Книга 8

“And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man whom he had created” (Gen. 2:8). I know that many, many things have been said about heaven, but there are three most common opinions regarding this subject. The first of them belongs to those who want to understand heaven only in a physical sense, the other to those who understand it exclusively spiritually; third - to those who accept heaven in one and the other sense: sometimes in the physical, and sometimes in the spiritual. To be brief, I admit right away that the latter opinion seems to me to be the best. And it is from this point of view that I, as far as the Lord grants me to do so, now intend to talk about paradise, believing that man, created from the dust of the ground (which, of course, should be attributed to the human body), was placed in a bodily paradise, for like Adam himself, although he signifies something different, in accordance with the words of the apostle, who called him the image of the future (Rom. 5:14), was a man, visible in his own nature, who lived a certain number of years and, leaving numerous offspring, died in the same way as other people die, although he was not, like others, born of parents, but was created from the earth, as it should have been originally; so the paradise in which God placed him was nothing more than a certain area, that is, a country where earthly man could live. In fact, the narration in these books is conducted in the form of speech about subjects not allegorical, as in the Song of Songs, but historical, as in the books of Kings and other similar ones. And since we are talking about things that are completely known from the experience of human life, it is not difficult to understand them first in the literal sense, and then to deduce from them what they may signify in the future. But since, on the other hand, it also talks about something that those who observe the ordinary course of nature do not encounter, some would like to take the story about this not in a literal, but an allegorical sense, and history, that is, the story of historical objects, begins from the point when Adam and Eve, expelled from paradise, entered into intercourse and began to give birth. As if it were a common thing for us that they lived so many years, or that Enoch was taken into heaven, or that an old and barren woman became a woman in labor, etc.! But, they say, it is one thing to narrate miraculous events, and another to tell about ordinary things: there this very unusualness indicates that there are (different) ways of (existence) of things: some are, so to speak, natural, and others are miraculous; What is meant here is the ordinary order of natures. This should be answered this way: after all, unusual events are unusual because they happen for the first time. In fact, what in the composition of worldly things can be so unusual and unparalleled as not the world itself? Is it possible to think that God did not create the world, because He does not create more worlds, or did not create the sun, because He does not create more suns? This is how we can answer those who are concerned about questions not only about paradise, but also about man himself: since they believe that man was created in a way that no one else subsequently did, why don’t they want to believe that paradise was created in the same way as the forests are being created before their eyes? It is clear that I am saying this for those who recognize the authority of the Scriptures, for some of ours want to understand paradise not in a literal, but in an allegorical sense. As for those who are completely hostile to the Scriptures, we spoke with them at another time and differently; although in our present work, as far as possible, we intend to defend the literal meaning of heaven, so that these people, due to mental perversity or stupidity, refuse to believe such objects, do not find reason to convince others of their falsity. However, I am also surprised by those of us who believe the divine Scriptures and do not want to accept paradise in the literal sense, that is, as a most beautiful place, covered with fruitful trees and watered by a great spring, on the sole grounds that no human agriculture leads, through the hidden action of God, to such abundance - I am surprised how they believe in man himself, created in a way that they have never seen. And if he should be understood allegorically, who in this case gave birth to Cain and Seth? Or maybe they existed only figuratively, and were not people born from people? Let them continue such objections to the point where it does not contradict common sense, and let them, together with us, try to accept the entire narrative first in its literal meaning. For who will interfere with them if they then understand what is being narrated also allegorically, in the meaning of spiritual natures and actions, or future objects? It goes without saying that if what is called here corporeal cannot in any case be accepted by sound faith in a corporeal meaning, then what can we do but understand it allegorically, which, of course, is better than wickedly condemning the Holy Scriptures. If all this, understood and corporeally, not only does not complicate, but, on the contrary, reinforces the narrative of the divine word, then, I think, no one will be so stubborn as to, seeing all this deduced from the rule of faith in the proper sense, prefer to remain with his previous opinion only because previously it seemed to him that it could only be understood allegorically. I myself, soon after my conversion, wrote two books against the Manichaeans, who not only are mistaken, accepting these Old Testament books not as they should, but also blaspheme, not accepting them at all and turning away - I wrote it out of a desire to quickly either refute their chatter, or to arouse attention to the search for the Christian and Evangelical faith in these Scriptures, which they despise. And since at that time it did not seem to me how everything in them could be understood in the proper sense, but rather it seemed that in this sense it either could not be understood at all, or could only be understood in rare cases, I without delay and with the possible brevity and clarity explained in the allegorical sense what I could not accept in the literal sense, fearing that, frightened by the length of the presentation, or the difficulty of the research, they, perhaps, would not want to take (my books) into their hands. However, remembering what I most wanted, but could not do, namely, to understand everything first in a literal and not allegorical sense, and not completely despairing that it could be understood in that way, in the first part of the second book I expressed this thought as follows: “It goes without saying,” I said, “that anyone who wants to take everything said in the literal meaning, i.e., as the letter sounds, and at the same time can avoid blasphemy and speaking everything in accordance with the Catholic faith, not only should not arouse our rejection, but, on the contrary, should be revered by us as a glorious and praiseworthy interpreter. If, however, there does not seem to be any possibility of a pious and dignified understanding of what is written except as said allegorically and in riddles, then, following the authority of the apostles, who solve so many riddles in the Old Testament books, we will adhere to the method that we have outlined for ourselves with the help of Him who commands us to ask, seek and knock (Matt. 7:7), explaining all these images of things in accordance with the Catholic faith, as relating either to history or to prophecy, but at the same time without prejudging a better and more worthy interpretation on our part, or on the part of those whom the Lord will honor.” That's what I wrote then. At the present time, the Lord has deigned that, having looked at the matter more carefully, I have not in vain, as it seems to me, come to the conclusion that I can also explain what