The Book of Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, On Paradise.

Latin Text from public domain Migne Editors, Patrologiae Cursus Completus.

Translated into English using ChatGPT.

Table of Contents Chapter I. Chapter II. Chapter III. Chapter IV. Chapter V. Chapter VI. Chapter VII. Chapter VIII. Chapter IX. Chapter X. Chapter XI. Chapter XII. Chapter XIII. Chapter XIV. Chapter XV.

Chapter I.

How difficult it is to discourse on paradise. However, its author, nature, location, and inhabitants are indicated; and the matter is translated into a sense of mystery.

And God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed (Gen. II, 8). The mention of paradise seems to arouse great interest in us, wanting to investigate and explain what paradise is, where it is, and what it is like, especially since the Apostle, whether in the body or out of the body, does not know, yet he says that he was caught up to the third heaven. And again, he says: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- was caught up to paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. For this I will boast, but for myself I will not boast, except in my weaknesses: for if I should want to boast, I would not be foolish: for I speak the truth. (2 Corinthians 12:5 and 6). Therefore, if this is such a paradise, that only Paul himself, or someone similar to Paul, while living in this life, could see it; nevertheless, whether in the body or out of the body, he cannot remember it; but he did hear words by which he was commanded not to disclose what he had heard: in what way then can we determine the location of this paradise, which we were not able to see: and even if we could see it, we would still be prohibited from revealing it to others? While Paul himself was afraid to boast about the lofty heights of his revelations, how much more diligently should we fear to investigate that which is even subject to danger? Therefore, we should not consider this paradise to be Hyle, and thus let it remain Paul's secret.

However, since here in Genesis we read that paradise was planted by God in the East, and there the man whom God formed was placed; we can now find the author of this paradise. For who else could have created paradise but the all-powerful God, who spoke and things came into being, never needing those things which he desired to be generated? Therefore, he himself planted the paradise of which Wisdom says: Every planting that my Father has not planted will be rooted up (Matthew 15:13). Good planting of angels, good saints. For saints are called under the fig tree and vine in that future time of peace, in which there is a type of angels (Micah IV, 4).

Therefore, paradise is a place with many trees, but these trees are fruitful trees, full of sap and virtue, as it is written: 'All the trees of the woods shall rejoice.' (Psalm 95:13) They are always blooming with the verdure of merits, like that tree which is planted near running waters, whose leaf never withers; because all its fruit is abundant in it. This, therefore, is paradise.

But the place in which it is planted is called pleasure. Hence also the holy David says: You will drink them from the torrent of your pleasure (Ps. XXXV, 9). For you have read: For a fountain rises out of Eden, which waters the garden (Gen., II, 10). These, then, are the holy trees, which are planted in paradise, and are watered by a kind of overflow of the torrent of the spirit. Of which he also says elsewhere: The impetuousness of a river makes the city of God joyful (Ps. XLV, 5). But that city which is above, Jerusalem, is free, in which various merits of the saints have flourished.

5. Therefore, in this paradise, God placed man, whom he formed. Understand also that he did not place the man who is according to the image of God, but rather the man who is according to the body. For the incorporeal is not in a place. However, he placed him in paradise like the sun in the sky, awaiting the kingdom of heaven, just as a creature awaits the revelation of the children of God.

Therefore, if paradise is where the shoots sprouted, it seems that paradise is the soul which multiplies the received seed, in which each virtue is planted, in which there was also the tree of life, that is, wisdom, as Solomon said (Wisdom 7:25): For wisdom is not born from the earth, but from the Father. For she is the radiance of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the activity of God's power.

Chapter II.

That the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in paradise, and that the serpent was there, is not to be condemned. And what some understand by the serpent, Adam and Eve.

7. However, there was also the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden. For you have this: God brought forth a beautiful tree for sight, and good for food, and the tree of life in the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. II, 9) Afterwards, we will see whether this beautiful tree for sight, and good for food, was like the rest. For in that place it will be more opportune to discuss this, where we find that man was deceived by tasting from this tree. In the meantime, we have nothing to criticize, although we may not understand the reason. For we should not rashly condemn the creature of the world, if anything seems difficult to us to understand and incomprehensible to our intellect, like the creature of serpents or some venomous animal; indeed, we are still unable to understand and know by what means each individual thing has been made. Therefore, in divine Scriptures, let us not easily criticize something that we cannot understand. For there are many things that are not to be measured by our own intellect, but are to be valued from the depth of divine arrangement and the word.

For put, without prejudice to the assertion to come, therefore you dislike this tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because after men tasted of it, they understood that they were naked; however, I will tell you concerning the fulfillment of the divine operation and this tree sprouted in paradise, and therefore it was permitted by God, so that we may know the excellence of good. For how, indeed, if there were no knowledge of good and evil, would we discern any distinction between good and evil? For we would not judge something to be evil unless there was knowledge of good; but knowledge of good could not exist unless there was good. And likewise, we would not know something to be good unless there was knowledge of evil. Take an example from the very condition of the human body. Indeed, it has a certain bitterness of bile, which if considered in common, is found to be useful for the health of man. Therefore, what we think is evil is often not entirely evil, but useful in common. For just as a good thing is in part of the body, and yet is beneficial to the utility of the whole body: so God, knowing the knowledge of good and evil, established it in part, so that it would be beneficial to the common good.

9. Finally, you find the serpent in paradise, surely not begotten without the will of God. However, the devil is in the form of the serpent. For even the prophet Ezekiel teaches that there was a devil in paradise, when he says about the prince of Tyre: 'You were in Eden, the garden of God' (Ezek. 28:13). And we understand the prince of Tyre in the figure of the devil. Shall we then accuse God, because we cannot comprehend the hidden treasures of His height and knowledge in Christ, unless He deems it worthy to reveal them to us? Nevertheless, it is revealed that we may know that the malice of the devil can also be beneficial to the salvation of men. Not because the devil wishes to benefit, but because the Lord turns his malice, even while resisting, to our salvation. Indeed, by virtue of this malice, Job, the holy man, became more illustrious in his virtue and patience. By means of this malice, his righteousness was tested, so that he might strive and conquer, and that a crown might follow victory. For no one is crowned except the one who has legitimately striven. Joseph's chastity would never have come to our attention if his master's wife, incited by the burning arrows of the devil, had not tried to seduce him, and ultimately caused his death, in order to highlight the purity of a man who would choose death over compromising his virtue. Do you want to know God's plan? It seems that, with the devil as author, death is prepared for just men and even the murder of their children; yet the Lord also tested Abraham in this way, by asking him to sacrifice his own son to Him. By the temptation, Abraham was proven faithful to the Lord, in that he was not recalled from the duty of devotion nor from mercy for his beloved son. Likewise, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in paradise; which was beautiful to look at, and appeared good for food. Yet it was not good for food, for its food seemed to obstruct humans. Therefore, it harms individuals but benefits the community, just as the devil harmed the Jews, but he crowned all the apostles except him, who overcame his temptations.


Therefore, it is neither to be doubted nor to be criticized that the devil was in paradise; since he could not block the way for the saints, so that no one could ascend. For he did not snatch away the dwelling of the righteous as a possessor. For even if he may have turned away some lazy and wicked ones from the possession of the heavenly dwelling, that which will be excluded by the prayers of the saints is much more august and much more beautiful, when this is fulfilled: I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18). Therefore, let us not fear him, who is so weak that he himself is about to fall to the ground. He has indeed received permission to tempt: but he has not received the opportunity to overthrow, unless the weak affection, which does not know how to seek assistance for itself, falls of its own accord. And therefore, by what deceit he tempted the first man, and what he thought was to be tempted in man, in what order, by what art we must know, so that we can beware.

However, most of those who wish to assert that the devil was not in Paradise, although we have read in the Scriptures that he stands in heaven with the angels, interpret this passage according to their own understanding so as not to seem to be contradicting our language. For before us, there was Philo in his book On the Creation of the World, who declared that a transgression had been committed by man through pleasure and sensation, taking the form of a serpent for delight and constituting the sensation of the soul and mind in the form of a woman, which the Greeks call αἴσθησις. But with a deceived sensation, he asserted that the mind followed the transgression, which the Greeks call νοῦς. Therefore, in Greek, the νοῦς of the man received a form, the αἴσθησις of the woman. Hence, some have interpreted Adam as the earthly νοῦς. However, the Lord placed those virgins in the Gospel (Matthew, XXV, 1 et seq.) waiting for the bridegroom's arrival with their lamps lit or extinguished, representing either the intact senses of the wise or the corrupted senses of the unwise. For if Eve had possessed these lit lamps, that is, the senses of the first woman, she would never have ensnared us in the tangles of her transgression, nor would she have fallen from the immortality of virtue.

Chapter III.

Through the fountain of paradise, Christ; through the four rivers that flow from there, the cardinal virtues, and the four ages of the world are represented.

12. Therefore, there is a certain fertile land, that is, a fruitful soul, planted in Eden, that is, exercised in a certain pleasure or exercise of the earth, in which there is delight for the souls. There is also the νοῦς, like Adam: and there is the sense, like Eve. And so that you would not have anything to turn back to the weak nature, or to the condition that is subject to endure dangers, consider what supports this soul has.

13. There was a fountain that irrigated the paradise. What fountain, if not the Lord Jesus Christ! He is the fountain of eternal life, just like the Father; for it is written: 'For with you is the fountain of life' (Ps. XXXV, 10). Moreover, rivers of living water will flow from his belly (John VII, 38). And the fountain is read, and the river is read, which irrigates the fruitful tree of paradise, which bears fruit unto eternal life. Therefore, this fountain, as you have read, for the fountain says, proceeds from Eden, that is, in your soul there is a fountain. Where Solomon says: Drink water from your own vessels, and from the fountains of your wells (Prov. V, 15). This is the fountain that springs forth from a soul exercised as full of pleasure: this is the fountain that irrigates paradise, that is, the virtues of a soul flourishing with the highest merit.

And it is divided, he says, this fountain into four sources. The name of one is Phison: this is the one that encircles all the land of Evilath, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good, where there is carbuncle and green stone. And the name of the second is Geon: this is the one that encircles all Ethiopia. And the third river is Tigris: this is the one that goes against the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates (Gen. II, 10 et seq.). These, therefore, are the four rivers, that is, according to the Hebrews. But the Ganges, according to the Greeks, flows against India. The Nile, however, encircles the land of Egypt or Ethiopia. Mesopotamia is so called because it is enclosed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers; it is situated between these two rivers, which is also expressed by its name and common opinion even to those far away. But as the fountain is called the Wisdom of God. For the fountain is according to the Gospel, saying: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink (John 7:37); the fountain is also according to the prophet who says: Come and eat from my bread and drink the wine which I have mixed for you (Proverbs 9:5). Just as wisdom is the fountain of life, the source of spiritual grace, so it is the fountain of the other virtues that guide us toward eternal life. Therefore, this fountain does not proceed from a soul that is uncultivated, but from one that is cultivated, in order to irrigate the paradise, that is, the various orchards of virtues. Among these virtues, there are four beginnings into which this wisdom is divided. What are these four beginnings of virtues if not one of prudence, another of temperance, a third of fortitude, and a fourth of justice (Plato, Book IV, Republic)? Even the wise of this world, taken from our own, translated into the writings of their books. Therefore, just as the source of wisdom, so also these four rivers flowing from that source are the streams of virtues.

15. Therefore, prudence is like Phison, and therefore has good gold, a splendid carbuncle, and a green stone. For we often receive gold as a reward for prudent discoveries. Hence, the Lord says through the Prophet: I have given her gold and silver (Hosea II, 8). And David speaks of the prudent ones: If you sleep among my clergy, their wings shining like silver, and their backs appearing like gold (Psalm LXVII, 14): because whoever adheres to the old and new Testament can proceed abundantly in the secret wisdom of God's disputation. Therefore it calls this good gold, not that corruptible and earthly coin. It also has a splendid carbuncle, in which a certain spark of our soul lives, he says. It also has a green gem, which seems to show a green and lively thing by the beauty of its color. For living trees are green, while those that die wither; the earth is green when it blooms, and seeds are also green when they sprout. And in the first place, this river is called Phison, which according to the Hebrews is called Pison, that is, a change of appearance; because it does not flow around one nation only, but also flows through Lydia. For it is not a narrow-mindedness, but a wealthy prudence that is useful, which benefits many. Therefore, as a first step, if someone has exited from paradise, let him be received like a river of prudence, so that he may not quickly dry up, but easily return to paradise through it. This river is frequented by many people and is said to have great beauty and fertility. And therefore, prudence is understood in the sense of this river, which has brought many benefits in the Lord's coming. And it flows to the ends of the earth, for through Wisdom all men are redeemed. Hence it is said: Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world (Psalms 19:5).

16. The second river is the Geon, beside which the Israelites were settled when they were in Egypt, to go forth from which and to gird their loins and to eat a lamb, which is a sign of temperance. For it is necessary to celebrate the Lord's Passover with chaste and sanctified ones. And therefore, next to this river, the first legitimate observance was established, because it signifies a certain gaping of this earth. Therefore, just as the yawning abyss absorbs the earth and whatever refuse or foliage is in it, so too chastity is accustomed to abolish all the passions of the body. And rightly there the first establishment of observance, because through law carnal sin is absorbed. Well therefore does Geon, in which there is the figure of chastity, is said to go around the land of Ethiopia; so that it may wash away the cast-off body, and extinguish the fire of the most vile flesh. For Ethiopia is marked by the interpretation of being cast-off and vile. But what is more cast-off than our body? What is so similar to Ethiopia, which is also black with certain shadows of sins?


The third is the river Tigris, which flows against the Assyrians, to whom the rebellious Israel was led captive. This river is said to be swifter than all those inhabited by the Assyrians, that is, those directing, for this is what the interpretation signifies. Therefore, whoever, by the strength of his soul, captures the rebellious vices of the body and directs them towards heavenly things, is considered similar to this river. And for this reason, strength also emanates from him who is in paradise, as from a source. But strength, with a certain rapid course, pierces through every resistance, and does not get stuck with any obstacles of its course.

18. The fourth is the river Euphrates, which in Latin is called fertility and abundance of fruits, offering a certain emblem of justice, which nourishes every soul. For no virtue seems to have more abundant fruits than fairness and justice, which benefits others more than itself, neglecting its own interests for the common good. Many believe that Euphrates is derived from the Greek word ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐφραίνεσθαι, meaning 'to rejoice', because humanity rejoices in nothing more than justice and fairness. However, the reason why the other regions through which rivers flow are described, but not the regions through which the Euphrates flows, we have understood because its water is said to be life-giving and nourishing. Hence the wise men of the Hebrews and Assyrians called it Auxen. On the other hand, it is said that the water of other rivers is different. Furthermore, because where there is wisdom, there is also cunning; where there is strength, there is also anger; where there is moderation, there is often lack of moderation, or other faults; but where there is justice, there is harmony of the other virtues. Therefore, it is not known from the regions through which it flows, that is, not from the region itself. For justice is not a part, but it is like the mother of all. In these four rivers, the four principal virtues are expressed, which, as it were, encompassed the ages of this world.

First, therefore, the time from the beginning of the world until the flood was a time of wisdom, during which the just were counted: Abel, who was called just by God (Matthew 23:35); and Enos, which means man made in the image of God, who hoped to invoke the name of the Lord God; and Enoch, who is called in Latin 'by the grace of God', taken up to heaven; and Noah, who himself was just and a guide to some rest.

20. According to time, there is Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and the number of other patriarchs, in whom a certain chaste and pure moderation of religion shone forth. For indeed, Isaac, being immaculate, was given as a son through the promise of Abraham, not so much as a physical birth, but rather as a gift of divine indulgence, in which the true figure of the immaculate went before, as the Apostle teaches, saying: Because the promises were made to Abraham and his seed. He does not say 'and to seeds,' as referring to many, but as referring to one, 'and to your seed,' who is Christ. (Gal. III, 16).

21. The third time is in the law of Moses and the other prophets. For time will fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, David, Solomon, and Samuel, and the other prophets, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, and Daniel, Elijah, and Elisha who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, captured the strongholds of foreigners (Hebrews 11:32-34). Therefore, they do not undeservedly possess this form of courage. For they were cut up, as you have below, tested, dead in the slaughtering of the sword. They were surrounded in goat skins, needy, afflicted, and distressed with pain, of whom the world was not worthy of their merits. Wandering in solitude, in mountains, in caves, and in the holes of the earth (Ibid. XVII, 38). Therefore, we rightly place this form of courage among them.

22. According to the Gospel, the likeness of justice is worthy because it is the power to bring salvation to all who believe. Finally, the Lord Himself says: Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all justice (Matth. III, 15): and this is the parent of the remaining virtues. In which, although some of the virtues we have mentioned are of greater importance, justice is preeminent; the others are also present in it, for they are connected and united virtues. For certainly Abel was just, and Abraham was both the strongest and most patient, and the prophets were most prudent. But Moses, educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, considered the treasures of Egypt as an insult to Christ. And who is wiser than Daniel? Solomon also sought wisdom, and deserved it. Therefore, it has been said about the four rivers of virtues, that their waters are beneficial. And because it was said that the Phison had good gold of the land, and the carbuncle, and the green stone, let us also consider what kind of these things are.


23. Indeed, Enos seems to us like a good gold, who wisely desired to know the name of God. But Enoch, who was translated and did not see death, is a certain carbuncle, a good-smelling stone, which the holy Enoch presented to God with his works, breathing forth grace in his deeds and character. But Noah, like a green stone, surpassed them all in vital color. For during the time of the flood, he alone, like vital seed for the future order, was preserved in that ark. Therefore, the paradise that is irrigated by many rivers is towards the East, not against the East, that is, according to that East which is called the Orient, that is, according to Christ, who has shed a certain radiance of eternal light, and is in Eden, that is, in delight.

Chapter IV.

Man was not made in paradise, but placed there. But in it, woman was made, through whom he was deceived. Now what is it to work and to keep?

24. And God took the man whom He had made and placed him in paradise to work and guard it. You see that he who was made is taken. He was indeed on the earth of his formation. Therefore, the power of God, inspiring his process and advancing his virtue, took hold of him and placed him in paradise, so that you may know that the one taken is as if breathed upon by divine power. Pay attention to this passage, (Dist. 40, c. Illud autem) because outside of paradise the man was made, and inside paradise the woman, so that you may realize that it is not by place or by the nobility of birth, but by virtue, that each person obtains grace for themselves. Finally, outside of paradise, that is, in a lower place, a better man is found; and she who is in a better place, that is, in paradise, is found to be inferior. For the woman was deceived first, and she herself deceived the man. Hence, the apostle Peter reminds holy women to be subject to their husbands as to their masters (1 Peter 3:1). And Paul says: For Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Timothy 2:14). And hence it is to be considered, because no one should easily presume upon themselves. For behold, that which has been made for the assistance of man, requires the support of a man, because the man is the head of the woman. But he who thought he would have the assistance of a wife, fell through the wife. Therefore, no one should easily trust another, unless he has proven his virtue, nor should he assume for himself that he has been chosen as a helper. Instead, if he finds someone stronger whom he thought would be his support, let him borrow favor from him, just as the apostle Peter instructs to give honor to women as to weaker vessels, as coheirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (1 Peter 3:7).


Therefore, a man was placed in paradise, and a woman was made in paradise. But even then, before the woman was deceived by the serpent, she had the grace of the man, for she was taken from him: although this sacrament is great, as the Apostle said (Ephesians 5:32). And therefore, she drew her life from the man. And that is why Scripture speaks only of the man, because he was set in paradise to work and keep it. It is not the same thing to work and to keep. For in works there is a certain process of virtue, and in custody a certain completion of the work is discovered; because it guards as if it were already completed. These two things are required of man, that he may seek new things in works, and may guard what he has obtained, which is a general rule. Philo, since he did not receive spiritual things with a Jewish affection, kept himself within the moral realm, as it were, and sought these two things: works in the field, and the guardianship of the house. And although paradise did not need rural works, he says, nevertheless, because the first man was going to be the law of posterity, therefore even in paradise he took on the appearance of labor, so that he might bind us to the performance and guardianship of the duty that is owed, and to the office of hereditary succession. These two things, therefore, are required of you, whether morally or spiritually. This is also taught by the prophetic psalm, for it is written: Unless the Lord builds a house; they labor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord guards a city, they watch in vain who guard it. (Ps. 126:1) You see those who are laboring in the process of construction; but these are the ones who are watching who have already received the completed work. Hence, the Lord said to the Apostles, as if they were already more perfect: Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation (Matt. XXVI, 41); teaching that the duty of perfect nature and the grace of full virtue must be preserved, and that no one should consider themselves more perfect unless they have been watchful.

Chapter V.

The commandment of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is examined, and the difficulties that arise regarding it are resolved.

26. And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. (Genesis, II, 16 and 17). In what manner, where he commanded to eat of every tree, he singularly said, Thou shalt eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in the plural number, Ye shall not eat, he said, is not an idle question. But if you pay close attention, it can be concluded by the authority of the Scriptures. For whatever is good, that is to be done; and whatever is good and to be done, it is in harmony and consistent. But whatever is evil, that is discordant, disordered, and separate. And therefore, the Lord, always seeking unity, commanded according to unity. Finally, he who made both makes unity. Not only both, but also all are made one. For he commanded us to be one body and one spirit. But the only-begotten, since He is in unity with the Father, is very closely joined to the Father: because the Word was with God. Furthermore, He says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30); to show that He has unity of majesty and divinity with the Father. But He also commanded us to be one, and transferred the likeness of His own nature and unity onto us through the adoption of grace, saying: As the Father and I are one, so may they also be one with us (John 17:22). Therefore, when it commands what is good, it commands it as if to one person, saying, 'Eat.' For unity cannot transgress. But when it speaks about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it says that it should not be eaten, as if speaking to many, 'You shall not eat.' For what is prohibitive is commanded to many. However, I think differently, and I find in the very word of God what will happen. He commanded Adam alone to eat from every tree, knowing that he would obey. But regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he says not singularly, but plurally, that it should not be eaten. For he knew that the woman had been deceitful, and therefore he showed through plurality that they would not keep their promise, because there is a diverse opinion among many.

27. And as far as the opinion of the Seventy men is concerned, that which was troublesome has been resolved. But because Symmachus singularly said both, we understand that he followed this because God also speaks to the people in the law singularly, as you have it: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one (Deut. VI, 4); and, You shall love the Lord your God (Ibid. 6). Symmachus's interpretation does not prejudice me, who was unable to see the unity of the Father and the Son, although both Aquila and he have confessed it occasionally in their discourse. And let no one think that he addresses our superior with respect to the people of God, who is about to transgress the divine commandments individually; for even the people of the Jews violated the prescribed laws individually. For the law is spiritual, and therefore God addressed the divine people with one message in speech and another in predestination. Finally, he said: 'You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk' (Exodus 34:26).

28. The series of celestial teachings would seem easy, unless the question raised by many, to which we must respond; so that simple minds are not led astray by malicious interpretation. Indeed, many, whose authority is Apelles, as you have in the thirty-eighth volume of his work, pose these questions: How does the tree of life seem to contribute more to life than the breath of God? Then if God did not make man perfect; but each person acquires their own perfection of virtue through their own diligence: does it not seem that a person gains more for themselves than God bestowed upon them? The third objection is raised: And if man had not tasted death, certainly he could not know what he had not tasted. Therefore, if he had not tasted, he did not know; if he did not know, he could not fear. Therefore, God in vain presented death as a terror, which men did not fear.

29. Let us therefore learn that there in the garden, where God also produced the tree of life, he produced the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For you have that he produced the tree of life in the midst of paradise, that is, in the middle of the garden. For among us, 'in the midst' is understood to mean that he produced it in the middle. Therefore, both life and the cause of death were in the middle of paradise. Understand that it was not man who made life, but either by working or by keeping the commandments of God he was able to find it. Now, life, as the Apostle said, was hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). Therefore, man, whether in the shadow of life for the future life, because this shadow is our life on earth now, or whether in a certain pledge of life, because he had the breath of God. Therefore, he had the pledge of immortality: but being placed in the shadow of life, he could not see and grasp the hidden life with Christ in God by some common touch and sight. And if not yet a sinner, certainly not of an incorruptible and inviolable nature; for he who has fallen into sin is not yet a sinner. Indeed, he was in the shadow of life; but those who are sinners are in the shadow of death. For the people of sinners, as Isaiah teaches (Isaiah 9:2), sat in the shadow of death, until the light arose through the grace of God, not through their own merit. Therefore, there is no distinction between the breath of God and the food of the tree of life. No man can claim to possess more than what has been bestowed upon him by divine generosity. Would that we could hold onto what has been received. Indeed, our efforts serve to regain what has been entrusted to us. The third point, as was proposed, is that those who have not tasted death cannot fear it, and therefore easily find absolution through the common experience of nature. For it is inherent in the nature of all living beings to instinctively recoil from harmful things, even if they have not yet experienced harm themselves. For indeed, from the very moment of its birth, a dove experiences the terror of a hawk. From where do wolves, formidable to sheep, receive their fear, and from where do birds of prey, their young? For if in those animals that are irrational, there is a natural fear of the opposite species of animals, so much so that they even perceive the sense of avoiding death, how much more should there have been a certain natural opinion of fearing death in the first human being, who is certainly the most full of reason.

Chapter VI.

It resolves several doubts about the command given to Adam and the temptation stirred up by Eve.

30. Again, they make other questions in this way: It is not always wrong to disobey a precept. For if the precept is good, obedience is honorable: but if the precept is evil, it is useful not to obey. Therefore, it is not always wrong to not obey a precept: but to not obey a good precept is evil. But it is good to operate the knowledge of good and evil; since God knows both good and evil. Finally, he says: Behold, Adam has become like one of us (Gen. III, 22). Therefore, if it is good to have knowledge of good and evil, and goodness is something that even God possesses, it seems that those who forbid it to human beings are not doing so rightly; and they propose this argument. But if they understand what it means to know, what power this word has: if they understand it correctly, the Lord has known those who belong to him (II Tim. II, 19); he surely knows those who have been made one out of many, in whom he dwells and through whom he moves. To know is certainly not only in mere and superficial knowledge, but in the actions that need to be done. It was necessary for man to obey the command, but by not obeying, he transgressed. Therefore, whoever did not obey, erred, because transgression is a sin. However, even if they want to diminish the power of knowledge, considering it as a mere and forbidden knowledge of good and evil, even in this there is the fault of transgression for not having obeyed the command; because the Lord God also considered the turbulent knowledge of good and evil to be forbidden.


31. Another question: Someone who does not know good and evil is no different from a child. However, with a just judge, there is no fault in children. Indeed, a just creator of the world would never hold a child responsible for not knowing good and evil, because a child is without the sin of transgression and fault. But when we say in the previous statements that there are two understandings of the knowledge of good and evil, if we consider a superficial knowledge, it is certainly false that there is no difference from a child who does not know good and evil. But if it is false that nothing differs from a child; therefore Adam is not a child. If he is not a child, then sin is attributed to him as if he were not a child. If sin is attributed, then the punishment of sin follows; for punishment is found to be worthy, who did not try to avoid sin. It can also happen that even one who does not have knowledge of good and evil is not a child; for before the boy knew good and evil, he did not believe in wickedness. And again you have: Because before a child knows how to call his father and mother, he will receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria (Isaiah, VIII, 4). Therefore, the one who performs good deeds, even if they have not acquired knowledge of good and evil, are themselves their own law, just as many are their own law before they know the law. The Apostle, before he said, 'You shall not covet' (Rom. II, 14), did not know that covetousness is evil. In fact, he himself says: I did not know sin except through the law. For I would not have known desire, unless the law had said: You shall not covet (Rom. VII, 7). To that extent, a child can also be perfect according to the law of nature, before he knows that desire is a sin or commits the sin of desire. Therefore, according to a cursory knowledge, God did not want man to know what is evil, so that he, as if imperfect, could not avoid it. But by not obeying the commandment, we incur blame: therefore, we confess blame. But again, if by deep and profound knowledge we mean the knowledge of good and evil, which indeed perfects the soul; yet the little child who cannot attain to such deep and profound knowledge is not immediately condemned, just as a little child is not condemned.

Again they raise the question: He who does not know good and evil, they say, does not even know that it is evil not to keep the commandment, nor does he know what is good, which is to obey the commandment. And therefore, because he did not know, they say that he deserved pardon for not obeying, not condemnation. This question indeed has to do with those absolved, which we have mentioned before. For man could have considered from those things which God had granted to him before, that he received the breath of God, that he was placed in the paradise of pleasure, that he owed the highest obedience to the Author. And therefore, even if he did not know the power of good and evil, nevertheless because the author had said that the tree of knowledge of good and evil should not be tasted, he should have obeyed the command. For it was not skill, but faith that was required of him. He certainly understood that God surpassed all, and therefore he should have respected the person who commanded. And even if he did not understand the force and nature of the command, he still knew that reverence should be shown to the command giver. He had this opinion in his nature; although he did not have a sense of good and evil. Finally, the woman said to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said: You shall not eat of it (Gen. III, 3). Thus he knew that obedience to the command was necessary, so he said: We may eat of every fruit, as the Lord had commanded; but of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has commanded that it should not be tasted, lest they die. Therefore, because he knew that it must be carried out by order, he certainly knew that it was wrong to prevaricate, and for this reason, he is rightly condemned for prevarication.

33. Take another thing: If the assumption of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was so operative that good and evil were recognized; which seems to be indicated by the Scripture, when it says: Because when they both ate, their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked (Genesis 3:6-7); that is, the eyes of their heart were opened, and they knew that it was shameful to live naked: undoubtedly when the woman tasted from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she sinned and knew that she had sinned. Therefore, she who knew that she had sinned should not have invited her husband to share in the sin. By enticing her husband and giving him what she herself had tasted, she did not avoid, but rather repeated the sin. For surely, if one considers reason truly, she should have not dragged the one she loved into a partnership of punishment, but rather called him back from what she herself knew was sin, even if this woman seemed to fear being cast out of paradise alone, knowing that she could not be in paradise after the fall. Finally, both of them hid themselves after the fault. Therefore, knowing that she should be excluded, she did not want to be deprived of the companionship of the man she loved.

34. Take it again: Knowledge of evil is not evil; but when action fills it with malice. For it is not immediately the case that one who knows what evil is does what is evil, but rather one who knows that it is evil, does it. However, the incentive to do what is evil is usually either anger or desire. It is not necessary that one who has knowledge of evil does what is wrong, unless they are overcome by either anger or desire. Hence, what we have said is that the incentive to sin is either anger or desire, or often fear, although desire may arise from fear, as each person wants to avoid what they fear. And therefore we rightly placed anger and desire as the incentives of the remaining two vices. Let us consider, therefore, whether Eve was incited to vice by these stimuli. But she was neither angry with her husband, nor overcome by desire: she only erred in the second instance, by giving the fruit to her husband to eat, which she herself had already tasted. At first, desire was the author of the error, so that she herself would eat it, and the cause of sin followed. For what she had already tasted, she could not desire: and by tasting it, she had gained knowledge of evil. Therefore, she should not have directed the evil she had recognized towards her husband, nor should she have made her own husband a transgressor of divine command. Therefore, being aware and prudent, she sinned, and being aware, she led her husband into her own mistake. Otherwise, the speech about the tree of knowledge of good and evil will be found to be false if, even after she had eaten from that tree, she could not have the knowledge of evil. If this speech is true, then it could not have had the cause of desire: although many people may think it can be excused in this way, that she feared being separated from her diligent husband, and they may present this cause of desire because she wanted to be with her husband.

