Tree of the Knowledge of Good and

TREE of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was also planted in the midst of Paradise, and which it was forbid Adam to touch on pain of Death, Gen. ii. 17. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. ‘Tis disputed, whether the Tree of Life, and that of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, might not be the same Tree? and Opinions are divided thereupon: But that Opinion that makes them distinct, seems the most probable. See our Commentary upon Gen. ii. 9.

These are the Reasons that are generally alledged, both for and against the Opinion which supposes them to be two Gen. ii. 9.different Trees. Moses says, that God planted the Garden of Eden, and put therein all sorts of good Trees, particularly the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden, as also the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And when he placed Adam in Ibid. 19, 17.Paradise, he said to him, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely 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 thereof, thou shalt surely die. And when the Serpent tempted Eve, he said to Gen. iii. 1, 2, 3.her, Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Eve made Answer, God hath given us leave to eat of the Fruits of Paradise, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. To which the Serpent replied, Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And after Adam and Eve had transgressed the Commands of God, he drove them out of Paradise, saying to Gen. iii. 22.them, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever, therefore the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden.

From all these Passages it may be concluded in favour of those who contend for one Tree only, the Use of which was forbid to Adam; First, that there can be no Necessity of admitting two; the same Fruit that could prolong Adam’s Life, might also communicate Knowledge to him. Secondly, the Text of Moses may very well be understood but of one Tree: ” God planted the Tree of Life, or the ” Tree of Knowledge.” Often in the Hebrew the Conjunction and is equivalent to the Disjunctive or; and in like manner, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live for ever, may be explained in the same Sense: Lest he should return to it again, to obtain Life also; as he has already eat of it in order to obtain Knowledge. Thirdly, and lastly, the Devil plainly ascribes to the same Tree, the Fruit of Life, and the Fruit of Knowledge: Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, ye shall know Good and Evil. He confirms them against the Apprehensions of Death, and assures them of Knowledge, by their eating the forbidden Fruit.

But the contrary Opinion seems to have a better Foundation in the Letter of the Text. Moses plainly distinguishes these two Trees, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge; and why should we confound them without any Necessity? Life and Knowledge are very different Effects; why should they be produced by one and the same Fruit: Was it too much to forbid Adam the use of two Trees? The Discourse which God holds with Adam after his Fall, seems to me to be very express, to make a Distinction here of two Trees: Lest he take also of the tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever. As if he had said, he has already tasted of the Fruit of Knowledge, he must be drove away from Cant. viii. 5.the Fruit of Life, lest he should take of that also. The Devil indeed assures Eve and Adam against the Fear of Death; but he only offers them the Fruit of Knowledge, telling them, that as soon as they had tasted of it, they should have the Knowledge of Gods. Hence it was, that after their Sin, it is said, that their Eyes were opened. These Reasons incline us to give the Preference to this Opinion, instead of the former, which we had espoused. See St. Austin, l. 6. of his imperfect Work against Julian, c. 30. p. 1359, &c.

‘Tis enquired, What was the Nature of the forbidden Fruit? Some have thought it to have been Wheat, others the Vine, a others, the Fig-tree,¹ others the Cherry-tree, others the Apple-tree. This last Sentiment has prevailed, tho’ it is little better founded than the rest. To prove this, they quote this Passage of the Canticles; ” I awakened you under an Apple-” tree; ‘twas there your Mother lost her Innocence;² as if Solomon had here intended to speak of the Fall of the first Woman.

Gen. xlviii. 5.Many of the Ancients have taken this whole Relation of Moses in a figurative Sense, and were of opinion, that this Account could only be understood as an Allegory. St. Austin thought,³ that the Virtue of the Tree of Life, and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, were supernatural and miraculous. Others have thought,⁴ that this Virtue was natural to them. According to Philo,⁵ the Tree of Life represents Piety, and the Tree of Knowledge, Prudence. God is the Foundation of these Virtues. The Rabbins tells us very incredible and ridiculous Stories concerning the Tree of Life: It was of a prodigious size, and all the Waters of the Earth gushed out at its foot:⁶ One could hardly go round it in five hundred Years. Perhaps all this is Allegorical; but the secret Meaning is hardly worth the trouble of penetrating into.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages