paradise, and having snatched him from thence, took him into paradise, and left him there; furthermore, He received him in the way that Enoch and Philip were. For just as it stands written of Enoch: *And God took him*; and likewise of Philip: *And the Spirit of the Lord snatched him away*; so we also say that Adam was snatched by God from that place where he had been formed and transposed into paradise. And He left him in the paradise of Eden, *that he might cultivate and keep it.* ^C In that He says: *And He left him in paradise*, He declares that God, having taken up Adam, did not just show him the beauty and magnificence of paradise, and soon snatch him away thence, but, having left him therein, He permitted him the faculty of remaining and delighting himself as in a place founded and prepared by His own grace: for that which happened there not long did he remain, by his own fault, not that of his Creator. What follows further: *That he might cultivate and keep it*, in what sense is it to be accepted? Did paradise have need of a cultivator, in which woody and briery matter did not grow? For this began to be born after the curse, in that earth which was outside of paradise. Furthermore, how could paradise have had need of a cultivator, abounding in trees of every kind? Finally, how could he have cultivated it, when neither hoes, nor brooms, nor instruments of cultivation of another kind were made? Similarly, of what had paradise a need of custody, when no needy men existed anywhere? What, therefore, do those words, *That he might cultivate and keep it*, mean for themselves? We respond that it does not signify that trenches were to be dug by him in which he should plant, as Noah did a vineyard, or that he had to undergo any annoyance by working with laborious instruments, but that this cultivation was placed in him so that he might adapt the place therein for his own habitation, and that he might smooth out the ways and paths by which he could conveniently walk about, so that, specifically, he would not be idle: since from idleness many evils may be born, according to that of a certain Wise man: *Idleness is evil, and sloth begets fraud.* And the divine Paul says: *Doing nothing else but being idle.* And elsewhere he says that some women are not only idle, but also give occasion for certain evil things. Furthermore, that which is said about keeping paradise, that pertains to warding off beasts from thence; for the vineyards and other gardens of paradise, when they remain deserted by men, are trampled and crushed by wild beasts. Therefore, both to cultivate and to keep pertains to the care of Adam's habitation; for this domicile in which he was to remain had not been given to him for a short time only, but for a long and lasting one. Moreover, that cultivation and custody also pertains to this, ^D that Adam might be vigilant and cautious; and might recognize his parent from the very plants and fruits of paradise, as a tiller of immortal plants—that is to say, of divine thoughts, as Gregory the Theologian says. Finally, by those words of cultivating and keeping it is also shown that men ought to institute their life far otherwise than as cattle void of reason live: for these are not at all destined to cultivate and keep paradise; but man is designated its cultivator and keeper, and for that reason he differs greatly from them. Which fact God Himself also wished to show while He was forming man with His own hands. Furthermore, after He lectured on Adam being introduced into paradise, and explained why God had brought him thither, He digresses to speak of the law imposed upon him with these words: *And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying to him: Of all the trees which are in paradise, thou shalt eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it.* This, therefore, is the precept, this is the law which God imposed upon Adam, that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge. But now it comes into investigation, in how many ways is said

the term law is used, and of what kind was the law imposed upon Adam, and finally why God established any law for him at all. We say, therefore, that the term law is used in two ways: universally and particularly. For example, the universal law is that natural knowledge which is implanted in us, and the power of the intellect by which we judge the good from the evil; for God implanted this in the souls of all men, praising them if they busy themselves with what is good, and conversely blaming and condemning them if they commit evil, however secretly these things may be done. For even in the hearts of the Gentiles, as Paul says, the law is written, and their own conscience is a witness to them. Of this kind is that saying of the Lord: As you wish that men should do to you, do you also to them. ^B But the particular law is such as that which God prescribed to the Noachites themselves, not to eat blood; likewise, such as was imposed upon the Nazarites of the Jews, concerning not drinking wine or strong drink, and not applying a razor to the head, and such, finally, as were the statutes of the Jews for the priests, concerning things to be omitted or done. Since, therefore, we use the term law in two ways, particularly and universally, we answer the second question: it was not a universal law, but that particular one, that he should not taste of the tree of knowledge; for God had commanded it to Adam alone and his spouse, not to the whole human race. Now it remains that we also investigate this: for what reason did God give a law to Adam? We believe, however, that it was done by God for very many reasons. First, indeed, so that he might know that he had a Lord and Creator who had commanded this law to him, for it belongs to lords to enact laws; then, that he might recognize himself as a created being and an effect; for a law is accustomed to be set for creatures and effects, as David says: Appoint a lawgiver over them, that the nations may know that they are men. To this end, that he might understand that the freedom and faculty of the will had been given to him by God when he was fashioned by Him; for He would not have imposed upon him a particular law, which depended upon his own will, that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge, unless He had first endowed him with the liberty and the power of his own will, by which, if he so willed, he might keep the law, or if he did not will, he might not keep it. Moreover, God placed the law for Adam so that there might be material and, as it were, a furnace for his free will, by which it might be tested, just as Gregory the Theologian says: He gave, he says, the law as material for free will. ^D For just as by wood a test is made of the skill of a carpenter—whether he handles it rightly and exactly or not—and likewise by gold and silver a test of the goldsmith’s art: so by the law established for Adam, his free will was tested, and it was discovered that his liberty was lax and unrestrained and inclined more toward transgression and sinning. For he would have been able to keep the law, and yet he did not keep it, a capacity which is certainly ^A absent from brute animals, and by no means granted to them. Finally, for this reason also, the law was imposed upon Adam by God, so that he might know and understand that there is another age after this, in which He will render a worthy reward to both those who observe and those who violate laws. But some continue to inquire further, why God brought a law to Adam which He foreknew he would not observe. To this we answer first that God the Creator did not command the law to Adam so that he might keep it, nor again so that he might violate it (to which this question of yours tends when you say: why, since He foreknew that he would not fulfill the law, did He command it?), but for those causes which we have recently commemorated. For it is one thing to observe and another not to observe a law, and it is one thing to know that one has a Creator, and that one is created and endowed with freedom of will, and to know other things of this kind. Furthermore, we say: just as He foreknew that he would not observe the law, so He also foreknew that it would come to pass that after he had transgressed the law and fallen through sin, He Himself would come, redeem, and lift him up from the fall of sin. Moreover, He brought the law (even though He was not ignorant that it would be violated) so that it might be understood that He Himself is the Lord, who had the power of establishing laws, but that Adam was a creature, and one who deservedly ought to obey laws. Furthermore, so that it might be established that free will was peculiarly granted to those created things which excel in reason, so that it was in their own power either to keep or to break laws. To these things God sanctioned the law, already then foreknowing that it would be violated, so that the obedient might be distinguished from the rebellious, and friends from enemies, and the keepers of laws from the prevaricators, and that both the virtue of the former and the depravity of the latter might become manifest, and it might be known: for once the law is removed, there would be no distinction between the two. And indeed, for this reason also, the law was established by God, which He nevertheless did not fail to foresee would be transgressed, so that we would not be ignorant that He justly and by right renders the delights of the world to those who obey the law, and on the contrary, the tribulations of the world to the rebels. Furthermore, so that those who use reason might understand that He has another world in which He will confer rewards upon each according to their merits. Finally, He prescribed that law to Adam, which He knew he would transgress, and afterward the laws of faith to other mortals, for no other reason, not unaware that there would be many transgressors.

Why a particular law, besides the natural law, was set for Adam

he should imagine that he was the master of created things, and that there was no other master above him. For, to give an example: when he had noticed that all things that fall under his view were made for his sake by God, and being endowed by Him with natural knowledge, and that every kind of delight was ready for him without any troublesome labor, and finally that visible things served him like handmaidens; and, ^A to speak once for all, when he saw all those good things by which he was delighted without trouble or care: his mind could easily have been changed from these things through arrogance and overconfidence, and he could have persuaded himself that all things which had been created pertained to him, and were not subject to the dominion of another—had he not received this other law from God, concerning not tasting the tree, which, being perpetually observed by his eyes, might recall to his memory and mind ^B his servile and humble condition, and that he had a Master by whom such a law concerning the tree had been imposed upon him, and that those very creatures which serve him look to their own Master. For if, when he had the natural law and, in addition, this one concerning the tree—which, as it were, acted as a helper to the former—he nevertheless sinned of his own will and was seduced: how much more would he have sinned and fallen if this law concerning the tree had not been set before him? Again, if besides that natural law he had not also received this one of the forbidden tree, morose men would have murmured, "Why did not God give him another law, and by that means bring him aid before he fell through sin?" ^C Rightly, therefore, did God impose this law of the tree of knowledge upon Adam before he sinned, although he had been informed by the natural law besides. Furthermore, it is fitting to know that this law was not laid upon Adam when he was already stained, but while he was still pure and upright, and as if filtered of all vice; for thus had He created him. But to these things the question is also asked: why did God enjoin the law of that tree upon Adam, and not of any other thing? We answer, however: in order that his love toward his parent, God, might be recognized. For every law looks either to the love of God or to love toward one's neighbor; but there were no other men anywhere as yet, so that He could command Adam not to kill, or not to commit adultery, ^D or not to steal, and other things of this kind. For there could be no place for such precepts then, when there were no other men, and therefore He issued the law concerning the tree, by the observance of which the piety of Adam toward his Creator would be recognized.

Why the law concerning the concupiscence of food was set for Adam.

Finally, it is also accustomed to be asked why God enjoined upon Adam a law that concerned the concupiscence of food, and not some other thing. For He could have, having laid down a law, commanded him to spend certain explicitly prescribed days fasting or abstaining from all things, or to remain immovable in one and the same place during them, or [to do] some other thing of this kind that should be omitted [or] done. To that question we answer: that the concupiscence which revolves around food is the first affect of our mind, ^A and therefore the law concerning it was rightly the first to be imposed upon the first man, Adam. But that what we say may become clearer, there are many and various affects by which our freedom is driven, of which the chief of all, and as it were the root, is concupiscence. This, furthermore, is divided in a threefold way: for it pertains either to the gluttony of the belly, or to the greed for riches and money, or to the ambition for glory. For by these three kinds of affects every form of depraved desire is held contained: and with these, indeed, Satan attacked our Lord in the desert and in the city; however, he was overcome. But the craving of the belly, being more violent and more difficult than the other two, ^B presses upon mortals: which is evident even from this, that men can live without money and glory; but without food they cannot, just as it stands written in the prophet Jeremiah: "They gave their precious things for food, to restore their soul." Nor does that saying of our Lord make against us: "Man doth not live by bread alone." Therefore, since gluttony is the first perturbation of the soul in us, it was consistent that it should be the occasion for the first law to be brought to the first man, Adam. And indeed, because Satan had conquered Adam through the gluttony of the belly and the appetite for food, on that account Christ also, in the desert, began His victory against him when He said to him, as it is in divine Matthew: "If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." ^C Furthermore, there are those who blame God because He created Adam with a hunger and greed for food, and then, the law having been laid down, restrained him from food. But we say to these things: that no blame can be conferred here upon God the Creator, but most justly upon Adam himself, whose reason hear: Of the desire that is in us, in so far as it is permitted to use it freely, there is also a part where it must be curbed and restrained. That part of it, therefore, which is permitted to our use is free from blame, nor is it prohibited by law: such as that we should eat, that we should drink, that we should sleep, and do other things of this kind. But that which the law forbids to be exercised must be curbed and restrained; just as if someone should be greedy, or drunken, or a whoremonger, and dedicated to other ^D vices of this kind. It is concluded, therefore, that God wrote that law for Adam, not so that he should eat absolutely nothing, but so that he should not eat from that one tree. For if it were not lawful for him to eat of any thing by that law, God the legislator would indeed have been to be blamed, who had created him in such a way that he must sustain life by eating. But since He prohibited him from only one tree, and that neither by envy nor by hatred; but so that, from the observance of that law, He might have a cause for afterwards permitting him to taste of the tree of life, by which he might thenceforth be able to enjoy eternal life: he surely ought not to seem blameless who has not satisfied his desire from the other trees, nor has avoided that one [tree] by which

it was forbidden him. For if all other trees had been forbidden, and only one granted, no necessity would have compelled him to taste of any of the remaining ones; how much less, when all were granted except for one alone, did any force compel him to touch that one forbidden tree? It is certain, therefore, from these things that the fault inheres in Adam, and not in God, his creator. ^A But it must also be inquired: did God command the law only to Adam, or did He also give their own laws to all other things while He was creating them? We say, rather, that laws have been laid down for all things: for those endowed with reason and those lacking reason, for mortals and immortals, for animate and inanimate things, and for those perceived by the senses and those which escape all sense. For, to give an example, He gave a first law to the angels when He created them, against which Satan transgressed when he fell with his host; then He gave them a second law, that they should administer corporeal things by nature, and that they should recognize and govern these lower things—namely, the very elements of nature and the bodies composed of elements, as Philoxenus says in his discourse on the tree of life. Similarly, He placed a law for the heavens and the earth, that they should endure in the nature of things, as David says: *He established the earth upon its foundations.* ^B Again, for the sun and moon and the rest of the stars, He prescribed their own laws, by which the regularity of their motion is governed, while they now approach nearer, now recede, according to that saying of the same David: *He established them for ever and ever; He gave a decree, which shall not pass away.* Finally, the sea received its law from God; to the very sand, which when it reaches it in its overflowing and rushing, it is held back and does not pass. Indeed, a law is given to herbs, seeds, and trees, that they may sprout and grow. Lastly, He fashioned all living creatures that lack reason with this general law, that they might be able to perceive things with their sense and set themselves in motion. Moreover, He gave to lions, in particular, boldness as a law; to hares, timidity; to panthers, a love of ointment; to foxes, deceit and cunning; to lambs, pure simplicity; to eagles, savage rapacity; to doves, innocence; and so on for the rest of the particular laws which were imposed by God upon the natures of beasts, birds, and finally reptiles, as we have shown at length before in that book which we wrote concerning the six days. ^C Finally, it is accustomed to be asked in what the laws which God imposed upon animals lacking reason, and other corporeal things that lack both soul and sense, differ from those laws which He prescribed to men and other creatures endowed with reason. To this we respond that they differ among themselves in very many ways. For the observance of the laws which have been laid down for men is placed in the will itself; but the keeping of those laws which are imposed upon things lacking both soul and sense is situated in their very nature. Thus, men are formed by instruction to fulfill the laws which they owe; but those things ^D that lack soul and sense are led by the impetus and efficiency of nature to obey their own laws. To these things: men, if they wish, obey; if they do not wish, they do not obey their own laws: for they depend upon the free will of man. But the laws of those things which lack reason and sense behave otherwise; for a lion cannot be both bold and timid; nor can a hare be fearful and unafraid, but there is only the boldness of lions, and just the fear of hares. Nor is it possible that a lion should not be bold, or a hare not be skittish. It is consistent, therefore, that if these obey their own laws, they are not on that account worthy of a reward, since they possess no freedom of will, but are held bound by the chains of nature: yet we are able either to observe or to violate the laws commanded to us. Lastly, we have thought it necessary to add this here, that laws have been given to us in addition, similar to those laws of creatures lacking reason and sense. For example, by God, a law of seeing is instilled in our eyes; of hearing, in our ears; of tasting, in our palate; of smelling, in our nostrils; of digesting, in our stomach; and thus the Creator of things has instilled in the other members their own efficiencies as laws: *For in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.* This speech contains threats and terror, as the danger which God announced to Adam, if he should transgress and eat from that tree. But it is asked, for what reason is there for him a threat? The easy answer is, so that he might be restrained from violating the law by such threats and the danger of punishment, which he knew would be present for himself if he transgressed. For laws are observed for three reasons generally: either through the love with which we follow the legislator, or through the hope of reward which is proposed to us as parents, or finally through the fear of punishment which is prescribed for those who sin. Therefore, that threat which God used looks to this, when He says: *In the day that you eat of it, you shall die*; so that if he were not induced to obey by the first two reasons, this last one at least (I mean the fear of punishment) would keep him in his duty. For we also understand that, as God threatened punishment to the sinner, so He promised a reward to the observer, although the divine Moses neither states nor writes this, but is content to mention the punishment, while remaining silent about the reward. For He had promised that if he obeyed the law set before him, He would permit him to eat of the tree of life, and thus he would live and become eternal and immortal, and this is evident from the fact that when Adam had eaten of the tree of knowledge, God said: *Lest he reach out his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat and live forever*; furthermore, because if death is opposed as a punishment, then conversely eternal life is as a reward, and God promised that which is immortal to the mortal condition which He was threatening. Moreover, when Moses spoke of the law which God had imposed upon Adam, he proceeds to speak of Eve being fashioned and formed, and of the procreation of beasts and cattle, and of the names by which Adam called them, saying: *And the Lord God said: It is not good that Adam should be alone,*

^A regarding why God did not say that it was good when He had created Adam. There are some interpreters who say that these words were pronounced by God in a voice that would fall upon the sense of hearing, to educate Adam and to teach him that God is the Creator, while he himself, with his wife and the other things that exist anywhere, are creatures. But as for why God, when He had fashioned Adam, did not say that He saw that which He had created to be good, as it is remembered that He said concerning the other things brought into being by Him; we suppose there is a double reason: the one, because He was about to say here that it was not good, for those two things would have been little in agreement with one another; the other, because it was placed in the freedom of Adam’s will to be either good or not good. "It is not," He says, "good for Adam to be alone." What, therefore, is the need for the work that He might make a helper for him? For if that which is not good must be rejected, that which is good plainly ought to be established; for if a negation is false, the affirmation must be true; for those things are diametrically opposed to one another: "I will make him a helper such as he is." Recently, God was saying: *Let us make man*; but here He says: *I will make*. Undoubtedly, that oracle in the plural number reveals to us the three sacrosanct persons, but this one, in the singular, the one essence: that from these two oracles we may understand God to be one essence and three persons. Adhering to this, when dealing above with the formation of Adam, He was saying: *Let us make man after our image*, by which He might signify, through the verb of the plural number, a certain consultation and deliberation, and that related to the dignity of him who was to be formed, as one who would not be created without the word and counsel and deliberation of God, contrary to the beasts devoid of reason, which came into existence by command alone: here, however, as the forming of Eve is treated, He says: *I will make*. And this variation has many reasons. For first, it shows that there is one nature of man and woman; then, it explains more clearly the concern of God toward Adam and Eve; furthermore, it reveals that the condition of Eve is by no means superfluous. Additionally, it teaches that it did not eventually come into the mind of God to form Eve, but from the very beginning, at the same time that He fashioned Adam. And we can elicit these meanings by commenting upon the word, *I will make*.

