Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Three — Paradise

QUESTION I. Whether the tree of life was like the other trees—that is, corporeal and terrestrial—or whether it was something intelligible and spiritual

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. Whether the tree of life was like the other trees—that is, corporeal and terrestrial—or whether it was something intelligible and spiritual.1

QUAESTIO I. An arbor vitae fuerit ceterarum arborum similis, hoc est corporea et terrestris; an vero fuerit quippiam intelligibile et spirituale.

ARISTOTELES in lib. 3 Metaphysicorum textu 15 dissimulanter irridens Hesiodum aliosque veteres poëtas (ipse vocat Theologos), a quibus proditum erat Deos qui non gustarent nectar et ambrosiam esse mortales, qui autem illis alerentur immortales esse, hoc refellit eo argumento: quod vel utebantur ambrosia et nectare voluptatis tantum causa, vel etiam necessitatis; si solius voluptatis causa, non igitur illud alimentum praebebat eis immortalitatem; sin autem necessitatis, non futuri sine eo cibo immortales, id esse dicit de numero eorum quae fieri non possunt: nam quod cibo indiget, suapte natura solubile et mortale est; quod autem huiusmodi est, nulla ratione indissolubile atque immortale effici potest. Sic ibi Aristoteles, qui similia profecto de arbore vitae dixisset, si Fidei lumen ei affulsisset.
Aristotle, in book 3 of the Metaphysics, text 15, dissemblingly mocking Hesiod and the other ancient poets (he himself calls them Theologians), by whom it had been reported that the gods who did not taste nectar and ambrosia were mortal, but those who were nourished by them were immortal, refutes this by this argument: that they used ambrosia and nectar either only for the sake of pleasure, or also of necessity; if for the sake of pleasure alone, then that food did not afford them immortality; but if of necessity—not going to be immortal without that food—he says that this is among the number of those things which cannot happen: for what needs food is by its own nature dissoluble and mortal; but what is of this kind can by no means be made indissoluble and immortal. So Aristotle there, who would assuredly have said the like about the tree of life, if the light of Faith had shone upon him.2
NONNULLI de nostris (ut Origenes, et quos supra allegoricos paradisi Interpretes nominavimus) partim quo se facilius ex omnibus difficultatum tricis expedirent, partim rati donum immortalis vitae nullius terrestris et corporeae arboris effectum esse posse, ea quae Moses de arbore vitae scripsit putaverunt ipsi non proprie et historice (ut ipsa verba sonant) sed figurate, secundum sensum mysticum et allegoricum esse intelligenda. Verum quidnam oporteat intelligere per arborem illam vitae varie interpretantur. Quidam exponunt divinam Sapientiam, quippe Salomon Proverb. 3 vocat eam Lignum vitae iis qui apprehendunt eam. Alii Christum Dominum, ipse enim dicitur Panis vitae, Fons vitae, et Lignum vitae. Quidam vero etiam caelestem felicitatem, de qua Ioannes in Apocalypsi cap. 2 ait, Vincenti dabo edere de ligno vitae, quod est in Paradiso Dei mei. Similia scribit idem Ioannes eiusdem libri cap. 22. Augustinus Eugubinus in sua Cosmopoeia per arborem vitae symbolice significatam esse putat immortalitatem, quam Deus ceu praemium Adamo promiserat si praeceptis eius obtemperasset. Lata enim illa lege ne ederet de arbore scientiae boni et mali, interminatus est eam violanti mortem, ut metu tantae poenae a transgressione deterreretur; simul etiam observanti legem pollicitus immortalitatem, ut ad eam custodiendam, tanto proposito bono, vehementius commoveretur.
Some of our own (as Origen, and those whom above we named the allegorical Interpreters of paradise), partly that they might more easily extricate themselves from all the tangles of difficulties, partly judging that the gift of immortal life could be the effect of no terrestrial and corporeal tree, thought that the things which Moses wrote about the tree of life are to be understood by them not properly and historically (as the words themselves sound), but figuratively, according to the mystical and allegorical sense. But what, indeed, ought to be understood by that tree of life, they interpret variously. Some expound it as divine Wisdom, since Solomon, Proverbs 3, calls it a Tree of life to those who lay hold of it. Others, Christ the Lord, for He is called the Bread of life, the Fountain of life, and the Tree of life. Some, however, even heavenly happiness, of which John in the Apocalypse, chapter 2, says, To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of my God. The same John writes the like in chapter 22 of the same book. Augustinus Eugubinus, in his Cosmopoeia, thinks that by the tree of life is symbolically signified the immortality which God had promised to Adam as a reward, if he had obeyed His precepts. For, having laid down that law that he should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He threatened death to the one violating it, that he might be deterred from transgression by the fear of so great a penalty; and at the same time, promising immortality to the one observing the law, that he might be more vehemently moved to keep it, by so great a proposed good.3
VERUM enim vero ista, ut non aspernandam habent intelligentiam allegoricam, sic a germano et historico sensu sunt remotissima. Non enim in dubium verti debet arborem vitae fuisse veram et naturalem arborem, eiusque vim et effectum fuisse ab omni corruptione corporis ipsaque morte hominem servare. Etenim hoc liquido cernitur ex Mosaica narratione, quae tota est historica: ait enim Deum produxisse ex humo omne lignum visu pulchrum et ad vescendum suave, subditque, Lignum etiam vitae in medio Paradisi. Illa autem particula Etiam indicat arborem vitae fuisse ex humo procreatam et naturalem arborem non secus atque alias omnes paradisi arbores. Moses item ostendit fructum illius arboris potuisse ab homine comedi, quinimo in usus hominis esse comparatum. Quamobrem, ne fructum eius arboris homo etiam post peccatum comedens immortalitatem consequeretur, aditum ad eam arborem omnino fuisse ei a Deo interclusum: quo satis apparet nomine illius arboris nec divinam Sapientiam nec Christum dominum posse intelligi; non enim haec post peccatum adempta sunt homini, nec est ipsi ad ista adeundi et perveniendi potestas ablata.
But indeed those interpretations, though they have an allegorical meaning not to be despised, are nevertheless most remote from the genuine and historical sense. For it ought not to be called into doubt that the tree of life was a true and natural tree, and that its power and effect was to preserve man from all corruption of the body and from death itself. For this is clearly discerned from the Mosaic narrative, which is wholly historical: for he says that God brought forth from the soil every tree fair to sight and sweet to eat, and adds, The tree of life also in the midst of Paradise. And that particle Also indicates that the tree of life was procreated from the soil, and was a natural tree no otherwise than all the other trees of paradise. Moses likewise shows that the fruit of that tree could be eaten by man—nay rather, was provided for man's use. Wherefore, lest man, eating the fruit of that tree even after sin, should attain immortality, access to that tree was entirely closed off to him by God: from which it appears sufficiently that by the name of that tree neither divine Wisdom nor Christ the Lord can be understood; for these were not taken away from man after sin, nor was the power of approaching and reaching them removed from him.4
PONAM hoc loco luculentissimam Augustini sententiam ex libro eius de Civitate Dei 13 et cap. 21, quo loco exponit quae tradit Moses de Paradiso et arbore vitae, quemadmodum et alii fuerint interpretati, et ipse putet esse intelligenda. Verba eius ita se habent:
I will set down in this place a most lucid opinion of Augustine from his book On the City of God, 13 and chapter 21, in which place he expounds the things which Moses hands down about Paradise and the tree of life, in what manner others also have interpreted them, and how he himself thinks they are to be understood. His words are as follows:5