is written in my own, and not allegorical, sense; (and this is exactly how) we are conducting research both on what was discussed above and on what we are talking about now. So, “the Lord God planted a paradise” of sweets (for this very thing means “in Eden in the east”), “and placed there the man whom he had created.” It’s written that way because that’s the way it was. Then (the writer of everyday life) dwells on this subject again, wanting to show how exactly what he said briefly happened, that is, how exactly God planted paradise and brought here the man he created. For he continues his speech like this: “And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food to grow” (Gen. 2:8, 9). He does not say, “And God made new trees grow out of the ground.” Consequently, even then, on the third day, the earth brought forth every tree, both beautiful to look at and good to taste; for on the sixth day God says: “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed that is on all the earth, and every tree that has fruit yielding seed; “This will be food for you” (Gen. 1:29). So, didn’t He give one thing then, and now wanted to give another? Don't think. But since in paradise trees of the same species were grown that the earth had produced earlier, on the third day, now it gave birth to them, as it were, in its own time, since what is written that the earth produced (on the third day plants) speaks of what was then produced in the earth causally, i.e., then the earth received the hidden power to produce (plants), and from this power comes the fact that it now gives birth to them in a visible way and in due time. From this it is clear that the words of God spoken on the sixth day: “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed that is on all the earth,” etc., were not spoken in a sensory or temporary manner, but as a creative power in His Word. But what He utters silently, He could tell people only with the help of sounds. For this was only supposed to happen in the future, so that man, formed from the dust of the earth and animated by His breath, and then the entire human race descended from him, would eat what comes out of the earth thanks to the productive power that it received. The Creator then spoke about the causal foundations of this future event in creation, as if already about an existing matter - he spoke with the truth inherent in Him, which neither eye had seen nor ear had heard, but about which His Spirit revealed to the writer. It is clear that the following words that the Lord grew “the tree of life in the midst of paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9) must be given special attention, for there is a great temptation to reduce them to an allegory, they say, these were not trees, but something else is designated under the name of trees. True, it is written about wisdom: “She is a tree of life for those who acquire her” (Proverbs 3.18), however, although there is an eternal Jerusalem in heaven, nevertheless, a city was built on earth, which signified that; although Sarah and Hagar signified two covenants (Gal. 4:24), they were also two famous women; finally, although Christ gives us spiritual water through His suffering, He was also a stone, which, when struck by a tree, brought out water to the thirsty people, as it is said: “The stone was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). All these objects had a different meaning than what they had in themselves; and yet they existed physically. And the story of a writer of everyday life is not only (and not so much) allegorical speech, but also an accurate narration about real objects. Thus, the tree of life existed, just as the Christ-stone existed; God wanted man to live in paradise not without spiritual sacraments that had a physical form. Therefore, other trees served as food for him, and the tree of life was a sacrament, meaning nothing other than wisdom, as it is said: “She is the tree of life to those who acquire it,” just as one can say about Christ: “He is the stone that gives drink to all who drink from Him” (1 Cor. 10:4) 1 - AV.. He is rightly called that which previously served as His prototype. He is the lamb that was slain for the Passover; and yet it was a type not only in speech, but also in action: for there really was a lamb that was slain and eaten (Ex. 12:5), and yet something else was prefigured by this true occurrence. This is not like the fat calf that was slaughtered for the feast of the returned youngest son (Luke 15:23). Here the story itself is an allegory, and not the transformative meaning of real objects. It is not the evangelist who talks about this, but the Lord himself; the evangelist only conveyed what the Lord said. Therefore, as the evangelist says, this is how it was, that is, this is exactly what the Lord said; the story of the Lord himself is a parable, and in no case should it be treated as a literal description of those events that served as the subject of the Lord’s speech. Christ is both the stone anointed by Jacob and “the stone that the builders rejected,” but which “became the head of the corner” (Ps. 118:22); the former was an actual event, the latter only a figurative prediction; the narrator of the past writes about the former, and the predictor of the future writes about the latter. In exactly the same way is Wisdom, i.e. Christ represents the tree of life in the spiritual paradise, where the thief was sent (Luke 23:43), but to symbolize it, the tree of life was created in the physical paradise: this is spoken of by the same Scripture, which, narrating the events that took place in its time, also tells that in paradise there was a man who was created bodily and lived in the body. And if anyone, on this basis, begins to think that souls, after separation from bodies, are contained in a physically visible place, although they are without a body, let him defend his opinion; There will also be those who will react to this opinion with approval, arguing that this thirsty rich man (Luke 16:24) was undoubtedly in a bodily place, and they will not even hesitate to declare the soul itself completely corporeal in view of the rich man’s clotted tongue and the drop of water that he desired from the finger of Lazarus: about such an important question, I do not want to enter into a rash argument with them. It is better to doubt the innermost than to argue about the unknown. I have no doubt that the rich man should be imagined in a painful place, and the poor man in a cool and joyful place. But how one should imagine this hellish flame and this Abraham’s bosom, this rich man’s tongue and this poor man’s finger, this scorching thirst and this cooling drop - all this can hardly be discovered through calm research, but never through a heated argument. In order not to dwell on this deep and lengthy question, let us say this for now: if souls, after separation from the body, are in a bodily place, then this robber could be placed in paradise, in which the body of the first man was located; when analyzing the appropriate passage of Scripture, if any need requires it, we will show in one way or another what we should know or think regarding this subject. At the present time, I do not doubt, and I do not think that anyone would doubt, that wisdom is not a body, and therefore not a tree; and that in the corporeal paradise wisdom could be designated through a tree, that is, a corporeal creature, as some kind of sacrament - let him consider it incredible who either does not see so many corporeal sacraments of spiritual objects in Scripture, or asserts that the first man should not have lived with some sacrament of this kind, although the apostle said the words of Scripture about the wife (who, as we believe, was created from the rib of her husband): “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.” their own, and the two will become one flesh” explains this way: “This mystery is great; I speak in relation to Christ and to the Church” (Eph. 5:31–32). It is amazing how people want to understand heaven as a kind of allegorical narrative, but at the same time do not want to understand it as an allegorical action. If they agree about Hagar and Sarah or about Ishmael and Isaac that these were real persons and at the same time prototypes, then I do not understand why they do not admit that the tree of life was really a certain tree and represented wisdom. I will also add that although this tree represented bodily food, it was food that made the human body constantly healthy, not like any other food, but due to some hidden inspiration of health. For even ordinary bread contained something more, when with one unleavened bread God protected a person from hunger for forty days (1 Kings 19:8). Or, perhaps, we will doubt that God, through food from a certain tree, due to its special significance, gave man the opportunity so that his body would not experience changes for the worse both in health and age, or even die - He, who could give such wonderful stability to human food itself that the flour and oil that were lost in earthen vessels were replenished again and did not become scarce (1 Kings. 