Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Three — Paradise

QUESTION V. Whether the terrestrial Paradise still exists even now

LatineEnglish

QUESTION V. Whether the terrestrial Paradise still exists even now.1

QUAESTIO V. An Paradisus terrestris etiam nunc extet.

EST rationi ac divinis litteris satis consentaneum nullum esse nunc Paradisum illum terrestrem in quo Adam ad breve tempus fuit. Hoc autem in praesentia nonnullis (nec opinor invalidis) rationibus probare constitui. Quod si forte visum fuerit doctis et piis viris (licet satis haec opinio probabilis sit et in eo genere rerum versetur quae ad fidem minime pertinet) tutius fore tamen antiquam et communem sequi Doctorum sententiam—saltem quoad haec opinio, magis cognita eius probabilitate, paulatim in scholis recipiatur et a Theologis probata pervulgetur, sicque suam ipsa exuens novitatem (propter quam nonnullis fortasse displicere posset) maiorem, in dies veterascens, fidem et auctoritatem acquirat—equidem prudens istorum consilium vehementer laudo proboque, méque ipsorum sententiae adscribi volo; illud etiam monens...
It is sufficiently consonant with reason and the divine writings that there is now no longer that terrestrial Paradise in which Adam was for a short time. This, moreover, I have resolved at present to prove by certain reasons (and not, I think, invalid ones). But if perhaps it should seem to learned and pious men—although this opinion is probable enough, and is engaged in that kind of matter which pertains in no way to the faith—that it would nevertheless be safer to follow the ancient and common opinion of the Doctors (at least until this opinion, its probability being better known, should gradually be received in the schools and, approved by the Theologians, be made widely known, and so, putting off its own novelty—on account of which it could perhaps displease some—should, growing old day by day, acquire greater credit and authority): indeed I vehemently praise and approve the prudent counsel of these men, and I wish to be enrolled in their opinion myself; admonishing also this...2
...monens lectorem, quae pro hac opinione hic disputantur, eo prodita esse litteris et publicata, non tam quidem ut eam sequerentur alii, quam ut ex his cognoscerent quid haec opinio haberet probabilitatis, quibusque argumentis contraria sententia oppugnaretur: ut ea, quibus a veteri opinione non discedere satius videretur, fortiter profligarent. Idem quoque de eo quod de fluminibus Paradisi paulo infra disputatur, et si quid aliud fuerit simile, intelligi volumus. Sed age, quae res Paradisum nunc non existere simillimum vero facere videantur, lectori ostendamus. Principio Paradisum fuisse in iis regionibus per quas Tigris et Euphrates ex Paradisi flumine derivati suos agunt cursus, aut certe non procul illis fuisse, per se manifestum est. Cum igitur Tigris et Euphrates fontes habeant in Armenia, cursum autem suum conficiant per Armeniam, Mesopotamiam et Assyriam, exitum autem habeant in sinum Persicum, liquet vel in istis locis vel non longe ab istis fuisse Paradisum. Illud quoque credibile est priscos illos homines ante diluvium, etiam post diluvium priusquam in varias linguas divisi ad diversas mundi plagas terrasque colendas segregarentur, habitasse non procul a regione Paradisi: tum propter eius terrae bonitatem ac fertilitatem, tum quod inibi genus humanum originem suam habuisset. Habitationem autem hominum usque ad aedificationem turris Babel fuisse circa Mesopotamiam et Armeniam satis liquet 10 et 11 cap. Gen. legenti: praesertim vero cum divina Scriptura, cessante diluvio, arcam (in qua erat seminarium humani generis) super montibus Armeniae requievisse testetur.
