Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Six — the temptation and fall

Verse 21. The Lord God also made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them

LatineEnglish

Verse 21. The Lord God also made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.1

VERS. 21. Fecit quoque Dominus Deus Adae & uxori eius tunicas pelliceas, & induit eos.

Super his verbis: primum, quales fuerint illae tunicae pelliceae, & quomodo confectae: deinde cur eiusmodi tunicis Deus primos illos homines induere voluerit: in praesentia disputandum est. Origenes in commentariis suis super Genesim, ut de eo referunt Methodius & Epiphanius in Ancorato, quod dicitur de tunicis pelliceis, id non proprie, sed metaphorice, ac figurate intelligendum esse censuit. Significari autem, primos homines post peccatum corpore mortali ac caduco, fragili, & innumeris malis atque miseriis obnoxio fuisse indutos. Ridiculum enim esse, existimare Deum quasi sutorem quendam vel coriarium, decoriatis mortuis animantibus, pelles eorum in humanarum vestium usum aptasse, atque concinnasse. Similis est Gregorii Nysseni, & aliorum quorundam interpretatio. Verum hi si putent, hanc esse Mosis germanam & historicam verborum sententiam, sine dubitatione falsos eos esse dixerim. Est enim huius loci, ut superiorum...
Concerning these words: first, what those garments of skins were, and how made; then why God willed to clothe those first men with such garments — this is now to be disputed. Origen, in his commentaries on Genesis (as Methodius and Epiphanius in the Ancoratus report of him), judged that what is said of the garments of skins is to be understood not properly, but metaphorically and figuratively; and that it signifies that the first men, after sin, were clothed with a mortal and perishable body, fragile and subject to innumerable evils and miseries. For it is ridiculous, [he says], to think that God, like some cobbler or leather-worker, from dead animals flayed, fitted and dressed their skins for the use of human garments. Similar is the interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa and certain others. But if these think this is the genuine and historical sense of Moses's words, I should say without doubt that they are mistaken. For it belongs to this passage, as to the previous ones...2
rum rerum historica narratio: ob idque, ut ipsa verba sonant, sic accipienda est. Nec mirum videri debet Deum homini vestes comparasse, cum cibum ei certum etiam praestituerit, atque assignaverit. Quin ipse Origenes homilia 6. in Leviticum intellexisse videtur, illas fuisse veras tunicas pelliceas, idoneas scilicet vestiendis peccatoribus, ut quae mortalitatis, cui propter peccatum fuerat homo subiectus, & fragilitatis quae ex carnis corruptela oritur, indices ac testes essent.
...an historical narration of things; and on that account, as the words themselves sound, it is so to be taken. Nor should it seem a wonder that God procured garments for man, since he also appointed and assigned him certain food. Nay, Origen himself, in homily 6 on Leviticus, seems to have understood that those were true garments of skins, suitable, namely, for clothing sinners, so as to be signs and witnesses of the mortality to which man had been subjected on account of sin, and of the fragility which arises from the corruption of the flesh.3

Augustine, in the 39th chapter of book 11 On Genesis according to the Letter, judges that what is written of the garments of skins was said and is to be understood historically, although it was done and written to figure and signify something. For thus he says: 'And this too — namely of the garments of skins — was done for the sake of signification, but nevertheless done: just as those things which were said for the sake of signification were nevertheless said. For this, which I have often said and am not ashamed to say again, must be required of a narrator of things properly done: that he narrate those things to have been done which were done, and those to have been said which were said. But as in deeds it is asked what was done and what it signifies, so also in words, what was said and what it signifies. For whether it was said figuratively or properly, what is narrated to have been said must nevertheless not be thought merely to have been figured [and not really said].'4

Augustinus 39. capite libri 11. de Genesi ad litteram, quae scripta sunt de tunicis pelliceis, historice dicta, & intelligenda arbitratur: quanquam illud ad figurandum, & significandum aliquid factum scriptumque fuerit. Sic enim ait: Et hoc, de tunicis scilicet pelliceis, significationis gratia factum est, sed tamen factum: sicut illa quae significationis gratia dicta sunt, sed dicta tamen sunt. Hoc enim, quod saepe dixi, nec me sapius piget dicere, a narratore rerum proprie gestarum exigendum est, ut ea narret facta esse, quae facta sunt: & ea dicta esse, quae dicta sunt. Sicut autem in factis quaeritur quid factum sit, & quid significet: ita & in verbis quid dictum sit, & quid significet. Sive enim figurate, sive proprie dictum sit, quod dictum esse narratur, dictum tamen esse, non debet putari figuratum.

