this tree man comes into a practical knowledge of the distinction between the two. Previously he lived the good. Evil to him was only disobedience, a mere name for an unknown quantity, a something of which he had no experimental knowledge. The good was more a life than knowledge; the evil was neither—was nothing. But tasting of evil, then both the good and the evil came into his experience as a knowledge, as things to be talked over and compared. Good was no longer a life, but a remembrance; evil was no longer an unknown quantity, but an experience.
And now, why did the Lord plant the two trees in Eden? Why not the tree of life only? Why was man placed in the way of temptation?
The whole lesson is the doctrine of human freedom, taught in allegory and applied to the most ancient Church. To put the lesson in other words, the tree of life was obedience to the law of love, the tree of knowledge was disobedience to its divine behests. To love the Lord was life, to depart from that love was spiritual death. Now what intrinsic good is there in obedience, if there is no power to disobey? Do the locks and bolts and bars of our prisons indicate purity of heart? Is not he rather the good man who, walking free his way on earth, chooses the good and refrains from evil? Would divine bars be any better? Had He said to man, "You shall not sin; I will