Chapter VII.

It is asked whether death comes to man from God, or from wood, or finally from elsewhere; and the objection is dissolved by a multiplicity of responses.

Again, another question arises about where the death of Adam came from, whether from the nature of that tree or from God. If we attribute it to the nature of the tree, it seems that the fruit of this tree would owe its power to give life to God's breath; for it was the breath that gave life that drew the fruit of this tree to death. Or if we remember that God is the author of death, they say that in this case we would accuse Him with a double charge: either He was so cruel that He did not want to forgive, even though He could; or if He could not forgive, He seems weak. Let us now see how it must be avoided. Unless I am mistaken, disobedience was the cause of death; and therefore, man himself is the cause of his own death, not having God as the author of his death. For even if a physician prescribed certain things to be avoided by a sick person and the sick person did not think it necessary to abstain from them, the physician is not the cause of his death: on the contrary, he himself is guilty of his own death. Therefore, God, like a good physician, forbade Adam from tasting what would harm him.


Once again, take heed: It is better to know what is good than to not know; and for the one who knows what is good, it is noble to know what is evil, so that they can beware of what is evil, and so that the wise may submit to the caution of guardianship. However, it is not enough to only know what is evil; lest when you know evil, you begin to be deprived of knowledge of what is good. Therefore, it is more beautiful that we know both; so that both because we know what is good, we may avoid what is evil; and from what we recognize as evil, we may show gratitude for what is good. But you must know both in such a way that you deeply understand and execute what you know, and that your actions align with your knowledge. Otherwise, Scripture indicates that it is more tolerable for someone who does not know both than for someone who superficially knows both. For it burdens one to know what one cannot either execute or avoid: it burdens one to know without the use and practice of deep understanding. Ultimately, it is detrimental to a doctor's reputation to know what benefits and what harms a patient unless one uses that knowledge correctly; and therefore, knowledge is not good unless one uses it as one should.


Item, take note: Not in vain was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil produced in the middle of paradise, and if it had been produced for any other human being, the prohibition would have been superfluous. But it was made not in vain, nor for anyone else except for the human who received the command, so that he may not only use it, but use it in conjunction with others. For if you examine many things, you will discover many and truly countless things that can harm someone who does not know how to use them. And you will not find riches themselves to be fruitful if, being rich in the means of generosity, one denies sustenance to the poor, excludes the needy who are devoid of assistance, extorts from others what one can, simply because one prevails in power. Beauty itself and a more pleasing form of the body often lead to vice, while deformity does not. Therefore, does anyone desire to have children more ugly than beautiful, and to have their children be poor rather than rich? There are many such things that are not to be attributed to the thoughtlessness of the giver, but to the error of the one who uses them badly. And therefore, it is the user who should be accused rather than the giver.

Chapter VIII.

The questions regarding God's foreknowledge concerning the transgressions of Adam, and the belief in good and evil imprinted by divinity on human minds, are being resolved.

Again the question is: Did God know that Adam would transgress his commandments, or did He not know? If He did not know, then this is not an assertion of divine power. But if He did know, and nevertheless commanded something that He knew would be neglected, then God is not commanding anything superfluous. But He did command something superfluous to that first man Adam, which He knew would not be observed. But God does not do anything superfluous. Therefore, this is not Scripture from God. This objection is raised by those who do not accept the Old Testament and insert these questions. But these people must be overcome by their own judgment and opinion. For even though they do not refute the faith of the New Testament, they are used as examples to argue that they should believe the Old Testament: because when divine commands and deeds correspond to themselves, it is clear that both Testaments of one author should be believed. Therefore, let them learn that the commandment, which they will transgress with injustice, is not superfluous. For even the Lord Jesus himself chose Judas, whom he knew to be a traitor. But those who think that he was chosen by imprudence, detract from divine authority. But they cannot estimate this, since Scripture says: For Jesus knew who would betray him (John VI, 65). Therefore, let these opponents of the Old Testament be silenced.

39. But since even the Gentiles, if perhaps they object to this, seem to require an explanation; let them also accept by what reason the Son of God either commanded a transgressor or chose a betrayer. The Lord Jesus had come to save all sinners, and he should also have shown his will even with regard to the impious. And therefore he should not have passed over the matter of betrayal; so that everyone would take note that in his choice of even his betrayer he displayed a remarkable symbol of those to be saved, and neither Adam was harmed because he received a command, nor Judas because he was chosen. For God did not impose necessity either on those in prevarication or on this betrayal, because if each had guarded what they had received, they could have abstained from sin. Indeed, he did not know that all the Jews would believe, and yet he said, 'I have come only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew 15:24). Therefore, the fault is not in the one giving the command, but in the one who prevaricates. And what was in God, he showed to all that he wanted to set everyone free. Nevertheless, I do not say that he did not know that prevarication would happen, but rather because he knew it was going to happen, I assert: but it is not proper for him to deflect the blame of the perishing traitor onto himself, so that it could be attributed to God, since both of them fell. But now both are being reproved and convicted; because he received the commandment not to fall, and this one was also admitted into the office of apostleship, so that he could be called back from the desire of treason through God's grace; at the same time, so that while others are being convicted, it would benefit everyone. For sin would not exist if there were no prohibition. But if sin did not exist, perhaps not only wickedness but even virtue would not exist: for unless there were some seeds of wickedness, it could not subsist or flourish. For what is sin but the transgression of divine law and the disobedience of heavenly commandments? For we do not judge the heavenly commands by the ears of the body, but since it is the word of God, certain notions of good and evil have sprung up in us; while that which is evil, we naturally understand should be avoided, and that which is good, we naturally understand should be commanded. Therefore, in this, we seem to hear the voice of the Lord, which prohibits some things and commands others. And so, if anyone does not obey those things which we believe have once been commanded by God, he is considered subject to punishment. However, the commandment of God is not written with ink on stone tablets, but is impressed in our hearts by the spirit of the living God. Therefore, our own opinion becomes its own law. For if the Gentiles, who do not have the law, naturally do what the law requires, they themselves are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts. Therefore, human opinion is to itself as the law of God.

Again, they raise another question from here, that they accuse this very opinion impressed by God on us, as if it were a prescription of divine law. They say, did He not know that man would sin, he who created him and impressed these opinions of good and evil? If you say that He did not know, you would think Him unworthy of the majesty of God; but if you say that God, being aware that man would sin, nevertheless impressed on him common opinions of good and evil, so that he could not preserve the perpetuity of life because of the mixture of evils, then you seem to indicate that God is not good, just as in the former case you did not represent God as knowing the future. And from here they argue that the human creature is not made by God. For as we have shown above that they say there is no command of God, so they say here: Therefore the human creature is not made by God, because God did not create evil. However, man has received the opinion of evil, when he is commanded to abstain from evil. But with this kind of argument, they try to assert that there is another good God, and another operator of man. To these, it must be answered immediately according to their opinion. For if they do not want man to be made by God, because man is a sinner, and they refuse this, so that God may not seem to have made a sinner, because they do not think of him as good who made a sinner; let them say whether they think the operator of man, made by God. For if that one, as they say, is made by God, the operator of man, how did the good God make the operator of evil? Surely not good, for the one who makes a sinner is not good; let it be avoided that it is worse to have made the operator of a sinner. For a good God ought to have prohibited the birth of him who had the substance of sin to enter. But if they say that the operator of evil was not begotten, it must be asked whether a good God could have prevented in any way the beginning of malice or not. For if He could not, He is weak; if He could and did not, He is not good. Therefore, if these things do not agree with themselves, neither do the opinions of heretics agree with themselves. Let us inquire, then, lest perhaps there be a reason why God, whether the operator be begotten or not begotten, allowed malice to enter into this world, when He could have prevented it.


Therefore, serving one and the same good God and Creator, if we can, let us assert that it is fitting for both of them to have grace, and let us not avoid the accusation of those who say: How can a good God, who not only allowed evil to enter this world, but also permitted such great confusion? But this accusation would only hold if it infected the power of the soul and the inner secrets of the mind in such a way that it could not be eradicated, and if the poison of incurable wounds were to infiltrate the mind and soul of our being; for then it would be more suitable to complain that although God is capable of all things, He allowed man to perish. But when our merciful God has reserved the remedies for repelling errors, and has not abolished the power to abolish all contagion; how irrational or unjust is it, if He allows our material to be tested with a certain tremor of human frailty; so that afterward, the more gracious grace may return the feeling of sins in man, and being conscious of his own frailty, that he has trembled so easily in deviating from the series of divine commandments, as if he feared losing the nail of his fluctuating soul, celestial mandates; attributing more to divine mercy, because He receives what was lost, and taking something for Himself from grace, that it may return.

Chapter IX.

God gave a command to man concerning food; and why, when pronouncing the punishment, was it not said 'you will die', but 'you will surely die'?

Now let us consider what that reason is, why He, when He gave the command to man, directing him in that marvelous and blessed life, that he should not die by violating the commandment about eating and not eating, thought it necessary to command. For there are some who think that this command does not in any way befit the heaven and the earth and the Creator of all; it is not worthy of the inhabitants of paradise, since that life is similar to that of the angels. And therefore we cannot consider this food to be earthly and corruptible; for those who do not eat or drink will be like angels in heaven. Therefore, since there is neither reward in food because our nourishment does not commend us to God, nor great danger because what enters the mouth does not defile a person, but what comes out of the mouth, it seems without a doubt that this commandment is not from such a great author, unless you refer this food to that prophetic one, because the Lord promises a great reward to His holy ones: 'Behold, those who serve me shall eat, but you shall be hungry.' (Isaiah 65:13). For this is the food by which eternal life is defined, and whoever is deprived of it will die in death. Since he himself, the Lord, is the living and heavenly bread, who gives life to this world. Hence he himself says: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have eternal life. Therefore, there was some bread that the inhabitants of paradise were commanded to eat. Who is that? Listen to whom he says: Man ate the bread of angels. For bread is good, if you do the will of God. Do you want to know how good this bread is? The Son Himself eats this bread, of which He says: My food is to do the will of My Father who is in heaven (John 4:34).

