Chapter VII.
It is asked whether death comes to man from God, or from wood, or finally from elsewhere; and the objection is dissolved by a multiplicity of responses.
Again, another question arises about where the death of Adam came from, whether from the nature of that tree or from God. If we attribute it to the nature of the tree, it seems that the fruit of this tree would owe its power to give life to God's breath; for it was the breath that gave life that drew the fruit of this tree to death. Or if we remember that God is the author of death, they say that in this case we would accuse Him with a double charge: either He was so cruel that He did not want to forgive, even though He could; or if He could not forgive, He seems weak. Let us now see how it must be avoided. Unless I am mistaken, disobedience was the cause of death; and therefore, man himself is the cause of his own death, not having God as the author of his death. For even if a physician prescribed certain things to be avoided by a sick person and the sick person did not think it necessary to abstain from them, the physician is not the cause of his death: on the contrary, he himself is guilty of his own death. Therefore, God, like a good physician, forbade Adam from tasting what would harm him.
Once again, take heed: It is better to know what is good than to not know; and for the one who knows what is good, it is noble to know what is evil, so that they can beware of what is evil, and so that the wise may submit to the caution of guardianship. However, it is not enough to only know what is evil; lest when you know evil, you begin to be deprived of knowledge of what is good. Therefore, it is more beautiful that we know both; so that both because we know what is good, we may avoid what is evil; and from what we recognize as evil, we may show gratitude for what is good. But you must know both in such a way that you deeply understand and execute what you know, and that your actions align with your knowledge. Otherwise, Scripture indicates that it is more tolerable for someone who does not know both than for someone who superficially knows both. For it burdens one to know what one cannot either execute or avoid: it burdens one to know without the use and practice of deep understanding. Ultimately, it is detrimental to a doctor's reputation to know what benefits and what harms a patient unless one uses that knowledge correctly; and therefore, knowledge is not good unless one uses it as one should.
Item, take note: Not in vain was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil produced in the middle of paradise, and if it had been produced for any other human being, the prohibition would have been superfluous. But it was made not in vain, nor for anyone else except for the human who received the command, so that he may not only use it, but use it in conjunction with others. For if you examine many things, you will discover many and truly countless things that can harm someone who does not know how to use them. And you will not find riches themselves to be fruitful if, being rich in the means of generosity, one denies sustenance to the poor, excludes the needy who are devoid of assistance, extorts from others what one can, simply because one prevails in power. Beauty itself and a more pleasing form of the body often lead to vice, while deformity does not. Therefore, does anyone desire to have children more ugly than beautiful, and to have their children be poor rather than rich? There are many such things that are not to be attributed to the thoughtlessness of the giver, but to the error of the one who uses them badly. And therefore, it is the user who should be accused rather than the giver.