Furthermore, since the term "helper" is used in various ways, the question is asked in what matter Eve ought to have helped Adam; that is, the woman, the man. We maintain, however, that it is in very many things. First, in begetting children, that is, in bearing them in the womb. Moreover, in educating the offspring born. In addition, just as it pertains to the man to gather those things that are necessary and to transport them home from elsewhere, so it is for the woman to arrange everything at home, and to dispose and administer them so that they are at hand. Besides this, the woman ought to show herself as a companion to the man as much in good times as in enduring the adverse, and together she ought to submit to all burdens. Finally, she also helps in revering ^B and worshipping the Divine, and in the exercise of other virtues: for as Paul says: *Christ’s salvation is common equally to both men and women*. ^C Furthermore, what He adds, *such as he is*, is as if to say: one who is endowed with the same condition of nature as the man, and not one who, like a beast or a beast of burden, would provide labor to him, which lack human nature. Moreover, those words, and the likeness in both sexes, show the equality of nature, so that neither should be thought more excellent or abject than the other. Finally, since we are accustomed to distinguish those who help others in three ways (for either the greater brings aid to the lesser, or the lesser helps the greater, or the equal provides work to the equal; for example, sometimes a king helps a person of humble condition, and even where the poor is a help to the rich, often also a prince comes with aid to a prince, or a commoner to a commoner), those added words might be seen: *Such as he is*, so that we may understand an equal helping an equal, while Eve helps Adam.

But if indeed anyone should object that Eve brought Adam more troubles than help: we will answer him that the blame for this matter is not to be conferred upon God, the Creator of Eve, but upon Eve herself. Just as today we see many women rendering a sad marriage to their husbands; but that it is done by the fault of those women themselves, and not that this crime can be turned toward God, their Maker. For our hands also were created so that they might do things that are upright; if now we use them to perpetrate evils, that will indeed be our fault, not that of God, their Creator. And God formed our eyes to see things that are right, as David testifies, if yet we direct them to those things that are impure, who would ascribe that to the Creator of God, and not rather to our own viciousness? *And the Lord God had formed from the earth every fowl of the air.* He does not affirm that God had now formed other living things and other fowls after the former, but it is precisely about those same ones that the discourse is held here, and it returns to the same effects, which is done so that we may understand that Adam alone, and without any helper of similar nature, had been formed first, while the beasts, cattle, and birds had been created at the same time in both sexes.

But the word "forming" here is not to be accepted as if living things, wild beasts, and birds were coagulated from the earth; for nature brought forth these very things, just as the waters produced the reptiles, as it was said before by Moses; but the Scripture uses the word of forming or fashioning so that we may know that not only did the earth produce them, which the words of Moses: *Let the earth bring forth the living soul, cattle, and reptiles, etc.*, seemed to sound; but that they were born ^D from the coagulation of the earth and the waters at once, or rather from the four elements. For from these, just as the bodies of Adam, so also those of the other living things, wild beasts, birds, and reptiles are composed; but his body was fashioned by the very hands of God, while theirs

^A came into being not by the hands of Adam, but solely by the command of God. And He led them to Adam. From whence did He lead the wild beasts, the cattle, and the birds to Adam? It is surely implied that He gathered them from the mountains, the wildernesses, and other places, and drove them to Adam by His own will alone, just as He did for Noah at the time of the flood. For just as here, so also by the will of God, he had nothing to fear from their wildness, nor did Adam, because he had not yet sinned against the commandment of God; nay rather, they themselves revered Adam, and feared and trembled at his sight. But it must also be noted here that the effect of what God had said before to men was here fully and completely brought to pass: "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heaven, and over everything that moves upon the earth." And again: "Have dominion over the fish of the sea," etc. But that they were led to Adam, and not Adam to them, is done for the sake of magnifying his dignity; as if items of property were being brought to their owner, or as if slaves were being led to their Lord: for it is shown that they owe obedience to Adam, and were created for his sake. "That he might see what he would call them." These things are not said as if God needed to learn their names from Adam, but Moses speaks in the common manner of men; for we are accustomed to present to others things that are otherwise already very well known to us, in order that we may hear their opinion about them as well: for God knows all things from eternity before they exist. "And whatsoever Adam called a living soul, that was the name thereof." When he says, "he called," he shows that the names were given to them by Adam. Furthermore, when he adds "a living soul," it argues that at that time those things were produced for Adam which were gifted (if I may say so) with an animal soul. Finally, when he says: "that was the name thereof," he demonstrates that those were the names for each being established for them by Adam. It is concluded, therefore, that fish, reptiles, trees, seeds, shrubs, herbs, and other things growing from the earth, and furthermore other inanimate things, did not receive their names from Adam at this place or at this time, for they could not all have been brought to Adam together with the wild beasts, cattle, and birds, and this is the first opinion of the learned regarding these words. ^B However, others think that those words of Moses do not look to the fact that Adam gave names to the cattle, the wild beasts, and the birds, but refer to the authority of Adam, which was given to him over them for the whole human race. For among those who have dominion over certain things, they judge those things by whatever names they wish, just as an owner does with the things he possesses. For what else would have been the use, they ask, of having named this or that beast or bird by one name or another, when they themselves could neither understand the name, nor could any mortal in that age learn them from Adam? To this we see every individual nation naming animals and birds in its own language, speech, and proper vocabulary; ^C thus, having named the ass, and likewise every other single species of animals, beasts, and birds. But someone will say: From whence had Adam learned by what name each kind ought to be called? To this they respond, those to whom this interpretation is pleasing, that it was by the grace, instinct, and efficacy of the Holy Spirit; that he called each thing by its proper name: for just as the apostles were moved to speak in other tongues, according to what the Holy Spirit suggested to them that they should speak, so also Adam received from the kindness and efficacy of the same Holy Spirit both the knowledge and the voice and the utterance, and thus bestowed upon the individual kinds of animals their names. Moreover, that the whole posterity of men used those very names set by Adam up to the time when languages were confused; and just as he called the woman 'woman' and 'Eve', so all the women of that age were called women and Eves up to the confused languages; when even today many mortals use those vocabularies which were first produced by Adam. But some of the interpreters, as has lately been shown by us, prefer to say that Moses signifies by those words the authority granted to Adam and his posterity, whereby they might impose names upon all living creatures and other things. But still others think that these refer to the very reason by which men, gifted by God the Creator, ^D [[alt-version omitted]]

^A understood things that were not otherwise understood than as if they were being seen and heard before the corporal eyes and ears; and then He illuminated their hearts with rays of divine revelations—revelations, I say, of those things which were either about to happen or had already occurred. But such divine revelations and effective actions of the Holy Spirit happened to the prophets while they were awake; yet to Adam, a holy revelation ^B befell while he was asleep, concerning that which was being done around him in the creation of Eve from him. That sleep, therefore, was a sort of trance or ecstasy, by which God held Adam fast when He was forming Eve from his physical body, similar to that holy vision in which Abraham beheld a lamp of fire passing between the pieces, whereby Ezekiel saw the Cherubim being carried, whereby Isaiah saw God sitting upon a high throne and the Seraphim standing around Him; and finally, by which Peter, descending from heaven, was looking upon a sheet. And so much for the quiet or ecstasy which God cast upon Adam.

Furthermore, that which is written, that Adam slept, shows that he was at that time still ignorant of what sleep was, that he had cast himself naked upon the ground and was snoring, but was meanwhile clothed in glory, shining in the manner of the sun. But the question arises here: did he see in a dream the rib that was being withdrawn from him and being formed into a woman, or did he verily behold that rib in reality? We answer, indeed, that he did not see the rib itself in reality, seeing that he was asleep; nor yet through a dream (although it cannot be denied that there are certain true dreams, such as those which befell Joseph and Pharaoh, likewise Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, and also Joseph the spouse of Mary, and finally the wife of Pilate, and many others of this kind), but through a divine revelation, while he was nonetheless ^C occupied in sleep. Moreover, divine revelations are not wont to be offered to men all in one way; but some are by means of the things themselves represented, others through dreams; and finally, some are neither through the things themselves nor through dreams, but through the senses of the soul, with the senses of the body being shut: just as it happens to us, when with closed eyes and stopped ears we so direct our thoughts toward some remote thing that we neither hear those who are speaking to us from nearby, nor see them.

But there are revelations which occur through things, such as that vision of Moses, by which he saw the fire and the burning bush itself, and other things; those which occur through dreams, such as those of Joseph and Pharaoh, and of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar. Those which occur neither in reality nor through dreams are of the kind that Abraham, Isaac, Peter, and in this passage Adam, beheld.

Of what nature was Adam’s sleep.

"And the Lord God cast a quiet upon Adam, and he slept." It is to be noted that for "quiet" in the Greek *ἔκστασις*—that is, a stupor of the mind—is written; but in the Hebrew, "sleep." Furthermore, in that He says that God sent upon Adam a quiet or stupor of the mind, it is argued that that sleep did not come to Adam by a necessity of nature, but was conciliated by God. But if anyone should ask what that quiet, or *ἔκστασις*, was, we answer that it was not similar to those customary ones to which we are accustomed, indulgent to nature. ^D For in that sleep cast upon him, God withdrew Adam’s mind from all things which can be perceived by sight or any other sense, and so affected him by sleep that he perceived absolutely nothing of those things: his very thoughts were indeed so deeply gathered from all occupations of worldly affairs that he could not direct or turn his mind elsewhere than toward himself and things around him; then He implanted in him a revelation, by which, through a certain divine power, he was so prepared that, through the motions and faculties of his soul, he would see and hear all things that were being done in him and around him. For He permitted that he should not otherwise turn and consider in his mind, and be rendered certain that the rib was being withdrawn from him and fashioned into a woman, than if he had used his corporal eyes and ears and had seen and heard the thing itself. For with that grasp of soul, which would correspond to the senses of seeing and hearing, God therefore fortified him so that the thing which was being done would be fixed deeply in his heart and remain certain to his mind; and that he would understand that he was not being seduced from the truth by any fantasia and vain imagination, but had perceived the thing itself: just as it happens to us, who, while we discern something with our eyes and hear with our ears, we truly know that we have learned what the thing is: for those two senses (I mean sight and hearing) are in every matter most certain witnesses of the truth. And truly, even as He dealt here with Adam, so did God also act at other times with the holy prophets when He illuminated their chests with His divine revelations: for before all else, He would withdraw their minds and thoughts from all things that could be viewed or that were falling into any other sense or were material, and clearly from every occupation of worldly things: so that, with the agitations of their minds and the thoughts of their souls, they might attentively contemplate those things which were being carried out before them.

Why the rib was taken from Adam while sleeping rather than awake.

It is also wont to be asked, why did God withdraw the rib from Adam not while he was awake, but while he was asleep? And yet, if He had taken it while he was awake, it would have happened to him that...

^A either he would have been affected by some sense of pain in the removal of the rib, or not at all. Now, if he had felt pain, he would have conceived hatred against his spouse, Eve; but if he had been touched by no pain, he would have thought that what was passing through his mind concerning the formation of Eve was merely a false imagination and that it had not truly and actually occurred. Therefore, God infused sleep into him so that he might feel no pain while he was losing the rib; and He further caused it that, by the movement of his own intellect, he might see the rib being taken from him and being fashioned into Eve, in order that this matter might be deeply impressed upon his spirit and fixed in his mind, and that he might not deem the image of the thing to be false. This understanding and notion of his mind arose from divine revelation and instinct. Accordingly, God did not send upon Adam a natural and customary sleep, by which it was brought about that he would not feel pain and be troubled while the rib was being taken away—for from which pain, recurring repeatedly to his memory, he could have become an enemy toward that woman who had been fashioned by God Himself—but He bound him in a quietude, or ecstasy, in which he could know and understand that it was the very thing itself that was being done in him and around him by God, while he was nonetheless touched by no sense of pain in the meantime. To this, it must be known that when prophets are imbued with divine revelations, there is given to them at the same time a certain contemplative power of the mind, by which they might deeply perceive and weigh those sacred revelations: by which power of contemplation, not otherwise always, but only at the time of such revelations, their mind remained enlightened, ^B but that power was taken away from them after the revelations, yet the true memory of that contemplative virtue nonetheless remained fixed in their mind, even after the revelations themselves had vanished along with that contemplative power. For thus it happened to Abraham when he was seized by ecstasy, to Elisha when he saw the vision, likewise to Isaiah when he beheld God sitting upon the throne, furthermore to Ezekiel when he looked upon the Cherubim that were brought, and finally to Peter when he contemplated the veil. Thus, therefore, Adam too was affected when God had sent upon him that quietude or ecstasy; for God appeared to him, and at the same time, there was given to him that power of the contemplative mind by which he saw the rib being taken from his body and the woman being formed. But after the revelation departed from him, and that contemplative power of the mind was taken away at the same time, the true memory of the thing that had been done to him nonetheless remained firm in his spirit.

— Why was Eve not also formed from dust like Adam? And He took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Why did God fashion Eve from Adam himself, and not form her from the dust of the earth as He did Adam himself? There are various reasons. First, that Adam himself might be one and the same root and principle of birth for all men. Second, that contentious men might not say that Adam had one creator and Eve another, but might be forced to confess that both were fashioned by one and the same God. ^A Third, that He might bind the man and the woman together with a closer love, because she was sprung from him. Fourth, so that the effect might be rendered of what Moses said concerning Adam: "Male and female He created them." Fifth, finally, so that the woman might not affect the authority which belongs to the man. Furthermore, it can be asked why God did not take Eve from the anterior, or the lowest, or the posterior, or finally the supreme part of Adam's body, but from the middle of the body. We say indeed that she was not taken from the anterior part, lest she might wish to be considered superior and oppress the man with authority; nor, again, from the posterior, lest she be a contempt to the man; nor was she taken from the head, lest the woman might lay claim to the primacy which belongs to the man; and indeed, she was not formed from the last part of the body, lest the man might estimate the woman to be far inferior and more lowly than himself; but [she was taken] from the middle of the body, so that she might be held in moderate regard by the man. It is usually asked even further: why was she taken from the left side of the body rather than the right? And we can answer that she was not taken from the right side, so that she might not wish to compare herself and be equal to the man. But there are two reasons why she was formed from the left side: the one, so that she might be compliant to the man and submissive to his authority; the other, so that it might be known that she is of a weaker nature. For the left side is weaker than the right; for it cannot raise itself up without the aid of the right, just as the woman is not able to sustain herself without the man. And indeed, that the left side indicates weakness, the very nature of animals, all of whose left side is weaker than the right, shows. Therefore, there is in females ^C a temperament of the body that is colder, weaker, and cruder, as in the left part of living beings. Moreover, you may find among men themselves those whose right side is warm and vigorous, but the left side indeed is cold and flaccid. To this, the male is conceived on the right side, the female on the left. But since from that very weakness which we clearly see in the female sex it is permitted to argue sufficiently that Eve was taken from the left side of Adam, as being less strong. Furthermore, we have very many reasons why God withdrew a rib, and not another part of the body, from Adam, which He fashioned into a woman; for since in a rib one can find both flesh and bones, and nerves, and blood, from it, as a perfect and absolute member, it is rightly concluded that the woman was formed perfect and complete in all things. Furthermore, it is also signified by this that the woman has need of the man as a protector, under whose shadow she might remain safe, just as the ribs are covered and protected by the arms. Finally, the mystery of the side of our Lord pierced on the cross looks to the same end, from which blood and water flowed, so that by this the faithful might be reborn through baptism, and by that might be expiated. For the side of our Lord was pierced by a lance so that it might wash away and expiate the sin of that woman who had been born from the side of the man through the rib. Furthermore, for this reason He filled the place with flesh in place of the rib, so that Adam might not be affected by pain when he awoke, because by a part

that the body might be mutilated; and that he might conceive of a portion having been withdrawn from him. And indeed, there are two things which God performed in the body of Adam swiftly: the one, that He withdrew the rib without pain; the other, that He substituted flesh for the rib; and although Adam felt neither of these things, he nevertheless understood and perceived the fact itself through divine revelation, which he beheld by the contemplation of his mind. And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from Adam. These things were not performed by God in three distinct stages; nor does Moses say that God first took the rib, then filled its place with flesh, and only then fashioned the woman; but rather, it happened suddenly, and in the swiftest blinking of an eye the rib was extracted, the flesh was substituted, and the woman was formed. For if in a moment of an eye the whole human race shall rise again, as the divine Paul says ^A, we can much more easily understand that those three things were performed in Adam by God simultaneously; but since Moses could not simultaneously embrace, declare, and describe all these things in a single word, he was compelled to relate in order that God took the rib, and in place of the rib substituted flesh, and fashioned the woman. Again, it is asked why Moses uses of Adam the word *Gebal*, that is, the word for "fashioning" or "subduing," but of Eve, *Tacan*, that is, "to fashion" (or "to prepare"). We answer that the word for "fashioning" or "subduing" is appropriate to clay, from which Adam was formed; for clay must be subdued that something may be made from it; but when the rib was already formed from the clay that had been previously subdued, it needed only the fashioning to turn it into a woman.

^C Why did Moses not say that a soul was breathed into the face of Eve, as he said of Adam? Now, this also can be asked: why it is not said of Eve that God breathed a soul into her, as it is written of Adam: *And He breathed into his face the vital soul.* We answer that this was by no means done because Eve was not endowed with a rational soul just like Adam, or was not composed of body and soul, as he was, nor indeed that a soul is as it were born from a body, like bone from bone and flesh from flesh; but that this was omitted in the history for two reasons: the one, because since it had already been explained concerning Adam that human nature consists of body and soul breathed into his face, it was not at all necessary to repeat the same thing here concerning Eve; the other, because since God had tempered the rib with all things necessary and had fashioned it into a woman, there could be no doubt that He had at the same time breathed a soul into her face, and this is understood even from the fact that, although Adam and Eve came into being in different ways (for Adam was made from clay, but Eve was fashioned from Adam, and Adam came into existence not generated; while Eve was produced from Adam), yet both are of an exactly similar nature and consist of an equal natural composition ^D which is the commixture of body and soul. And He brought her to Adam. Whence, and whither did He lead her? Certainly not from one place to another; but since she had not existed before in the nature of things, He produced her into the nature of things. Moreover, it is said that she was led to Adam because it was for his sake that God had created and fashioned her; for the Scripture says: *I will make for him a helper such as he is.* But it is not that as the raw and unformed rib had been taken from him, so it was returned; but rather, the woman was already fashioned and perfected. And Adam said: *This time bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.* Here the divine Moses reveals to us the words of Adam while he was prophesying; for he, who lay overcome by sleep and rest, was meanwhile considering through the agitations of his soul and the contemplation of his mind the very matter which was being done in the extraction of the rib and the fashioning of Eve; so that, having suddenly awakened, when he found that same woman standing before him whom he had perceived in his dream to be formed, he prophesied, impelled by the divine grace of the Holy Spirit, saying: *This time bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.* The fact that he says *This time* refers to the distinction of that time when God had driven the beasts and cattle and birds to him for the sake of assigning them names. It is as if Adam were saying to God: "The woman whom You have now brought to me is far different from those living creatures which were driven to me, to which I gave names; for those were not taken from me, nor were they of my nature; but this is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh, that is to say, it is taken from myself, and is deeply participant of my own nature; for I and she consist of one and the same nature." Moreover, by two discourses Adam knew what he was here pronouncing: both by the contemplation of his mind, with which he saw while sleeping, and by the benign efficacy of the Holy Spirit, by which he was enlightened within. But it must be noted that Adam also understood and recognized his own nature from the composition of Eve: for when through the contemplation of his mind he looked upon the Creator who was creating and fashioning Eve, he recognized at the same time both his own condition and Him who had created him; just as also the angels, when they saw the souls of Adam and Eve created by God endowed with reason and intelligence, and immortal—that is, like unto themselves—only then understood of what condition of nature they themselves were created, and by what Maker. We may also translate those words: *This time bone, etc.*, into this meaning: Only this time is a woman formed in such a way that she is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; in the future, however, women will not be so formed, but will be procreated through the union of the male with the female. *This shall be called woman, because she was taken from the man.* This discourse indeed seems to carry the meaning that the woman is so called because she was taken from the man, although because of the law with which Adam was imbued, he rightly knew the origin of his own.