...admonishing the reader that the things which are here disputed for this opinion have been set forth in writing and published, not indeed so much that others should follow it, as that from these they might learn what probability this opinion had, and by what arguments the contrary view is attacked: so that those arguments, by which it might seem better not to depart from the old opinion, they might strongly overthrow. The same also we wish understood concerning what is disputed a little below about the rivers of Paradise, and if there be anything else similar. But come, let us show the reader what things may make it most like the truth that Paradise does not now exist. First, it is self-evident that Paradise was in those regions through which the Tigris and Euphrates—derived from the river of Paradise—run their courses, or at least was not far from them. Since, then, the Tigris and Euphrates have their sources in Armenia, accomplish their course through Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, and have their outlet into the Persian Gulf, it is clear that Paradise was either in those places or not far from them. It is also credible that those ancient men before the flood—and even after the flood, before, being divided into various tongues, they were separated to various regions of the world and to lands to be cultivated—dwelt not far from the region of Paradise: both on account of the goodness and fertility of that land, and because the human race had had its origin there. That the habitation of men up to the building of the tower of Babel was around Mesopotamia and Armenia is clear enough to one reading Genesis chapters 10 and 11: especially since the divine Scripture testifies that, when the flood ceased, the ark (in which was the seed-plot of the human race) rested upon the mountains of Armenia.3
Ex his licet sic argumentari: Paradisus terrestris erat circa Mesopotamiam vel Armeniam; sed in his locis, quae et fuere olim hodieque sunt non modo cooperta et nota sed etiam a variis gentibus culta et habitata, nusquam invenitur Paradisus: relinquitur igitur nullum esse nunc Paradisum, sed illum fuisse e medio sublatum. Deinde, Moses cap. 7 libri Geneseos tradit omnes montes qui erant sub caelo aquis diluvii esse opertos, et vel altissimis eorum quindecim cubitis aquas fuisse superiores: sed Paradisus erat in hac nostra terra, ergo fuit illa generali totius orbis eluvione obrutus ac dissipatus. Sed hoc testimonium ex cap. 7 Gen. et alterum illud Eccl. 44 de translatione Henoch in Paradisum subtilius et accuratius tractantur in septimo huius operis libro, in ultima disputatione quae est de Translatione Henoch, quaest. 7. SED quaeret aliquis ubi tunc fuit Henoch, quem nec diluvio periisse nec fuisse tamen in arca cum Noë certum est? Respondeo potuisse Henoch sublatum in aëris oras diluvii aquis superiores conservari a Deo, et ab illo exitio liberari quo videlicet duravit diluvium. Sane divina Scriptura, cum narrat historiam diluvii, et beatus Petrus prioris epistolae suae cap. 3, docent interiisse diluvio cunctos homines praeter octo qui per arcam servati sunt. Sed proculdubio addendus praeterea ei numero est Henoch, quem et fuisse ante diluvium, et non solum diluvio superstitem fuisse sed etiam nunc vivere certum est. Verum quia is extra societatem hominum, incognitus cunctis mortali[bus]...
From these one may argue thus: the terrestrial Paradise was around Mesopotamia or Armenia; but in these places, which both were of old and today are not only uncovered and known but even cultivated and inhabited by various peoples, Paradise is nowhere found: it remains, therefore, that there is now no Paradise, but that it has been taken away from our midst. Then, Moses in chapter 7 of the book of Genesis relates that all the mountains which were under heaven were covered by the waters of the flood, and that the waters were higher even than the highest of them by fifteen cubits: but Paradise was in this our earth; therefore it was overwhelmed and dissipated by that general deluge of the whole globe. But this testimony from Genesis 7, and that other one of Ecclesiasticus 44 about the translation of Enoch into Paradise, are treated more subtly and accurately in the seventh book of this work, in the last disputation, which is On the Translation of Enoch, question 7. But someone will ask where Enoch was then, who is certain neither to have perished in the flood nor yet to have been in the ark with Noah? I answer that Enoch could have been taken up into the regions of the air above the waters of the flood, preserved by God, and freed from that destruction—namely, for as long as the flood lasted. Indeed the divine Scripture, when it narrates the history of the flood, and blessed Peter in chapter 3 of his first epistle, teach that all men perished in the flood except eight who were saved by the ark. But beyond doubt Enoch must be added besides to that number, who is certain both to have been before the flood, and not only to have survived the flood but even now to be living. But because he, outside the society of men, unknown to all mortal[s]...4
...[cunctis] mortalibus non humano more vitam agebat, idcirco perinde atque non esset in terris, tacitus in Scriptura praeteritur. PRAETEREA, si quid esset quod fateri nos cogeret esse nunc Paradisum terrestrem, illud profecto esset praecipue quod qui ita sentiunt in primis obiicere solent, Henoch translatum esse in illum Paradisum, ibique mansurum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Hoc enim, inquiunt, aperte docet divina Scriptura: quippe in lib. Eccles. cap. 44 ita est scriptum, Henoch placuit Deo, et translatus est in Paradisum ut det gentibus paenitentiam. Verum infirmam esse hanc rationem non difficile est ostendere. Etenim locus ille Ecclesiastici Graece (qua lingua liber ille primum ab Auctore ipsius scriptus est) non habet vocem illam Paradisus, sed praecise sic habet, Henoch placuit Deo, et translatus est, ut det gentibus paenitentiam. Deinde, B. Augustinus lib. 2 contra Pelagium et Celestium cap. 23 docet, sicut certum est Henoch et Eliam nunc vivere, ita ubi nunc sint (an in Paradiso an alibi) incertum esse; nec eam quaestionem ad fidem Catholicam pertinere. Non igitur, auctore Augustino, Henoch esse in Paradiso secundum Scripturam certum est.