Again let us see by what reasoning the Lord God said to Adam, 'you will die by death': what difference does it make whether someone says 'you will die' or adds 'by death you will die'? For we must show that there is nothing superfluous in God's command. Therefore, I think this. Since death and life are two contrary things, according to simple speech we say that we live from life and die from death. But if you want to emphasize both, because life makes life, it is said, 'life lives', as you have it in the law. And because death causes death, it is said that he shall die by death. However, this duplication is not superfluous: there is life unto death, and there is death unto life; for someone both dies while living, and lives while dying. Therefore, there are four distinctions: life to live, death to die, death to live, life to die. Since these things are so, we must exclude the prejudice of usage and custom; for usage has it that one is commonly said to live, both he who lives for life and he who lives for death, and that one is commonly said to die, either he who dies for death or he who dies for life. So out of those four, two have a meaning, that is, to say that the living person lives, and does not distinguish between better and worse, and to say that the dying person dies, and does not seem to have a distinction between a bad and a good death. For a certain indiscriminate life is signified, such as that of irrational beings or even of children, and an indiscriminate death as well.

Therefore, with the common use being set aside, let us consider what it means to live life, what it means to die death, what it means for life to die, and what it means for death to live. For I believe, according to the Scriptures, that life signifies a certain admirable and blessed life, and that this use of living and breathing, as if joined with the grace of a blessed life and mixed with a certain participation, seems to demonstrate. For this is to live life, to live by virtue, to have the acts of a blessed life in this life of the body. But what else is it to die against death, if not to signify the deformity of the dying body with death, whose flesh is also deprived of the common function of living, and whose soul cannot have the use of eternal life? There are also those who die while alive, just as those who live in the body, but they die in actuality: such are those of whom the Prophet says: 'They descend into hell alive' (Ps. 54:16). And that of which the Apostle says: 'For she who lives is dead' (1 Tim. 5:6). There remains a fourth category, those who even in death are alive, like the holy martyrs, who certainly die in order to live. The flesh dies, but the grace of the dead lives. Therefore, let it be far from us to live as participants in death, but instead let us die as participants in life. For the holy one does not want to be a participant in this life, who says: I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ; for it is much better. And another says, Woe is me, that my sojourn is prolonged! Certainly, one may grieve when they hope for the fellowship of eternal life, which is contained within the fragility of this life. And for this reason, I can say the opposite, because although it is good to live life; it is uncertain to live life, for one can say that to live life is to wage the eternal battle of the body. It can also be said that to live life is to desire the physical aspects of this life, be it anyone or be it the holy ones; for example, if one believes that it is noble to live in order to attain longevity through good deeds, which is what many weaker individuals find pleasing in this life.


45. Therefore, just as we have learned what it means to live the life, let us also learn what it means to die to death, or rather to live to death. For there can be those who die to death and those who live to life. For one who does not live in such a way that they live according to the death of their soul, they die to death, because they are not subject to death, that is, they have lost the connection to the agonizing death and are not bound by the chains of eternal death. They have died to death, that is, they have died to sin, they have died to punishment. The opposite of punishment is to live, that is, when someone lives in punishment, they live in death. But whoever dies to punishment, dies to death. There is also one who in this life dies to life, as He Himself says: 'But I now live, not I, but Christ lives in me' (Galatians 2:20). For he who is dead to sin, lives to God; that is, death is dead in him, but life lives, who is the Lord Jesus. Therefore, the life of those who live to God is good, and the life of those who live in sin is bad. There is also a middle life, like that of other living creatures, as you have written: 'Let the earth bring forth the living soul according to its kind' (Genesis 1:24). There is also a life of the dead, like the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. There are also those in whom there is a connection between death and life, about whom the Apostle says: If we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him. For if we have been united with the likeness of His death, we shall also be united with the likeness of His resurrection: knowing that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. For whoever has died has been justified from sin (Rom. VI, 5). Just as we have spoken of many figures of life, so also we will find figures of death. Death is said to be evil, according to this: The soul that sins shall die (Ezek. XVIII, 20). Death is also commonly spoken of, as you have for example: Because Adam lived so many years, and he died, and he was joined to his fathers. Death is also said through the sacrament of baptism, as you have: We were buried with him through baptism into death (Rom. VI, 4). And elsewhere: But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him (Romans 6:8). You see that death indeed may be called by name, but this life is ours.

Chapter X.

Why did God not approve of man until after the creation of woman, and why especially did he sin through her deception? Also, why was she created not from the earth like Adam, but from his rib?


46. Another question arises here because the Lord said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone' (Gen. II, 18). First of all, understand that in the earlier passage, when God created man from the dust of the earth, He did not add, 'And God saw that it was good' (Gen. I, 11 et seq.), as He did in each of His other works. For if He had said there that it was good because man was made, it would be contrary to say here that it was not good, since He had said earlier that it was good. But understand this, that it was only there that Adam was created. However, where he includes both man and woman together, although he does not specifically mention them there; nevertheless, because later you have: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good (Genesis 1:31), it is clearly declared that it is good that both man and woman were created.

But from this question another question arises again. For how is it that when Adam was alone, it was not said that he was good, but when the woman was made from him, then everything was deemed good? Although there he praised every creature, and the creation of the universe was approved, since in man there is that predicted community of nature, it nevertheless does not seem idle, to explain how, when Adam was alone, not only was there no preaching of good added to the pleasing work; but it was also said that man alone was not good: since we know that before the woman was made, Adam did not go astray; but after the woman was made, she tempted her husband, transgressed God's command, and became an incentive to him. If, therefore, a woman is truly the author of sin, how does it seem right that she is added for a good purpose? But if you consider that God has care for the universe, you will find that it pleased the Lord more that in that which was the cause of the universe, it should be necessary, than that in that which was the cause of sin, it should be condemned. And therefore, because the propagation of the human race could not take place solely from the man, the Lord declared that it was not good for man to be alone. For God preferred that there should be many whom He could make safe, and to whom He could give sin, rather than that there should be only one Adam, who would be free from sin. Finally, because the same author of both works came into this world to save sinners. Finally, Cain, guilty of murder, did not suffer before he generated children. Therefore, due to the human succession, a woman must be added to a man. (See St. Augustine, Book II against Julian of Eclanum, chapter 7, number 20). Finally, these are the very words of God, saying that it is not good for man to be alone. For although the woman was the first to sin, she should not have been excluded from the use of divine operation in order to obtain redemption. Although Adam was not deceived, but woman, having been deceived, was in the transgression, yet she shall be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with modesty. (1 Timothy 2:14-15).

And not without reason is it recorded that God made woman from the rib of man, rather than from the earth as He made Adam, for this was done to signify the unity of the human race in both man and woman. Therefore, from the beginning, it was not two men or two women, but first a man and then a woman. For God, desiring to establish the unity of mankind, began with one creature and took away the ability for many different and disparate natures to exist. Let us make, he says, a helper similar to himself (Gen. II, 18). By helper, we understand assistance for the generation of human constitution. And truly, it is a good helper. For if you take the assistance for the better, a certain greater operation in the cause of generation is found in the woman; just as this earth, by first receiving seeds and gradually nurturing them with its own support, makes them grow and produces them in the field. Therefore, the assistance of the woman is good, although she is also called a helper of lesser rank; as we also find in human experience, because those who are usually more powerful in dignity choose a helper of lesser merit.

Chapter XI.

How animals were brought to Adam; what the sleep of Adam and the building of his rib teaches us; what the mentioned animals brought into paradise signify; and how the righteous are translated into paradise?

49. Now consider why God, after fashioning all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the sky, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. By what reasoning was this done, when God only brought the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky to Adam? For there were cattle according to their kind. Finally, you have below: Because Adam gave names to all the cattle and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam, a helper like him was not found (Gen. II, 20). Therefore, what is absolution, if not that untamed beasts and birds of the sky are brought to man by divine power? However, man had the power to gather tamed livestock. Therefore, that was the work of divinity, this of human diligence. At the same time, consider for what reason everything was derived from Adam, so that in all things he might see that the substance of nature consists of both sexes, that is, male and female, and he himself might recognize by use and example that the companionship of woman was necessary for him.


And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. Who is this sleep, except that for a little while we direct our attention and our thoughts to the joining together in marriage, as if we seem to have turned our gaze intently to the kingdom of God, and to be inclined and bent toward a certain sleep of this world, and to sleep for a little while in divine things, while we rest in earthly and worldly matters? After God caused the sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, then the Lord God built up the rib which he had taken from Adam into a woman. Well done, he said, when he was speaking about the creation of woman, because in man and woman a certain perfection of the household seems to be complete. He who is without a wife is like someone without a home, so it is considered. Just as a man is esteemed more capable for public duties, so a woman is esteemed more capable for domestic duties. Consider that he took a rib from the body, not a portion from the soul; that is, not soul from soul, but bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh, she shall be called woman.


Therefore, we have recognized the cause of human generation. But because it moves many people who look more closely, whether it was a great gift of God at first to place humans in paradise or later a reward for great merits, that each just person is snatched up to paradise, it is also said that there were animals and wild animals, and birds of the sky, in paradise. Hence, many have wanted paradise to be the soul of humans, in which certain seeds of virtues have sprouted: but man is placed both to work and to guard paradise, that is, the mind of man, whose virtue seems to cultivate the soul, not only to cultivate it, but also to guard it once it has been cultivated. But the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky that are brought to Adam are our irrational movements, because the passions of beasts or livestock are diverse, either more turbulent or even weaker. But what else do we consider the birds of the sky to be, if not empty thoughts that, like birds, fly around our soul and often transfer it here and there with various movements? Therefore, no helper similar to our mind has been found, except for sensation, that is, perception. Our mind alone could find a similar one to itself.

52. But perhaps you may argue that God also placed these things in the intimate paradise, that is, the passions of the body, and a certain emptiness of fluctuating or empty thoughts, because He Himself was the author of our error. Consider what He says: Have dominion, He says, over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the sky, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth (Gen. I, 28). You see that He has granted you dominion, so that you should judge about all things, to discern the varieties of judgment with a sober definition. God called to you, so that above all you would know your own mind. Why did you not find things similar to yourself, and desire to join and unite yourself? Surely He gave you a sense by which you would know all things, and by knowing, judge them. And rightly were you cast out from that fruitful field of paradise, because you were unable to keep the commandment. For God knew that you were weak, He knew that you could not judge; therefore, He said, as to the weaker ones: Judge not, that you may not be judged (Matthew VII, 1). Therefore, because he knew that you were weak in judgment, he wanted you to be obedient to his command; therefore, he gave the command. But if you had not transgressed, you would not have been subject to the danger of uncertain judgment. Therefore, since you wished to judge, he added: 'Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil' (Gen. III, 22). You desired to arrogate judgment to yourself, therefore you should not reject the punishment of unjust judgment. However, he placed you against Paradise, so that you cannot abolish its memory.