^A For if she were called a woman simply because she was taken from the man, we would necessarily have to admit that either all other women were also taken from their own husbands, or that not one of them is worthy of the name of woman. But usage itself teaches us that we use the term "female" specifically for those between whom and their husbands a legitimate marriage has intervened. Indeed, the divine Paul also, when he distinguishes a virgin from a woman, shows that she who is not wedded to a man according to the law should not be called a woman, but rather she who has been united to a man by legitimate marriage. Furthermore, the words of Adam himself that follow prove this to be the meaning of those words: *For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.* For if his own female had not been joined to him by the legitimate bond of marriage, he would certainly not have called her his woman or wife. Finally, there are some interpreters who report that she is called *Itto*, that is, woman or wife, by this etymology, as if she herself had said to her husband, *Atta Ta Zaedi*, that is, "Come to me," if indeed you wish to be rightly joined to me and to become a father of children for the sake of preserving the human race. It is concluded, therefore, from all these things that Eve was called *Itto*, that is, woman or wife, because she was joined to the man by law, and that all women—and they alone—who are duly wedded are worthy of that name, and that those words of Adam must be explained in that sense, however much they may bear another appearance. ^C But truly, there are those who say that these two names, "man" and "woman," correspond to each other in the Hebrew language, just as they do in Syriac, or Greek, or Armenian, or indeed any other tongue. For in that language "man" is pronounced *Is*, and "woman" *Issa*, which is just as if a Syrian were to call a woman *Gabirto* just as he calls a man *Gabro*, a matter regarding which, God willing, we intend to speak in the Commentary which we have decided to write on the remaining chapters of the book of Genesis, if life permits; for there will be a suitable place to treat it when we have reached those words: *And all the earth was of one language and the same speech.* Therefore, *a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife* (or woman). We have already said that from these words it is easily understood that the name of "woman" is derived from the legitimate union by which she is joined to the man. ^D For what is said here does not mean that a man ought to be so joined to his woman that he should resolve to abandon his father and mother for her sake. *And they shall be two in one flesh.* A man and his wife are reckoned as one flesh in many ways: through the necessity of marriage, through offspring common to both; finally, also because the relationship of parent and child depends upon the woman herself and is constituted by her, at least as far as the very bodies which are begotten are concerned. For from the marriage of man and woman it comes to pass that the woman conceives and brings forth; and now, through conception and birth, parents and children are made. Furthermore, it is certain that Adam uttered these words as a prophecy from divine revelation. For He who puts forth these words in the Gospel as if from the very person of God the Father: *since, although the words of the prophets may have emanated from their own mouths, we take them as if pronounced by God Himself; for the prophets are to be regarded as the organs of God Himself.* However, it may be asked why the Scripture says of the man that he ought to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, when women themselves, having abandoned father, mother, family, and all their own possessions, come to their husbands and cleave to them. ^B To this it must be answered that this happens for many reasons: both because the man is the head of the woman, and because he, through marriage, first emerges as free and is released from the paternal power in which he was for so long while he took a wife; for once she is led home, he himself becomes a head of a household. And because it is prior in time not to be a parent, but to join bodies; nor indeed do they use the sexual act because they are parents, but because they have performed this act, they become parents. For Adam and Eve, before they were associated in mutual embraces, were by no means called parents, but when they had joined in marriage and begotten children, only then were they deservedly called parents. But after Moses has spoken of Eve being created, he proceeds to explain how the first parents spent their lives with these words: *And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed.* But why were they not ashamed? Surely not because they were little children, or because of rustic simplicity and imprudence; for they had been made by God in the prime of youth, not in childhood, and they were prudent, not foolish or uncouth; but they were not affected by shame regarding their nakedness because they had not yet sinned nor transgressed, and thus no thought occurred to their minds that there was any fault in nakedness. Furthermore, they were clothed in glory, and therefore they were not ashamed: for just as the Israelites could not look upon the face of Moses covered with glory, and as mortals cannot fix their eyes upon the sun when it is clothed in a stole of glory; furthermore, as the body of the Lord, covered with glory, surpassed the sun itself in radiance and brightness when He had withdrawn to the mountain; finally, as the garment of His divinity is not to be beheld; so Adam and Eve, because they were clothed in glory, were not ashamed of anything. For the nakedness of which Moses speaks here pertains to the garment, not to the glory with which they were even then covered. Moreover, there are instances where nakedness generates a sense of shame; there are also instances where no thought of shame enters the mind because of nakedness. We have an example of the former in Adam and Eve, who, after they had sinned, thought that their nakedness ought to be a source of shame; but the latter occurs in small children, whom it does not shame to be naked; the same happens when the matter itself has no shame in it, just as when someone strips off his clothes in secret and without witnesses; this also comes about through long-standing habit, as happens to those who are constantly naked in baths. Finally, where the matter...

^A of necessity presses, as when someone suffers from an ulcer in that part of his body which he would otherwise cover without shame, he is driven by that very necessity to uncover it before a physician. For these two reasons, therefore, Adam and Eve were not ashamed when they were naked: first, because they were clothed in glory, and second, because they had not yet sinned. For in the world to come, all shame that can arise from nakedness will be taken away from men; both because they will be clothed in glory, such as Adam and his wife Eve were clothed in among the trees before they violated the commandment, and because the very cause of shame, sin, will be destroyed and rendered void.

Furthermore, divine Moses, while persisting in the fact that Adam and Eve felt no shame for their nakedness, ^B compares the age in which he was writing to that in which they were created by God, as if to say: "It is not as you now see men affected by shame on account of nakedness, that it happened to Adam and Eve; for they were not ashamed, for the two reasons already mentioned." After finishing the discourse on the creation of Adam and Eve, and on the manner of their life, divine Moses proceeds to recount the fraud by which they were seduced from the right path, namely, that he might teach us from how great a liberty they fell into what a grave servitude through sin, saying: *And the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.* Whether divine Moses is speaking here of a corporeal serpent, or of Satan who appeared similar to a serpent; and, if Satan had insinuated himself into the body of a serpent, of what kind that serpent was; furthermore, whether or not that serpent had feet, and other things that pertain to this, have long since been diligently examined by us. We have also commemorated why he said that the serpent was more "cunning," not more "prudent," than all the beasts of the field. For we have dealt with all these things in chapter 27, having proposed ten questions for consideration.

*Whether Satan heard God commanding Adam not to eat.* And the serpent said to the woman: *Did God really say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'* It may be doubted whether the devil heard the law or commandment which God had imposed upon Adam; and since he was by no means ignorant of what the matter was, whether he said to the woman: *Did God really say, 'You shall not eat,' etc.*, or whether, merely suspecting that a law had been placed upon him by God, and testing the mind of the woman, he made those words himself. Ephrem ^C and many other interpreters hold that Satan heard the commandment that was given to Adam, and, being aware of it, approached and questioned the woman with those words, *Did God really say, etc.*, so that through that interrogation he might capture for himself an opening for conversation. But Philoxenus and Theodore the Nestorian, and many others with them, prefer to say that Satan did not hear the law while it was being imposed upon Adam, but that, led by conjecture and suspicion of some prescribed law, he attacked the woman so that from her answer he might learn what sort of law had been imposed, and from that point, having caught an argument for deception, he might abuse it against her.

We, however, think that the opinion of each of these two schools revolves around these three questions: whether Eve was created at the same time as Adam, or afterwards; then, whether she received that commandment from God Himself along with Adam, or later from Adam; finally, whether the law was given by God through a voice that could fall upon the senses, or whether it was impressed upon the mind without a voice and made knowable. And therefore, we believe that these questions must be accurately weighed before one can rightly judge these opinions.

The Order of the History of Adam.

But Theodore and his followers say that Adam was created and Eve was taken from him at the same place where he was created, and that she was brought into paradise together with him, and likewise received the law from God Himself; not, indeed, by a law given by a voice that would stir the sense of hearing, but one impressed and consigned to their minds in a certain mode of knowing. For they think that one can sufficiently prove that God imposed this law at the same time, from the fact that it is written: *Male and female He created them*; also: *Have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air*, which are spoken in the plural number. Furthermore, because Eve was blamed even more than Adam on account of the broken law. Nor is it indeed absurd if we think that things which God may appear to have spoken to Adam alone are said under the person of Adam to both of them. For what is written in the Psalm: *Blessed is the man who did not walk in the way of the impious*; certainly, under the name of the man alone, it looks to both sexes. And those things which we discuss and establish in ecclesiastical councils and meetings regarding men certainly pertain to women equally. However, they say the law was not given by a voice that could be heard, but was instilled into their minds in a certain mode of revelation, saying it is similar to those visions which appear to the prophets. For they say that a certain power of understanding and of seeing, as it were, and thus of knowing with certainty, was at the same time instilled into their minds, so that from the nakedness of their bodies no shame would arise, just as it will also be in the fatherland.

^C But as it is common for a ruler not easily or kindly to bear his equals in rule, so neither could the god (the devil) suffer others to exist; furthermore, he sought to incite them to eat of the forbidden fruit, as if to say: "Not only will you not die, but you will grow much more, since you are going to turn into gods, such as that creator of yours is. For in the fruit itself, and among the branches of that tree, there lies the power of divinity, so that whoever eats of it becomes a god, knowing both good and evil." Through the promise of opening their eyes, he pledges an acumen of knowledge, perspicacity, and the experience of good and evil. Finally, by promising that they would become gods, in the plural number, he effects this: he inserts into their minds the opinion that he who had threatened that they must not eat from that tree was not the greatest deity, but that there were other gods his equals. Furthermore, he sought to instill into the ears of our first parents from the very beginning that corrupt opinion—which he would one day persuade the nations—that there are many gods in the world, and thus to lead all mankind toward every evil.

Wherefore, very rightly was that Satan also called the devil (22). Satan indeed, both because he himself receded from God, and because he leads mortals away from God so that they might follow those who bring forth wrath; but the devil, that is, the calumniator, because he blamed God through calumny before Adam and Eve, as if out of envy he had forbidden them to taste of that tree; and because he in return traduces men before God, as is written of Job: "Extend your hand, and touch his flesh, and see if he will not curse you to your face." ^D Finally, because he labors to persuade mortals that they are of no concern to God. Since all law pertains either to forbidding sin or to promoting justice, and is observed either by the fear of punishment that awaits the rebellious, or by the hope of the reward that has been promised to our parents. This serpent, that is to say the devil, in that he says: "You shall not die even if you eat," attempts to remove the fear of punishment by which they were kept from transgressing the law of God. Again, when he adds: "You will be as gods," he entices them with the hope of a great reward if they should eat the fruits forbidden by God.

Indeed, it must be thought that Eve did not receive the words of the serpent, or the devil, as things that could be argued; otherwise, she would have replied to him in many ways, or at least in some one way; nor again, as if they were dubious and ambiguous, for in that case, too, she would not have lacked a reply; for she could have answered: "Whence do you know this mystery? Surely he who planted the tree is greater than you. Besides, what is the meaning of your saying that my eyes will be opened if I taste the fruit, when even now they are neither dimmed nor closed?" For unless they were opened

^A to be able to see you, and acknowledge you to be a serpent, I would not have been able to discern this. And again, that you assert we shall be experts in good and evil: if I do not already understand what is good and what is evil, how could I know whether your advice is virtuous, or God is good, or death is truly evil?" To these things, she could also have objected: "If you tell the truth, go away, and first take from that tree and eat, so that your eyes may be opened and you may become a god knowing good and evil, and then I will also approach and eat." But since she answered him none of these things, it is easy to conclude that she did not receive the serpent's words as debatable or uncertain; for she did not remain silent out of imprudence or childishness, since she had been endowed with reason and prudence at her very birth, and if she had argued against him for even a moment, she would have come off the victor; but she accepted his words as if they were beyond any doubt true. For through the wickedness of the demon, along with those words, "And you will be like gods," a desire to taste of the tree was injected into her, and she was inflamed with the lust for divinity. For sin is accustomed to enslave the mind of those who are devoted to it.

D. Comparison of Mary and Eve.

But you, reader, here set Mary in your mind beside Eve for a little while; and note the fortitude of the one, and the sloth and cowardice of the other. For Mary, who had very often heard that the Christ would be born from the fathers by God, and was not ignorant of what the prophets had prophesied concerning this matter, when the angel came to her in human form by way of his message and said, "You will conceive and bear," she did not at all immediately place faith in his words, because it was unheard of before that a virgin should give birth; but she began to weigh the matter by discussing it with him, saying: "How can this be done, since a man is not known to me?" or, "I know not a man," as other copies have it. To this, she even went to see the sign which the angel had provided, by which she would be made more certain of his words: namely, Elizabeth, who was pregnant, though she was otherwise a sterile old woman. But Eve, who had never heard that God labors from envy, or that they would be equal to the gods if they tasted of the forbidden tree, as soon as she was speaking with him—not now appearing in human form, but as a serpent—did not dispute about the tree, but was inflamed with the ambition of divinity, and disparaged the command of God, wherefore it is said consistently of her by the divine Moses: "And the woman saw that the tree was beautiful to eat, and desirable to the eyes, and desired to look upon." The woman had indeed seen that tree even before the serpent had approached her, nor could she be restrained by the law from a tree that was not seen. But the fact that Moses now says that the woman saw that the tree was beautiful to eat, and what other things follow, shows that the tree had been seen by her in one way before the approach of the demon, and in another way afterward. For before, she had simply looked upon it; but after she had been ^B deceived by the serpent, and induced to have faith in his words, then at last she saw that the tree was beautiful to eat and desirable to look upon, since she looked upon the tree at that time with an immoderate and dissolute appetite; for such an immoderation of desire, if ever it has invaded the mind, is accustomed to judge that thing which it intends to be most beautiful and most weighty of all: just as we see happening to those who are held by the wicked love of some woman; for she, even if she is often most foul and most deformed, yet is held to be quite beautiful and charming in their eyes, so much so that their blindness is a marvel to those who are free from that agitation of mind toward that woman. Since, therefore, the desire for that tree had already been injected into the woman through the fraud of the serpent, Moses says, she saw the tree that it was beautiful to eat, etc. But that the matter may be clearer, we say that Eve saw that tree in three ways, entirely differently, on different occasions. First, indeed, when God veiled it with the law; second, when she was being lured into fraud by Satan; third, after she had eaten of it. And first, indeed, she perceived it simply, as one of the other trees, whichever it might be. In the second, however, she did not look at it simply, but with the desire with which she was already at that time held, with which she judged it to be the most beautiful of all: just as Thamar seemed most beautiful in the eyes of Ammon, who was impeded by his love for her. Third, finally, as soon as she had tasted, then at last she judged it as truly very foul and dire: just as Ammon also, after he had violated his sister Thamar, held her in hatred; for although one and the same form of that Thamar remained before and after the admitted rape, yet the one whom her brother had loved before on account of her beauty, after he had abused her through sin, he pursued with hatred. Therefore, that tree ^C which had been of equal beauty when the law was brought forth about it, and when it was the material of the demon's fraud, and finally after the fruit had been plucked and tasted by the woman; yet at first it was seen by our first parents as neither beautiful nor foul, but soon it was deemed most beautiful, but at last as plainly detestable after they had admitted sin through it. She saw, therefore, that it was beautiful and convenient to ^D eat before the other trees of paradise, and on that account she was seized by a sharper appetite for it than for any of the others; not because of the tree itself, but because the mind of the woman had been changed through the fraud of the serpent, who was driving her headlong to that tree with feminine cruelty and unbridled lust. Moreover, the structure of the words could be seen if it were read thus: "And the woman saw that the tree was beautiful to the eyes, and desirable to eat"; for beauty pertains to the sense of sight, as appetite pertains to food. But this has already been treated by us elsewhere. But this also is to be noted from those words: "And the woman saw," etc., it is gathered that she did not

^A receive it, [thinking] that not only would they not die, but would even turn out like gods, and she had also added other [promises] by which she might entice her husband to eat, and thus both had eaten, and had committed a most wicked crime. Indeed, the master Ephrem writes that Eve had solicited her husband with many a promise, and had drawn him to eat; but Moses omitted the words she used, being content to have taught us that the woman was the cause of the law being violated for the man, in that she provided the forbidden fruits for him to eat, and at the same time added the desire to eat; but he recorded the serpent’s words in writing, so that we might understand that he is the common enemy of our race, and so that we might have the greater caution to avoid his snares and wickedness.

Furthermore, what tree it was from which Adam and Eve ate, and what fruit they tasted, has been discussed by us above. To these things, it would also be worth the effort to have noted: since anyone who eats some thing is driven either by the necessity of hunger, or by the unbridled lust and desire for that thing; Adam, with no hunger compelling him, but with lust persuading him, ate from that tree, and hence sin adhered to that concupiscence. For as one of the apostles says: "Concupiscence conceiveth and bringeth forth sin." For if he had not eaten out of lust, but as one who had need of nourishment, he would have eaten from the other trees permitted to him for food, and not from that one which alone had been forbidden to him; thus, hunger would have been without blame, since concupiscence was joined with sin; for the luxury of foods accompanies this, and those who indulge in gluttony are prone to lust, being gluttons, shackled to the belly, and finally cast toward drunkenness, which are indeed the greatest vices. Furthermore, the companions of lust are fornication, adultery, and the commingling of the body with males: which are themselves wicked acts. *And the eyes of both were opened.*

Why Eve tasted of the tree of knowledge before calling Adam. — Someone might ask, why did she not call Adam so that he might eat first? Doubtless, she herself desired to be transformed first into a god, and to get ahead of her husband in divinity, who had preceded her in humanity, so that in this way she might obtain the administration of things and power over him; for she thought that as soon as she tasted, she would be transformed into a goddess following the counsel of the deceitful serpent. And it can be asked again, why were the eyes of the woman not opened, and she did not recognize her own nudity, as soon as she had eaten that fruit, just as happened to both after they had both eaten? The reason for this matters is to be given as follows: if she had been struck with a sense of shame as soon as she had eaten first, Adam would have feared and abstained, and yet he would not have earned any praise for righteousness for that abstinence, as one who had not been held back by reverence and respect for divine law, but by his wife's modesty. Therefore, since the struggle pertained equally to both, and the risk had to be taken concerning the character and will of both at once, God deferred Eve's shame, and ensured that she was not ashamed of her nudity at the same time as she tasted the fruit. *And she gave also to her husband with her, and he did eat.*

Are we to think that the woman simply held it out to her husband, and the husband simply ate, when she did not speak any word to him, nor did he in turn inquire of her about that food? Surely, we judge that the husband did inquire about the food, and that the woman then recounted to him both those words which the lying serpent had said to her, and also added other things besides out of her own ingenuity which she thought would be sufficient to persuade Adam: and we think this can be demonstrated by these reasons. For first, since before the law was violated, it was of great concern to both that they do nothing against the commands of God, surely Eve could not have induced Adam to eat merely by holding out the forbidden food and not adding any word, without him questioning anything at all about what was being offered; then, if he had accepted and eaten simply, being otherwise ignorant of why he was eating, from a source from which he had previously been ordered to abstain, he would have deserved no blame for doing something simply and unknowingly and inconsiderately; since, however, it is established that he was blamed because he ate, we easily understand that she and he had indeed weighed the matter thoroughly beforehand. Finally, if the woman Eve used words against the serpent, and said: "It is forbidden to us by the law of God [to eat] from that tree," how much more must we think that Adam had inquired carefully beforehand about the food which his wife was holding out, before he tasted; and that she had answered him with those things which [had been spoken] by the serpent.