...he was not leading life in human fashion, unknown to all mortals; therefore, just as if he were not on earth, he is silently passed over in Scripture. Moreover, if there were anything that would compel us to confess that there is now a terrestrial Paradise, that would assuredly be chiefly what those who think so are wont first of all to object: that Enoch was translated into that Paradise, and will remain there until the consummation of the age. For this, they say, the divine Scripture openly teaches: since in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 44, it is thus written, Enoch pleased God, and was translated into Paradise, that he might give the nations repentance. But it is not difficult to show this reasoning to be weak. For that passage of Ecclesiasticus in Greek (in which language that book was first written by its author) does not have that word Paradise, but precisely has thus: Enoch pleased God, and was translated, that he might give the nations repentance. Then, Blessed Augustine in book 2 against Pelagius and Celestius, chapter 23, teaches that, just as it is certain that Enoch and Elijah now live, so where they now are—whether in Paradise or elsewhere—is uncertain; nor does that question pertain to the Catholic faith. Therefore, on Augustine's authority, it is not certain according to Scripture that Enoch is in Paradise.5
SED concedimus quod habet Latina et vulgata translatio (cuius tuenda est auctoritas), Henoch esse in Paradiso: non ex eo tamen concludi potest eum esse in Paradiso illo terrestri quem descripsit Moses; vox enim haec Paradisus in sacris litteris non est nomen proprium unius loci (scilicet illius duntaxat Paradisi de quo agit Moses), sed est nomen generale universe significans quemvis locum ad oblectandum hominem amoenissimum atque iucundissimum: quinetiam non semel in Scriptura dicitur ea vox de Paradiso spirituali et caelesti; quod quia multis verbis supra persecuti sumus cum vim et notionem huius vocabuli Paradisus aperiremus, propterea nunc cursim tantum attingimus. Sit igitur Henoch in Paradiso; sed non est tamen necesse eum esse in illo Paradiso unde eiectus est Adam, verum in alio aliquo loco: ubicumque enim Deo libitum fuerit, potest ei quietissimam et iucundissimam vitam suppeditare, eumque quoad voluerit, non solum absque interitu sed etiam sine ulla molestia conservare.