17:16)? But, perhaps, here too someone from the disputant breed will appear and say that God should have worked such miracles in our countries, but should not have done so in paradise; as if, having created man from the dust of the ground and a wife from the rib of a husband, He performed a greater miracle there than here - raising him from the dead! Let us now move on to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Undoubtedly, this tree, like the others, was visible and corporeal. So, that it was a tree, there is no doubt; you just need to investigate why it received such a name. Looking more deeply into the matter, I cannot express to what extent I am pleased with the opinion that this tree was not harmful to food; for He who created everything “very good” (Gen. 1:31) could not introduce anything evil into paradise, but the transgression of the commandment was evil for man. Meanwhile, for a person who stood under the authority of the Lord God, some kind of limitation was necessary so that obedience would be for him a virtue leading to the Lord; I confidently declare: obedience is the only virtue for every rational creature acting under the authority of God, but the first and greatest vice of pride is the desire to use one’s power to one’s own destruction; The name of this vice is disobedience. Thus, there would be no way for a person to know and feel that he has the Lord if nothing was commanded to him. So, this tree was not bad, but was called the tree of good and evil because in it, if a person ate from it after receiving the prohibition, there was a future crime of the commandment, and in this crime, by suffering punishment, a person could learn what the difference is between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience. That is why this tree should not be taken as an allegory, but as some real tree, which was given its name not from the fruit or apple that grew on it, but from what should have happened to those who ate this apple, contrary to the prohibition. “From Eden came a river to water the garden; and then divided into four rivers. The name of one is Pison: it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and onyx stone. The name of the second river is Gihon: it flows around the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel: it flows before Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates" (Gen. 2:10–14). What can I say about these rivers except that these are real rivers, and not allegorical images that do not exist in nature, for these rivers are very well known both to the countries through which they flow, and to almost all peoples. And from the fact that they undoubtedly exist (although two of them have changed their names, just as the Tiber is now called the river that used to be Albula, namely: Gihon is now called the Nile, and Pison the Ganges; the other two, the Tigris (Hiddekel) and the Euphrates, have retained their ancient names), we are encouraged to understand everything else first of all in a literal meaning and to think that it is not an allegory, but the very thing that is being narrated and that really exists, but at the same time means something else. And this is not because the parable cannot borrow anything from what is known to exist in the proper sense; this is what the Lord does, for example, when speaking about the one who followed from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers (Luke 10:30). Who does not understand that this is a parable, the speech is completely allegorical, and yet the two cities that are mentioned here exist to this day. In a similar way, we would accept the four (paradise) rivers, if some necessity forced us to accept everything else that is told about paradise not in its own sense, but in an allegorical sense; but since nothing prevents us from understanding these rivers in a literal sense, why cannot we directly follow the authority of Scripture in our understanding of the events that have taken place, first accepting these events as real, and then exploring what they also mean as allegories. But perhaps we will be swayed by what they say about these rivers, namely: that the sources of some of them are (now) known, and therefore it is impossible to take literally the legend that they were separated from one heavenly river. Rather, this must be believed, because the very place of paradise, where these parts of the waters were divided, is very remote from human knowledge, as the most undoubted Scripture testifies; but those rivers, the sources of which are said to be known, went somewhere underground and then came out in other places, where, as they say, they have now become known in their sources. Because who doesn’t know that this is a fairly common occurrence? Only people know about this where rivers do not flow underground for long. So, from Eden, that is, from the place of sweetness, a river came out and watered paradise, that is, all the beautiful and fruitful trees that covered the land of this country. “And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: You shall eat from every tree of the garden, but you shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:15–17). Although it was already said above that God planted paradise and brought there the man whom he created, however (the writer of everyday life) repeated this again to tell how paradise was structured. Now he again mentions how God placed the man whom He created in paradise. Let us consider what it means “to cultivate it and store it.” What exactly to cultivate and what to store? Did the Lord really want the first man to engage in agriculture? Is it possible to think that He condemned him to work before sin? So, of course, we would think if we did not see that some are engaged in farming with such spiritual pleasure that distracting them from this activity is a great punishment for them. And no matter how much pleasure farming may bring now, then it was much greater, for this occupation did not encounter anything contrary either from earth or from heaven. Then it was not painful labor, but a joyful pleasure, since everything created by God then grew much more abundantly and fruitfully, which is why the Creator himself was glorified to a greater extent, who gave the soul, united with the animal body, the idea of ​​​​work and the ability to do it to the extent that it served to satisfy spiritual desire, and not to the extent that the needs of the body required it. Indeed, what could be an even more amazing spectacle, or where else can the human mind, so to speak, converse so freely with nature, if not where, with the help of seeds, when growing layerings, when transplanting young trees, when grafting grape cuttings, it seems to seek the power of each seed or root, what it can and cannot do, why it can and why it cannot, what the invisible and internal power of numbers means and what is externally applied labor, and in this consideration he comes to the conclusion that “he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but God increases everything” (1 Cor. 3:7), since what comes from the outside comes through the one whom he created and whom God invisibly governs and disposes of. If from here we direct our mental gaze at the world itself, as at some kind of huge tree, then in it we will also discover the double action of Providence - natural and voluntary: natural, accomplished through the secret control by which God gives growth to trees and herbs, and voluntary - through the actions of angels and people. In accordance with the first, the celestial (phenomena) are ordered above, and the earthly (phenomena) below, the luminaries and stars shine, the dense mass of the earth is irrigated and washed by waters, and the air flows above, plants and animals are conceived and born, grow, grow old and die, and everything that happens in things due to internal and natural movement occurs. In the second, signs (signa) are given, explained and comprehended, fields are cultivated, countries are governed, sciences are developed and everything else is accomplished both in high society and in earthly and mortal society, so that both the virtuous and the vicious are embraced by the care of this action of Providence. The same double power of Providence is found in man, and above all in relation to his body: natural - in the way it moves, grows, ages, and voluntary - in the way it is supported by food, clothing, and treatment. Then, in relation to the soul, a person is controlled naturally in order to live and exist, and voluntarily in order to learn and comprehend. And just as in a tree, in order for it to grow and what happens internally, agriculture helps externally, so in a person, in relation to the body, what nature does internally in it is helped externally by medicine, and in relation to the soul, in order for it to be internally happy by nature, science externally contributes. Further, what negligence in caring for a tree means for a tree, negligence in its treatment means for the body, and negligence in its education means for the soul. Finally, what harmful moisture means for a tree, destructive food means for the body, and obscene instruction for the soul. Thus, above all, God, who created everything and controls everything, creates all natures as good, rules all wills as just. Why should we deviate from the truth if we believe that man in paradise was in such a state that he engaged in agriculture not as slave labor, but as a noble spiritual pleasure? For what is more innocent than this work for those who engage in it, and what is more complete than a comprehensive discussion for the prudent? What to store? Is it really heaven itself? From whom? He was not threatened by a hostile neighbor, a trespasser, a thief, or a robber. How can we understand that the bodily paradise could be protected by a person physically? But Scripture does not say “to protect,” but simply “to...keep” (Gen. 2:15). Although, however, if translated literally from Greek, it is not entirely clear whether to keep paradise, or to keep in paradise. But what should be kept in heaven? Is it possible to understand this this way: what a person produced in the earth with the help of agriculture, he had to keep within himself with the help of science, so that just as the field obeyed him as the cultivator, so he himself obeyed his commanding Lord, so that, having eaten the fruit of obedience to the commandment, he would not receive thorns of disobedience? That is why, not wanting to retain in himself the semblance of cultivating paradise, after condemnation he received for himself the kind of land about which it is said: “It will produce thorns and thistles for you” (Gen. 3:18). If we understand that man had to cultivate and preserve paradise, then he could cultivate paradise, as said above, with the help of agriculture, and preserve it not from bad and hostile people, which did not exist then, but perhaps from animals. But how and why? Were the animals already ferocious towards man, which only happened as a result of sin? For man, as is later mentioned, gave names to all the animals brought to him, and on the sixth day, according to the law of the word of God, he received common food with all of them (Gen. 1:30). Or, if there was already something to fear from the beasts, how could one man protect paradise? For it was a huge space, since it was watered by such a great river. Of course, he should, if only it were possible, fence paradise with such a wall that snakes could not penetrate there, but it would be surprising if before a person fenced paradise, he was able to drive out all the snakes from there. But why don't we use our minds before our eyes? Man was indeed placed in paradise so that he would cultivate it, as explained above, through not painful, but pleasant agriculture and a prudent mind, seeking out many useful things, and keep the same paradise for himself, so as not to allow anything to happen for which he would deserve expulsion from it. For this reason, he also received the commandment so that he would have in it a means by which he would preserve paradise for himself and with the retention of which he would not be expelled from it. For they rightly say that he did not preserve a certain thing, who disposed of it in such a way that he lost it, although it would have been salvageable to another who would have either found it or deserved to receive it. There is another meaning in these words, which I consider it worthwhile to offer, namely: that God cultivated and preserved man himself. For just as man cultivated the earth not so that it would become earth, but so that it would be cultivated and fruitful, so God makes man, created so that he would be man, so that he would be righteous, if man himself does not depart from God because of his pride; for falling away from God is what Scripture calls the beginning of pride (Sir. 10:15). And since God is an unchangeable good, and man, both in body and soul, is something changeable, he can become righteous and blessed only by turning to the unchangeable good, God. Therefore, God, having created man to be a man, Himself cultivates and preserves him so that he is righteous and blessed. Hence the saying that man made the earth such that it, already being earth, became cultivated and fertile, is equivalent to the saying that God cultivated man so that he, already being a man, became pious and wise, and preserved it, because with his own power man, occupied with it beyond measure and neglecting the sovereignty of God, cannot be whole. Therefore, I think, it is not at all accidental, but in order to point out something important, from the very beginning of this divine book, from its very first words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) and right up to the present place, nowhere is it said “The Lord God,” but only “God.” Now, when it comes to the fact that God placed man in paradise and gave the commandment to cultivate it and preserve it, Scripture says “The Lord God” (Gen. 2:15); He says not because God was not the Lord of the above-mentioned creatures, but because this was written not for angels and not for other creatures, but specifically for man, to remind him how useful it is for him to have God as Lord, that is, to live obediently under His rule, and not to use his own power; that is why the word “Lord” was not added earlier. And this is why it is said: “And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it (that is, so that the man would be righteous), and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15) (that is, so that he would be safe, being precisely under His dominion, which is useful not for Him, but for us). It is not He who needs our slavery, but we who need His dominion, so that He may cultivate and preserve us; He alone is the true Lord, since we are His slaves not for Him, but for