^B

^C

^D

The words of Moses and the serpent concerning the opening of the eyes of our first parents. There are those who rashly and even impudently say that that which the serpent (that is, Satan) had predicted was now, in fact, coming to pass; namely, that if Adam and Eve were to eat from that tree, their eyes would be opened: for this is what Moses relates here happened to them after the forbidden food was tasted. But we answer that Moses and the serpent speak differently about the opening of the eyes. For the serpent wished by the "opening of the eyes" to signify that they would have a sharp and keen intellect, and would be able to distinguish between good and evil just like gods; but by "the eyes being opened," Moses means nothing other than that they became conscious of their nudity; that is, they were affected by shame. *And they knew that they were naked*: that is, they were ashamed of their nudity. For since sin had stripped them of the garment of glory with which they had been clothed, they were left naked, and because they had violated the law, and having lost all the confidence they had enjoyed before, and with their body now [prone to] sin

and trembling with fear, they began to blush at their nakedness. For before they committed the crime and tasted the tree, they were held by no shame regarding their nakedness, and this for two reasons: because they were clothed in glory, and because no thought of shame entered their minds before they sinned. But after they committed the crime, God stripped them of that glory and at the same time implanted in them a sense of shame, so that by it sin might be circumscribed and its impulse and fervor restrained. Therefore, what is said, "They knew," is strictly as if it were said: "They were affected with shame."

Furthermore, if one were to ask to which members of the body this shame principally looked, we say to the genital members; and this for the reason that, since this affection is sharper and more violent than all the rest (inasmuch as it dominates even in animals lacking reason), the Creator God wished first to restrain that unbridled and indomitable fervor by means of sham ^B e. Moreover, it is also worthy of observation that our first parents, before they had sinned, possessed both a mind refined by intelligence and a body adorned and embellished with glory; but after they had sinned, they were indeed stripped of the body’s glory, yet they retained the intelligence of the mind—all the more so that by this they might recognize their sin and be led to repentance. For from this it happened that as soon as they had committed the deed, they recognized their nakedness and blushed, and seized by horror and trembling, they dreaded the death previously threatened to them by warnings. Whence also Jacob of Serugh writes in this manner: "Sin at the beginning pleases beyond measure; but in the end, it brings forth mourning for the one who commits it." For when our first parents were carried away by desire for that tree, to eat from it, they disregarded both God Himself and the law in favor of it; but when they had eaten and, being naked, had blushed, they pursued it with hatred and, mindful of that precept, "On the day you eat, you shall die the death," they grew pale with terror. And they stitched together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths. By joining leaves to leaves, they fashioned a certain form; a type of garment little decent and indeed fragile, inasmuch as by the power of the sun it withered, easily fell apart, and could not be used according to their will, nor conveniently, nor for very long. It is credible, moreover, that Eve had made the first such loincloth and had covered her own shameful parts with it, inasmuch as she had first violated the law and had been the cause of nakedness to Adam; then also, it was by her counsel that he put on the leaves, because she herself would eventually weave a garment for her husband.

But why did they not fit a covering to their eyes from those leaves, or sleeves for their hands, or boots for their feet? Or finally, why did they not cover other members of the body in some other way, but provided loincloths ^C for the covering of the genitals alone? To this, the answer is easy. Because God first implanted shame in these parts, it was therefore fitting that what was first covered by shame should be veiled.

But why was shame for these parts implanted by God, and not rather for the ears, which listened to the serpent’s counsel; or the eye, which was conquered by the beauty of the tree; or the hands, which plucked the fruits; or the mouth, which devoured them; or finally, the stomach, which received them? To this we respond: since that affection which dwells around the genital members is more stubborn and difficult than all other perturbations of the mind that are within us, there was need for shame as a bridle injected so that sin might in that part be restrained, and at the same time so that we ourselves might be led to possess sin with hatred, and from whence that kind of shame might be born in us. And truly, since the liberty of our will was not strong enough to tame this affection alone and force it to yield, God added to it shame, so that at least by the common work of both it might be restrained and cut off: in the judgment of free will in the soul, but in the body by the bridles of shame. Indeed, modesty and shame deter and prohibit many mortals from perpetrating that which is wicked more than the fear of law or of undergoing judgment; and a proof of this thing is that brute animals, which lack all shame, do not at all bridle the impetus of their lust by which they are seized toward females, conquered by the desire of their own innate nature. But men, even if they are urged by no less a force of lust than that, nevertheless we see them being recalled from satisfying it by the shame with which they are ashamed before other men, so much so that they do not even use legitimate marriage openly as other things, but secretly and hidden. Therefore, it is concluded that the affection of shame was implanted by God, the Maker of all things, in the genitals of men rather than in other members, so that He might moderate sin in those parts, and at the same time make it hateful to us and deter us from committing it; so that from this very shame it might arise in our spirits.

^D Whether God allowed Adam to sin. — The liberty of the will. — There are those who might ask here: Why did God not restrain Adam from sinning? We respond that this was by no means done because the power to do so was lacking to God, but so that He would not bring force against the liberty of Adam’s will or crush it. Furthermore, He would have prescribed the law in vain if He had specifically restrained him from sinning, as if by injecting a hand. Moreover, God did not wish to prevent him from committing the crime, so that he might merit grace and a reward as one who of his own will had refrained from committing the crime, not one prevented by force. To this, that they might recognize their own weakness, and not be carried headlong, inflated by vain glory, as was Satan. For that they had sinned knowingly made them conscious of their own infirmity, and caused them to think humbly of themselves. Finally, so that when they had of their own accord sinned and had fallen from paradise into this world—a world most filled with adverse and troublesome things—by a comparison of both worlds made among themselves, they might always dwell in their own mind upon that one, filled with all goods and joy; for unless experience...

^A of this other one had been had, they would never have exactly understood how much it excels this one. Finally, that while the will of Adam and Eve was being repeatedly tempted away from sin, they themselves might be instructed in the hatred and avoidance of sin, as being that from which they had received enormous calamities; and that this teaching might be propagated from them to us, as if handed down by hand. Indeed, as often as the occasion for sinning offers itself to us, the laws which God has commanded to us are ready at hand, so that by them we might be restrained from committing sin. Nay, to the laws themselves is added that aid which is provided by the reproof of the learned, so that if ever we commit a failing, by both the published laws and that correction by which sins are chastised in words, we might be directed toward repentance, and be rendered worthy to receive pardon for our transgressions. ^B Just as Paul encourages his Timothy in his writing that, along with the laws already laid down, he should also rebuke and reprove sinners, so that they might acknowledge their sins and be led to repentance. In this manner, too, it was dealt with our first parents. For when sin had stolen upon them, God himself reproved them with words; and when they showed that they repented of the committed crime, He in some measure granted them pardon; since they did not die on the day they ate of the forbidden tree, as had been announced to them through the threats. But now another question arises: why did Adam not die on the day he ate the forbidden fruit, as God had threatened him? But before we answer this, it will be worth the effort to demolish the sophistries of those men who say in this place that the words of the serpent (that is, Satan) were proven true, in which he had predicted ^C that they would not die even if they ate of the forbidden fruits, while the words of God, who had threatened that they would die on the very day of committing the deed, were rendered void and false. Yet God did not lie in the least, but mitigated the ordained punishment by His mercy. For He is accustomed to threaten the greatest and most severe punishments so that mortals might guard themselves, but then, through His mercy, to moderate them and take more lenient measures. For even when He had threatened the Ninevites with destruction, yet they, being recalled from their enterprises, repented, and He visited them with no punishment. Also, when He had proclaimed to Hezekiah that he would die and not live, and he had repented of his sin, He granted pardon to him, though he was already bound to the impending punishment; and yet no one should accuse God of lying on account of these things. Thus, therefore, He dealt also with Adam and Eve. For He forewarned them not to eat of that tree, and at the same time added threats that if they did not obey, they would meet death on that same day: but when they had already violated the command and sinned, He had pity on them and remitted the guilt, and so moderated the punishment that they did not die on the very day they broke the law imposed upon them. Indeed, He rendered the whole punishment toward the Ninevites entirely void; but our first parents, He absolved in part from the punishment, that is, He did not let them die on that very day; but as to the rest, He did not entirely take away death. God is not, therefore, to be accused of falsehood ^D who, through that mercy, deemed our first parents worthy of pardon and partially remitted the deserved punishment, and did not destroy them on the very day He had said. There are indeed some who defend the words of God by contending that they died the death on the day they sinned: not indeed the death of the body, but of the soul, which is born of sin. But this excuse is in vain, since it was not the death of the soul but of the body—that is, which would dissociate the soul itself from the body—that God had threatened them with. Now, however, it remains to say why Adam did not die on the day he ate the fruit forbidden by law, as the threats had denounced would be the case, but extended his life afterward to nine hundred and thirty years. Various are the causes of this matter. For God could have had mercy on him and remitted the deserved punishment, if not in full, at least in part; for He is wont to threaten great and hard things, but to inflict lesser and softer ones, as the Ninevites were an example to us. Furthermore, if they had died immediately upon committing the sin, no origin would have been left for the propagation of the human race. Besides, that blessing of God, "Increase and multiply," had preceded those dire threats: "On the day you eat, you shall die the death." Moreover, the death of the sinning Adam was delayed, lest, if death had begun its empire over the human race at its very start, it would have subsequently maintained it, entirely indissoluble.

But it would have been a just beginning for the empire of death if Adam, who had sinned by violating the law, had been the first to fall in death; but since that first one was extinguished by death who, beyond other mortals, was pleasing to God and was altogether unworthy of death, and thus death began its tyranny from an unrighteous beginning, that tyranny was deservedly to be dissolved in time by Christ, who by His advent rendered it hollow of power. Hence, the Lord Ephrem said concerning that dictum of God: "The blood of Abel cries to me from the earth," just as he left in writing: Death howls in its beginning, showing what end it was going to have. Furthermore, even if God did not immediately punish the sinning Adam with death, nevertheless, He showed even then by these words that he was mortal and would eventually be destroyed by Him: "You are dust, and to dust you shall return." Finally, when he had become liable to punishment after tasting of the forbidden tree, God considered him as dead, even though he seemed to be alive. For if the divine Apostle Paul rightly calls those who are dead "those who sleep" because of the most certain hope of the resurrection, why should Adam not have been called dead, since from the time he was enslaved to sin and given over to injury, he was dead in respect to that injury? How Adam died on the day he tasted of the tree of knowledge. Hence is that which the Lord Julius says in his Commentary on the Gospel of John:

^A that we have shown above that Ephrem and those who follow him embraced [this view] according to the tenor of Scripture. Furthermore, whether He appeared to them then through some contemplation, as we have said Philoxenus thought, or whether a bodily form moved their very senses, as they wish; whatever the manner of this thing may have been, it appeared to them in those times calmly and gently; but now it presents itself so clearly that they perceive it with their own senses—truly formidable in human shape, turbid, difficult, and as if arriving from abroad—swelling with anger, raging, and shaking the earth with His tread, and even making the very trees of paradise tremble with His pressured footsteps: in such a state, I say, He is now seen by them; truly, so that they, terrified, might confess their faults and implore His mercy and pardon: for it aims at that which they are said to have heard, the voice of one walking. For He willed to be heard by them in His own tread, and He Himself, as if incarnate, to be beheld in human form, so that because of that movement they might hurry toward His grace and forgiveness. Moreover, Scripture calls the "inclination of the day" that time which is approximately the ninth hour after midday, with the sun looking toward its setting. But indeed, they say that for the Hebrews, "spirit" or "wind of the day" is a phrase used for the inclination of the day. But that He delayed showing Himself until the day’s decline, He did so that they might have an interval meanwhile, as much as they had performed the deed, to ponder it within themselves. But this also must be discussed, concerning which Moses speaks here.

^C Regarding the day on which God cast out the first parents from paradise. Now there are those who say it was the day on which the first parents were created; for on that day they also sinned by violating the law, which was the sixth day. According to them, on one and the same day Adam was created and Eve was formed, and the law was given and violated, and for such a great crime the first parents were rebuked and cast out of paradise. But the opinion of others is that they were created on one day and sinned on another, but that Moses here speaks of the day on which they sinned. Besides these, others think that this day was neither that on which Adam and Eve had been formed, nor that on which they sinned, but another one after them; for they do not think it reasonable enough that these great things should have happened on one day. But we shall explain these things more clearly below, God willing. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God among the trees of paradise. Therefore, they fled then from God, who had cast the sound of His tread into their ears; then also from the tree from which they had wickedly eaten, and they hid themselves in places dense and crowded with many and various trees, because they were conscious of their sin and naked—that is, because they shuddered at the sight of God and because they were ashamed. And the Lord God called Adam and said to him: "Where are you, Adam?" We have already said that God appeared here to the first parents in a bodily and human figure, and addressed them with a voice that moved the sense of hearing. But it is customary for that saying: "Where are you..."

to be used in many ways; for it is employed when one who does not know where the person he is calling is says: "Where are you?" There is also the interrogation used by one who asks another: "Where are you?" even when he does not know where he is in terms of location; just as when we call out to someone who is far from us, whose help we need: "Where are you?" Finally, we also use this interrogation when we wish to call someone’s error to his memory; for that phrase, "Where are you?" is then as equivalent to our saying: "See to what depths of impiety you have fallen!" Finally, when we wish to bolster someone’s spirits and offer a helping hand to support them, we say: "Where are you?" We also use this expression in reference to a lost item that we are seeking. Therefore, when God questioned Adam as to where he was, he was not indeed ignorant of it; just as he was not when he asked Cain: "Where is your brother?" Nor when he asked Moses: "What is that which you hold in your hand?" Or Jeremiah: "What do you see?" or finally Satan: "From where do you come?" But such interrogations have their own reasons, just as those of the Son in the New Testament do, when he says to his disciples: "How many loaves do you have?" and again: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" and "Simon, do the kings of the earth take tribute or census?" and to the Legion: "What is your name?" and finally to the Jews: "Where have you laid him?"—meaning Lazarus. For Christ asked these things and others of this kind, not because he was ignorant but being well aware, since he is God who sees and knows all things. In truth, for just causes, God employed these and other interrogations: the Father, indeed, in the Old Testament; the Son, however, in the New Testament. Although the Lord Severus and Philoxenus affirm in many places that it was the Son who appeared to mortals and made himself visible both in the Old and New Testaments (for Severus, in that sermon which he composed regarding the Mother of God, says: "For it was the Word of the Father who descended upon the lofty mountain of Sinai, to bring the law to the world, etc."; yet other teachers of sound doctrine prefer to think that God the Father appeared in the Old, but the Son in the New). But let this be your own estimation, reader, as to which of these is truer and which you have approved more; embrace that, and hold to it, since whichever is probable is credible; for the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one and the same, and the will is one, and the operation one; but the three persons are distinct. ^A Therefore, that our discourse may return to the point from which we digressed, not because of ignorance but for other reasons, God sought to know from Adam where he was; surely so that he might place his error before his own eyes, as if he were saying: "How are you doing, Adam? Do you have your eyes opened as the serpent promised you would have? Or are you even now blind, contrary to what he promised? Where are you?" ^B And again: "Do you possess the place that the serpent promised you, or are you under the power of that which he promised you not at all?" "Where are you?" With great confidence, do you hold your head high, or do you cast down your face, confounded with shame? "Where are you? Why do you not look openly at me, as you are accustomed, but instead hide yourself from me in the shadows?" Then, in order that by the very interrogation he might restore his mind to speaking, and invite him to repentance; to this end, that he might show that he was seeking Adam in the way that a father seeks a lost son, with concern. And these two latter points are proved from this, that he did not present himself at this first meeting as if he were about to exact punishment from them, otherwise he would not have addressed him so gently by his name. For this is an appeal similar to that of Paul to him: "Saul, why do you persecute me?" Why did Jesus not offer himself to him for the purpose of destroying him, and address him by name, but rather to provoke him to conversation and apology? Moreover, if he had appeared to them for the cause of destroying them, he would surely have destroyed them; either by waters, as in the ancient times of Noah, or by fire, as with the Sodomites, or by the earth opening up, as with Dathan and Abiram; for the first parents were by that time also deserving of such destruction, since they had rejected saving doctrine and embraced a pernicious one, and one that utterly warred against the Word of God. For God had said: "On the day you eat from the tree, you shall die the death"; but that other one said: "You shall not die."