But let us grant what the Latin and Vulgate translation has (whose authority is to be defended), that Enoch is in Paradise: yet from this it cannot be concluded that he is in that terrestrial Paradise which Moses described; for this word Paradise, in the sacred writings, is not the proper name of one place (namely, only that Paradise about which Moses treats), but is a general name signifying universally any place most pleasant and delightful for the enjoyment of man: indeed, more than once in Scripture that word is said of the spiritual and heavenly Paradise; which, because we have pursued it at length above when we were opening up the force and notion of this word Paradise, we therefore now touch only in passing. Let Enoch, then, be in Paradise; but it is nevertheless not necessary that he be in that Paradise whence Adam was ejected, but in some other place: for wherever it shall have pleased God, He can supply him a most quiet and delightful life, and preserve him as long as He shall will, not only without death but even without any trouble.6
CERTE, non esse translatum Henoch in Paradisum illum terrestrem affirmate docet Rupertus, auctor valde gravis et in primis Catholicus ac pius. Is enim lib. 3 de Trinitate et eius operibus cap. 33 his verbis scribit:
Certainly, that Enoch was not translated into that terrestrial Paradise, Rupert affirmatively teaches—an author very weighty, and especially Catholic and pious. For he, in book 3 On the Trinity and its Works, chapter 33, writes in these words:7

"Nowhere does Scripture give us to understand that God took Enoch and Elijah into Paradise itself, where they might eat of the tree of life and live forever; but they were so taken up that they were led into a certain secret region of the earth, where they might live in great quiet of flesh and spirit, until at the end of the world they return and pay the debt of death." Thus Rupert.8

Nusquam Scriptura dat intelligi quod Henoch et Eliam Deus tulerit in ipsum Paradisum, ubi comederent de ligno vitae et viverent in aeternum, sed ita sublati sunt ut in secretam quandam regionem terrae ducerentur, ubi in magna carnis et spiritus quiete viverent, quousque ad finem mundi redeant et mortis debitum solvant. Sic Rupertus.

Similia autem Ruperto Gregorius scribit de Elia, quem isti volunt una cum Henoch in Paradiso versari. In homilia enim in Evangelia 29 sic ait Gregorius:
But things similar to Rupert, Gregory writes concerning Elijah, whom these men wish to dwell in Paradise together with Enoch. For in his homily 29 on the Gospels, Gregory speaks thus:9

"Elijah was raised up into the airy heaven, that he might suddenly be led into a certain secret region of the earth, where he might now live in great quiet of flesh and spirit, until at the end of the world he return and pay the debt of death: for he postponed death, he did not escape it." Thus Gregory.10

In caelum aëreum Elias sublevatus est, ut in secretam quandam terrae regionem repente duceretur, ubi in magna iam carnis et spiritus quiete viveret, quousque ad finem mundi redeat et mortis debitum solvat: ille enim mortem distulit, non evasit. Ita Gregorius.

Ex praedictis igitur verbis Ruperti et Gregorii liquido intelligitur eos sensisse Henoch et Eliam non esse translatos in paradisum illum terrestrem, sed in alia quadam secreta mundi regione vitam agere: quamquam Henoch fuisse translatum in paradisum illum Adami nihil officit huic sententiae. Fuit namque translatus Henoch annis 669 ante diluvium, ut perspicitur ex capite 5 Geneseos, quo tempore non negamus fuisse paradisum, sed eum diluvio superfuisse hodieque esse atque in eo Henoch commorari certum esse negamus.
From the aforesaid words, therefore, of Rupert and Gregory it is clearly understood that they held Enoch and Elijah not to have been translated into that terrestrial paradise, but to lead their life in some other secret region of the world: although that Enoch was translated into that paradise of Adam in no way harms this opinion. For Enoch was translated 669 years before the flood, as is perceived from the fifth chapter of Genesis, at which time we do not deny that there was a paradise; but that it survived the flood and exists today, and that Enoch dwells in it, we deny to be certain.11
NEC vero debet hanc sententiam obruere et obterere Doctorum contrarie opinantium auctoritas et multitudo. Non me latet Iustinum martyrem in responsione ad Orthodoxorum quaest. 75, 76 et 85 scriptum reliquisse Paradisum illum nunc extare et permansurum ad diem usque iudicii; in eo loco versari Henoch et Eliam; illuc esse ductum latronem cui Christus dixit in cruce, Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso; in eundem quoque locum deduci omnes animas iustorum hominum, non admittendas ad beatificam Dei visionem ante diem iudicii, ibique optatum illud tempus et gloriosam suorum corporum resurrectionem expectare. Eadem Iustino tradit Irenaeus lib. 5 adversus haereses, nisi quod addit hunc esse paradisum illum ad quem raptus est Paulus, eiusque sententiae suffragatores laudat presbyteros Asiae Apostolorum discipulos. Tertullianus in Apologetico, et in extremo suo libro de Anima ubi agit de Inferis, non obscure significat etiamnum esse paradisum, et esse receptaculum atque domicilium sanctarum animarum usque ad diem iudicii. In eadem sententia est Isidorus in libro de vita et obitu Patriarcharum ubi agit de Henoch: eandemque sequitur Magister libro 2 Sententiarum distinctione 17 cum plerisque Theologis Scholasticis.