our own benefit and salvation. For if He needed us, He would not be the true Lord, because thanks to us His bondage would increase, to which He would be a slave. So, rightly says the psalmist: “You are my Lord; You don’t need my blessings” (Ps. 15:2). But our words should not be understood to mean that we serve God solely for our benefit and our salvation, as if hoping to receive from Him something other than Himself, who represents the highest good and salvation for us. For we love Him freely, in the words of the psalmist: “But it is good for me to draw near to God” (Ps. 72:28). In fact, man is by no means something such that, having departed from his Creator, he can do something good, as if on his own: all his virtue consists in turning to God, Who created him and from Whom he is constantly made righteous, pious and wise, and is not done and then abandoned, as he is cured and then abandoned by a physical doctor; because the physical doctor acts externally, helping nature, which acts internally under the authority of God, who arranges our health through the double action of Providence, which we spoke about above. Hence, a person should turn to the Lord not in such a way that, having become righteous, he could retreat from Him, but in such a way that God constantly makes him (righteous). Therefore, as long as a person does not depart from God, God by his presence justifies him, sanctifies him and makes him blessed, that is, he cultivates him and protects him, ruling over him, obedient and submissive. This is not similar to how a person cultivates the land so that, as we said above, it becomes cultivated and fertile, and the land, when a person, having cultivated it, leaves it, remains either plowed, or sown, or irrigated, or some other way, retaining the work that was done on it, although the worker himself has already left it, but rather to the fact that, just as the air does not brighten before the light, but becomes bright from the presence light, because if it were already light before the light, and did not become light from the presence of light, then it would remain light even in the absence of light; in the same way, man: in the presence of God he is sanctified, but in His absence he remains in constant darkness, for he departs from God not in a spatial manner, but by the aversion of his will. So, He who is immutably good makes a person good and preserves him. We must constantly be (good) and constantly improve, clinging and remaining turned to Him, about whom it is said: “But it is good for me to draw near to God” (Ps. 72:28). For we are His creation not only because we are people, but also because we become good. So the apostle, reminding the faithful who have turned from ungodliness of the grace by which we are saved, says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one can boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to walk in” (Eph. 2:8–10). And in another place, having said: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), he, so that we would not attribute this to ourselves, as if we ourselves were making ourselves righteous and good, directly adds: “For it is God who works in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). So, “the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou shalt eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it; for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16). If this tree were something evil, which is why God forbade it to man, then it would turn out that man was poisoned to death by the very evil nature of this tree. But since He who created everything “very good” planted only good trees in paradise and there was not a single evil nature there, since in general there is no evil nature in the world (we will talk about this, if the Lord grants, in more detail when we talk about the snake), then from this tree, which was not evil, it was forbidden (to eat) for the sole purpose that the very observance of the commandment would be good for a person, and its transgression would be evil. It was impossible to better and more accurately show a person to what extent disobedience itself is evil, since he became guilty of vice because, contrary to the prohibition, he touched an object, touching which without such a prohibition he, of course, would not have sinned. Suppose, for example, someone says: “Do not touch this grass,” since it is poisonous and touch is fatal; in this case, although the disobedient dies, he dies not because he did not fulfill the order, but because he touched (the poisonous plant). Likewise, if someone forbids touching an object because it will cause harm not to the toucher, but to the one prohibiting, as, for example, if someone were to reach out to someone else’s property contrary to the prohibition of the one to whom this property belongs, then (violation of) such a prohibition would be a sin, because it could cause damage to the one who forbade. But since they touch something that is not harmful either to the toucher (if it is not protected by a prohibition) or to anyone else, then why else is it protected by a ban, if not to indicate: obedience in itself is good, and disobedience is evil? Finally, the sinner only desires not to be under the dominion of God, since he allows himself something, in the prohibition of which he must be guided solely by the command of the Lord. And if he should be guided only by this, then it means that he does not want to obey the will of God, does not love the will of God and prefers the human will to it. The Lord, of course, knows why He commands; His servant must do what He commands, and if he is an outstanding servant, then perhaps he can understand why He commands so. We will not, however, dwell long on examining the reason for this command, if the great benefit for a person lies in the fact that he serves God; By commanding, God makes useful whatever He commands, and in no case should one be afraid that He may command something unhelpful. And it cannot be that one’s own will (ours) does not fall upon a person with the great weight of a fall if he arrogantly prefers it to a higher will. This is what man experienced, having transgressed the commandment of God and through this experience he learned what the difference is between good and evil, the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that is, pride and stubbornness, perverse imitation of God and criminal freedom. And in connection with which tree this could happen, from this circumstance, as stated above, the tree received its name. For it would not be evil if we did not know it from experience, since there would be no evil if we did not commit it. And in general there is no nature of evil, and the name of evil has been derogated from good. Undoubtedly, God is an immutable good, but man, by the nature in which God created him, although he is good, is not an immutable good. The transitory good, which follows the immutable good, becomes better as soon as it is devoted to the immutable good, loving Him and serving Him with our rational will. Therefore, such a nature also represents a great good, since it is endowed with the ability to be devoted to the highest good. If she does not want to be like that, then she is deprived of the good, which constitutes her evil, which entails, according to God’s justice, suffering. For what else could be so unjust as if the traitor to the good remained in prosperity? This cannot happen under any circumstances; but only sometimes they do not feel the evil of the loss of the highest good, loving the lower good. But according to divine justice, the one who has lost by his own will the good that he should have loved, loses his beloved with sorrow. It is also good that he grieves over the lost good: if there were nothing good left in his nature, then there would be no sorrow over the lost good. But whoever desires good beyond the experience of evil, that is, whoever, before he feels the loss of good, has already decided not to lose it, he should