God’s expostulations with the first parents

now you are so blushing and afraid? Have you eaten of the tree from which I had commanded you not to eat?" Even now He continues to speak with him calmly, as if relying on some conjecture, saying: "Was it from the tree," etc. Note, however, that it can be observed from the scriptures ^A that this clause, "from which I had commanded you not to eat," can be expressed either affirmatively or by way of interrogation. But the Lord Ephrem and those who think with him believe that, from these and similar words spoken singularly to Adam, it follows that the law was commanded by God to Adam alone, and that he then reported it to his wife Eve; but others respond that God, under the person of Adam, also speaks with Eve, according to the custom of Scripture: *Blessed is the man,* says David, *who hath not walked in the way of the ungodly.* But who would say that this blessedness does not equally apply to women? Indeed, Scripture more willingly uses the person of a man because the man is the head of the woman: *And Adam said: The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.* Wholly vain and empty also is this defense of Adam; for it does not at all manifest a submissive and humbled spirit, but in a way turns the blame onto God Himself, as if saying: "The woman whom You willed to be with me, she was the cause for me of transgressing the law and eating of that tree." But against these things, many things could have been said by God to convict her; for instance: "Not because I joined the woman to you was it a just reason for you to listen to her and violate My commands." Then if you accuse Me because I gave you a wife, why not also because I created you? For if I had not created you, you would not have sinned; because I gave you eyes without which you would not have seen the tree? Because I gave you hands, without which you would not have plucked the forbidden fruits? Because I gave you a mouth, without which you would not have eaten? In vain, therefore, do you excuse these things, since I have so ordered that woman whom I gave to you as a companion—that she should be in your hand and subject to you; not that she should rule and govern you and your actions. With these, I say, and other such words, God could justly have expostulated with him: but He refrained from all this, because He desired not to terrify man with accusations, but to call him back through repentance for the crime committed; wherefore He soon turns the question to the woman; for thus it follows: *And the Lord said to the woman: Why hast thou done this?* Again, God speaks to the woman not harshly or angrily, but calmly and gently, and asks as if ignorant, for the same reasons that we set forth just now regarding the interrogation of Adam: *And the woman said: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.* For the woman ascribes everything to the serpent, not to Satan, because while she knew the serpent who had solicited her, she was ignorant of Satan hidden within the serpent, from whom all the imposture had proceeded. *And the Lord said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above all beasts of the earth.* ^{B C}

Cur Deus serpentem non interrogaverit.—God therefore uses no interrogation with the serpent—that is, with Satan—by which he might be provoked to excuse himself, and so at last be judged and condemned, as He had done with Adam and Eve. We think the reason for this can be given: because for Adam and his wife there was a place for repentance, and it was not in the power of the serpent and the demon to be able to repent. Moreover, many things are usually asked here, such as: whether the serpent was gifted by God with the faculty of speech, or whether it was Satan lurking within the serpent, when it (the serpent) could not avoid him by its own will, so as not to be an instrument for him. Beside this, why did God not curse Satan as He did the serpent? Furthermore, why did Moses, when he wrote this book many centuries later, when Satan was already sufficiently known to mortals, not clearly say that it was Satan who was speaking within the serpent? But we do not resolve these and other such questions of this kind investigated more deeply (cap. 27). But since there are those who urge again and again that question: "Why did God not curse Satan as He did the serpent," we, in addition to what we replied before, also wish to add here that God no less cursed the invisible Satan than the serpent which was seen by the eyes, and that the curse clung to the former just as it did to the latter, mystically and in a hidden way, even in his very body; which you yourself should ponder in your own mind. For God held the serpent as something ^D intermediate between Satan and our first parents; for just as they were seduced by the serpent, so he was constrained by the curse through the serpent; and as the serpent was the instrument of Satan for enticing our first parents to sin, so he also played the role under which God detested Satan. Both, therefore, both Satan and the serpent, suffered the divine curse. For as it was said to the serpent: *Thou art cursed above all beasts and living creatures,* of which number you are, so it must be thought that it was pronounced against Satan: "Thou art cursed above all spiritual and angelic hosts, of which class you are." For it is clear that angelic hosts are often called by the name of animals in Holy Scripture, as those animals which Ezekiel saw 75 and it is known that elsewhere in the sacred Scriptures Satan is often called an animal. But why did God begin the curse from Satan? Surely because he was the first to admit sin, he was deservedly struck with the first detestation. Moreover, that the serpent was of the kind of living creatures, and not of reptiles (which some indeed have surmised, since it says: *Cursed above all living creatures*, we have also mentioned in cap. XXII. *And upon thy breast thou shalt go.* As if to say: "You are about to lose your feet with which you ran to wickedness, and you will walk and crawl upon your belly, because you have ruined the belly of our first parents." The serpent therefore walked with feet before the curse, like other kinds of living creatures, but afterward

[col. 567] it began to creep on its belly and move forward. They creep on their bellies and cannot lift themselves up to strike, and they can only invade the upper parts of the body when they have lost those, and they lacerate the heels. But the words can be interpreted regarding Satan in this way: While men live their lives through virtues, they easily dispel and render vain your crafty attempts, which you thought were primary and insurmountable. You will indeed observe their heels, so that you might subvert them and precipitate them into sins: but you will accomplish nothing, unless they themselves of their own accord and by their own will offer themselves to you. But also, in this sense, these words may be rightly accepted: You, demon, observe the heels of men, that is, their words and deeds, so that you might cast them into sins and lead them far from God; but when Christ arrived, He removed from us this fear of you, ^B according to those words of His: "I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy" (Luc. x, 19). Furthermore, from these words it is to be understood that the divine execration pertained not only to the corporeal serpent, but also to Satan; since we strike not only the heads of serpents when we wish to destroy them, but also the rest of the body; nor, again, does the snake strike only the heels of men, but also other parts of the body that it can reach.

God cursed Satan and the serpent at the same time.

from the conception of the fetus to the death of the human being, then surely you will understand that a woman is subjected to many difficulties, pains, and miseries, in accordance with the curse of God itself; for a most laborious care attends the infant when brought forth, [she] then rears it through the greatest annoyance and anguish, and at last bewails it as it dies with a piteous cry. Therefore, since thou wouldst not, He says, O woman, bring forth children in Paradise immortal and without any pain, thou shalt now bring them forth through the greatest torments and miseries, after thou hast committed sin. And because thou didst desire, in a certain divine manner, to eat and be as gods without any sense of pain, listening to the words of the serpent, now thou shalt beget humans in the human manner through most bitter pain. And thou shalt turn towards thy husband.

^B The regard of the woman towards the husband — As if to say: Since thou didst desire that thy husband should observe thee and depend upon thee, just as if those things which he needed for the use of life were placed in thy hand, and for this reason thou didst anticipate him in tasting the fruit, therefore thou shalt be observant of thy husband, so that he may satisfy thy needs. And he shall rule over thee: Thou didst indeed desire to be the head of thy husband and to possess power over him, and for this reason thou didst eat from the tree according to the counsel of the serpent; but he, on the contrary, shall exercise authority over thee, and shall be to thee in the place of a head. And He said to Adam: Because thou hast listened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee and said thou shouldst not eat; cursed is the earth for thy sake. Dominus Ephrem, when he wishes to recall the law to the memory of Adam here, [does so] because it had been prescribed to him alone by God; but afterwards by him it was explained to his wife. Truly, as we have already remembered several times, others prefer to think that under the person of Adam the words of the law are addressed to Eve as well. Therefore, since, He says, thou hast listened not to My voice but to thy wife's; cursed is the earth for thy sake.

Why God cursed the earth, but not Adam. — Assuredly, God did not curse Adam himself, so that He might preserve the honor due to His own image: and also because from Adam many mortal, upright, and just men were destined to be born, such as prophets and apostles, lest through him these, too, might be held as execrable and detestable: but He cursed the earth for his [Adam's] sake, since it was from it that he was created. Thus, the blessing which was made before the sin was preserved for the human race undefiled by it, although many sorrows and calamities were added. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Because thou didst think that thou wouldst dwell on the earth like the gods, ^C and lead thy life in quiet and leisure: on the contrary, through sorrows, labors, and miseries, and through the difficult cultivation of the land, thou shalt eat of the fruits of the earth. For not even kings, without annoyance and cultivation, can enjoy the gifts of the earth: and this is the very thing which Ecclesiastes says: The king cultivates the field: for if not with their own hands, kings at least subdue the fields with the hands of others. It must, furthermore, be observed that the word ^D *earth* is here accepted for those things which spring from the earth: Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth for thee: which, hadst thou not sinned, it would not have produced. It follows, therefore, that these arose after the execration, or perhaps He calls the laborious cultivation of the earth, which it [the earth] itself demands, thorns and thistles; as if to say: The fruits of the earth shall cost thee great and hard labors. Or He says this, that it will often happen that it will not return the seeds which it received, but instead of them, briars and thistles. And thou shalt eat the herbs of the field. Instead of the most pleasant fruits of the trees of Paradise which I had granted thee to eat, thou shalt eat herbs in the manner of cattle, for the reason that thou hast acted against My law: And with the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. Thou who didst wish to be a god, listening to the counsel of the serpent, with the sweat of thy face, that is, with rough and difficult labor and harsh cultivation, thou shalt seek thy living. For even if one is a king or otherwise holds great wealth, while he employs others in cultivation, he himself also does not eat bread without the sweat of his face. Until thou returnest unto the earth from which thou wast taken, because thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return. As if to say: After thou hast endured a miserable and laborious life, as I have predicted, thou art then to die, and into that which thou wast before, thou shalt be dissolved.

It must be noted here that Adam, before this oracle: Because thou art dust, did not know that he had been formed from dust, and he had been ignorant of his own origin. Therefore, with these words, God reminds Adam of many things. For first, He teaches that his very body was fashioned from dust; and at the same time He also reproves him, as if to say: How couldst thou aspire to divinity, so as to dispense rain, to control the fountains, to command the seas, when thou art wholly composed of dust? Again, just as He had wonderfully extolled the condition of Adam when He created him, so that He said He fashioned him after His own image and likeness: so, when he aspired to divinity according to the counsel of the deceitful serpent, He brings him down even to the earth, demonstrating that he consists of dust. Furthermore, He shows what he has exchanged for what. Moreover, He teaches with what great evils sin has entangled him, and therefore that it must be pursued with hatred and deservedly shunned. Finally, He warns that if he had observed the commanded law, his life would not have been broken, but granted with immortality from the liberality of God, just as Gregory the Theologian says: If we had endured, we would have been made that which we were not; but now, after he transgressed the law, he was made subject to death and to be dissolved into the earth from which he drew his origin. And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. Divine Moses indeed observed, even in the narration of events, the order and sequence of the times in which each thing was done: but whether he narrates here in his own order, can be doubted. For there is a place where things [are narrated] according to their own [time].

It is also the case that where this is of concern to him, he narrates what has been done and does not pass over it in silence, being otherwise unconcerned about observing the time in which it was done. Indeed, either when the rib was being withdrawn from him and fashioned into a woman, Adam called his wife by two names through prophecy: ^A *Itto*, clearly (that is, woman or wife), and *Eva*. The former, because she was joined to the man by a legitimate union, as we have explained before; the latter, because she was to be the mother of all living. Whether in this place he gave her the name *Eva* for that reason after she had been condemned by God following her fall by the sentence of pains to be endured in childbirth, or, finally, after they were both cast out of paradise, he began to call her *Eva* because he saw her as the mother of the living. Now if this name was given to his wife by Adam either at the first or at the last time, the calculation of time by Moses is neglected; but if it was in the middle, it is accurately observed. Furthermore, by the term "living," only human beings are signified here, not also brute animals, just as it is also said there: *I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh*; Scripture speaks of human beings alone, not of cattle. But it must be known that Adam, by a certain prophetic power and divine instinct, called his wife *Eva*, but the words that are added—*Because she was the mother of all living*—are not Adam's but Moses's, explaining the term *Eva* with that interpretation. But you will say: Why did Moses not write in the same way that Adam was the father of all living, as he revealed that Eve was the mother? We answer that when a man has intercourse with a woman, he injects seed that is endowed neither with life nor form, but the woman—once that, having been received into her womb, it takes on the form of an infant and is shaped into a human figure—then at last produces not what the man had injected, but a living being. Merely, therefore, is Eve called by Moses the mother of all living. Moreover, Adam was created when he was dust, devoid of life, and then received life and soul from a divine status; Eve, too, while she was still an inanimate rib, was taken from Adam; but later, while she was being fashioned by God, she attained life and soul; yet the rest of mortals were about to be born in another way, namely, from a woman, and [were] fully living. Rightly, therefore, for this reason also was Eve called the mother of all living. But this too can be asked: when Adam understood that he had been condemned to death by God and was going to die, why did he call his wife by that august and happy name, by which she was signified to be the mother of all living, ^D which could clearly be seen to be contrary to that divine sentence? To these things we say that Adam indeed had received that sentence of death brought forth against him through the note of accusation branded upon him, but meanwhile God, for His mercy, had instilled into their minds the opinion that he might even then think that the human race would remain in life upon the earth, increased by the offspring of the man and woman, and for this reason he called his wife by that beautiful name, that is, the mother of all living. We have mentioned above that there are three names by which Adam is called in this book: *Noso*, that is, man, and *Bar-noso*, son of man; and finally *Adam*, as if to say, human: where we have also explained how much they differ among themselves. But now we understand that Eve also was called by two names; namely, *Itto* (that is, woman or wife) and *Eva*: of which the former is adjusted to the whole species of women; the latter is the proper appellation of one person. *And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife leather tunics, and clothed them*. There are five things that offer themselves to be explained by us here: ^B namely, why God clothed Adam and Eve in tunics; then what kind these tunics were; third, from where they were provided; fourth, why they are called *Chutinita*; which is the same as if you were to say, cotton or linen garments; fifth, why mortals needed clothing.

Why God clothed the first parents.

What the garments of the first parents were.

^A the art of weaving. Regarding the fourth [reason], we say that those garments were called by Moses *chutinitas*, because in his own age this word meant human clothing, as can be seen in the account of the garment of Job, Joseph, Tamar, and finally of our Lord Jesus Christ; Moses therefore used the terminology of his own time. The fifth and final point was why mortals needed clothing: we say here that it was so they might have a more dignified and elegant attire, and thereby differ from brute animals; then also that they might be armed against cold and heat; and furthermore, that the incentives to lust might be hidden.

And the Lord God said: Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil (Gen. III, 22). These words are spoken by God with contempt and irony regarding Adam, who had been ensnared by listening to the deceptive words of the demon; just as David introduces God looking down with disdain upon the nations that had risen against Him: "He that dwelleth in heaven," he says, "shall mock at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision" (Ps. II, 4). For, speaking mockingly and with derision, He says that whatever Satan had promised Adam had come to pass, as if he had now become like one of the gods; that is, as one who knows what is good and what is evil. Furthermore, He uses the plural number, saying *as one of us*, ^B either because of the most holy mystery of the Trinity, or because the devil had likewise spoken in the plural number: *You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil*. These words can also be understood according to the custom by which masters are accustomed to address their servants sharply, if at any time the stubborn ones presume to compare themselves to them through their own rashness. For they say: "Behold, you have now become my equal." For Adam had acted against the commands of his Creator, God, and had desired to become His equal. Similar also is that saying of Christ to Judas the traitor: "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" (Matth. XXVI, 50).

Moreover, they can be interpreted in this sense also: that Adam, after he ate of the forbidden tree, learned by the very experience of the matter what was good and what was evil, just as God also knows these things; not, indeed, here by experience as he does, but as One who knows all things, past, present, and future. For Adam, before he had tasted the fruit that was forbidden to him, understood only through reflection what was good and what was evil; but afterwards, he understood it also through experience itself. But God knows all things most exactly ^C and intimately, since He is the Creator and Maker of all things. Finally, we can understand those words in this way: as if God were Himself accusing the will and judgment of Adam, who had aspired to be God, which could in no way come to pass; for no mortal, through such great virtues, can live a life such that he attains the nature of God. The sense of the words will therefore be this: "Behold, Adam indeed desired to be as one of us, but he has not become so, nor is it even right that he should become so." And so, the expression "Behold, he is become" will be treated as if one were to say negatively: "He has not become as one of us." Now, indeed, ^D concerning why [original-script column: see facsimile].

^A perhaps he might stretch forth his hand and take from the tree of life and eat and live forever. This reason is put forward, why Adam was not left in paradise after he had acted against the law of God and had sinned; and this is a comparison of the tree of life with the tree of knowledge; as if God were saying: Just as he stretched forth his hand and took from the tree of knowledge and ate, which I had forbidden him, he is about to stretch forth his hand and take from the tree of life as well and eat, and consequently live forever if he is left in paradise. For if he dared to touch and eat from the forbidden tree, how much more will he dare to touch and eat from the one not forbidden? Furthermore, that expression: "Lest perhaps," should not be taken as if it were said doubtfully by God, from whom nothing at all is hidden, whether past, present, or future; for indeed, He affirms as a most certain fact that he would take from the tree of life, and would eat, and would live forever unless he were cast out of paradise. Moreover, we have previously commemorated what that tree of life was and why it was called by that name; where we also said for what reason God had forbidden Adam the tree of life. *And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken.*

^B Adam ejected from paradise. — Therefore, for these reasons Adam was forbidden from the tree of life. However, there are other reasons why he was eliminated from paradise. Namely, it was not right that he should occupy a sacred place after he had profaned it through the violation of the law by his sin, and it was only right that such a transgression should be worthy of this exile. Furthermore, he had to be taught that he had acted wrongly when, having despised God's commands, he yielded to the counsel of the deceitful enemy and ate from the forbidden tree. Moreover, while he is being cast out, the word of God becomes established, by which He had predicted that he would die on the day that he ate from the tree of knowledge; conversely, however, the demon is proved to be a liar, who had given him hope and confidence that he would escape God if he ate; for not only did he not escape to God, but he was actually rendered an exile from paradise itself. Moreover, if he had remained in paradise, he might perhaps have suspected God of envy for having forbidden him the food of the tree of life. Finally, while he tills the soil, he understands at last in what felicity he lived before he sinned; and again, into what many miseries he has been plunged, for the reason that he acted against the law of God. Lastly, he was ejected from paradise for this reason: so that he might acknowledge his sin and give diligent effort to repentance, and as a suppliant contend with God that He might restore him to his original place. It is concluded, therefore, from those things which we have already commemorated, that he was by no means forbidden by God from the tree of life, nor cast out of paradise, nor even condemned to death because of anger, but out of the sheer mercy and solicitous care of God. But indeed, one might say, let these things be—that they were acted upon by God Himself in such a way that they might profit him; but what advantages or benefits could the labors, sorrows, and sweat of the brow—the evils into which he was cast when driven from paradise—possibly bring to him? ^D We respond that God did not grant him lack of rest in vain, as is the human character; for if, condemned to such great evils, we do not cease to sin, what would we not have committed had we been permitted to lead our lives in leisure and delights? Certainly, men who are idle and slothful, and empty of labor and troubles, and who live softly and delicately, provide us with examples of this thing. Furthermore, that leisure, sloth, and delights are evils is proven by most certain testimonies of Scripture. For in the second book (27) it is written: *The people sat down to eat*.

and to drink, and rose up to play. And in the fifth book: "Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked." And one of the wise men left it written: "Idleness is evil, and generates slothful deceit." On the contrary, that labors and turbulent exercises are good, David attests, when speaking of the Israelites he says: "When he slew them, then they sought him, and they returned and inquired early after him." And elsewhere: "It is good for me that I have been humbled, that I may learn thy statutes." And God through Jeremiah to the city of Jerusalem: "By stripes," he says, "thou art instructed, O Jerusalem." Again Paul: "There was given to me," he says, "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, to buffet me." Is it concluded, therefore, that it was profitable to man to be subject to sorrows, labors, and sweats, once he had been cast out of ^B paradise? "And he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." In the Hebrew it is: "And he made to dwell at the east of the garden Cherubim." But the Greek has: "And he placed Cherub, and a flaming sword to keep the way of the tree of life." The meaning of these words is that the guard of Cherub and the point of the sword were placed by God only at the eastern side of paradise, as if He wished to restrain Adam only from that side, and not from the other sides. Indeed, it is to be thought that from the rising of the sun was the gate, and that the entrance lay open into paradise; and that through that way Adam was brought in, and through that way was cast out again; hence also a path had been led into the middle of paradise where the tree of life was situated, and therefore, lest Adam should ever again betake himself in by that way, the guard was stationed there. Moreover, why God wished the tree of life to be guarded, and Adam to be warded off from it, we have stated before; to which we think this should also be added, that the guard was stationed with the intention that Adam might understand that the path was completely closed to him through sin, and therefore he should pursue this hatred with more pertinacity, and think it to be avoided with greater care in the future as a fountain of such great evils, whose evils he might easily understand by a comparison of the life led before sin with that in which he now moves. ^C Furthermore, that magnificent guard (I speak of Cherub and the point of the sword that turned every way) puts before our eyes the excellent dignity of the tree of life. That he calls it a turning sword signifies that it was vibrated to and fro with perpetual agitation, with a flashing brightness darting thence by which the eyes of those looking were not without horror dazzled. It remains that we see concerning Cherub and the sword, what kind of things they were. Lord Jacob of Sarug, in that oration which he wrote concerning the Passion, and again in that which he wrote concerning the Ascension; and with him others, say that the guardian of paradise, Cherub, was some one of the celestial spirits; but the point of the sword was a certain figure of a fiery lance which Cherub, holding and brandishing, used to terrify the first parents from paradise, and to ward them off from the tree of life. Furthermore, they argue for the form of the lance from this, that that lance which Christ received in his side seems to have mystically looked towards this: as if that lance had by then already been taken from the hand of Cherub, and the way to the tree of life opened. Others say that the point of the sword was called, not iron nor fire, but a certain figure of a blade, which seemed to shine and gleam in its own appearance; but that Cherub was not some celestial and incorporeal spirit of the angels, but a certain vehement specter; and that it was called by the name Cherub, because Scripture is accustomed to call by this name those things which possess great strength and great vehemence; such as that: "He rode upon the Cherubim, and did fly"; for it signifies that God arrived with great force, and appeared as if sitting upon the Cherubim, that is, that He had powerfully exercised ^D dominion. According to these, these words of Moses have this meaning: that God constituted a certain vehement and terrible specter before the doors and in the very entrance of paradise in the appearance of some living creature, for the sake of deterring and restraining Adam. But these people bring forth this reason for their opinion: The name, they say, Cherub properly relates to a certain youthful strength, and therefore the Cherubim spirits stand nearer to God, nor are they sent down to the lands; for Scripture does not assign to them any care in the lands, but they are angels who are sent to the earth, and administer and dispense things in it. But those former ones, among whom we said was the lord Jacob of Sarug, deny that this is the notion of the name Cherub; nay rather, they say that this vocabulary signifies a certain order of celestial, non-visible spirits; such as appeared to Ezekiel, and whose images were placed in the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle, and thus they reckon that Cherub himself was rather one of the celestial geniuses, which celestial geniuses grieve if ever mortals sin, and again are affected with joy when they repent of their crimes, as the Lord says. Therefore, Cherub was the guardian of paradise, one of the celestial spirits holding a fiery lance, and brandishing and flashing it, and deterring the first parents from excess, as the lord Jacob of Sarug sensed, and most with him of the men of that same sect. But now the place and the time demand that we investigate by arguing whether all these things were done in one and the same day: Adam created, sent into paradise, law given, names bestowed upon beasts and birds, Eve formed, the first parents deceived by the serpent, the law violated, vengeance taken on the guilty[.]