Nor indeed ought the authority and multitude of the Doctors who think the contrary to overwhelm and crush this opinion. It does not escape me that Justin Martyr, in his Response to the Orthodox, questions 75, 76, and 85, left it written that that Paradise now exists and will remain until the day of judgment; that in that place Enoch and Elijah dwell; that thither was led the thief to whom Christ said on the cross, Today you will be with me in Paradise; that to the same place also all the souls of just men are led, not to be admitted to the beatific vision of God before the day of judgment, and there to await that longed-for time and the glorious resurrection of their bodies. The same as Justin, Irenaeus hands down in book 5 Against Heresies, except that he adds that this is that paradise to which Paul was caught up, and he praises as supporters of his opinion the presbyters of Asia, disciples of the Apostles. Tertullian, in the Apologeticum, and at the end of his book On the Soul where he treats of the Underworld, signifies not obscurely that paradise still exists, and is the receptacle and dwelling of holy souls until the day of judgment. In the same opinion is Isidore in his book On the Life and Death of the Patriarchs where he treats of Enoch: and the Master follows the same in book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 17, with most of the Scholastic Theologians.12
QUID igitur, dicet aliquis: tot Auctoribus, tam antiquis, tanta doctrina et sanctitate nobilitatis, dissentire et adversari, nonne temerarium iudicari debet? Minime vero: sed quanti aestimari debeat eiusmodi argumentatio ex numero Auctorum petita, diligenter ponderandum et considerandum est. Videtur autem de hoc genere argumentandi (quod ex multorum Auctorum consensione ducitur) illud in universum vere dici posse: licet plurimi Doctores in unam aliquam conveniant sententiam, si ea non pertineat ad fidem Catholicam sed versetur in eo genere rerum quae salva fide Catholica utraque in partem tractari possunt, non ideo tamen eam opinionem argumentum facere in Theologia firmum certumque, nec unius aut paucorum contrariam sententiam (hoc ipso quod multitudini Scriptorum adversetur) abiudicandam et damnandam esse. Ponam unum exemplum quo res haec fiat illustrior: Omnes fere Patres ante Augustinum, et post ipsum Beda, Rabanus, Strabus, Bonaventura aliique quamplurimi, opinati [sunt] opificium Mundi sex dierum spatio paulatim et particulatim factum et perfe[ctum esse]...
What then, someone will say: to dissent from and oppose so many authors, so ancient, ennobled with such great learning and sanctity—ought it not to be judged rash? By no means: but how much an argumentation of this kind, drawn from the number of authors, ought to be esteemed, must be diligently weighed and considered. Now about this kind of arguing (which is drawn from the consensus of many authors) this seems able to be said truly in general: although very many Doctors agree in some one opinion, if it does not pertain to the Catholic faith but is engaged in that kind of matter which, with the Catholic faith safe, can be treated either way, that opinion does not on that account make a firm and certain argument in Theology; nor is the contrary opinion of one or a few (by this very fact, that it opposes the multitude of writers) to be rejected and condemned. I will set down one example by which this matter may be made clearer: Almost all the Fathers before Augustine, and after him Bede, Rabanus, Strabo, Bonaventure, and very many others, were of the opinion that the work of the World was made and complet[ed] gradually and piecemeal over the space of six days...13
...[factum et] perfectum esse intellexerunt: at communis hic Doctorum consensus non efficit quin unius Augustini (omnia simul unoque temporis puncto facta censentis) opinio, tametsi ceteris omnibus adversa, probabilis tamen in Ecclesia semper fuerit putata, et libere a quovis teneri et defendi potuerit. Scitum enim et verum est illud Vincentii Lyrinensis: Antiqua, inquit, sanctorum Patrum consensio, non in omnibus divinae legis quaestiunculis, sed solum in fidei regula, magno nobis studio et investiganda est et sequenda. Hoc igitur generatim dictum sit: deinceps eorum quos supra testes adversus nos citavimus expendamus testimonia.