be placed above all people. For if this were not given special praise to anyone, then that Child would not deserve praise either, who, having become Emmanuel from the race of Israel, which means “God with us” (Matthew 1:23), reconciled us to God, appeared as a mediator between people and God (1 Tim. 2:5), the Word with God, the flesh with us, the Word-flesh between God and us. For it is about Him that the prophet says: “He will understand to reject what is bad and choose what is good” (Is. 7:15). And how could He neglect or choose what He did not know, if not that good and evil are known in one way through the foreknowledge of good and in another through the experience of evil? Through the foreknowledge of good, evil is known, but not felt; in this case, the good is held on so as not to feel evil due to its loss. In turn, through the experience of evil, good is learned, and the one who feels bad from the loss of good feels what he has lost. Hence, that Youth, before he knew from experience either the good that he could lose, or the evil that he could feel in connection with the loss of good, neglected evil in order to choose good, that is, he did not want to lose the good that he had, so as not to feel the loss of what he should not have lost. Therefore, the only example of obedience is represented by the One who came to do not his own will, but the will of the One who sent Him (John 6:38), as opposed to the one who chose to do his own will, and not the will of the One who created him. Therefore, just as through the disobedience of one many became sinners, so through the obedience of one many become righteous (Rom. 5:19); “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live” (1 Cor. 15:22). Meanwhile, some in vain embark on subtle investigations into the question of how a tree could be called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before a person transgressed the commandment and through this experience learned what the difference is between the good that he lost and the evil that he gained. This name was given to this tree for the sole purpose that, according to the prohibition, they should beware of touching something, the sensation of which should have appeared from this touch. For it did not become the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because they ate from it contrary to the prohibition; on the contrary, if (the ancestors) had turned out to be obedient and had not eaten from it, then in that case, of course, it would correctly be called what would have happened to them if they had eaten from it. So, if a tree was called the tree of health because people, thanks to it, could be healthy, would this name cease to correspond to it if no one touched it? But, they say, how could a person understand what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means when he did not know at all what evil itself was? Those who reason in this way pay little attention to the fact that very often we understand the unknown from the opposite of the known, so that even the names of the non-existent, given in speech, have a certain meaning for the listener. For that which is not at all (non est) is not named in any way; and meanwhile, these two syllables are understood by anyone who hears and understands Latin. Where else, if not from the understanding of what is and from its denial, do our senses recognize what is not? Thus, when they say “emptiness,” then understanding what fullness is, from its negation, as from its opposite, we comprehend what is called emptiness; with the help of hearing we judge not only sounds, but also silence; in the same way, due to the inherent life of us, a person can beware of everything that is contrary to it, i.e., the deprivation of life, called death, and no matter what the reason is called, due to which he can lose what he loves, i.e. Any action from which the loss of life could occur (and such a cause is called sin or evil), he will understand that this name means loss. How, in fact, do we understand the word resurrection, which we have never seen? Do we not feel what it means to live, and call the deprivation of life death, and the return from it to what we feel, calling it resurrection? And whatever other name and whatever language we call it, our mind is given a sign by the words of the speaker, by which he understands what he thinks apart from the sign. And one must be surprised how nature avoids even the loss of what it possesses, which is unknown in experience. Who taught cattle to avoid death if not the instinct of life? Who taught a little child to cling to his carrier if he was threatened with being thrown from a height? True, it begins (to do this) from a certain time, but before it experiences anything similar. In the same way, life was kind to the first people; they, without a doubt, avoided losing it, and in whatever way, in whatever words God designated it to them, they could understand Him. They could not have inclined to sin if they had not first been convinced that they would not die from this act, that is, they would not lose what they had and the possession of which filled them with joy; which, however, will be discussed in its proper place. Let those who are concerned about the question of how (the ancestors) could understand God, who threatened them with something that they had not experienced, turn their attention to the fact that without the slightest hesitation or doubt we understand the names of everything that we have not experienced, either by contrast to what we already know, if these are negative names, or by comparison, if these are specific names. But perhaps someone is worried about the question of how people who did not learn to speak, because they did not grow up among other speakers (people) and did not learn this from a teacher, could speak and understand the speaker? As if it were difficult for God to teach those whom He created to speak in such a way that they could even learn it from people, if only there was someone from whom! They also ask whether God only gave this commandment to the husband, or to the wife as well? But so far (before the prohibition was given) the creation of the wife had not been spoken about. Or perhaps it was already created, but only this was told later? For the words of Scripture are arranged like this: “And the Lord God commanded man” (not “commanded them”). Then follows: “Of every tree of the garden you will eat” (not “you will”). Further added: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it” (Gen. 2:16–17). Here the speech is already addressed as if to both, in the plural, and the very end of the commandment is expressed in the plural. Could it be that God, knowing that he would create a wife, commanded for the sake of order so that the wife would learn about the commandment of the Lord from her husband? The apostle also supports this order in the affairs of the Church, saying: “If they want to learn anything, let them ask their husbands about it at home” (1 Cor. 14:35). The question is also possible about how God spoke to man, whom He created, undoubtedly already gifted with feelings and intelligence, so that man could hear and understand the speaker? For he could not have received the commandment, the transgression of which made him guilty, if he had not been endowed with the ability to understand. How did God speak to him? Is it internally, in his mind, mentally, that is, so that a person intellectually understands the will and commandment of God without any bodily sounds, or somehow materially? Scripture tells us in such a way that we should rather think that God spoke to man in paradise as He later spoke to the forefathers, for example, with Abraham and Moses, that is, in some bodily form. This is precisely the reason that they heard the voice of God walking in paradise and hid themselves (Gen. 3:8). Here we have an opportunity to turn, as much as we can and as far as God deigns to help us in this, our gaze to the double action of divine Providence, so