53. Finally, the righteous are often snatched into paradise, just as Paul was snatched into paradise and heard unspeakable words. And if you, by the power of your mind, are snatched from the first heaven to the second, from the second to the third, this means that first each person is bodily, secondly animalistic, thirdly spiritual. If you are so snatched to the third heaven, to see the radiance of spiritual grace (for the animalistic human does not know the things of the spirit of God), and therefore the ascent to the third heaven is necessary for you, so that you may be snatched into paradise: you are now snatched without danger, so that you may judge all things, because the spiritual person judges all things, but is judged by no one. And perhaps, as if still fragile, you will hear ineffable words that it is not permissible for a man to speak: and then what you have received, keep to yourself, and what you have heard, guard. The apostle Paul kept watch lest he should fall, or at least cause others to err. Or perhaps Paul says this because it is not permissible for a man to speak (II Cor. XII, 6 and 7) ; because he was still in the body, that is, he saw the sufferings of this body, he saw the law of his flesh resisting the law of his mind (Vid. S. Aug. l. II contra Julian. Pel., c. 5, n. 13). For in this evil do we wish to be understood, lest we appear to be throwing about a certain terror of future danger. For if it is on account of this life's security, so that we fear no snares of prevarication after this, then whoever shall be in paradise by the ascent of virtue will hear those secret and hidden mysteries of God: he will hear the Lord saying to that thief who turned from his wickedness to confession, and from robbery to faith: Today you shall be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).

Chapter XII.

The wisdom of the serpent: how he approached the woman; and what her response was, followed by a lengthy digression on a certain doubt concerning the matter.

But the serpent was wiser than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and the serpent said to the woman: What did God indeed say, that you shall not eat from any tree of paradise? When it says that the serpent was wiser, you understand of whom it speaks, that is, our adversary who possesses only the wisdom of this world. But pleasure and delight are also said to be wise, because wisdom is also called wisdom of the flesh, as you have: For the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God (Rom. VIII, 7). And they are clever in seeking the kinds of pleasures, because they are desirous of pleasures. Therefore, if you understand delight, it is opposed to the divine commandment, and it is inimical to our senses. Hence, Saint Paul says: I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin (Rom. VII, 23). But if you refer to the devil, he is the true enemy of the human race. And what is the cause of enmities if not envy? As Solomon says: Because the envy of the devil death entered into the world (Wisdom 2:24). But the cause of envy is the blessedness of man placed in paradise, and therefore, because the devil himself could not hold onto the grace he had received, he envied man, since he was formed from clay to be a dweller in paradise, and man was chosen. For the devil considered that he, who had been of superior nature, had fallen into these worldly and mundane things; while man, of inferior nature, hoped for eternal things. Therefore, he envied, saying: Does this inferior one achieve what I could not preserve? Will this one who is of the earth migrate to heaven, while I, who have fallen from heaven, am on earth? I have many ways by which I can deceive man. He was made from clay, earth is his mother, he is enveloped in corruption. And if the soul of a higher nature can still be subject to lapses, while being confined in the prison of the body; when I myself could not avoid falling. Therefore, the first way is to deceive it, while it desires greater things according to its condition. For here someone has striven for industry. Then there is the flesh, which it desires but does not possess. Finally, in what way do I seem to be wiser than others, unless I limit myself and strive with cunning and deceit? Therefore, he planned that Adam would not first approach, but that Adam would try to deceive through the woman. He did not approach the one who had received the heavenly command in person, but he approached the one who had learned from the man, not from God, what she should observe. For indeed, you do not have that God said to the woman, but that he said to Adam; and therefore, the woman should be considered to have learned through Adam.

Therefore, understanding this type of temptation in this place, you will also find many other types of temptation in other places. Some are through the prince of this world, who has vomited certain poisons of wisdom into this world, so that people would believe that what is false is true, and their affections would be captivated by a certain appearance of humanity. For he does not always enter as an obvious enemy, but there are certain powers that feign love and pretend grace, gradually infusing the poison of their iniquity into our thoughts, from which arise those sins that are born either from pleasure or from a certain ease of the mind. There are also other powers that struggle against us. Hence the Apostle says: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12). They want to break us with this kind of contention, and as if to destroy the body of our soul. And so Paul, like a good athlete, not only knew how to avoid the blows of opposing powers, but also how to strike back. Therefore he says: I beat my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Corinthians 9:27). And so, like a good athlete, he deserved to reach the crown. Therefore, the temptations of the devil are manifold. And therefore, the serpent is considered to be both double-tongued and deadly, because the devil's servant speaks one thing with his tongue and meditates on another in his heart. There are also other ministers who, with the poison of their words, boast about the corruption of their hearts and voices, as if they were throwing arrows, to which the Lord says: Generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil? (Matthew 12, 34).

56. And the serpent said to the woman: What did God indeed say, that you may not eat from every tree of paradise? And the woman said to the serpent: Of every tree of paradise we will eat: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die (Genesis 3:2-3). When you hear that the serpent is wiser than all other animals, search here for its cunning. It pretends to speak the words of God and weaves its own tricks. For when God had said: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death (Genesis II, 16 and 17); the serpent, as if questioning the woman, when God had said: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, put in a lie, so as to say: Of every tree ye shall not eat: whereas God had only commanded concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they should not taste of it. However, it is not surprising that he deceived her, because it is the custom of those who try to deceive someone. Therefore, the serpent's question is not useless. But so that you may know that there could be no fault in the command, the woman answered as follows, as you have it: 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God said, 'You shall not eat it, nor touch it, lest you die.' Indeed, there is no fault in the command itself, but in the interpretation of the command. For as the present reading teaches, we learn that we should not add anything or join ourselves to the command out of caution. For if you add or subtract anything, it seems to be a violation of the command. The pure and simple form of the command must be observed, or the series of testimony must be indicated. Often, when a witness adds something to the series of events from his own, it stains the entire credibility of the testimony with the falsehood of a part. Therefore, nothing should be added just because it seems good. For here, it has the appearance of an offense that the woman added: 'Neither shall you touch it?' For God had not said, 'You shall not touch it,' but 'You shall not eat it.' But nevertheless, the slip begins to be the beginning. For what she added, she added redundantly, or by adding, she understood that what God commanded was only half-full from her own perspective. Therefore, the present series of readings teaches us that we should neither detract anything from divine commandments nor add to them. For if John judged this of his writings: If anyone adds to this, God will add the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the book of life (Rev. XXII, 18 and 19): how much more should nothing be taken away from divine commands! Hence, the first transgression of the commandment began. Moreover, some think that this vice was not of the woman, but of Adam: thus Adam said to the woman, when he wanted to make her more cautious, that God had commanded: You shall not touch it. For we have it that Adam, not Eve, received the commandment from God. For the woman had not yet been formed. Indeed, the words of Adam, by which he spoke to the woman regarding the form and series of the commandment, are not recorded, but we understand that the commandment passed from the man to the woman. However, let others see what they think; to me, it seems that the fault began with the woman, and falsehood started with her. For even though it may seem uncertain regarding the two, the gender reveals which one could have erred first. Note that the woman is condemned because of the prejudice that was found before her first mistake. For the man is the author of the error, not the woman. Therefore, Paul says: Adam, he says, was not deceived, but the woman was deceived in the transgression.

57. Now let us see whether, apart from the addition that has been applied by command, what has been added seems to have been an obstruction. For in truth, if it is good: You will neither touch it, and it will be for your benefit, why did God not forbid this, but rather seems to have allowed it by not forbidding? Therefore, both must be investigated, by what reasoning He neither allowed nor forbade. For there are those who say, By what reasoning does what He has made seem, He not command and touch? But when you hear that there was knowledge of good and evil in that tree, it can be estimated that he did not want evil to touch you. For it is enough for us to see Satan falling like lightning from heaven, according to the voice of the Lord (Luke 10:18), and giving food not of light, but of darkness and sons of darkness; because it is written: He has given him as food to the peoples of Ethiopia (Psalm 74:14). Therefore, this is said of him, that he did not give command to be touched. But what it does not prohibit, understand what I mean. There are many things that can harm us if we choose to indulge in them before knowing what they are. For often it is through the experience of food and drink that harm comes. Indeed, if you know beforehand what is bitter, you can endure it; and if you understand that those things that are bitter are beneficial, you can tolerate them, so that sudden bitterness does not offend you, and you do not begin to reject what is beneficial. Therefore, it is advantageous to know beforehand; so that from what you know, it will be beneficial, and you will not despise bitterness. But these things can cause less harm: be attentive to that which, unless precautions are taken, could cause more harm.

A certain person is a Gentile, he tends towards faith: he is a catechumen, he desires to receive the fullness of doctrine and faith; let him beware that while he wants to learn, he may learn wrongly, and learn from Photinus, learn from Arius, learn from Sabellius: let him entrust himself to such teachers of whom some authority holds him; and led by a certain presumption of the teachers, he may not know how to judge with his tender senses. Therefore, let him first understand with the eyes of his mind what follows: let him see where life is: finally, let him touch the vital parts of divine readings, so that he may not be offended by any false interpreter. They indeed read Sabellius: 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me' (John 14:10), and he says there is one person. They also read Photinus: 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5). And elsewhere: 'Why do you want to kill me, a man?' (John 8:40). They also read Arius because he said: 'The Father is greater than I' (John 14:28). It is indeed read plainly, but in what sense it is said, one must carefully consider, so that one can understand the meaning of the words. He is led by a certain authority of the teachers, and it would have benefited him not to seek, but to find such a teacher. But even if someone who is a Gentile accepts the Scriptures, he reads: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (Lev. 24:20). He also reads: If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off (Matt. 5:30); he does not understand the meaning, he does not consider the mysteries of the divine word, he slips worse than if he had not read it. And therefore he taught how they should investigate the Word of God, not superficially, not inattentively, but diligently and carefully: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life; and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you (1 John 1:1-2). You see that he, as it were, examined the word of God with certain hands, and afterwards he announced: and therefore the word of Adam and Eve would perhaps not have harmed anything, if those hands of certain minds had touched it diligently before. For by examining and seeking diligently, the weak, who do not understand the nature of each thing, can investigate. Certainly those weak ones should have examined that tree in which they had learned that the knowledge of evil was, before they touched it, in what manner they should. For even knowledge of evil can often be beneficial to us. And therefore we read in this lesson or in the prophecy (Ezek. XXVIII, 18) about the tricks of the devil, in order to learn how to guard against his arts. For his temptations must be known, not so that we may follow them, but so that, being learned and instructed, we may beware of them.

There are those in this place who have doubt, whether God said that all wood should be tasted in the same way, as when all wood is tasted, so also the wood of knowledge of good and evil should be tasted; or rather, whether God said that all wood should be tasted, but not the wood of knowledge of good and evil. They do not think that this is an unreasonable argument, because although the food of this wood may be harmful, it cannot be harmful if it is eaten with other foods: since it is said that the antidote, theriac, is made from the body of a snake, which is harmful when taken alone but is beneficial for health when mixed with other substances. Knowledge of good and evil, if it has any wisdom, if someone always strives for life, if someone achieves the other kinds of virtues, is by no means considered useless. Therefore, many have thought that it can also be understood in this way: that God appears to have forbidden that only the tree of knowledge of good and evil be tasted without the other things, not forbidding it with the others. And they think this is the reason why it is said, because God said to Adam: 'Who told you that you are naked, unless [it was] from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat, [and] you ate from this alone' (Gen. III, 11)? Because it seemed to give someone the opportunity to interpret, unless the woman in higher places, with the serpent speaking: What indeed did God say, do not eat from every tree in the garden: she would have responded: What is in the middle of the garden, God said: You shall not eat from it. In which, although the faith of the woman's transgression seems weaker, yet I will not strip Adam of all his virtues, so that it seems he achieved no virtue in paradise, having tasted nothing from the other trees, and having incurred guilt before obtaining any fruits. Therefore, I will not rob Adam, nor will I dispossess the entire human race, which is innocent before it receives the knowledge of good and evil. For it is not said in vain: Unless you turn and become like this child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). For a child, when cursed, does not curse back; when struck, does not strike back; it is not familiar with the temptations of ambition and plunder.

60. Therefore, I believe, more truthfully, that he has forbidden the eating of wood even with other fruits. For although good knowledge is perfect, it is nevertheless useless when imperfect. I dare to say that every man is imperfect, since even Paul himself says as if imperfect: Not because I have received, or because I am already perfect: but I follow if I may apprehend (Philippians 3:12). And therefore, the Lord says to the imperfect: Judge not, that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1). Therefore, with an incomplete knowledge, it is useless. In fact, I would not have known sin if the law had not said: You shall not covet (Rom. 7:7). And further: Without the law, sin is dead (ibid., 8). For what benefit is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What benefit is it to me to know that the law of my flesh opposes me? Paul is opposed, and he sees the law of his flesh resisting the law of his mind, and he is held captive under the law of sin (Rom. 7:23), and does not presume of his own conscience (see St. Augustine, Book 2 Against Julian, Chapter 5, number 13); but by the grace of Christ, he trusts that he will be liberated from the body of death: and do you think that anyone who knows cannot sin? Paul says: For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want, that I do (Rom. VII, 19): and do you think that knowledge benefits man, which increases envy of sin? Nevertheless, let it be that a perfect man cannot sin. In Adam, God foresaw all men, and therefore it was not fitting for the human race to possess knowledge of good and evil, which it could not exercise except through the vices of the flesh, as was necessary.

Chapter XIII.

How the temptations of the devil are full of lies; and about the deception of the woman, and the fall of Adam. Also, how they realized they were naked, and made themselves loincloths, and what that signifies.


61. Let us therefore learn that the temptations of the devil are full of lies; for hardly one true thing seems to be among those which he promised, the rest he has composed as falsehoods. For you have it thus: And the serpent said to the woman: "You will not die by death" (Gen. III, 4). Behold, one falsehood; for the man, who followed the serpent's promises, died by death. Then he added: God knows that on whatever day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened (Ibid., 5). This is the only truth, because you have it below: because they both ate, and their eyes were opened. But this is the truth that harmed. Finally, it is not useful to open the eyes to everyone, because it is written: They will see and not see. But immediately a deceitful lie is attached, because it adds: And you will be like gods, knowing good and evil. In this, it is allowed to notice that the serpent is the author of idolatry, because it seems that the cunning of the serpent led to the error of introducing multiple gods into humans. And this deceived them, because man wanted to be like gods. For not only did men cease to be as gods, but even those who were like gods, to whom it was said: I said, you are gods, lost their grace (Ps. LXXXI, 6).

62. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a desirable tree to look at (Gen. III, 6). A weak judge who judged on something she had not tasted. And therefore, it does not seem easy, unless we have examined it more diligently, unless we have approved it with inner affection, to be taken for any work. Taking, he said, of its fruit, she ate and also gave it to her husband, and they both ate. It is well known that Adam was deceived; for it was not his fault, but the fault of his wife's fall.

63. And their eyes were opened, he says, and they knew that they were naked (Ibid., 7). And before, indeed, they were naked, but not without the coverings of virtues (De Poenit. dist. 2, c. Ut cognoverunt). They were naked because of the simplicity of their manners, and because the nature of fraud did not know clothing. But now, human understanding is veiled with many disguises of simulations. Therefore, after they saw themselves stripped of that sincerity and simplicity, they began to search for worldly and manufactured things with which to cover the nakedness of their minds: pleasures assuaging pleasures, and the shadowy delights of this world like leaves clinging to leaves, with which they might overshadow their genital secret. For how did Adam, who saw all living beings in such a way that he could even give them names, have closed eyes of the body? How did they know, that is, with an inner and higher knowledge, not that a covering of virtues was lacking, but a covering of a tunic?

64. And they fastened, he says, fig leaves, and made for themselves belts. In this place we should understand figs in terms of their symbolic interpretation, as the series of readings teaches us: since Scripture has noted that those who rest under the vine and fig tree are holy (Mic. 4:4), and Solomon has said: Who plants a fig tree and does not eat its fruit? (Prov. 27:18), and the Lord came to the fig tree; but he was offended because he did not find fruit, but only leaves. Therefore, Adam teaches me what leaves are, who, after he sinned, made a loincloth for himself out of fig leaves, who should have tasted more of its fruits. The righteous chooses fruit, the sinner leaves. What is the fruit? The fruit, he says, is the spirit: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22). He who did not have joy did not have fruit. He who violated God's commandment did not have faith. He did not have self-control, who had tasted the forbidden fruit.

Therefore, whoever transgresses God's commandment is stripped and laid bare; and he himself becomes filthy: he desires to cover himself with certain fig leaves, perhaps with empty or shadowy discourses, skillfully weaving falsehoods and constructing word upon word, in order to cover the conscience of his mind and to cloak the shame of his actions, so that he may hide his shameful deeds. For he throws leaves upon himself, desiring to conceal either the devil as the author of his guilt, or the allurements of the flesh, or some other persuader of error. And he frequently produces examples from the divine Scriptures, by which he alleges that the just have fallen into sin, saying, for example, if perhaps he is caught in adultery: And Abraham slept with his concubine (Gen. XVI, 4), and David loved another man's wife and took her to be his own (II Sam. XI, 4 and 27). For he weaves together certain passages, certain examples from the series of prophetic writings, and he does not consider the fruit of these passages to be worth seeking.

66. Do not the Jews also seem to you to be sewing the leaves together, while they interpret the spiritual words in a bodily way? Their interpretation loses all the fruit of freshness, being condemned by the curse of eternal dryness. Therefore, a good interpretation, that is, a spiritual fig tree, is fruitful, under which the righteous and the holy find rest. Whoever plants it in the minds of individuals, as Paul says: I planted, Apollo watered (I Cor. III, 6), will eat fruit from it. But a bad interpretation will not be able to bear fruit, nor preserve vitality.

Therefore, Adam clothed himself with this interpretation more heavily in that place where he should have clothed himself more with the fruit of chastity. For in the loins with which we are girded, certain seeds of generation are said to exist; and therefore Adam clothed himself wrongly there with useless leaves, where he was signifying not the future fruit of future generation, but rather certain sins, which remained until the coming of the Lord and Savior. Moreover, after the Lord came, He found a fig tree uncultivated: when asked if He should order it to be cut down, He allowed it to be cultivated. And therefore now, we are girded not with leaves, but with divine speech; because the Lord Himself says: Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning (Luke 12:35). Hence, He also prohibits us from carrying money in our belts (Matthew 10:9); for our belt should guard not earthly but eternal things.

Chapter XIV.

On the voice of the Lord walking in the evening, and the reproof of Adam, Where are you? Why is Adam rebuked first, when the woman tasted first: and on the woman's excuse, and the mysteries designated through her.


68. And they heard, he said, the voice of the Lord God walking in the paradise in the evening (Gen. III, 8). What is the walking of God who is always everywhere? But I think it is a certain walking of God through the series of divine Scriptures, in which a certain presence of God is present; when we hear that he sees all things, and the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous: when we read that Jesus knew their thoughts (Luke VI, 8): when we read: Why do you think evil things in your hearts (Matth. IX, 4)? Therefore, while we recount these things, we recognize God as though walking. Hence, the sinner had fled, not in order to escape the sight of God, but rather, he desired to remain hidden within his conscience and did not want his deeds to shine. For it is the privilege of the just to see face to face; because the mind of the just person is not only present with God but also engages in discussion with God, as it is written: 'Judge the orphan, and do justice to the widow; come and let us reason together, says the Lord' (Isaiah 1:17-18). So when a sinner reads these divine Scriptures, he hears the voice of God as if walking in the evening. What does it mean to walk in the evening, except that he late recognizes his guilt and a certain shame of past error follows, which should have prevented the error? For while guilt boils in the body and the soul is tormented by the passions of the body, the senses of the wandering mind do not think of God, that is, they do not hear God walking in the divine Scriptures, walking in the minds of individuals. For God says, 'I will dwell among them and walk among them, and I will be their God' (Leviticus 26:12). So when the fear of divine power returns to the perception of the soul, then we blush, then we desire to hide, then being placed in the thoughts of our sins, we are found in the midst of the tree of paradise where we sinned, desiring to hide, and thinking that God does not seek the hidden things. But the searcher of hearts and thoughts, penetrating even to the division of the soul, says, 'Adam, where are you?' (Genesis 3:9).


69. How does God speak? Does He have a physical voice? Not at all, but He pours forth oracles with a certain superior power than a physical voice could have. The prophets heard this voice; the faithful hear this voice, but the wicked do not understand. Finally, in the Gospel you have, because the evangelist heard Him saying: 'And I have glorified, and will glorify again' (John 12:28); but the Jews did not hear. For they said: 'It thundered' (Ibid., 29). So there, just as you have above, because God, who was perceived as walking, did not walk, so God, who did not speak, was heard speaking.

