both of the Law and of the Gospel?
Let us therefore learn from this passage of Scripture that it was necessary for man, being so created and constituted as to have all the rest of the living creatures in his hand and under his dominion, that he should not only privately, but publicly also, acknowledge his Creator, should give thanks unto him, should offer him some public and external worship, and have a certain form and work of obedience. If therefore Adam had not fallen, this tree would have been a common temple or church, a sure palace to which all might have flocked. Thus it was afterwards, when nature was in her fallen and corrupt state, the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple at Jerusalem were places appointed for divine worship. As therefore this "tree" eventually proved to be the cause of so awful a fall, it was rightly called by Moses "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," on account of the horrible and miserable event which followed.
Two questions may here be raised as to whether this tree of life was one only or whether there were more; and whether the Scripture which here speaks in the singular number should be considered as speaking in the plural; just as we, speaking collectively, use the expression "the pear," "the apple," whereby we mean pears and apples generally; either of those fruits as kinds; not individual species or specimens of them. To me it appears by no means absurd or out of the way that we should understand "the tree of life," as a certain space in the middle of paradise, or a certain grove, in which many "trees of life" of the same genus or kind grew, and were called by the same name, "trees of life." Hence it is probable that a certain grove was called collectively "the tree of life," which was a kind of sacred retreat, in which grew a number of trees of the same kind; namely, "trees of the knowledge of good and evil," concerning which God pronounced his prohibition, that Adam should not eat of any of them, and if he did he should surely die the death. Not that there was anything in the nature of this tree, or of any one of these trees, to cause death; but such was the Word of God pronounced concerning it or them, which Word of God was ever attended with its efficacy to all creatures; and the efficacy of which Word still preserves all creatures, that they degenerate not nor alter nor fail of their original form and intent; that all creatures may be preserved in their original form and nature by an infinite propagation!
Hence it was that by the Word the rock in the desert gave forth its waters in all their abundance, Ex. 17:6, and that by the same Word the brazen serpent healed all those that looked unto it, Num. 21:9. By this same efficacy of the Word of God's prohibition, this one tree or this certain species of many trees in the middle of paradise killed Adam by his disobedience to that Word of God; not that the tree itself was deadly in its own nature but because it was appointed by the Word of God to be so in its effects. In the same way also are we to understand the nature of the tree of life, of which God commanded Adam to eat as often as he needed to restore his powers. It was by the Word of God that the tree of life produced that restoration.
To reason indeed it seems absurd, that one apple could have such deadly properties or produce such deadly effects as to destroy the whole human race throughout its almost infinite succession; and that too with a death eternal. But this was not the nature or the effect of the apple in itself. Adam did indeed force his teeth into the apple, but his teeth struck in reality upon the sting in the apple, which sting was the prohibition of God, which made his bite to be disobedience to God. This was the real cause of the mighty evil. Adam thus sinned against God, disregarded his commandment and obeyed Satan. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in itself "good," the tree which bore the most noble fruits. But as the prohibition of God was attached to it and man disregarded that prohibition, the tree became the deadliest of all poisons.
Just in the same manner as God has said, "Thou shalt not steal," Ex. 20:15, the man who touches the property of another as his own sins against God. So in Egypt when the Jews were commanded of God to ask silver from their neighbors and to carry it away with them; that was no sin; they were justified by the command of God, to whom obedience is due, whatever be the issue or result. So also the suitor when he loves a virgin and has a strong desire of nature to possess her as his wife and marries her, committeth no adultery; though the Law of God forbids coveting and concupiscence. And the great reason is this, matrimony is a divine institution and is a command of God to them who cannot live chastely without marriage. Just the same also is the nature of these two trees. The tree of life gives life, by virtue of the Word which promises and ordains that life. "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil" produces death by virtue of the efficacy of the Word which prohibits the eating of it on the penalty of death in case of disobedience.
This latter tree however is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," Augustine says, because after Adam had sinned by eating of it he not only saw and experienced what good he had lost, but also into what evil and misery he had been hurled by his disobedience. The tree therefore was in itself "good," even as the divine commandment attached to it was "good;" that it should be to Adam a tree of divine worship, by which he should prove his obedience to God, even by an external act of service to him. But by reason of the sin which followed, the same tree became the tree of the curse. Moses now by digressing a little proceeds to give a more extensive description of the original "garden!"
V. 10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.
Here again the Latin version is in error, when it makes the proper name, Eden, an appellative. And here Origen and his followers are to be condemned who have recourse in their usual way to allegories. For the things here recorded by Moses as history, are facts. There actually was a great river in Eden, by which the whole garden was watered. That river rising from the east of the garden divided itself into four streams, that no part of the garden might remain unwatered. For, as I have before observed, we are here to have in mind a large space or portion of the earth; because this garden was so constituted that it might be, as to its original design, an appropriate and perpetual habitation for Adam and his whole posterity, which was equally designed to be most extensive.
Vs. 11, 12. The name of one is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
This is one of the most difficult passages in the writings of Moses, and one which has given rise to the greatest offense in unholy minds. For the real state of the facts recorded, as they are now before our eyes, cannot be denied. The description here given by the sacred historian applies properly to India, which he here calls "Havilah," through which the river Pishon, or the Ganges, flows. The other three rivers Gihon, Hiddekel and Phrath; that is, the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates are also well known; and it is equally well known that the Nile and the last two rivers have their sources very distant from each other. The great question therefore that naturally arises is, since the whole world well knows how far distant these rivers are from each other, how can the account of Moses be reconciled with the facts, when he says that all these rivers issued from one fountain; that is, that they flowed from one source in the garden of Eden toward the east? For with respect to the Nile, although its source is unknown, yet the arguments and proofs are plain that it flows from a region in the south. Whereas it is quite certain that the Ganges and the Tigris and the Euphrates flow from the north; sources in the entirely opposite direction.
The account of Moses therefore militates against sense and fact as they now are. This state of things has given occasion to many to form conjectures that Eden was the whole world. Though such conjectures are certainly false, yet they would not of themselves, even if true, reconcile the statements of Moses, nor make all plain when he here says that the source of all these rivers was one and the same. And although it is very probable that if Adam had remained in his innocence and his posterity had greatly multiplied in that state of innocency, God would have enlarged this garden correspondently; yet even that consideration would not justify the supposition that Eden was the whole earth originally; for the sacred text most plainly separates Eden from all the rest of the earth. What shall we say therefore concerning this passage of Moses, contrary as it is to sense and experience, as things now are, and on that account so liable to cause offense being taken; especially since Origen and others have built