that the mind of the reader from this moment begins to become accustomed to considering what most supports us and protects us from unworthy thoughts about the very substance of God. So, we say that the highest, true, one and only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is, God, His Word and the Spirit of Both, the unmerged and indivisible Trinity, God, who alone has immortality and lives in an unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see (1 Tim. 6:16), - this God is not contained by either finite or infinite space and does not change in time, nor in the finite, nor in the infinite. For there is nothing in His substance that is shorter in part than in the whole, as is necessarily the case in everything that is in space; There was also nothing in it that no longer exists, as happens in those natures that can undergo changes over time. This One who lives in unchanging eternity created everything at once, from which times already flow, spaces are filled, and centuries rotate with the temporal and spatial movements of things. Of these things He created some spiritual, and others corporeal, forming matter, which not anyone else, but He himself created, formless, but capable of perceiving forms, so that it precedes its formation not in time, but causally. He placed the spiritual creature above the bodily one, since a spiritual creature can change only in time, and a bodily one - in time and space. Thus, our spirit is moved by grace, either remembering what it had forgotten, or learning what it did not know, or desiring what it did not want; the body moves in space, either from earth to heaven, or from heaven to earth, or from east to west, or in some other way. And everything that moves in space can also move in time; However, what moves in time does not necessarily move in space. Hence, just as a substance that moves in space is superior to a substance that moves only in time, so this latter is superior to a substance that does not move either in time or in space. The created spirit moves itself in time, and the body in time and space; The Creator Spirit moves Himself outside of time and space, the created spirit moves in time, but outside of space, and the body moves in time and space. That is why the one who tries to understand how the eternally true and eternally immortal and immutable God, without moving either in time or in space, moves His creation in time and space, I think he cannot form an idea about this without first understanding how the soul, that is, the created spirit, moving not in space, but only in time, moves the body in time and space. For if such a one is not able to understand what is happening in himself, will he not be able to understand what is above him? For the soul, bound by the habit of bodily senses, thinks that it itself moves along with the body in space, as long as the body moves. But if she is able to take a closer look at how the sort of centers of the members of her body are located, serving as fulcrum points during movement, she will see that those members that move in a certain interval of space move only from those that themselves are motionless. Thus, no finger can move unless the hand is motionless, from which, as from a motionless center, it can move; in the same way, when the palm moves from the entire elbow joint, the elbow from the shoulder joint, the shoulder from the back, then while the centers themselves are immobile, on which the movement seems to rest, the moving member passes a certain period of space. Likewise, the heel contains the support of the foot, when immobilized the foot moves, the knee contains the support of the lower leg, and the femur contains the support of the entire leg; and in general, each member that is moved by the will moves only from some of its centers, which is initially controlled by the wave of the will, so that from what does not move in a certain interval of space, what is moving can come into motion. In short, the leg would not move when walking if the other leg did not support the entire body. But even if in the body each member of the will moves no other way than from an organ that it does not move, although both the part of the body that moves and the one from which the first moves have their own bodily quantities, with which they occupy certain intervals of space; then all the more so is the very wave of the soul, to which the members obey, although the soul is an incorporeal nature and does not fill the body spatially, as water fills fur or a sponge, but in an amazing way comes into contact with the body, reviving it in an incorporeal way - all the more, I say, the wave of the will in order to move a body in space does not itself move in space when it moves the whole body through its parts, and moves certain parts only through such which does not move in space. If this is difficult to understand, let them believe both, i.e., both that a spiritual creature, without moving in space, moves a body in space, and that God, without moving in time, moves a spiritual creature in time. Moreover, as for the soul, this should not only be believed, but also understood, if only one thinks of the soul as incorporeal, which it is. For who would find it difficult to understand that something that does not occupy space cannot move in space? And everything that occupies space is the body. It follows that the soul cannot move in space, since it is not a body. But if, as I began to say, someone does not want to believe this about the soul, one should not scold him too harshly for this. If he does not believe that the substance of God does not move either in time or in space, then it turns out that he does not yet fully believe in Its immutability. But since the nature of the Trinity is completely unchangeable and therefore so eternal that there cannot be anything coeternal to it, then it moves within itself and in itself the creation subordinate to it in time and space, creating natures with goodness and providing for wills with power, so that in the series of natures there is not one that is not from it, and among the wills there is not a single good one that it would not assist, not a single evil one that she could not use it for good. And since she did not give free will to all natures, those to whom she gave them are higher and more powerful, then natures that do not have will must necessarily be subordinated to those that have it, and this is by order of the Creator, Who never punishes evil will until it is deprived of its natural dignity. Hence, every body and every irrational soul, since they do not have free will, are subject to those natures that are endowed with free will - not all and all, but as the justice of the Creator distributed this. Thus, the providence of God, governing and disposing of its creation, natures and wills - natures so that they exist, and wills so that they do not remain fruitlessly good and evil with impunity, first subordinates everything to itself, then the corporeal creature - spiritual, unreasonable - rational, earthly - heavenly, female - male, less strong - more powerful, imperfect - more perfect. In the series of wills, it subordinates the good wills to itself, and the rest - to the good ones, serving Him, so that the evil will undergoes what the good will would do at the command of God, either through itself, or through the evil will, but (in the latter case) only in the circle of such objects that are naturally subordinate to evil wills, that is, in bodies. For evil wills carry within themselves their internal punishment and their same depravity. Therefore, to the highest angels, who humbly delight in God and blissfully serve Him, all nature, every unreasonable life, every weak or corrupted will is subordinate, so that they make of those subordinate to them what the order of nature requires, at the command of Him to whom everything is subordinate. In Him they see the immutable Truth and direct their will in accordance with it. Therefore, they always