70. But let us consider what he is saying: Adam, where are you? The remedy of health is still in those who hear the word of God. Indeed, the Jews who closed their ears so as not to hear, even today do not deserve to hear. Furthermore, those who have hidden themselves have a remedy. For whoever hides, is ashamed; whoever is ashamed, converts; as it is written: Let them be confounded and converted quickly (Ps. 6:11). Furthermore, the fact that he calls is a sign of healing, because the Lord has mercy on whom He has mercy, and He calls. But when He said, 'Where are you?' He is not seeking the place which knew His secret, for God does not have closed eyes so as not to see what is hidden. Finally, for this reason, He said, 'Adam has become like one of us' (Gen. 3:22); because He opened his eyes. And indeed, He opened his eyes so that he could see his own guilt, which he could not avoid. For after we have sinned, somehow we recognize our own faults: and then we understand that it is a sin, which before we sinned, we did not consider to be a sin. Certainly, we did not think that sin itself should be condemned; for if we were to condemn it, we would not commit it. But God sees the faults of all and knows the offenses of all: he has eyes over every soul, over all hidden things. So, where are you, Adam? That is, not in what place, but in what state are you. Therefore, it is not an inquiry, but a rebuke. About what goods, he says, about what happiness, about what grace did you fall into such misery? You have abandoned eternal life, and you are buried in death, entangled in error. Where is that self-assured confidence of yours? This fear confesses guilt, this disguise prevarication. So where are you? This is not about where I seek you, but in what state. To what extent have your transgressions led you, that you flee from your God whom you previously sought? Perhaps it moves you why Adam is rebuked first, when the woman tasted before him? But the weaker sex began with prevarication, the stronger with modesty and excuse; so the woman became the cause of error, the man of shame.


And the woman said: The serpent deceived me, and I ate (Gen. III, 13; De Poenit. dist I, c. Serpens). Commendable is the fault that follows the confession of sins. Therefore, the woman, not despairing, did not keep silent before God, but rather confessed her sin, which was followed by a curable sentence. It is good to be condemned in sin and to be scourged in wrongdoing, so that we may be scourged by men. Finally, Cain, because he wanted to deny his crime, was judged unworthy and was to be punished in sin: but he was forgiven without a prescribed punishment, perhaps not for a greater crime of parricide (for he committed that against his brother) but for sacrilege, for he believed it necessary to lie to God, saying: I do not know: am I my brother's keeper? (Gen. IV, 9) ? And for this reason, the accusation of the devil against her was reserved; so that he, who refused to be whipped with men, would be whipped with his angels. Finally, concerning such beings, it is said: There is no death for them . . . and they will not be whipped with men (Ps. LXXII, 4 and 5). Therefore, there is another reason for the woman, who, although she had fallen into the fault of prevarication, still had the fruit of virtue from the trees of paradise; and for this reason, she confessed her sin, and it was accounted to her for forgiveness. For a just accuser is himself at the beginning of his speech. For no one can be justified from sin, unless they have confessed it before. Hence the Lord says: Declare your iniquities, that you may be justified.

Therefore, because Eve herself confessed the crime, a sentence followed that would be both profitable and just, condemning the error but not denying forgiveness, so that she would turn to her husband and serve him. First, so that she would not easily take pleasure in wandering astray, and then so that, placed in a stronger vessel, she would not belittle her husband but rather be guided by his counsel. Indeed, in this mystery I clearly recognize Christ and the Church. For the conversion of the Church to Christ is signified, and the religious servitude subjected to the Word of God, which is much better than the freedom of this world. Finally it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone (Deut. VI, 13). Therefore, this service to God is a gift. Furthermore, the observance of this servitude is counted among the blessings; for Isaac also gave it to his son Esau in the place of the blessing, so that he would serve his brother. Finally, he asked for a blessing; although he knew that one had been taken from him, he still asked for another saying: Have you only one blessing, Father? (Gen. XXVII, 38). Therefore, the one who had previously sold his first fruits through his throat and had lost the grace of the blessing due to his love for hunting, believed that he would become better himself if he revered the image of Christ in his brother. For the Christian people thrives in this servitude, just as the Lord says to his disciples: 'Whoever wants to be first among you, let him be the servant of all' (Matthew 20:27). In conclusion, charity operates this servitude, which is both greater in hope and faith. Where it is written: Serve one another through charity (Gal. V, 13). This is therefore the mystery that the Apostle says is in Christ and in the Church (Ephes. V, 32). For this truly was in transgression before, but it will be saved through the generation of children in faith, and charity, and sanctification, with chastity. Certainly, the generation of men was saved through children in transgression in the fathers, so that what had offended in the Jews, would be corrected in the Christian posterity.

Chapter XV.

Why is the sin of the woman deserving of forgiveness; and what does it signify through the serpent, the woman, and the man? What is the nature of the serpent's condemnation; and in what ways does it differ from Adam's condemnation?

73. The serpent, he says, convinced me; and this seemed acceptable to God; because it knew that the serpent has many ways to deceive (because it transforms into an angel of light, and its ministers are like ministers of righteousness) by falsely assigning names to each thing, so that it may call recklessness a virtue, and assign the name of diligence to greed. For the serpent deceived the woman, and the woman led the man into transgression from the truth. The pleasure of the serpent takes the form of bodily delight: woman is the symbol of our senses, man of our mind. Pleasure therefore moves the senses, and the senses transfer to the mind whatever passion they have received. Pleasure is therefore the first origin of sin, and therefore it is not surprising that the serpent is condemned by the judgment of God before the woman, and the woman before the man. In accordance with the order of error, the order of condemnation is also observed. For pleasure tends to captivate the senses, and the senses in turn tend to enslave the mind. So that you may know, however, that the serpent is a type of delight, be aware of its damnation.

74. Above your chest, He says, you will walk in your womb (Gen. III, 14). Who are those who walk in their womb, except those who live for their belly and throat, whose god is their belly, and glory in their private parts, who are set on earthly things and are weighed down by food? Therefore, he rightly says of the delight that seems intent on devouring the earth with its food: Above your chest, you will walk, and in your womb you will eat the earth all the days of your life. Every excuse of the devil must be eliminated; lest he may be able to make some excuse for his wickedness, saying that his injustice comes from condemnation; and therefore he persistently strives to harm men, because he was condemned to harm them: which seems to be closest to the opinion, if we take this sentence as a condemnation. For God did not condemn the serpent for the purpose of harm; but he showed what would happen. And indeed, we have shown above (ch. 2, n. 9) that that temptation is more beneficial to men: but nevertheless, when we read what is written, with God saying: Those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed (1 Samuel 2:30), we can still infer something from these words. For God works what is good, not what is evil. Therefore, divine words teach us that God works for glory and leaves punishment. He says, 'Those who honor me, I will honor,' indicating that honor is the result of their good work. And he says, 'Those who despise me,' he does not say that he will deprive them of honor, but rather, they will deprive themselves of honor; he does not attribute their wrongdoing to his own work, but he shows what will happen. Therefore, he did not say, 'I will make you walk on your chest, and you will eat the earth all the days of your life,' but rather, he says, 'You will walk and eat,' as if he were foretelling what would happen with the serpent, rather than prescribing what to do. For the earth, he says, will be your food, not the soul: for even this benefits sinners. Therefore the Apostle handed down this, that the flesh may be destroyed, so that the spirit may be saved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. And he says that the serpent crawls in the chest and belly, not so much because of the form of the body, but because he has fallen into earthly thoughts about heavenly blessedness. For the chest is often taken as a metaphor for wisdom. And therefore the Apostle reclines his head on the breast of Christ, he does not cast it down to the ground. Therefore, if the wisdom of the devil is compared to the most savage wild beasts, for whom the chest is within their feet: and also men who are wise in earthly matters are not raised up with inner devotion towards heaven, but seem to crawl on the ground; certainly, we should not fill the belly of our soul with the corruptible things of this world, but rather satisfy it with the word of God. Therefore, David, taking on the role of Adam, well says: My soul has been humbled in the dust, my belly has clung to the earth (Ps. 44:25). For he adhered while being transformed into a serpent, who feeds on earthly wickedness. And therefore the Apostle says that it is necessary for us to be transformed into Christ (Rom. 6:5), so that the power of Christ may be manifested in us. This statement is not considered severe towards the serpent, since even Adam, who sinned more lightly, is condemned by such a sentence.

For it is written: Cursed is the ground in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life (Gen. III, 17). There appears certainly to be a certain resemblance in the sentence, but yet there is great difference in the very resemblance itself. For it makes a difference whether anyone eats the earth, as it was said to the serpent, because thou shalt eat the earth; or whether, as it was said to man, thou shalt eat it in sorrow. For this addition, In sorrow, makes the difference. Consider how powerful discretion is. It is good for me to eat earth in sadness more than in pleasure, that is, to seem to be saddened in some act and sensation of the body, rather than be delighted in sin. For many, because of their excessive impieties, do not undertake the consciousness of sin. But truly he who says, 'I chastise my body and reduce it to servitude' (1 Cor. IX, 27), is saddened in our repentance for sins; because he did not have such great offenses that he should be saddened in them. Finally, he also persuades us that this sadness is useful, which is according to God, not according to the world. 'It is necessary,' he says, 'for you to be saddened unto repentance according to God (2 Corinthians 7:9-10); for according to God, sadness produces salvation, but sadness according to the world produces death. But also consider from the Old Testament that those who were saddened by bodily works found favor, but those who delighted in the works of this world remained in punishment.' Finally, the Hebrews who groaned in the labors of Egypt obtained the grace of the righteous (Exodus 2:24). And because they ate bread in sorrow, they were given spiritual food (Exodus 16:13 et seq.). But the Egyptians, who celebrated such works with exultation, serving a detestable king, did not obtain any forgiveness.

But there is also that distinction, that the serpent is said to eat the earth; but to Adam he said: 'In sorrow you shall eat, and in the sweat of your face you shall eat bread from the earth' (Gen. 3:18-19); so that we may understand that there is a certain process in these things and when we eat the earth, we seem to be in a certain evil: when hay, in a certain process; but when bread, when strength is complete. Therefore, let us also have a process of this life, just as Paul had, who says: 'But I live now, not I' (Gal. 2:20), that is, not I who used to eat the earth before; not I who ate hay, for all flesh is hay: But Christ lives in me, that is, that living bread which comes from heaven lives, wisdom lives, grace lives, justice lives, resurrection lives.


77. Then consider that man is not cursed, but the serpent is cursed: neither is the earth cursed in itself; but Cursed, it says, in your works, which was said to Adam. So the earth is cursed, if you have earthly works, that is, secular works. And it is not cursed in entirety; but that it may generate thorns and thistles, unless it is cultivated by human effort. And if we cultivate it, we will indeed eat bread in toil and sweat, but nonetheless we will eat. For the law of the flesh is at odds with the law of the mind. And we must labor and strive to discipline the body, and bring it into servitude, and sow what is spiritual. For if we sow what is carnal, we shall reap what is carnal; but if we sow what is spiritual, we shall reap what is spiritual. (St. Augustine, Book II against Julian of Eclanum, Chapter 5)