"Some refer that whole paradise, where the first men are narrated to have been, to intelligible things, and turn those trees and fruit-bearing woods into virtues and modes of life: as though those things were not visible and corporeal, but were spoken or written in that way for the sake of signifying intelligible things. As if paradise could not be corporeal for this reason—because it can also be understood spiritually: just as the two women Agar and Sara, and from them the two sons of Abraham (one of the bondwoman, the other of the free), were not real for this reason, that the Apostle says two testaments are figured in them. No one, then, forbids paradise to be understood as the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues—Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, and Justice; and its trees, all useful disciplines; and the fruit of the trees, the morals of the pious; and the tree of life, Wisdom herself, the mother of all goods; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the experience of the transgressed commandment. These things can also be understood in the Church, so that we may take them better as prophetic signs preceding things to come: namely, paradise as the Church herself, as is read of her in the Song of Songs; the four rivers of paradise, the four Gospels; the fruit-bearing trees, the saints; their fruit, their works; the tree of life, the holy of holies, namely Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the proper choice of the will. These things, and whatever else can more aptly be said about understanding paradise spiritually, may be said with no one forbidding, provided that the truth of that history also, commended by a most faithful narration of the things done, be believed." Thus Augustine.6

Nonnulli totum illum paradisum, ubi primi homines fuisse narrantur, ad intelligibilia referunt, arboresque illas et ligna fructifera in virtutes vitae moresque convertunt: tanquam visibilia et corporalia illa non fuerint, sed intelligibilium significandorum causa eo modo dicta vel scripta sint. Quasi propterea non potuerit esse paradisus corporalis, quia potest etiam spiritualis intelligi: tanquam ideo non fuerint duae mulieres Agar et Sara, et ex illis duo filii Abrahae, unus de ancilla alius de libera, quia duo testamenta in eis figurata dicit Apostolus. Nemo itaque prohibet intelligi paradisum vitam beatorum; quatuor eius flumina, quatuor virtutes, Prudentiam, Fortitudinem, Temperantiam atque Iustitiam; et ligna eius, omnes utiles disciplinas; et lignorum fructus, mores piorum; et lignum vitae, ipsam bonorum omnium matrem Sapientiam; lignum scientiae boni et mali, transgressi mandati experimentum. Possunt haec etiam in Ecclesia intelligi, ut ea melius accipiamus tanquam prophetica indicia praecedentia futurorum: Paradisum scilicet ipsam Ecclesiam, sicut de illa legitur in Cantico canticorum; quatuor autem paradisi flumina, quatuor Evangelia; ligna fructifera, sanctos; fructus autem eorum, opera eorum; lignum vitae, sanctum sanctorum, utique Christum; lignum scientiae boni et mali, proprium voluntatis arbitrium. Haec et si qua alia commodius dici possunt de intelligendo spiritualiter paradiso, nemine prohibente dicantur, dum tamen et illius historiae veritas, fidelissima rerum gestarum narratione commendata, credatur. Haec Augustinus.

Translator’s notes

  1. The first question of the disputation on the tree of life: was it a real corporeal, earthly tree, or something intelligible and spiritual (i.e. allegorical)? ↩
  2. Pererius opens with **Aristotle** (Metaphysics bk. 3 [B], text 15) mocking Hesiod and the old poets (his "theologians") who said gods are mortal/immortal according as they lack or feed on nectar and ambrosia. Aristotle's dilemma: the gods take that food either for pleasure or from necessity—if for pleasure, it confers no immortality; if from necessity (not immortal without it), that is impossible, since what needs food is by nature dissoluble and mortal, and cannot be made immortal. Pererius: Aristotle would have said the same of the tree of life, had the light of Faith reached him—framing the philosophical objection the question must answer. ↩
  3. The allegorical camp: **Origen** and the allegorical interpreters (named earlier) held Moses's words on the tree of life are to be taken not literally/historically but mystically—partly to escape the difficulties, partly because no earthly tree could confer immortal life. Their varied readings of "the tree of life": (a) **divine Wisdom** (Prov 3:18, "a tree of life to those who lay hold of it"); (b) **Christ** (Bread of life, Fountain of life, Tree of life); (c) **heavenly happiness** (Rev 2:7, "to him that overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of my God"; cf. Rev 22). **Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio** (Eugubinus), in his *Cosmopoeia*, takes it as symbolizing the immortality God promised Adam as reward for obedience—the prohibition on the tree of knowledge being backed by the threat of death and the promise of immortality. Breaks here (catchword "VERUM"; signature R; page-foot "Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1"). Resume PDF 355 with "VERUM..." — Pererius's own rebuttal of the allegorists. ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: "Arborem vitae fuisse veram et terrestrem arborem." **Pererius's rebuttal of the allegorists:** the allegorical readings, though valid, are far from the literal/historical sense, which must stand—the tree of life was a true, natural tree whose power was to preserve man from bodily corruption and death. Proof from Moses's wholly historical text: the word "ALSO" ("the tree of life *also* in the midst") shows it grew from the soil like the other trees; its fruit could be eaten and was for man's use; and God *closed off access* to it after sin lest man eat and become immortal—which proves it cannot mean divine Wisdom or Christ (neither of which was taken from man after sin). ↩
  5. Marginal gloss: "Egregia S. Augustini sententia de veritate arboris vitae." Pererius introduces a long block quotation from Augustine, City of God 13.21, on how the Paradise narrative may be read allegorically yet must be held literally true. The quotation follows. ↩
  6. Block quotation of Augustine, City of God 13.21. Augustine catalogues two allegorical schemes—(1) paradise = the blessed life: the four rivers = the four cardinal virtues (Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, Justice), the trees = useful disciplines, the tree of life = Wisdom (mother of all goods), the tree of knowledge = the experience of transgression; (2) paradise = the Church (Song of Songs): the four rivers = the four Gospels, the trees = saints, the fruit = their works, the tree of life = Christ the holy of holies, the tree of knowledge = free will. But he insists these allegories are permissible only **provided the literal historical truth is also believed.** This is precisely Pererius's hermeneutic—allegory built upon, never replacing, the literal sense. ↩