Sed unde aut quomodo illae vestes confectae sunt? Existimant nonnulli, illas vestes ex pellibus animalium non esse factas, sed ex arborum corticibus aptatis ad vestium humanarum compositionem & usum, rationem eas conficiendi Deo primis illis hominibus suggerente. Huius sententiae auctorem Barcepha in libro suo de Paradiso laudat Gregorium Nazianzenum: cuius etiam probatores, defensoresque fuere Theodorus Heracleae, & Gennadius Constantinopoleos Episcopi. Verum, ut vulgatior, ita probabilior est opinio, fuisse vestes ex animalium pellibus confectas. Nusquam enim in Scriptura vocabulum Hebraeum, quod est hoc loco [עור, or], significat corticem arboris, sed ubique pellem animalis. Nec est curiosis disquirendum, quomodo factae sint vestes: fieri enim potuerunt vel ex nihilo, vel ex aliqua materia subito Dei potentia commutata in pelles, vel caesis animalibus detractae pelles, ad formam & usum vestium accommodari potuerunt.
But whence or how were those garments made? Some think that those garments were made not from the skins of animals, but from the bark of trees, adapted to the composition and use of human garments, God suggesting to those first men the method of making them. As author of this opinion, Barcepha, in his book on Paradise, praises Gregory Nazianzen; of which [opinion] the approvers and defenders too were Theodore of Heraclea and Gennadius, bishops of Constantinople. But, as the more common, so the more probable is the opinion that the garments were made from the skins of animals. For nowhere in Scripture does the Hebrew word which is in this place [עור, 'or] signify the bark of a tree, but everywhere the skin of an animal. Nor is it to be curiously inquired how the garments were made: for they could have been made either from nothing, or from some matter suddenly changed by God's power into skins, or the skins stripped from slaughtered animals could have been fitted to the form and use of garments.5
Nam quod Theodoretus huic obiicit interpretationi, non potuisse id fieri sine interitu alicuius speciei animantium: bina enim tantum in unaquaque specie animalium; unum scilicet marem, unamque feminam fuisse in exordio mundi a Deo creata, ut ipse putat, nec verum est, nec verisimile, nec potest probari ex divina Scriptura. Quin potius multa secundum quamque speciem utriusque sexus animalia esse facta, magis consentaneum rationi est, & a nobis superioribus libris demonstratum. Quidnam vero Theodoretus senserit de vestibus illis pelliceis, si lector etiam cum cura legat ac perpendat, quae ab eo trigesimam nonam quaestionem in Genesim explicante scripta sunt, vix divinare poterit: adeo verba eius obscura & in ambiguum implicata sunt. Varias narrat, miscetque, atque confundit sententias, easdemque...
For as to what Theodoret objects to this interpretation — that it could not have been done without the destruction of some species of animals, since (as he thinks) only two of each species of animals, namely one male and one female, were created by God at the beginning of the world — it is neither true, nor likely, nor can be proved from divine Scripture. Nay rather, that many animals of each sex according to each species were made is more consonant with reason, and was demonstrated by us in the earlier books. But what Theodoret really thought of those garments of skins, even if the reader read and weigh with care what was written by him in explaining the thirty-ninth question on Genesis, he will scarcely be able to divine: so obscure and involved in ambiguity are his words. He narrates, mixes, and confounds various opinions, and the same...6
primum quidem probans, mox improbans, tandemque nec probans nec improbans, sed in medio & incerto relinquens. Hugo S. Victoris interpretatur factas esse illas tunicas, vel ex elementis vel ministerio Angelorum, vel Deum docuisse primos illos homines rationem comparandi sibi vestes ex pellibus animalium. Rupertus, illud, Fecit, dictum credit pro eo quod est, iussit fieri ab illis, fecitque potestatem caedendi animalia, si non ad victum, saltem ad vestitum, declaravitque; facto propter peccatum humano corpore fragili admodum & patibili, ipsis extra Paradisum habitaturis, eiusmodi vestibus opus esse. Ad hunc autem modum verba haec Mosis tractans Rupertus, scribit li. 3. de Trinitate & eius operibus. c. 27.