^A and they were finally cast out of paradise. Philoxenus feels this way about the matter, in the oration he wrote on the Tree of Life, and Lord Ephrem in his Commentaries on Genesis, and also Lord Jacob of Sarug in his oration on the Passion; along with others, they maintain that all these things were done and finished on the same single day, which was the sixth from the creation of heaven and earth. Two arguments are made for this: the first, that Adam and his wife had yet eaten nothing; for if the serpent had seen them eating beforehand, it would by no means have said to Eve: "Did God really command you not to eat from any tree of paradise?" Now, if they had been created long before, they could not still have endured life without hunger and food. The second argument is taken from those things which our Lord Christ suffered; for they say that, in amending Adam's fault, he responded in an exact succession. For example: on the sixth day, they say, Adam was created, and on the same day our Lord was tormented; at the beginning of that day he was formed from clay, and this one was likewise dragged to the tribunal; at the third hour of that day he was brought into paradise, and our Savior was brought out of the city of Jerusalem at the third hour, carrying his cross on his shoulders; and at the time when Adam stretched out his hands to pluck the forbidden fruits, at that same time Christ stretched out his hands upon the wood. Again, from the sixth to the ninth hour, Adam was stripped of his glory ^B and given over to injury, and thus also through the cross of Christ. The sun, from the sixth to the ninth hour, lost its splendor and was darkened, and the whole of creation suffered with him, as if the memory of Adam's fall were refreshed. Then, after the ninth hour had passed, the darkness was dissipated and driven away; by which fact it was signified that the evils which had surrounded the human race, and which had seized it on account of the law of God violated by Adam, were now dissolved. Furthermore, at the time our Lord was pierced by the lance, at that same time the lance was taken away from the Cherub who guarded paradise and the tree of life. Finally, at the same hour that Adam was driven from paradise by God, the soul of the thief was brought into paradise by Christ ^C; and accordingly, at the time the demon, seeing Adam cast out of paradise, rejoiced, at the same time he grieved when he saw the soul of the thief brought back into paradise. For although Christ's soul was separated from his body on the cross, the divinity itself simply did not desert either the body or the soul, but descended into the tomb together with the body; and at the same time it corrected the underworld with the soul, and had a discourse with those souls which were held there, as the apostle Peter says in his epistle. Thus, the soul of Christ raised up those souls that believed in him from the underworld, and, brought up, introduced them along with the thief's soul into the paradise from which Adam had been expelled.

That Adam was not created and cast out of paradise on the same day is the opinion of other doctors; not because God could not have accomplished all those things in so short a space—for his power ^D corresponds precisely to his will—but because it does not seem sufficiently consistent that things happened in this way. And indeed, if Adam had tasted no fruit of paradise even then, except for that forbidden one, and had not yet sufficiently experienced the place itself or its delights, nor had moved his soil, how could he have judged, by comparison with the happiness of the land from which he had fallen, the land into which he was being thrust to be hard, horrible, and unhappy? But you will say: They heard the voice of God walking through paradise when the day was already declining, therefore they were cast out on that day. And yet Scripture does not say that it was the day on which Adam had been created. By equal reasoning, therefore, you would conclude that John the Baptist and Christ came on the same day, since the succession of history adds the day of the latter to the days on which the former appeared. But neither is that a firm enough argument as to why we should disturb the sequence of events with hasty precipitation, and conclude so many things within the space of one and the same day, which was brought forward regarding the sufferings of Christ. For as we willingly admit that Christ on the sixth day amended and expiated what had been committed by Adam, so we contend that it could have happened that Adam, when he had been created on the sixth day of the world's creation and had also fallen on the same, was nonetheless condemned by God for his sin and eliminated from paradise on another sixth day, according to that series of days in which they are recounted as recurring. For who believes (when the space of paradise was most ample) that on one day Adam went out to bestow names upon the animals, and on the same day returned to the middle of paradise, that is, finished a journey of many days? That on the same day the rib was taken from him and transformed into a woman, and on the same [day] both ate from the forbidden tree and were cast out of paradise? Truly, both to go out and to return, and besides to be involved in many other matters, is not for the space of one day; and indeed not a whole one, but only from dawn until the ninth hour, as they say. Finally, we say that it does not seem likely that Adam was created and bestowed their names upon the animals on the same day. For if at the time the animals were created, Adam had also given them their names at the same time, surely Scripture would not mention that God had brought them to Adam. For they had not been produced before the day on which he was created, but on that very day on which Adam was created, they too were produced; wherefore it is hardly consistent that they should be said to have been produced in distant regions on the same day as Adam and acts were brought to Adam at the same time; although this could hold true for the birds, since they had already been produced before. For the fact that it is mentioned that the animals were brought to Adam by God signifies that they had been created in various places and had been dispersed. But it shall be free for the reader to decide which of these two opposing opinions he wishes to embrace and hold.

^A in paradise having been for no more than six hours; namely, from the third to the ninth hour of the sixth day; and they strive to demonstrate this with three arguments: the first of which is that Adam could have been deceived much more easily at the very beginning than if he had inhabited paradise for a longer time; the second, because if he had spent a longer time meditating upon the law commanded to him, he would have become more cautious; but since he spent only a small length of time, as soon as he had received the command from God, he allowed the fraud to be easily perpetrated upon him. The third is that it is credible that God, whom he was about to drive out of paradise, would not have allowed him to enjoy such great happiness for a long time, so that he might not be tormented too much; but would bear it more gently and less painfully, being despoiled of such great delights; for God is accustomed to exercise chastisement mercifully. And here let there be an end to the first commentary.

PROEM

Col. ^B In the previous commentary, pious Ignatius, we showed in the first chapter by our discussion that paradise is of a twofold condition, corporeal and spiritual; and to prove this we brought forward the firmest arguments: some taken from the very nature of things, some resting on the authority of those men who deserve faith in these matters. Furthermore, we pursued there the corporeal paradise, and whatever seemed worthy of record that touched upon it: explaining not only the things themselves, but also the names of the things, according to the tenor of those words which the divine Moses used in describing paradise. Now, however, in this second commentary we have set ourselves, with the help of the Holy Spirit who searches all things, even the hidden and innermost things of God, to discuss the same paradise mystically, and, if I may say so, spiritually: so that just as paradise itself is twofold, so it may be treated by us in a twofold way. Furthermore, it is consistent that, at the beginning of this second discourse, we should summarize the seven chapters by which the whole work will be completed by us.

Therefore, in the first chapter it is shown by what reasoning the Doctors of the Church were led to speak ^C of paradise mystically; and by what terms they called the mystical paradise. In the second chapter it will be explained what the mystical paradise is. In the third, what the mystical earth is. In the fourth, what kind of trees and plants were in this mystical paradise. In the fifth, what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was, planted in this mystical paradise. In the sixth, what the tree of life was in this mystical paradise. In the seventh, the words of Moses which he left written concerning paradise will be explained mystically.

CHAPTER ONE

Various opinions of the Ecclesiastical Doctors concerning the mystical paradise. — The Doctors of the sacred Church, who are held to be preeminent and of the most certain faith, have other opinions concerning the mystical paradise.

Some indeed have thought that the holy Church herself is the mystical paradise: and that this figure of the mystical paradise was once that corporeal paradise in which Adam was. Others have made the mystical paradise that teaching of Christ which is baptized, of which are these: "Be not angry with thy brother without cause": "Look not upon a woman to lust after her": "If any one strike thy cheek, present the other also": "Go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor," and others of this kind. Again, others think that the mystical paradise is a type of the soul, in which are planted the trees of deeds done for the sake of virtue; these signify the four rivers of paradise ^D as accommodated to the four virtues of the soul: namely, to the one which is proper to the rational part of the soul, and is called prudence, and to temperance: also to that one which is called the spirited or irascible part of the soul, and now as fortitude, now as gentleness of meekness, and finally as justice: for these four, as it were, water, nourish, and increase all the other virtues of the soul. There are, moreover, some who judge that the mystical paradise is certain figures or parabolic senses (as we call them), but anagogical: for those things which were said by Moses about paradise are, in part, to be accepted from the very things to which the words are applied: in part, however, they are to be accommodated by similarity, as the Word, which the Lord says... [index: entries preserved]

was to be understood in the beginning, in a different sense than the words themselves indicate; namely, that God brought about a certain spiritual and happy way of life, etc. Besides these, there are those who would have it that the mystical paradise is the corporeal paradise itself, while we contemplate it in our mind in a spiritual manner. Finally, there are other doctors, with whose opinions we also subscribe, who say that paradise itself is of a dual condition, for it consists ^B partly of corporeal things and partly of spiritual things; just as Adam himself, for whose sake it was created, was composed of body and soul or spirit, and that the corporeal parts of paradise are trees, plants, and other things of that kind, but the spiritual parts are the blessed life lived according to virtue, etc., as we explained in the second chapter of the previous Commentary.

CAPUT II. What the mystical paradise is.

Spiritual or mystical paradise is the spiritual life which is stirred in the soul, full of the highest temperance and holiness, and added to by perpetual meditations upon divine things and those which have been created by God, and is altogether a blessed and angelic life, far removed from all perturbations of the soul, anxieties, sighing, and mourning, and joined with joy, gladness, and exultation, and therefore so powerful and able to conceive the rays and the splendor of divine notions, since those who dwell in this paradise live in the highest beatitude and are delighted while contemplating in their mind the Creator God and his creatures. For the heavenly angelic hosts dwell there, and Adam and Eve lived there before they had acted against the commandment of God.

CAPUT III. What the earth of the mystical paradise was.

The earth of the mystical paradise was the mind and intellect of Adam, that is, of the man acting therein. For from thence spring and arise meditations not only on visible things, but also on those which cannot be perceived by any sense.

CAPUT IV. What kinds of trees and plants are in paradise.

Therefore, such thoughts and meditations nurtured from the minds of both men and angels, like trees from the earth, are not absurdly called the trees and plants of the mystical paradise.

CAPUT V. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the mystical paradise.

Some of the number of the doctors of the Church say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, being mystical and planted in the mystical paradise, is a certain movement of the mind by which a man is inclined according to the peculiar disposition of his own understanding; for by it is sensed that which ^C is the difference between evil and good: for as long as that soul of Adam was steadfast to itself, being wholly found in its one Creator and bound to him by continual contemplation, he dwelt in the good alone, and perceived only that one thing; but after it was moved from there and let itself down, it also perceived that other thing, that is, evil itself. Others opine that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a type of the Mosaic law, as were the remaining trees of paradise, figures of each of the precepts of that law, because the Mosaic law judges between good and evil; and affects those who do well with good things, and those who do evil with evil things; and therefore this tree was placed near the tree of life, so that unless one had first practiced the law itself, that is, had observed the commandments of the law, he could not reach the tree of life, ^D that is, to that liberty which is found with Christ, when even our Redeemer himself, for as long as he was observing the law, did not in any way show forth the liberty of his own kind of life. But we define the mystical tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the cognition and meditation which is concerned with God, the creator of all things; and the knowledge of good to be that cognition which acknowledges and professes one God alone; but of evil, that which thinks there are many gods, and by this Adam and Eve were distracted by the counsel of the demon. Beyond this we also say that this sort of study, for those who are powerful and exercised in the meditation of divine things, is called and is the knowledge of good, but for those who are neither sufficiently firm nor exercised, and yet dare to discourse more deeply about God, it is to be called the knowledge of evil.

CAPUT VI. Of the mystical tree of life.

There are among the doctors of the Church those who say that the mystical tree of life is the property of the human mind, which is bound to those thoughts which are concerned with its one maker, and is not driven hither and thither or required by other things, except for its Creator alone, just as the holy angels are kept by the meditations of their Creator alone. Their opinion is that Adam, as soon as he had been created and had received the breath of his Creator, began to be caught up to God by whom he had been effected, and that he had remained in this contemplation for no more than three hours, that is to say, for as long as he trespassed the commanded law, so that in the meantime he mingled no thought of other things with it. Therefore, they call this meditation of the mind, which is stirred concerning its one Parent God, the property of the mind. It is therefore for them the mystical tree of life, that sacred step in which we are placed through baptism, the mystical mother by whom we are born again to life. Others say that this tree of spiritual life is the new kind of life which our Lord represented from the time he was baptized until he was affixed to the cross; of which kind of life it is said: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matth. IV, 2.

And this life, they say, we lead after we put off the old man through baptism: and it is, as it were, a certain figure of that new life which is promised to us in the kingdom of heaven. Others, furthermore, define the mystical tree of life as the immunity and freedom which Christ gave to us from the statutes and punishments of the Law. For the Law had appointed punishment for those who transgress, from which Christ set us free, He who preached about this freedom in these words: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Others say again that the tree of life is the new man who is born through baptism. Others, that it is the new man who, having kept the commands of God, has put off the vices which are called the old man, and has put on the virtues which are called the new man. Others wish it to be spiritual death, which is born from the security [acquired] by observing the commandments of God. Others, the meditation which contemplates the person of Christ, because through Him all natures capable of life and reason were created. Others think the cross of Christ is called the tree of life, because from it all spiritual goods flow, with sin and execration abolished. Others, the holy altar in which the divine sacraments are administered. Others finally think the body and blood of Christ our God is called the tree of life. But not wishing to state our own [opinion] after these and among these opinions, we determine that the mystical tree of life is the meditation and knowledge by which we profess the most holy Trinity, that is, that God is one, and three holy persons, or unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity. From this tree, furthermore, Adam and Eve did not eat, nor were they able to approach it or think about it, as they were not yet sufficiently strong, and were not powerful enough for that: but we Christians, not indeed being ourselves sufficiently strong, but through Christ, both embrace and profess this clarified mystery. Moreover, one must think that the multitude and dissimilarity of these interpretations which we have brought forward concerning the tree of life is an argument for how difficult the matter itself is to explain: for otherwise there would not have been the slightest need for so many and various words to elucidate it.

CHAPTER VII

furthermore, explain the river in this way: that by the river we are to understand Christ, who watered the Church with His doctrine—I mean the apostolic college, which was like a paradise—and then it was divided into four heads, that is, the four evangelists themselves, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and they thereupon watered the entire habitable world. The name of the one is Pishon, he who encompasses the entire land of Havilah: and there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the beryl stone. ^A What is Pishon mystically? By the river Pishon, yellow bile can be understood, which is a humor in the constitution of the human body that is laudable. For those who are more generously endowed with it excel in sharp intellect and in the knowledge of God’s mystical arcana and of created things—that is, they are capable of understanding divine and human matters; this is surely to be preferred to much gold and precious stones and pearls, as the Psalmist David says: *Therefore I have loved thy commandments more than gold, and more than precious stones.* [Ps. CXVIII, 72] One can also understand by Pishon that virtue of the soul which is proper to reason, I mean prudence. The evangelist Mark can also be understood as designated by the name Pishon, as in him strength and fortitude shone forth to explain things that are above. And the name of the second river, Gihon, is he who encompasses the entire land of Cush; and the name of the third river, Tigris [Diklat], which flows against Assyria; and the fourth river is the Euphrates [Perath]. He calls Gihon that humor which we call blood; Tigris, that which we call phlegm; finally, Euphrates, that which we call black bile, as D. Jacob of Edessa [Orrohaita] says. We can also understand by Gihon that virtue of the soul which is called temperance; by ^C Tigris, that which pertains to the irascible or spirited part of the soul—that is, fortitude and gentleness; and finally, by Euphrates, justice. Again, Gihon can signify the evangelist Matthew; Tigris, Luke; Euphrates, John. *And the Lord God took Adam, and placed him in the paradise of Eden.* After God had created Adam, He took him from the place where he had been created and transferred him into the spiritual paradise—that is, into a happy life—so that he might derive pleasure from the meditation of created things, and from the rays of divine knowledge by which his mind was illuminated in the manner of the angels, just as he was also delighted in the corporeal paradise itself. For since paradise was of a dual condition, in that it was spiritual, it delighted Adam’s mind with contemplations; but in that it was corporeal, it refreshed his body with trees and fruits. In order that he might cultivate and guard it, therefore (He says), He translated him into that spiritual and blessed mode of life, that he might exercise himself in it through good thoughts and right meditations that revolve around created things, and that he might observe it with all the intent of his soul ^D and delight in Him alone.

*And the Lord God commanded Adam, and said to him: Of all the trees that are in paradise, you shall eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat*—that is, exercise yourself with thoughts concerning all things, both visible and those which are perceived by the intelligence of the mind alone; and meditate within your soul who is the maker and parent of them, and how they were created; and be entirely occupied in meditating on those things which lie hidden mystically within them; and when you have been enraptured into wonder by the beauty of those things, then give thanks to their Creator, and extol Him with praises. Furthermore, what follows—that he must abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—signifies that he ought not to have curiously inquired into God Himself, what He was and how He existed, and whether there were one or many gods; for he should not have proceeded deeply into this, because his mind was not yet powerful enough to grasp things of that nature. *For in the day that you eat of it, you shall die the death;* as if to say: On the day that you begin to doubt within yourself whether there is one God or many, and fall into the opinion of there being many, you will suffer death, both by sinning and by withdrawing and alienating yourself from Me, who am the true God. Indeed, this is what happened to him, along with his wife Eve, seduced by the fraud of the devil, who not only deceived them with the allurements of food, but also persuaded them that there were many gods, when he said: *If you eat of that tree, you shall be as gods.* Here it must also be observed: that to Adam and his wife, only the tree of knowledge was interdicted so that they might not approach it, namely because they were not yet capable of it; but regarding the tree of life, there was no precept given by law, but for its preservation the Cherub and the point of a sword were placed there, surely so that by this it might be signified that mortals (whether of that ancient or this present time, who are not yet firm enough to contemplate those things which pertain to the most holy Trinity—that is, that God is one, but the persons are three, and thus there is a Trinity in unity, and again a unity in Trinity (for we have mentioned above that this is the tree of life): if they attempt through rashness to penetrate there, and to think and speak of those arcana, then I say they are restrained and repelled as if by the guardian Cherub and a certain fiery lance gleaming with flashes, deterring them and prohibiting their approach.

*And the Lord God formed from the ground every beast of the field and every fowl of the air.* These words, and this discourse, can be interpreted only regarding the things themselves, and cannot be accommodated to the spirit. Therefore, let what we have said about them in the previous commentary be sufficient. *And the Lord God sent a rest (or, as the Hebrew has it, a sleep) upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and filled up the place with flesh; and the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from Adam.* That the rib was taken from Adam while he was overcome by sleep, and that Eve was made from it, is a sacrament of the blood and water from Christ’s side

^A flowing forth after He had fallen asleep upon the Cross, by which the most holy Church was established; then, that Eve was received from the side of Adam, was a type of the future piercing of Christ’s side, from which were to flow forth the waters of life and vital saving streams; the waters, I say, of holy baptism, which are a mystical mother, from whom sons are born anew unto spiritual and eternal life: just as Eve also, who came forth from Adam’s side, is called the mother of all the living. *And the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, which the Lord God had made.* He calls the devil a serpent; him who is rebellious against God, the father of lies, the impostor of human nature; for also elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, he is called that serpent: *I have given unto you*, says the Lord, *power to tread upon serpents and scorpions.* (Luke 10:19) And elsewhere it is written: *The hand of Him shall kill the truant, or fugitive, serpent.* (Apoc. 20:2) ^B Indeed, the angelic virtues are called living creatures, by which name the Scriptures also call them in that vision of Ezekiel. (Ezech. 1:5) But the serpent is called more subtle than all animals, because the angelic virtues are utterly devoid of all malice and craft; but the devil is crafty and wholly wicked: *And the serpent said unto the woman: Has God said, You shall not eat of every tree of paradise?* That is, indeed God said to you: Do not by reflecting weigh the condition of things, whether of things to be seen, or of those which do not fall under the senses. And the woman said to the serpent: *Of the fruit of the trees of paradise we shall eat; but of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of paradise, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.* God indeed commanded that we should exercise ourselves in the contemplation of all things, as well those which cannot be perceived as those which can, and should delight ourselves in them; but in Himself (for He is that spiritual tree) He did not wish us to inquire more deeply and curiously whether God is one or many, lest, while our mind is little capable of such an investigation, we should die through sin. *And the serpent said unto the woman: You shall not surely die.* See how the demon is not at all ashamed to contradict God: he announces death if anyone should inquire more deeply into Him; this one makes those who dare to scrutinize the mysteries of God entirely secure from death. *And the woman saw that the tree was fair for eating, and pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to behold.* That the woman is said to have seen the tree, is not to be taken as if she saw God, whom we have said was mystically signified by that tree; but it signifies that she listened to the counsel of the demon, and, persuaded by his words, attempted to inquire more greedily into God. *And she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.* She began to reflect and inquire in her mind whether God were one or many, and for what reason He had forbidden her and her husband the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and at the same time to urge Adam her husband to do ^C the same, and she persisted in these same thoughts. *And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.* Immediately upon the law of God being violated, their eyes were opened: not that they had already escaped into gods, into which hope the demon had led them, but so that they became aware of their own nakedness; that is, that former spiritual and angelic faculty of perception with which they had been endowed was taken from them, and they understood that they were now despoiled of that happy grace of God by which, before they had acted against the law, their own bodies had been as if veiled. *And they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.* He calls their hands fig leaves; for their hands mimic the shape of those leaves. As if to say, when they realized they were naked, they covered their private parts with their hands; and thus even now the customs of mortals remain. For he does not say that they made for themselves cloaks or tunics, but aprons, that is, things that would only cover the genital members. *And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise in the cool of the day.* The cool of the day signifies a delay of time; as if to say, that not as soon as they had transgressed the command and sinned did God appear to them: but after an interval of time had elapsed, namely, that in which they might be ashamed in their own minds and repent of the crime committed. Further, the descent and advent of God into paradise was a figure, which signified the Word of God who would eventually descend and come into the world. But by the cool of the day it was mystically shown that this Word of God would in the end of time put on flesh, just as Paul says: *When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.* (Galat. 4:4). Then, the voice of the Lord God heard walking through paradise portended that the Word of God would one day dwell and walk among us in the flesh, just as the prophet predicted of Him: *And afterward he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.* (Baruch 3:38). *And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, among the trees of paradise.* They did indeed hide their bodies among the trees of paradise; but as for concealing and disguising their conscience of the crime committed from the face of the Lord, shame itself forbade it. *I heard thy voice in paradise, and I saw that I was naked, and I hid myself.* And because, he says, I heard thy voice walking through paradise, and because I perceived that I was naked; on account of these two causes, struck with fear, I hid myself from that greatest and most wholesome grace with which I had been previously clothed, that is, I feared, weighing the deed itself in my mind: *And the Lord said unto him: Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?* As if to say: Behold, you have occupied yourself in my considerations, from which I ordered you to abstain. *And Adam said: The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me, and I did eat.* The woman, he says, whom thou madest a companion for me, she meditated upon this for me.

^A And Adam did what all mortals are wont to do: if men sin and transgress, they seize upon any causes by which they might vindicate themselves from guilt and punishment. And the Lord said to the serpent: *Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed among all animals, and the beasts of the earth.* The Lord says this to Satan: because thou hast seduced Adam and his wife, the beasts and other creatures I will deign to provide for with my care—that is, I will provide them food in time—but thou shalt be held unworthy of my care. *And upon thy breast thou shalt go.* For as an exile from the heavenly republic, thou shalt crawl upon the ground and wallow in earthly things. *And thou shalt eat dust all the days of thy life.* Thou shalt take for thyself the perishing of men (which is as it were to return to dust) as food and sustenance, because of thy supreme hatred against them. *And I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.* This hatred, he says, in which thou rejoicest, I will place between thee and them, and between the human seed and thy rebellious demons, thy associates. *And she shall crush thy head,* that is, she shall make the beginning of thy wiles void. *And thou shalt lie in wait for her heel,* that is, thou shalt inflict the wound of sin upon her, so that thou mightest destroy her in the final act of her life. And to the woman he said: *Multiplying I will multiply thy sorrows and thy conceptions.* They do not admit a mystical sense here; but we have discussed the matter itself above. ^B *And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife skins, and clothed them.* When, he says, that spiritual life, blessed and full of joy, had been taken from them on account of their own errors, they were led into this bodily life, wretched and filled with anxious things. But by the skin garments, the greatest change of life—which happened to them on account of the violated law—is signified. Therefore, on account of their own sins, they underwent these punishments, that they might exchange their spiritual life for a bodily one—that is, the most blessed for the most miserable. And the Lord said: *Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil.* We have explained these things abundantly above. *Lest perhaps he reach forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.* After the human race had fallen from that mode of living according to the soul, and from that blessed and angelic life, because of the committed crime, it had become unworthy, and even ^C had lost the power to consider and recognize one God and three persons, and the unity in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; and that the Word of God, for the sake of our salvation and redemption, would one day assume flesh—it was foreseen that, I say, the human race was not thereafter sufficient to exercise such sublime meditations, so long as that crime and perversity introduced by Satan under the guise of the serpent (whom he used as an instrument) were not blotted out and abolished entirely. *And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of Eden, to till the earth, from which he was taken.* And the Lord God banished him. On account of the violated law, God punished Adam, depriving him of that most blessed life in which he used to ponder all things beforehand, both those which are subject to the senses of sight and those which are not. ^D Moreover, he also prohibited him from the tree of life; for Moses says: *And He made to dwell to the east of the paradise of Eden, the Cherub and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.* The guard was placed only to the eastern part of the paradise, and not to the other parts, because the region of the East was the place appointed of old for the worship of God. Moreover, the Cherub and the flaming, terrifying sword were placed there for the sake of custody, between the grasp of Adam's intellect and the most holy Trinity itself: in order, of course, that the human mind should not inquire too highly or too curiously into the three persons of the Divinity, which is altogether incomprehensible. But the things which are written here by Moses were spoken for our own customs. For we, if we wish to keep anything safe, appoint for it a careful, diligent, and prudent guardian, armed with some terrible lance, who keeps those approaching at a distance. Let all those turn their minds hither who, being either not sufficiently firm, or not sufficiently trained and learned, or finally, possessing no experience of virtue, yet dare, through rashness, to suddenly leap into the middle and speak, and debate about the persons of the most holy Trinity; and let them learn to restrain their own audacity with these words of Moses, and thus, by observing God's commands, cleanse themselves in this life, so that in that other life of the come age they may be gifted with the knowledge and meditation of the things created by God, and of the supreme Trinity itself, to the extent that created and external things can comprehend this by the power of the omnipotent God. And let this be the end of the second sermon.

PART THREE

PROEMIUM

CHAPTER I

for God could not ensure that Adam remained as He desired him to be. To this we reply that Adam did remain as God, his Creator and Maker, desired him to be and to remain; for God desired him to possess his own will and to be free, and not to have a constrained and subject nature, such as brute animals and things devoid of soul possess. And yet, surely, if God had desired Adam to have his own free will, and he had not obtained free will, then he would not be the one whom his Parent, God, desired him to be, but someone entirely different, and only then would there have been room for that calumny. But Simon insists: God desired that Adam should not eat from that tree; but he did eat; therefore he did not remain as God desired him to remain; it is concluded, then, that Adam’s Creator was lacking in power. On the contrary, the very fact that he ate from the tree is proof that he remained as God desired him to remain; for it was God's will that it be established that Adam was free and created with free will; and that this was certainly the case could be known most of all from the fact that it appeared to be within his own power to either eat or not eat from that tree, and either to observe or violate the law. After therefore he was commanded to abstain and did not abstain, he showed himself endowed with absolute free will, ^B such as God, his Maker, had desired him both to be and to remain. Nor indeed did Adam eat from that tree because the will of God the Creator was overcome and defeated, but because the Creator Himself permitted it, so that he might go on to do, make, and perform whatever the liberty of his own will might dictate. Furthermore, unless that rebellion had revealed the faculty of Adam's free will, why in the end could the great excellence of the obedience which he later embraced, and by which he was to return to his former order and rank, have been perceived? Since indeed the good which he was to perform was not only the duty owed to his Creator, but also his own proper work. Moreover, Simon urges further and says: God desired Adam to remain in paradise; but he fell from it through his own crime; therefore God, the Maker of Adam, was impotent, as one who could not keep him in paradise according to His own will. But we reply that God, when He had created Adam and placed him in paradise, had made him completely free, so that by observing the law ^C he might remain therein, or, having broken it, he might depart from it. Therefore, since it was his will to transgress the commanded law, he was deservedly cast out of paradise and even condemned to death, because of the sin committed, of course; and at the same time so that his depravity might not be immortal, as is that of the devil. Added to this is that, through the fear of death, of which he was guilty by sentence, he might avoid the cause of death, which is sin, and devote himself to the justice contrary to this; finally, since in time there were to be martyrs from his posterity, the sentence of death was brought against him, so that they, through death undergone for their piety and reverence toward God, might be able to attain the crowns of justice. But let us return to where we digressed slightly. ^D If, therefore, Simon Magus, you call God invalid because He created Adam with free will, by which he was empowered to act against the edicts of his Creator, it would be necessary for you to say that God is even today feeble; for He commanded that mortals should not commit murders or adulteries, and yet they commit these and other things against the law of God. But rely on that argument of yours as you please, Simon; but in the meantime answer us: do men act against His law with God willing it, or against His will? Surely if against His will, it follows that He is even now weak in power, since those things which He prescribed are violated against His will. If with His will, He will be contrary to Himself, as one who commands in words things which He does not want to happen in reality, and mortals who have acted against His commands will be said to have obeyed His will, which is surely absurd. Again, do men perform wicked things with God willing it or against His will? If with His will, He Himself will also be wicked, since He takes pleasure in vices; if against His will, why does He not prevent it? But if He is unable to coerce them from that which is wicked by signaling it, it is certainly concluded that He is not currently powerful, or if He is unwilling, it follows back again that He is wicked, as one who overlooks evil things. There is, moreover, another argument of Simon Magus by which he strives to accuse God, the Creator of Adam, of wickedness and envy. For He forbade, he says, Adam from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, by which, once tasted, he could distinguish between good and evil, and flee the latter and pursue the former. But we reply that God did not for that reason forbid Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, so that he would not embrace the good and avoid the evil, as Simon slanders; for the thing itself refutes Simon’s words of falsehood, for Adam did indeed eat from the tree of knowledge: and he learned what was good and what was evil by the experience of the deed; and yet he was not only not increased in any comfort or utility from it, but was even punished with great damage, since he was condemned to a bitter penalty. But that impious Magus continues: But unless, he says, that Creator had commanded Adam not to eat from that tree, he would by no means have undergone this judgment and penalty; for from that came this evil, that he had acted against the edict of God; for God had commanded him not to eat, but he did eat. But we reply that God did not wish him to eat from that tree. For if He had wished him to eat, these two absurdities would be finalized: the one, that God had commanded in words what He did not wish to happen in reality; and the other, that he who acted openly against the commands of his Creator had satisfied His will, however ignorant and imprudent he was. If He had wished him not to eat, He could appear feeble, as one whose will Adam was able to resist: but God looked to this when He prescribed the law to Adam, that he might observe whether he would violate it, not whether he would eat or not eat from that tree, and for this reason He had provided for him two habitations, so that he might have the one if he had obeyed the law, and the other if he had not. And that this is so may be shown even from this, that these two among themselves

are equal: that God ordered that he eat, and that he did not eat; and that God forbade him to eat, but he nevertheless ate; for the guilt of the violated law would have existed in either case. Therefore, God did not have it in view, while establishing the law, whether he would eat or not eat—he whom He had gifted with freedom of choice—but rather whether he would observe or not observe the law which He had willed to be the material for his free choice. At the same time, the institution of the law also aimed at this, that Adam should understand that he was created by Another, and that he was subject to that Creator of his, as to his Lord. But these and other reasons for the giving of the law have been sufficiently treated and explained by us above. To this point, who can find it credible that God would have forbidden Adam that food so that he might not from it become aware of good and evil? And that he might know how to embrace the one and flee the other, when there was no power inherent in that tree to inform those who ate of the knowledge of discerning good and evil; but rather, Adam was already even then entirely devoid of such judgment (since law is not prescribed to those who cannot distinguish evil from good, but to those who are already endowed with the faculty of discerning ^B the virtuous and the wicked), just as the eye, although it is prior in its very nature, in its vision, and in the visible things themselves, even if not in usage and function, as we have also discussed above. Yet, in truth, He commanded him to abstain from the tree so that he might become immortal and lead an everlasting life; for he would have received this gift from divine grace. But indeed, that God is not wicked, according to the calumnies of Simon, but good and benevolent by nature, is gathered from these arguments; for He created Adam when neither he nor anyone else existed who could move Him to create him, either by exhortation or by prayers; furthermore, He conferred upon him dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air; moreover, He blessed him well, that he might increase and multiply in number. Besides, He gave him every herb bearing seed and every fruit-bearing tree for food. Finally, even now, if we sin and act against His commands, He not only sustains us and does not forget us, but He also preserves, feeds, governs, and altogether cares for us. There are, furthermore, many other things which testify that God is by nature good and that He made Adam and all other things out of pure grace. ^C Moreover, Simon Magus fights against God also by this path: Through envy, he says, He prohibited Adam from tasting of the tree of life, namely, so that he might not become immortal. But if God had labored under such envy from the very beginning, He would not have created Adam at all. For no force impelled Him to create him, but He created him by His own will and gratuitously; furthermore, He would not have made the paradise for his sake—that is, so that he might dwell in it and enjoy pleasure—if He had been envious, or at the very least, He would not have produced the very tree of life which He would have envied him, in paradise; nor would He have amplified him with such great dominion over fishes, birds, beasts of burden, and wild animals; finally, He would not have created him in His own image and likeness. But He held him back from the tree of life for this reason, that he might not live forever in sin, and that his malice might not be immortal along with him—such is the wickedness of the devil. And that this is so is certain from the fact that He is one day to grant us everlasting life in the age to come, which is exempt from any sins ^D or transgressions, but is full of eternal and immortal delights. Again, the same Simon Magus thus argues against God. By what reason, pray, did God curse the serpent? For if it was as one who had caused harm, why did He not restrain it so that it would not cause it—that is, so that it would not seduce Adam? But if it was as one who had brought about a benefit, inasmuch as he had been the author for Adam to eat from that good tree, then it is necessary that He was wicked and envious; finally, since He had neither of these causes, He detested it, and therefore He should deservedly be accused of ignorance and senselessness! To these things we respond that God cursed the serpent as the author of an evil thing, and yet did not restrain the one plotting, who was otherwise not hidden to Him—for the same reason by which He does not restrain today those who are intent on evil things, so that they might not commit them; then also, so that He might not by that action impede the freedom of the devil, who was speaking through the serpent; and finally, so that there might be a trial of Adam and his own free choice, in that struggle and contest in which he was occupied at that moment. Finally, if God had hindered the attempt of the serpent, an excuse would have been given to mortals; for they would have said that God, out of envy, had kept Adam away from the moment of a brief temptation and danger, so that by overcoming it he might not attain everlasting life; nor indeed would he have conceded to the serpent's words if he had approached him with a cause of deceit. Furthermore, it is worth the effort to know regarding Simon Magus that there are some who say that he indeed assented to the Law of Moses in appearance, but meanwhile posited many gods, one of whom—he who fashioned and made Adam—is weak and impotent; while the other is above this one, greater and more powerful. Others, however, think that Simon Magus’s opinion was that the world originated from an evil cause; and that therefore he collected such absurdities and shameful things to say, by which he might vilify God, the creator of the world, among those who remained in the true faith. On account of this, he also perfidiously denied the resurrection of bodies. But all these things can be known from that book which we have written concerning the multitude and difference of the sects.

CHAPTER II.

