or saciamental character. The one was called the Tree of Life, the other the Tree of Knowledge. The former was the symbol of life, and its fruit was not to be eaten except on the condition of man's retaining his integrity. Whether the fruit of that tree had inherent virtue to impart life, i. e., to sustain the body of man in its youthful vigour and beauty, or gradually to refine it until it should become like to what the glorified body of Christ now is, or whether the connection between eating its fruit and immortality was simply conventional and sacramental, we cannot determine. It is enough to know that partaking of that tree secured in some way the enjoyment of eternal life. That this was the fact is plain, not only because man after his transgression was driven from paradise " lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22); but also because Christ is called the Tree of Life. He is so called because that tree was typical of Him, and the analogy is, that as He is the source of life, spiritual and eternal, to his people, so that tree was appointed to be the source of life to the first parents of our race and to all their descendants, had they not rebelled against God. Our Lord promises (Rev. ii. 7) to give to them who overcome, to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God. In heaven there is said (Rev. xxii. 2) to be a tree of life, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations ; and again (verse 14), " Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." The symbolical and typical import of the tree of life is thus clear. As paradise was the type of heaven, so the tree which would have secured immortal life to obedient Adam in that terres- trial paradise is the type of Him who is the source of spiritual and eternal life to his people in the paradise above.
The Tree of Knowledge.
The nature and significancy of the tree of knowledge of good and evil are not so clear. By the tree of knowledge, indeed, it is altogether probable, we are to understand a tree the fruit of which would impart knowledge. This may be inferred, (1.) From analogy. As the tree of life sustained or imparted life, so the tree of knowledge was appointed to communicate knowledge. (2.) From the siigges- tion of the tempter, who assured the woman that eating of the fruit of that tree would open her eyes. (8.) She so understood the designation, for she regarded the tree as desirable to render wise. (4.) The effect of eating of the forbidden fruit was that the eyes
126 PART II. Cn. VU. — THE FALL.
of the transoressors were opened. And (5.), in the twenty-second verse, we read that God said of fallen man, " Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Unless this be understood ironically, which in this connection seems altogether unnatural, it must mean that Adam had, by eating the forbidden fruit, attained a knowledge in some respects analogous to the knowledge of God, however different in its nature and effects. This, thei'efore, seems plain from the whole narrative, that the tree of knowledge was a tree the fruit of which imparted knowledge. Not indeed from any inherent virtue, it may be, in the tree itself, but from the appointment of God. It is not necessary to suppose that the forbidden fruit had the power to corrupt either the corpo- real or moral nature of man, and thus produce the experimental knowledge of good and evil. All that the text requires is that knowledge followed the eating of that fruit.
The words " good and evil " in this connection admit of three interpretations. In the first place, in Scripture, the ignorance of infancy is sometimes expressed by saying that a child cannot tell its right hand from its left ; sometimes by saying, that he cannot discern between the evil and the good. Thus in Deut. i. 39, it is said, " Your children .... had no knowledge between good and evil," and in Is. vii. 16, " Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good." On the other hand maturity, whether in intellectual or spiritual knowledge, is expressed by saying that one has power to distinguish between good and evil. Thus the perfect or mature believer has his " senses exercised to discern both good and evil," Heb. v. 14. Agreeably to the analogy of these passages, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is simply the tree of knowledge. The one expression is fully equivalent to the other. This inter- pretation relieves the passage of many difficulties. It is sustained also by the language of Eve, who said it was a tree desirable to make wise. Before he sinned, Adam had the ignorance of happi- ness and innocence. The happy do not know what sorrow is, and the innocent do not know what sin is. When he ate of the for- bidden tree he attained a knowledge he never had before. But, in the second place the words, "good and evil " may be taken in a moral sense. If this is so, the meaning cannot be that the fruit of that ti-ee was to lead Adam to a knowledge of the distinction be- tween rio;ht and wrong, and thus awaken his dormant nioi-al na- ture. That knowledge he mnst have had from the beginning, and was a good not to be prohibited. Some suppose that by the knowled'-'e of good and evil is meant the knowledge of what thin<;3