...[Theodoret] first indeed approving, then disapproving, and at last neither approving nor disapproving, but leaving it in the middle and uncertain. Hugh of St Victor interprets that those garments were made either from the elements, or by the ministry of Angels, or that God taught those first men the method of procuring garments for themselves from the skins of animals. Rupert believes that the word 'He made' is said for 'He commanded it to be made by them,' and gave and declared [them] the power of slaying animals — if not for food, at least for clothing — the human body having been made, on account of sin, very fragile and passible, and they being about to dwell outside Paradise, so that they had need of such garments. Treating these words of Moses in this manner, Rupert writes, in book 3 On the Trinity and its Works, chapter 27:7

'And this too seems lightly said, and almost next to laughter — that the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife. For it is not of the same dignity to sew together the little skins stripped from dead animals and to make garments, [as] whose are those things which have hitherto been said of the Lord God — for example, to stretch out the heaven like a skin, to found the earth, to set the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, and finally to establish the natures of the very animals whose skins they are. Whence some so shrank from ascribing this workmanship to God, that they said the bodies were then first made for them, and therefore that "garments of skins" were said for "bodies" — because, as now bodies are clothed with garments, so then God, on account of sin, clothed the souls with bodies. But this error, worthy of all mockery, was long ago exploded. It behooves us to know better: that earthly bodies are indeed a kind of garment of the souls, yet that they themselves were made before the souls, for so it is written above — that first the Lord God formed man from the mud of the earth, and then breathed into his face the breath of life. What then, you say — Was the Lord God a cobbler, or a skinner, and made garments of skins with lavish work of art? He did indeed make garments of skins, because the present Scripture so testifies; yet it does not compel us to confess that he made them in the way at which [some] laugh, but in the way over which all the clothed ought to weep. For "He made" means that he imposed on them the necessity of making [them]. For he willed the bodies to be, on account of sin, so wretched that without garments of skins they cannot endure. And it must be noted that he made for them not just any garments, but garments of skins: this was most excellently said. For the naked bodies of both sexes are not only shameful and to be blushed at on account of lust, but also weak for enduring cold. Well, therefore, is the Lord God said to have made for them not only garments, but garments of skins: because he justly willed their bodies to be such as needed not only to be covered on account of shame, but also to be warmed on account of weakness. You have therefore two solaces for [these] miseries, set before man along with labor and want: namely food and clothing. Food, where he said a little before, In the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread; clothing, where it is now said, The Lord God also made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.' Thus Rupert.8

Et hoc leviter dictum, ac paene risui proximum videtur, quod Dominus Deus tunicas pelliceas fecerit Adae, & uxori eius. Nec enim eiusdem dignitatis est, detractas mortuis animantibus pelliculas consuere, & tunicas facere, cuius sunt ea, quae hactenus de Domino Deo dicta sunt, Verbi gratia, coelum sicut pellem extendere, terram fundare, solem, lunam, & stellas in firmamento ponere postremo ipsorum animantium, quorum pelliculae sunt naturas condere. Unde & nonnulli hoc opificium Deo adscribere in tantum refugerunt, ut dicerent tunc primum corpora illis facta esse, & idcirco pro corporibus tunicas pelliceas esse dictas, quia sicut nunc tunicis vestiuntur corpora, sic tunc Deus propter peccatum corporibus vestierit animas. Sed hic error omni irrisione dignus, iamdudum explosus est. Melius sapere oportet, terrena corpora quasdam quidem esse animarum tunicas: veruntamen ipsa prius esse facta, quam animas, sic enim suprascriptum est, quia prius formavit Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae, & deinde inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae. Quid ergo inquis, Nunquid Dominus Deus sutor, aut pellifex erat, & impensa artis opera tunicas fecit pelliceas? Fecit utique tunicas pelliceas, quia sic praesens testatur Scriptura: non tamen cogit nos confiteri, quod eo modo quem rideant, sed eo modo quem flere debeant omnes tunicati, fecerit illas, Fecit enim, id est, faciendi necessitatem illis imposuit. Talia quippe tamque misera propter peccatum corpora esse voluit, quae sine tunicis pelliceis durare non possunt. Et notandum, quod non qualescumque tunicas, sed tunicas, fecit illis pelliceas: hoc optime dictum est. Nec enim solummodo ob libidinem turpia, vel pudenda, sed etiam ad patientiam frigoris infirma sunt nuda sexus utriusque corpora. Bene ergo non tantum tunicas sed tunicas pelliceas illis fecisse dicitur Dominus Deus: quia iuste talia voluit illorum esse corpora, quae non solum tegi propter turpitudinem, sed etiam calefieri opus esset propter infirmitatem. Habes itaque duo miseriis solatia: cum labore & indigentia homini proposita, victum scilicet & vestitum. Victum, ubi paulo ante dixit, In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo: Vestitum, ubi nunc dictum est, Fecit quoque Dominus Deus Adae & uxori eius tunicas pelliceas, & induit eos. Haec Rupertus.

Ex hoc loco divinae Scripturae liquido intelligitur, primas vestes hominum fuisse pelliceas, earumque usum multis saeculis durasse, quoad scilicet ars ex lana linoque conficiendi vestes inventa est. Fabulae igitur sunt, quod libro 5. ex disciplina sui Epicuri scripsit Lucre...
From this passage of divine Scripture it is clearly understood that the first garments of men were of skins, and that their use lasted many centuries, until, namely, the art of making garments from wool and flax was invented. Fables, therefore, are the things which Lucretius wrote in book 5, from the teaching of his [master] Epicurus...9
tius, primaevos homines nudis fuisse corporibus, nec nisi longo post tempore vestibus uti coepisse. Versus eius sic habent, Nec dum res igni scibant tractare, neque uti / Pellibus, & spoliis corpus vestire ferarum. / Sed nemora atque cavos montes silvasque colebant, / Et frutices inter condebant squallida membra, / Verbera ventorum vitare, imbresque coacti. Vetustissimi sane mortalium, ut Plato inquit in Protagora, caedebant animalia, non ut eorum carnibus tantum vescerentur, verumetiam ut pellibus eorum tegerentur.
...[Lucre]tius, that the first men had naked bodies, and only after a long time began to use garments. His verses run thus: 'Not yet did they know to handle things with fire, nor to use the skins and spoils of wild beasts to clothe the body; but they dwelt in groves and hollow mountains and woods, and among the bushes hid their squalid limbs, compelled to avoid the lashings of the winds and the rains.' The most ancient of mortals indeed, as Plato says in the Protagoras, slew animals not only that they might feed on their flesh, but also that they might be covered with their skins.10
Cicero quidem certe in 1. Tusculana, quadruplicem agnoscit usum bestiarum, propter quem bestiae hominum causa creatae sunt a Deo: partim, scilicet ad vescendum, partim ad cultus agrorum, partim ad vehendum, partim denique ad corpora vestienda. Strabo lib. 15. tradit apud Indos fuisse Philosophos, qui cervorum damarumque pellibus tegerentur: quam etiam ob causam Scythae olim dicti sunt pelliti: ut videre est apud Hieronymum in Epitaphio ad Nepotianum. Hoc item nomine primos illos Romanae curiae Senatores, tantique conditores imperii, appellat Propertius his versibus, Curia, praetexto quae nunc nitet alta Senatu, / Pellitos habuit, rustica corda, Patres. Fuit praeterea hic habitus pelliceus quondam in populo Dei magnae venerationis, quod eo viri pietate, sanctitateque perquam insignes usi sint, ut de Elia & Ioanne Baptista proditum est in sacris litteris: ac de his, aliisque sanctissimis viris loquens Paulus ad Hebr. 11. Circuierunt, inquit, in melotis, & in pellibus caprinis.
Cicero indeed, certainly, in the first Tusculan [Disputation], recognizes a fourfold use of beasts, for which beasts were created by God for man's sake: partly, namely, for eating, partly for the tilling of fields, partly for carrying, and partly finally for clothing bodies. Strabo in book 15 relates that among the Indians there were Philosophers who were covered with the skins of stags and deer; for which cause too the Scythians were once called 'pelliti' (skin-clad), as may be seen in Jerome in the Epitaph to Nepotian. By this name too Propertius calls those first Senators of the Roman curia, and founders of so great an empire, in these verses: 'The Senate-house, which now, lofty, shines with the toga-clad Senate, had skin-clad Fathers, rustic hearts.' There was, moreover, this garment of skins once, among the people of God, of great veneration, because men most notable for piety and sanctity used it, as is handed down of Elijah and John the Baptist in the sacred writings; and, speaking of these and other most holy men, Paul to the Hebrews 11 says, 'They went about in sheepskins, and in goatskins.'11
Sequitur ut aperiamus cur Deus tunicis pelliceis primos homines post peccatum induere voluerit. Multiplex profecto eius rei causa & ratio afferri potest. PRIMA causa fuit: ut sic verecundiae & continentiae consuleretur, siquidem nuditas corporis, homini non insano, maxime pudenda est, & aspectus nudi corporis magna est libidinis illecebra. ALTERA causa: facti primi homines propter peccatum morti omnibusque iniuriis coeli, multisque aerumnis & incommodis obnoxii, moxque eiiciendi ex Paradiso, praemuniuntur ac proteguntur eiusmodi vestibus adversus intemperiem coeli, sub quo deinceps victuri erant. TERTIA causa: ut ostenderet in posterum fore ipsis licitum occidere animalia, si non ad esum, qui ante diluvium non fuit hominibus usitatus, certe ad usum vestium ex eorum pellibus. QUARTA CAUSA: ut demonstraret Deus, ipsos etiam peccatores, & Paradisi extorres, non orbatum tamen iri sua providentia & cura, quantum ad ea quae necessaria ipsis essent ad victum & vestitum. Non enim propter peccatum, quae naturalia sunt, adimuntur homini: nec generalia, & naturalia divinae providentiae beneficia, & auxilia peccatoribus subtrahuntur. Deus enim, ut Dominus dixit in Evangelio, Solem suum oriri facit super bonos & malos, & pluit super iustos & iniustos. Et infra: Nolite soliciti esse, dicentes, Quid manducab...
It follows that we should open up why God willed to clothe the first men with garments of skins after sin. Manifold indeed is the cause and reason of that thing which can be brought forward. The FIRST cause was: that thus provision might be made for modesty and continence, since the nakedness of the body, to a man not insane, is most shameful, and the sight of the naked body is a great enticement to lust. The SECOND cause: the first men, made subject on account of sin to death and to all the injuries of the sky, and to many afflictions and inconveniences, and soon to be cast out of Paradise, are fortified and protected by such garments against the intemperance of the sky under which they were thereafter to live. The THIRD cause: that he might show that it would thereafter be lawful for them to kill animals — if not for eating (which before the flood was not customary to men), certainly for the use of garments from their skins. The FOURTH CAUSE: that God might demonstrate that they too, though sinners and exiles of Paradise, would nevertheless not be bereft of his providence and care, as far as concerns those things necessary to them for food and clothing. For it is not on account of sin that the things which are natural are taken away from man; nor are the general and natural benefits of divine providence, and its helps, withdrawn from sinners. For God, as the Lord said in the Gospel, 'makes his sun to rise upon the good and the evil, and rains upon the just and the unjust.' And below: 'Be not solicitous, saying, What shall we eat...'12
ducabimus, aut quid bibemus, aut quo operiemur? scit enim Pater vester quia his omnibus indigetis. Et Paulus Actor. 14. cum dixisset Deum in praeteritis generationibus dimisisse, omnes gentes ingredi vias suas, proxime subiecit: Et quidem non sine testimonio semetipsum reliquit, benefaciens de coelo, dans pluvias, & tempora fructifera, implens cibo, & laetitia corda nostra. QUINTA causa fuit haec; tribuens enim primis hominibus Deus vestes non sericas, nec purpureas, nec molles, aut delicatas, sed pelliceas: significavit qualis vestitus probo & honesto viro comparandus sit: scilicet qui non ad luxum, molliciem, & superbiam faciat, sed protegendo tuendoque corpori sufficiat. SEXTA causa: ut declararet quanto melius ipse hoc vestitu pelliceo Adamum contexerit & vestierit, quam Adamus amictu ficulneo seipsum velare & obtegere voluerit. Ille enim vestitus ex ficulneis foliis, nec bene corpori poterat applicari, nec eius nuditatem usquequaque protegebat, nec ab iniuriis & incommodis externis satis defendebat, nec ipsum corpus fovebat: quin, pungendo carnem, molestiam, & dolorem afferebat: qui, ut fuisset bonus & commodus, attamen quia fragilis, & facile dissolubilis erat, diuturnus esse non poterat. Quo licet intelligere, quam sint infirma, caduca, nulliusque auxilii, quae sibi ex rebus terrenis homines arcessunt, & asciscunt praesidia, atque solatia. Vestitus autem pelliceus, quo Deus primos homines induit, plane contraria illi vestitui ficulneo praestabat homini.
'...shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or with what shall we be clothed? For your Father knows that you have need of all these things.' And Paul, Acts 14, when he had said that God in past generations allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways, next added: 'And indeed he left not himself without witness, doing good from heaven, giving rains and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.' The FIFTH cause was this: for God, in bestowing on the first men garments not of silk, nor purple, nor soft or delicate, but of skins, signified what kind of clothing is to be procured for an upright and honorable man: namely, such as makes not for luxury, softness, and pride, but suffices for protecting and guarding the body. The SIXTH cause: that he might declare how much better he had covered and clothed Adam with this garment of skins, than Adam had wished to veil and cover himself with the fig-leaf covering. For that garment of fig-leaves could neither be well applied to the body, nor everywhere protect its nakedness, nor sufficiently defend from external injuries and inconveniences, nor warm the body itself; nay, by pricking the flesh, it brought trouble and pain; and though it had been good and convenient, yet, because it was fragile and easily dissolved, it could not be lasting. Whereby one may understand how weak, perishable, and of no help are the defenses and solaces which men fetch and take to themselves from earthly things. But the garment of skins, with which God clothed the first men, provided to man the plain opposite of that fig-leaf garment.13
SEPTIMA causa; voluit Deus eo vestitu indicare, quemadmodum Adamus, & quivis peccatorum nuditatem animae suae, ac foeditatem peccati obtegere deberet. Etenim pelles mortuorum animalium figurabant virtutem poenitentiae, per quam moriendum est peccatis, omnesque carnales, & terrenae cupiditates spiritus vigore perdomandae, ac mortificandae sunt. Sola enim poenitentia rite peracta, idoneum potest esse peccatorum integumentum, de quo licet intelligere illud quod dixit David: Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, & quorum tecta sunt peccata. Sic profecto res habet: fracta innocentiae navi, factoque naufragio, unica tantum superest homini tabula poenitentiae, qua confestim arrepta mordicusque retenta, peccator horrendam Dei vindictam aeternaque inferni supplicia possit evadere. OCTAVA causa: ut sic vestitus primus Adamus, velut figura quaedam esset secundi Adami Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui cum esset sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus & excelsior coelis factus: indui tamen voluit pellibus mortuorum animalium, id est, vestiri peccatis nostris, habitu inventus, ut homo, & in similitudinem carnis peccati factus. Itaque tanquam Iacob pellibus Esau vestitus, a Deo Patre benedictionem nobis obtinuit, & quod Adamo per ironiam dixit Deus: Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est, sciens bonum, & malum: id verissime in eum, qua homo erat, dici potuit. Ille enim homo per unionem personalem naturae humanae cum Verbo, factus est quasi unus ex divinis personis, id est, Filius Dei. Nec illa particula Quasi, veritatem rei minuit, sed declarat. sicut alio loco dicitur,
The SEVENTH cause: God willed by that garment to indicate how Adam, and every sinner, ought to cover the nakedness of his soul and the foulness of sin. For the skins of dead animals figured the virtue of penitence, through which one must die to sins, and all carnal and earthly desires must be subdued and mortified by the vigor of the spirit. For penitence alone, duly performed, can be a fit covering of sins, of which one may understand what David said: 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.' So indeed the matter stands: the ship of innocence broken, and shipwreck made, only one plank of penitence remains to man, which, seized at once and held fast with the teeth, the sinner may escape the dreadful vengeance of God and the eternal punishments of hell. The EIGHTH cause: that Adam, thus clothed, might be a kind of figure of the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, yet willed to be clothed with the skins of dead animals — that is, to be clothed with our sins, found in habit as a man, and made in the likeness of the flesh of sin. And so, as Jacob clothed with the skins of Esau, he obtained for us the blessing from God the Father; and what God said to Adam by irony, 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us, knowing good and evil,' could most truly be said of him, insofar as he was man. For that man, through the personal union of the human nature with the Word, became as one of the divine persons, that is, the Son of God. Nor does that particle 'Quasi' (as) diminish the truth of the matter, but declares it. As it is said in another place,14
dicitur, Vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre: Nec illud, Sciens bonum & malum, ad hanc interpretationem non aptissime quadrat: de Christo enim praedixerat Isaias, Butyrum & mel comedet, ut sciat reprobare malum, & eligere bonum. Tentatus enim per omnia est pro similitudine, absque peccato.
...as it is said, 'We saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father.' Nor does that phrase, 'Knowing good and evil,' fail to fit most aptly to this interpretation: for Isaiah had foretold of Christ, 'He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject the evil and choose the good.' For he was tempted in all things in like manner, without sin.15

Translator’s notes

  1. New lemma: Genesis 3:21 (set off by 'VERS. 21.' and centered). ↩
  2. Opens the disputation on Gen 3:21 (what the garments of skins were, how made, why God gave them). The figurative reading — Origen (via Methodius and Epiphanius, Ancoratus) and Gregory of Nyssa: the 'garments of skins' = the mortal, fragile body man put on after sin (God as 'cobbler' being ridiculous). Pererius: if they take this as the literal sense, they are mistaken. Marginal glosses: 'Quales fuerint, & quomodo confectae illae tunicae pelliceae'; 'Tunicas pelliceas proprie esse intelligendas.' Catchword: 'rum' (superiorum; continues on the next page). ↩
  3. The passage is historical (literal), as the words sound; no wonder God procured garments, since he also assigned man food. Even Origen (Homily 6 on Leviticus) seems to grant they were true garments of skins, fit to clothe sinners as signs of their mortality and fragility. Marginal gloss: 'Genes. 1.' Running head '689'; true printed page 699. ↩
  4. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 11.39: the garments of skins are historical/literal, though also signifying something. A narrator of real events must be taken to report that things were really done and said; in deeds one asks both what was done and what it signifies, so in words. Marginal gloss: 'Vestes pelliceae & vera fuerunt, & aliquid significaverunt.' ↩
  5. How the garments were made: the 'tree-bark' view (Barcepha, in his De Paradiso, crediting Gregory Nazianzen; approved by Theodore of Heraclea and Gennadius of Constantinople) versus the more common and probable view that they were animal skins. HEBREW GLYPH verified by magnification: עור ('or, 'skin/hide'; ayin-vav-resh), transliterated 'or' in the margin — the word here 'never means tree-bark, but everywhere the skin of an animal.' How made: from nothing, or matter transmuted, or skins stripped from slain animals. Marginal glosses: 'Vocabulum Hebraeum est' + עור (or); 'Quo modo pelles factae sunt.' ↩
  6. Refutes Theodoret's objection (that skins would require destroying a species, since only two of each were made): it is false — many animals of each species were created (proved in the earlier books). Theodoret's own view (Quaest. 39 in Genesim) is too obscure and ambiguous to make out. Marginal gloss: 'Theodoretus quaest. 39. in Genesim.' Catchword: 'pri' (continues on the next page). ↩
  7. Theodoret wavers (approving, disapproving, then leaving it uncertain). Hugh of St Victor: the garments made from the elements, or by Angels' ministry, or God taught the method. Rupert: 'He made' = 'He commanded them to make'; God gave the power to slay animals for clothing, the post-sin body being fragile and they about to live outside Paradise. Introduces Rupert, De Trinitate et operibus 3.27. Marginal gloss: 'Rupertus.' Running head '690'; true printed page 700. ↩
  8. Rupert (De Trin. 3.27) at length: it seems 'almost laughable' that God, maker of heaven and earth, sewed skins — whence some (Origen) shrank and said 'garments of skins' = bodies (God clothing souls with bodies). This error is exploded: the body is a 'garment' of the soul, but was made BEFORE the soul (Gen 2:7, first formed from mud, then breath of life). God was no cobbler: 'He made' = 'imposed the necessity of making'; and he made not just garments but garments OF SKINS (to cover shame AND warm against cold). Two solaces amid labor and want: food ('In the sweat of your face...') and clothing (Gen 3:21). Marginal glosses: 'Origenis error'; 'Secundum Rupertum, prius formatum est corpus primi hominis quam creata sit anima'; 'Genes. 2.' ↩
  9. Pererius: this passage shows the first human garments were skins, in use for centuries until spinning from wool and flax was invented. Refutes as 'fables' the Epicurean account Lucretius gives in De rerum natura 5 (continues on the next page). Marginal gloss: 'De antiquissimo usu vestitus hominum ex pellibus.' Catchword: 'tius' (Lucretius). ↩
  10. Refutes Lucretius (De rerum natura 5), who held the first men naked, using garments only long afterward (quoting his verses 'Nec dum res igni scibant tractare...'). Against this: Plato (Protagoras) says the most ancient mortals slew animals both for flesh and for skins. Marginal gloss: 'Refellitur Lucretius.' Running head '691'; true printed page 701. ↩
  11. Further evidence that skins were the first clothing: Cicero (Tusc. 1) on the fourfold use of beasts (food, tillage, carrying, clothing); Strabo 15 on Indian philosophers in deerskins; the Scythians called 'pelliti' (Jerome, Epitaph. Nepotian.); Propertius on the early Roman Senate's 'skin-clad Fathers'; and among God's people Elijah and John the Baptist (Heb 11:37, 'in sheepskins and goatskins'). Marginal glosses: 'Pelliti Senatores cur dicti'; '4. Reg. 4.' (Elijah); 'Matth. 3.' (John the Baptist). ↩
  12. Begins the EIGHT causes why God clothed the first men in skins after sin. (1) FIRST: for modesty/continence (nakedness is shameful, an enticement to lust). (2) SECOND: to protect them, soon to leave Paradise, against the elements. (3) THIRD: to show it lawful thereafter to kill animals — if not for food (not customary before the flood), at least for skins. (4) FOURTH: to show God's providence still cares for sinners' food and clothing (natural benefits are not withdrawn for sin — Matt 5:45 'Solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos'; Matt 6:25 'Nolite soliciti esse'). Marginal glosses: 'De octo causis, cur Deus primos homines post peccatum vestiri tunicis pelliceis voluerit'; 'Matth. 5.' Page footer signature 'TTT 3'; catchword 'ducab' (manducabimus). ↩
  13. Continuation of the eight causes of the garments of skins. End of the FOURTH cause (God's providence still cares for sinners — Matt 6:31-32 'What shall we eat...'; Acts 14:17 'he left not himself without witness'). FIFTH cause: skins, not silk or purple, show what clothing befits an honest man (not luxury, but protection). SIXTH cause: to show how much better God's skin-garment was than Adam's fig-leaf covering (which pricked, did not protect or last — earthly defenses are weak). Running head '692'; true printed page 702. ↩
  14. SEVENTH cause: the skins figure penitence (dying to sin), the only fit covering of sins (Ps 31/32:1 'Blessed are they whose sins are covered'); the famous image of penance as the 'one plank after shipwreck.' EIGHTH cause: Adam's skin-garment prefigures the Second Adam, Christ (Heb 7:26, holy yet clothed with our sins; Phil 2:7 'in habit as a man'; Rom 8:3 'likeness of the flesh of sin'); like Jacob in Esau's skins winning the blessing (Gen 27); 'Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis' (Gen 3:22) truly said of Christ, whom the hypostatic union made 'as one of the divine persons' = Son of God ('quasi' declaring, not diminishing). Marginal glosses: 'Psal. 31'; 'Poenitentia unica post naufragium tabula'; 'Hebr. 7'; 'Philip. 2'; 'Genes. 27'; 'Christus quasi unus ex divinis personis factus est.' Catchword: 'dicitur' (continues on the next page). ↩
  15. Continues the Christ-figure reading of Gen 3:22: 'quasi' declaring not diminishing (John 1:14, 'glory as of the only-begotten'); 'knowing good and evil' fits Christ (Isa 7:15, 'butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose good'; Heb 4:15, tempted in all things without sin). Running head '693'; true printed page 703. ↩