For we respond against these things that God cannot be blamed for ignorance, for He knows all things from eternity before they come to be; and consequently He clearly foresaw even that, that Adam, whom He was about to command, would not do it. Nor, however, did He therefore not command it, because He foresaw that he would not obey; for it was natural that He should nevertheless prescribe a law for him, and indeed for many reasons. First, that it might be established that there is One who possesses dominion and power over things (for it is the right of masters to set down laws), and that Adam and the rest of created things might know that they were creatures and servants, to whom laws are accustomed to be given. Furthermore, by giving the law, God rendered Adam and the rest of mortals endowed with reason more certain that He had gifted them with free will when He created them, by which they could rely on themselves to either observe or transgress the prescribed law. For if you take away the law, there will be nothing from which you might recognize that freedom, truly the highest gift of God. Moreover, the law, even if it was to be violated by Adam, was still useful for testing and segregating the obedient from the rebellious, the good from the evil, friends from enemies, and the virtue of some from the depravity of others; none of which could be recognized and judged by us if the law were removed. Now, indeed, how would it be established that the kingdom of heaven is justly given by God to others who cultivate the office of maintaining the law through obedience, and that calamities are deservedly inflicted on those who do not obey the set law, if the law had not been set? But if, in truth, it ought not to have been enacted because Adam was going to break it with his wife, then surely the norm of faith would not have been rightly prescribed for mortals, since the greater part of mankind does not observe it. Lastly, by the prescribed law we are reminded that there is another age in which its own rewards are set fixed for those who obey, and torments for those who rebel against them: for the former, perpetual delights; for the latter, eternal tortures. For every law carries with it both promises and threats: so that the former may be at hand if it is observed, and the latter if it is broken. ^A Now, as to the matter of anger, we respond that God did not pronounce that sentence against Adam out of anger, but out of mere mercy; which is known from this, that he did not die the death on that day on which he committed the deed, according to the words of the sentence: He had, of course, made the words of God more severe, so that He might hold back his posterity and future descendants through fear from breaking laws and rebelling. Again, concerning repentance, of which Manes accuses God, we say that it belongs to those who, ignorant of the outcome of events, do those things whose results do not correspond to their own interests; but as for God, since He foreknows all things and what end each will have, He cannot at all repent of anything, nor regret it. ^B Therefore, He did not dissolve the sentence laid down by Himself against Adam, as if He had repented of it, but through His mercy and clemency, which are His virtues, that matter was clearly made manifest. For otherwise, as often as someone returns having abandoned impiety, He receives him; and He changes those things which He had decreed against him, says the prophet Jeremiah. And the Ninevites, condemned to destruction, after they changed their lives, He exempted from punishment. Nor did He punish Hezekiah with death, as He had threatened, when he wept for the sin he had committed. Indeed, we see daily that He does not go to destroy those who do not obey His commands, but waits for them to repent. Finally, we respond to the calumny of lying, that God clearly did not lie, since Adam, on the day he ate from the forbidden tree, also died (if you look at the soul); for he was alienated from God, who alone is the true and certain life; therefore, the sentence laid down by God against him was valid on that day. And truly, even in body, he died on that day by a certain turbulent affection which was productive of death: so that from him was immediately utterly taken away the grace of immortality, and consequently he was by then made subject to death, and altogether mortal. From all these things, then, it is concluded that Manes and the rest of the men of his faction wickedly defame God regarding those crimes which we have now examined. ^C Again, the same followers of Manes say: For what reason was Adam forbidden from tasting from the tree of knowledge? Was it because it was bad, or because it was good? If because it was bad; was a bad tree perhaps planted in paradise? If because it was good; then he was forbidden out of envy! Against these things we say that that tree was by its own nature neither good nor evil, but was as one might use it or abuse it. But use and abuse were placed in the free will of our first parents, so that now it is to be thought that evil did not come from the tree itself, but from the abuse of the tree. The same should have been said of good, if Adam had obeyed the commands which he had received concerning that tree: just as food, as food, differs from nothing else, but mainly according to the age and strength of those eating it. For that which corresponds to the strength of the eater and is taken at the appropriate time is good; but that which exceeds the strength or is taken at an untimely moment is held to be bad: so the use Adam and his wife made of the tree that was indeed permitted was good; but that which was forbidden was bad. For the efficacy of good or evil was not inherent in the tree itself, but the act of violating God's law; and that indeed was what killed Adam, not the tree. Just as it is not the insult itself that punishes with death one who acts contemptuously toward his parents, but the broken law; nor did Mount Sinai kill those who touched it at the time when certain limits were prescribed beyond which no one was to approach, but the violated law. Therefore, that tree did not give evil to Adam, but the loss sustained through the broken law; indeed, that Adam was not forbidden from that one tree out of envy is sufficiently proven by the fact that all the others were permitted for his use. But

again the sect of Manes presses, saying: "Either God foresaw that Adam would not obey, or He did not foresee it when He gave the command." If you concede the latter, it is absurd; if the former, God is to be accused of madness. But we answer as we did just now: that although God foresaw that the command would not be observed by Adam, nothing hindered Him from commanding it nonetheless. For who would call God foolish because He forbade sin by His laws, when He knew that there would be many who would sin? Certainly, if He had established no laws, or had commanded nothing, it would have been known that neither dominion resided in Him, nor freedom of choice in us. But whereas He foresaw all things that would come to pass, He gave us laws as to free beings endowed with free will, so that we might do what we will. We, for our part, each according to our own will and freedom of choice, conduct ourselves toward the laws, either by observing or by breaking them. Nor was it otherwise with Adam; for it was in his power both to eat and not to eat of the forbidden tree; and had he not eaten, he would have escaped, by grace, as an immortal. But after he ate, he died. From these arguments, therefore, one may gather that the tree of knowledge was not badly planted from the beginning, nor was it forbidden to Adam out of envy: let the followers of Manes, those enemies of God, not cast their tongues upon it, while they struggle to build up the argument for two causes of things (of which one is good, the other evil) and harass us who profess one God with such arguments: saying, "If the tree was evil, why did God plant it in paradise, which was to bring ruin upon Adam? But if it was good, then He must have prohibited it out of envy." ^C

CHAPTER III. Against the calumnies of Julian the Apostate concerning the tree of life.

"It would have been better," says Julian, "for that forbidden tree to have stood in a corner of paradise or in some more obscure place, so that, by not being perpetually before his eyes, it would not have excited too much desire for itself in the minds of our first parents." To this, St. Cyril replies in the third oration he wrote against him, to this effect: It was done by the Creator's design that that tree should not be kept in secret; for it was fitting that the spectators, by the very sight of the tree, should recall to memory the command and law of God—and at the same time remember their Lord who had imposed the law: oblivion of which things could easily have crept upon them if it had been planted in some corner of paradise. ^D

CHAPTER IV. Questions follow that are accustomed to be asked by many: and first, why God created Adam, whom He foresaw would be a sinner.

Some inquire why God created Adam, whom He foresaw would be a sinner. We answer: in the least degree was Adam created by God so that he would sin or not sin, or that he would be just or unjust, but neither so that he would keep the law nor that he would not keep it; for if He had created him for the sake of any of these, a great reason indeed would be required of them by these people. But out of His own goodness and mere grace He created him, and this for God was the primary cause of his creation; furthermore, those other things are to be considered secondary, as things which depended upon the will of Adam himself, since this was exclusively within the power of the Creator. Wherefore, they ought rather to have asked thus: "Why did God create Adam?" For thus they would have received the answer: "Because of His own goodness." For those other things—sinning or not sinning, and the rest that were added—depended on the free will of Adam. To this we add also this: as God foresaw that Adam would sin and fall before He created him, so He also foresaw that He would, in time, come and redeem him from the sin into which he had fallen, and restore his ancient state, and lift up the fallen; so that it ought to seem the less strange if He created one whom He foresaw would sin shortly after. Moreover, had He not created those whom He did not fail to foresee would be sinners, He would have undertaken the work of creation in vain; since He who would not fashion a blasphemer in his mother’s womb, would not have allowed a hypocrite to behold the light. Finally, God’s goodness and grace appear most clearly in this, that He does not disdain to bring forth those whom He knows will not obey Him. For it might have appeared that He had produced only the obedient for His own sake—that is, that they might obey His will and command and give Him pleasure—but since, by reason of His goodness, He creates both the good and the bad, not being ignorant that some will live through virtue and others through wickedness (just as He imparts the light of His sun to the good and the bad alike, and rain to the just and the unjust), His goodness and kindness, which flow forth profusely and embrace all things, shine forth most transparently. But we have also dissolved this question in our interpretation which we made on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

CHAPTER V. Whether Adam was created mortal or immortal.

Others inquire whether God created Adam mortal by nature or immortal. But first, here it must be weighed what is meant by the assertion that Adam was born mortal by nature: whether it regards his entire composition—as if you were to say that it was embedded in the nature of Adam that the soul should be dissociated from the body, which disjunction is death; or whether mortality refers only to the body, as if it were to be established that it was natural for this to perish and fall. We answer, therefore, that we consider the body alone when we say that Adam was created mortal by nature: for this was so composed that, by its own nature, it was subject and liable to passion, to corruption, and finally to death. Meanwhile, this is transferred from the body to the whole, and we say that man is mortal by nature

^A Ninthly, classic teachers of the true faith stand by us. For the Lord John, in the discourse he wrote to the monk Stagrius (31), says: “Adam did not yet have the certain hope of immortality.” And again, in the discourse he composed on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: “The soul,” he says, “is by nature immortal, but the body is by nature mortal.” And where he explains the three words that stand written in the book of Job: *Who is a servant not faithful* (32), he speaks thus: “If a man, when he did not possess immortality by his own nature, became arrogant, what would he not have done if he had possessed it?” Athanasius also, in his discourse on bodily origin, writes that man was by nature mortal, as one who was composed of fleeting things. Finally, Cyril, in his eighth discourse against the impious Julian, speaks in this manner: “When Adam acted against the law of God, he was condemned to death, by which fact it was argued that he was mortal by nature.” Moreover, the Lord James of Sarug, in the discourse in which he discusses whether Adam was created mortal or immortal, writes that Adam was created both mortal and immortal, since it was permitted by God through his own free will that he should be immortal if he observed the law, or die if he broke it. But Philoxenus, in the chapters he composed against Diodorus, says: “It is rash presumption to say that Adam was immortal by his own nature, either at the time he was being begotten or after he rose again. For who can be considered to be of an immortal nature if he is created from nothing, and is perfected by the command of another? For even if it had been granted to him gratuitously ^C that he should live an eternal life, he was not therefore to be called immortal by nature, since his life was in the power of another. Therefore, even if he were never to die, he was still mortal; for immortality pertains to God alone; and if there is any nature that is not dissolved nor destroyed by any fate of death, it has this as a gift bestowed upon it by Him; but what is received from another can, in turn, be withdrawn at His command. As for Adam, it is clear that if he had obeyed the commandment, he would not have met with death; not that he was born with such a condition, but through the mere kindness of his Maker; and again, after he rose, he would henceforth not die, but this also through the grace of God the Creator. For He did not make him of an immortal nature without danger, either when He begot him, or when He will raise him from the dead. From all these things, it is concluded that Adam was created in a mortal condition. Meanwhile, we acknowledge that he was to be endowed with immortality by his Creator, not indeed naturally, but gratuitously, had he obeyed the law.

CHAPTER VI.

Julian of Halicarnassus, and those of his sect, ^D [continue]

say that Adam was created naturally immortal: as if the soul were created with a natural immortality, rather than a gratuitous one; and that if he had not sinned, he would have remained exempt from passion, corruption, and death: and that these things were all of his own nature, inasmuch as he would not have been dissoluble from those elements of which he was composed. Furthermore, because he acted against the law of God and sinned, they say that he was punished both with the death of the soul, which is alienation from God through sin, and with the death of the body, which is the dissociation from this life which is perceived by the bodily senses themselves. To these things we answer: If Adam, when he was created, had received an immortal nature, as you say, then it certainly would not have been changed into a mortal one by sin, just as the natural immortality of Satan was not changed into mortality after he sinned against God. Again: if the body, like the soul (as you affirm), were created naturally immortal, and if the violation of the law were to be imputed not only to the body, but even more to the soul, by whose command it was governed: why, after the crime was committed, did the body take on a mortal nature, while the soul retained its own inherent natural immortality? But you will say that the soul also died by sin! But what of the body? Did it not also die by sin? If you deny this, you are false; but if you admit it, why, since both were naturally immortal and both sinned equally, did the body receive a double death, while only that which is called the death of sin overtook the soul? Surely there is nothing left here for them to answer. But for your part, prove—whether you seek it from nature itself, or from rational arguments, or finally from the testimonies of the holy Fathers—unless you prove that the body, just like the soul, was made immortal by its own nature, and that it was not dissoluble from the elements of which it was compounded. We shall gladly subscribe to your opinion and will not contend further that it was destined to be endowed with gratuitous immortality by its Creator, if it had obeyed the commandment.

These ^B same trainers challenge those who say that the flesh is corruptible by nature, as if they were declaring that the flesh itself is evil and that the Creator of the flesh is therefore evil. But we, against these men, produce the ancient doctors of the Church, worthy of glory and praise; who, even though they said that the flesh was corruptible by nature, did not for that reason profess it to be evil. For Gregory, in the oration which he wrote concerning virtue, speaks in this manner: "The body is in every part composite, and that which is composite, no one would call indissoluble; but that which can be dissolved, can be corrupted; the flesh is therefore subject to corruption." Again, Cyril, in the third volume of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians, says: "The flesh is indeed by its own nature subject to corruption; but nevertheless, through the power of God, to whom nothing is entirely difficult, Adam would have surpassed that nature and would have been preserved in eternal life, had he not impiously violated the law." The Lord Severus, likewise, in the oration which he wrote against Felicissimus, has these things in sum: "By its own nature, indeed, the body was mortal and corruptible, and its dissolution was from those things of which it had been compounded; but there was no efficiency of death in it; for even as to the snares of death, man had not been created from the beginning, nor again to exceed the lot of nature and be immortal" ^C, but it was being preserved for eternal and immortal life through the grace and kindness of the divine will, and the nature of things cannot resist the divine will. Therefore, even if nature itself desired to dissolve that which is compounded, yet in man it could not have accomplished this evil at all, hindered by the divine will and grace; for mortality itself would have been absorbed by life, and the divine grace would have restrained nature. But in truth, the mortality of the body, which was caused by its corruptibility, had sin and the crime committed against the law as its source and origin. For then death, which dissolves that which is composite, began to exercise its power and efficacy in man in reality, when the soul was necessarily alienated from God by the broken law and entangled in various perturbations: from which perturbations of nature, we understand and declare that the body itself (for in it they also arise and are affected) is corruptible. We conclude, therefore, that the debt of death and corruption was born and contracted from the violated law; and not from the fact that Adam's body was composite, and therefore, from the elements of which it consisted, dissoluble. For it was not difficult for God, the Father of all things, to take him who was subject to corruption by the condition of his own nature, out of the lot of corruption, and to keep and preserve him in eternal life. In this way, therefore, the doctors say that the flesh was by its own nature dissoluble, yet they do not on that account say that either it or the body was created by an evil maker.

CHAPTER VII.

Another objection of the impious Julian.

^A that the others are immortal, inasmuch as they are animals lacking life.

CHAPTER VIII.

The objection of Theodore and Nestorius, and of others of that faction.

Theodore and Nestorius, and others who follow them, say that death did not enter the human race on account of sin or the violation of God’s law, but that they were born by God with a mortal condition; and that on no account would anyone have exceeded the term of death which He had established for our race and nature, even if Adam had not sinned: for many absurdities follow unless we establish it to be so. For, they say, how is it fitting to say that God, whose counsel was to make us immortal, made us mortal on account of sin? Furthermore, if God kills us on account of Adam’s sin, it follows that He has killed the just on account of sinners, and has extended the punishment of fathers to their children, both of which are wicked; for it says that neither shall the fathers die for their children, nor children for their fathers. Then, if we grant that Adam died because he tasted of the tree, what shall we say was the cause of death for Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham? Truly, there is no crime today, neither great nor small, that inflicts upon children that which was committed by fathers: who, therefore, would think that for that light sin of Adam, because he had tasted of the forbidden fruit, the entire posterity is punished by death? And ^B truly it is God’s custom to forgive the wicked for the sake of the good, not to destroy the righteous on account of the wicked, and that for his mercy He grants grace to men for great crimes; so far is He from punishing a light fault with a most grave penalty. Moreover, if because of sin we were sent into this dissoluble world, surely great thanks are due to sin, as that which was the cause of the creation of this mortal machine. Furthermore, if Adam kills, he who sinned, why did not the demons kill, who are guilty of a much greater crime? If one says that they killed only in spirit, why did Adam kill also in body? And they think that by these things it is proved that Adam, whether he had abstained from the tree which had been forbidden to him, or had not abstained, would have died anyway, since he was created with a mortal nature. Moreover, they say that there is a trope in those words of Scripture which speak as if Adam died because of sin, namely, so that when he heard that sin had been the cause of his death, he might hold sin in hatred and avoid it: just as Scripture has used a trope in many other places, as when it has: "And God tempted Abraham"; for there is no need for God to experience danger. Again, when it says that God wished to kill Moses, yet by the action of his wife ^C He let him go unpunished. And when it relates that Christ Jesus had come to the fig tree, hungry and fasting, from the morning, at a time alien to the growing of figs. For these things, and others of this kind, signify something different from what the words heard outwardly suggest. Therefore, those words which mention Adam to us as having been born mortal by nature from God, and then having had a law imposed upon him—that if he ate from that tree, he would die—are to be understood similarly through a trope: namely, that when Adam heard that he had been cast out of paradise and given over to death because he had violated the law and rebelled, he might hold sin and rebellion in hatred and flee from them. But we respond to these things: Not so, surely, O men, does Holy Scripture speak as you imagine, since we find it declaring in all places clearly that the sin of Adam was the cause of death, both for him and for all his posterity, according to that word: "On the day that you eat of the tree, you shall face death." And again: "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree from which I had forbidden you, cursed be the earth because of you." And we read in divine Paul: "Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin," etc. And elsewhere: "For without the law sin was dead; but I was once living without the law (this is, when I thought upon nothing mortal), but when the commandment came (it having been violated, of course) sin revived, and I truly died; and the commandment which had been given for life (to him who would spare it) was found, for me (who broke it), to bring death." Furthermore, you may easily find many other places of Holy Scripture which agree with these, and clearly testify that death invaded us through sin. But if you do not accept these, bring us one place in which Scripture says that we do not die on account of sin; but since no such place exists anywhere, it is necessary that that other statement be true. For it is not consistent that, having repudiated what we find set forth in the Sacred Letters, we embrace that which is nowhere written to exist. For to those two things which you gathered as absurd from our thesis—namely, that God kills the just on account of the unjust, and punishes the crimes of fathers in the children—we say that they do not follow from it: for God does not kill the posterity of Adam on account of his impiety, whether they be righteous or wicked, any more than we punish children for crimes which their fathers have committed. But Adam had been born mortal by nature, yet he was preserved in immortality through the kindness and grace of his Maker; but when he had violated the law and sinned, God removed from him His grace of immortality, and then he remained such as he had otherwise been by nature; that is, mortal. But if he had begotten children before he lost the grace of immortality, then indeed it could have been said that those children of his, who had committed no sin, should not have been justly deprived of the grace of immortality. Yet, since he began to beget offspring only after he had been granted immortality, that which his nature possessed