...understood [the work of the world] to have been made and completed [gradually over the six days]: but this common consensus of the Doctors does not bring it about that the opinion of Augustine alone (who held that all things were made together, and in one instant of time), although adverse to all the others, was not nevertheless always reckoned probable in the Church, and could be freely held and defended by anyone. For that saying of Vincent of Lérins is apt and true: The ancient consensus of the holy Fathers, he says, is to be investigated and followed by us with great zeal, not in all the little questions of the divine law, but only in the rule of faith. Let this, then, be said in general: next let us weigh the testimonies of those whom above we cited as witnesses against us.14
Primum quidem Iustinus et Irenaeus, licet eos propter martyrii gloriam et doctrinae atque sanctitatis laudem cum primis colere ac venerari conveniat, in eo tamen quod de Paradiso tradiderunt non magnam fidem apud nos habere debent: ea namque docent de terrestri Paradiso quae partim incerta sunt, partim damnata iam ab Ecclesia, quaedam etiam divinae Scripturae contraria. Nam quod aiunt in illo Paradiso vivere Henoch et Eliam, incompertum et incertum esse supra (teste Augustino) demonstravimus; quod autem dicunt Paradisum illum eo conservatum esse a Deo ut omnes iustorum animae usque ad diem Iudicii in eo cum magna tranquillitate et iucunditate commorentur, ab omnibus Catholicis Theologis reprobatur, et iam pridem damnatum est ab Ecclesia in Concilio Florentino. Iam vero quod Christus dixit latroni, Hodie mecum eris in paradiso, interpretantur isti de illo terrestri paradiso: atqui hunc sensum plane excludit illa particula Hodie. Christus enim illo die non fuit in paradiso terrestri; eius enim anima soluta corpore statim ad inferos descendit, nec ante diem tertium (quo iam immortalis resurrexit Christus) supra terras ascendit: ideo enim dicitur tribus diebus et noctibus fuisse in corde terrae, hoc est apud inferos, quorum loca non procul corde (id est centro terrae) esse dicuntur. Ad extremum, existimant isti paradisum ad quem raptus est Paulus fuisse illum terrestrem unde Adam fuerat expulsus: sed hunc intellectum verba Pauli quae sunt in 12 capite secundae epistolae ad Corinthios manifeste redarguunt: ait enim se raptum esse ad paradisum et ad tertium caelum; quare paradisus ille Pauli non terrenus fuit, sed caelestis et divinus.
First indeed Justin and Irenaeus—although it is fitting to cherish and venerate them among the foremost, on account of the glory of their martyrdom and the praise of their learning and sanctity—ought nevertheless to have no great credit with us in what they handed down about Paradise: for they teach things about the terrestrial Paradise which are partly uncertain, partly already condemned by the Church, and some even contrary to the divine Scripture. For that they say Enoch and Elijah live in that Paradise, we have shown above (on Augustine's testimony) to be unascertained and uncertain; and that they say that Paradise has been preserved by God for this, that all the souls of the just might dwell in it, until the day of Judgment, with great tranquility and delight, is rejected by all Catholic Theologians, and was long ago condemned by the Church in the Council of Florence. Now, as for what Christ said to the thief, Today you will be with me in paradise, these men interpret it of that terrestrial paradise: but that word Today plainly excludes this sense. For Christ on that day was not in the terrestrial paradise; for his soul, freed from the body, descended at once to the underworld, nor did it ascend above the earth before the third day (on which Christ, now immortal, rose again): for this reason he is said to have been three days and nights in the heart of the earth, that is, among the dead, whose places are said to be not far from the heart, that is, the center of the earth. Finally, these men think that the paradise to which Paul was caught up was that terrestrial one whence Adam had been expelled: but Paul's words, which are in the 12th chapter of the second epistle to the Corinthians, manifestly refute this understanding: for he says he was caught up to paradise and to the third heaven; wherefore that paradise of Paul was not earthly, but heavenly and divine.15
VERUM Irenaeus affirmat se quod de paradiso tradit a presbyteris Asiae discipulis Apostolorum accepisse. Sed quid tum postea? An ideo quodcumque ab istis presbyteris proditum est tanquam certum et indubitatum doctrinae Christianae dogma haberi debet? Nonne constat istos ipsos presbyteros (eodem referente Irenaeo) quaedam et falsa et divinis litteris contraria docuisse? Mitto nunc errorem Chiliastarum, quo multi veterum fuere implicati, ab istis maxime presbyteris esse proseminatum. Certe Irenaeus libro tertio adversus haereses capit. 36 persuadere studet Christum Dominum annos prope quinquaginta in terris vixisse: idque probat ipse vel eo potissimum argumento, quod presbyteri Asiae Apostolorum discipuli id sibi ab Apostolis traditum alios docuerunt: quam tamen opinionem et vero procul esse, et adversari non solum historiae Ecclesiasticae sed etiam Evangeli[cae]...