participate in His eternity, truth and will outside of time and space. They move at His command in time, although He himself does not move in time - they do not move in such a way that they retreat and move away from the contemplation of God, but at the same time they contemplate Him outside of time and space, and fulfill His commands in the circle of lower objects, moving themselves in time, and their bodies in time and space, as far as this corresponds to their activity. And therefore, God, by His two-part Providence, is present with all creation: with natures, so that they exist, and with wills, so that they do nothing without His command or permission. Thus, the corporeal nature of the universe is not maintained externally or in a corporeal manner. For outside it there is no body; otherwise, it is no longer the universe. But it is maintained internally, in an incorporeal manner, since it is the work of God that nature (taken) as a whole exists, for “all things are from Him, by Him and to Him” (Rom. 11.36). The parts of the universe are maintained (or better said, come into being), on the one hand, internally in an incorporeal manner, so as to be natures, and on the other, externally corporeal, in order to become better, as, for example, from nutrition, agriculture, medicine, and everything that is done to adornment, so that they are not only healthier and more fertile, but also more beautiful. The spiritual nature, if it is perfect and blessed, like the nature of the holy Angels - as far as it concerns itself in itself, that is, so that it is and is wise - is supported only in an internally incorporeal manner. For God speaks to her in an amazing and ineffable way internally, and not with the help of Scripture, transmitted to us through bodily signs, or bodily sounds accessible to hearing, or, finally, bodily similarities, which figuratively occur in the spirit, for example, in a dream, or in a certain frenzy of the spirit, which in Greek is called εκστασις; We will use this word instead of the Latin one, because although this type of vision occurs in a more internal way than those that are communicated to the soul through the bodily organs, however, being so similar to them that when it occurs, it either cannot at all, or with difficulty and very rarely can be distinguished from them, and on the other hand, being more external than the visions that the spiritual mind contemplates in the most immutable and eternal truth and, by its light, judges all of them, this the kind of visions, I believe, should be included among those that occur externally. So, I say, the spiritual, rational, perfect and blessed nature, which is the nature of the angels, as far as it concerns itself in itself, so that it is and remains wise and blessed, is supported only internally by eternity, truth and love of the Creator. If it is necessary to say that it is supported externally, then it is supported, perhaps, by the fact that the angels see each other and rejoice in God with their entire company, and also by the fact that, contemplating all creatures, they thank and glorify the Creator. As for the activity of the angelic nature, through which the providence of God observes the generations of all things, especially the human race, it itself is externally supporting with the help, on the one hand, of visions similar to those of the body, and on the other, of bodies subject to angelic power. And if so, if the omnipotent, omnipotent and unchangeable in His eternity, truth and will, God, not moving either in time or in space, moves the spiritual creature in time, and the corporeal one in time and space, so that internally supporting nature with this movement, he controls them externally, on the one hand, through the wills subordinate to Him, which He moves only in time, and on the other hand, through the wills subordinate to Him and those mentioned the wills of the bodies that He moves in time and space (and the cause of this time and space in God himself is life without time and space) - if, I say, God does something like this, then we should not think that the substance of God is changeable in time and space or movable in time and space, but must attribute this to the action of divine Providence; not to the action by which God creates natures, but to the one by which He controls the created natures externally, Himself being not a spatial magnitude, but an immutable and excellent power for every thing, both internal, for everything is contained in Him, and external, for He is above all. Likewise, not by duration of time, but by immutable eternity, He is the most ancient of all, because He exists before all, and newest of all, since He remains the same after all. Therefore, when we read the words of Scripture: “And the Lord God commanded man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou shalt eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17), then, dwelling on the question of how God spoke the above words, although we cannot comprehend this very method, we must nevertheless recognize the the most indubitable truth that God speaks either through His substance or through a creature subordinate to Him. But through His substance He speaks either for the creation of all natures, or, turning to spiritual and rational natures, also for their enlightenment, when they can understand His speech, as it is in that Word of His, which “in the beginning... was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). With those who cannot understand this speech, He speaks only through a creature or only a spiritual one, either in dreams, or during ecstasy - in similarities to bodily objects, or through the body, when some image is presented to our bodily senses or sounds are heard. Therefore, if Adam was such that he was able to understand the speech of God, which He communicates to the angelic minds with His substance, then there should be no doubt that God in an amazing and ineffable way set his mind in motion and inscribed in him a useful and saving commandment of truth, showing inexpressibly by this truth what the punishment should be for a criminal, just as all good commandments are heard and visible in the most immutable Wisdom, which at a certain time passes into holy souls (Wisdom 7:27), although in Itself there is no movement in time. If he was not righteous enough and he also needed the authority of another, more holy and wise creature, with the help of which he could know the will and command of God, just as we need the authority of the prophets, and the prophets need the authority of angels, then what prevents us from admitting that God spoke to him through some such creature in such a way that he (Adam) could understand everything? For whoever understands the Catholic faith should in no case doubt that what is written further, namely, that having sinned (the first parents) heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise (Gen. 3:8), does not mean a bodily sound uttered by His substance, but a sound that arose through the medium of the creature subordinate to It. I would like to talk about this in a little more detail, because some heretics believe that the substance of the Son of God, even without taking on a body, is in itself visible, and therefore, even before receiving a body from the Virgin, He, they say, was visible by the fathers (as if it was said about the Father alone that “no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16), since the Son was visible before taking on the form of a servant even in His substance. Such wickedness must be rejected by Catholic minds. But about this, if it pleases the Lord, we will say more fully at another time; now, having finished this book, we will move on to consider how the wife was created from the rib of the man. “And they all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank from the spiritual stone that followed; the stone was Christ": In the Synodal translation there is a singular number. – AB. You might be interested in: