The Literal Meaning of Genesis (continued)
now, since they believe that the first man was made by God as no other has been made, why are they unwilling to believe that Paradise was made just as they now see forests are made?
4. Iam speaking, of course, to those who accept the authority of Scripture; for some of them want Paradise to be understood not in the literal sense but figuratively. Elsewhere I have dealt in a different manner with those who are determined adversaries of the Book of Genesis.? Nevertheless, even in that work of mine I defended, as well as I was able, the literal meaning of the narrative. As a result, those who are moved by irrational motives, being obstinate or dull, may refuse to believe what Genesis says but cannot find any basis for proving it false.
On the other hand, some of our writers, who have faith in the inspired books of Scripture, are unwilling to accept Paradise in the literal sense, that is, a delightful place shaded with fruitbearing trees, spacious, and irrigated by an abundant source of water.® Since they see that its extensive green fields, without any work of man, are flourishing by the hidden work of God, they reject the literal meaning of this account. But I wonder how they believe that man himself was made in a manner completely beyond their experience. If he is to be understood in a figurative sense, who begot Cain, Abel, and Seth? Did they exist only figuratively, and were they not men born of men?
Let them, therefore, examine the matter more closely to see where their presupposition leads, and let them try with us first to take in the proper sense all the events narrated. For who would not later applaud them when they understand what these events also point to in the figurative sense as signs of spiritual realities or affections or even future events? Of course, if it became utterly impossible to safeguard the truth of the faith while accepting in a material sense what is named as material in Genesis, what alternative would be left for us except to take these statements in a figurative sense rather than to be guilty of an impious attack on Sacred Scripture? But if accepting these statements in a material sense not only does not impede the understanding of the narrative of the inspired word but actually helps it, there will be no one, I think, so headstrong in disbelief as to see the proper sense to be in agreement with the rule of