But Irenaeus affirms that what he hands down about paradise he received from the presbyters of Asia, disciples of the Apostles. But what then? Is whatever has been reported by those presbyters on that account to be held as a certain and undoubted dogma of Christian doctrine? Is it not established (Irenaeus himself reporting it) that those very presbyters taught certain things both false and contrary to the divine writings? I pass over now the error of the Chiliasts, in which many of the ancients were entangled, which was sown chiefly by these presbyters. Certainly Irenaeus, in book three Against Heresies, chapter 36, is eager to persuade that Christ the Lord lived nearly fifty years on earth: and he proves it especially by this argument, that the presbyters of Asia, disciples of the Apostles, taught others that this had been handed to them by the Apostles—which opinion, however, is far from the truth, and is adverse not only to Church history but even to the Gospel[s]...16
...[Evangeli]cae, etiam leviter sacris litteris eruditi facile possunt intelligere: et a nobis in libro undecimo nostrorum Commentariorum in Danielem, in explicando quaestione septima, manifestis argumentis ostensum est. AD ceteros autem Doctores quorum nobis opposita est auctoritas respondendum est: primo quidem eos superiorum auctoritatem secutos, ab illis prodita bona fide prodidisse; tum eos non aliam ob causam putasse Paradisum nunc extare, nisi quia credebant Henoch et Eliam in illo Paradiso versari: id autem obscurum et dubium esse, nec sive affirmetur sive negetur spectare ad fidem Catholicam, paulo supra ex Augustini sententia ostendimus. His adde quod nullus istorum Doctorum opinionem illam suam tenet tanquam certam et quae secundum fidem Catholicam omnino teneri debeat, nec quisquam eorum contrariam sententiam ceu haereticam vel suspectam in fide vel temerariam damnavit: quin B. Thomas non simpliciter ausus est affirmare Henoch et Eliam vivere in illo Paradiso terrestri, sed ubi de hoc loquitur solet id dicere cum illa adiunctione, ut dicitur vel ut creditur: veluti in prima parte quaest. 103 art. 2, et in secunda secundae q. 64 art. 2, et in 3 parte q. 49 art. 2 docet Paradisum (tametsi a nullo habitetur) non esse tamen frustra; nec de Henoch et Helia verbum facit ullum: quos si putasset ipse inibi habitare, facilius fuisset responsum, negare Paradisum nunc a nemine habitari. Ex his apparet Paradisum nunc non existere videri satis probabile, nec huius opinionis fidem tam ullis Scripturae testimoniis vel argumentis quam novitate eius aut paucitate, nec magno nomine Auctorum qui adhuc eam secuti sunt, elevari. Posset igitur, si ea publice doceri posse videatur, ut probabilis doceri ac defendi, donec eam certiorem et tutiorem faciat maior doctorum et piorum hominum eam sequentium consensus.
...[to the Gospel], even those lightly learned in the sacred writings can easily understand: and it has been shown by us, with manifest arguments, in the eleventh book of our Commentaries on Daniel, in explaining the seventh question. But to the other Doctors whose authority is set against us, this is to be answered: first indeed, that they, having followed the authority of their predecessors, reported in good faith what had been reported by them; then, that they thought Paradise now exists for no other reason than because they believed Enoch and Elijah dwell in that Paradise: but that this is obscure and doubtful, and whether affirmed or denied does not pertain to the Catholic faith, we showed a little above from Augustine's opinion. To these add that none of those Doctors holds that opinion of his as certain and such as must absolutely be held according to the Catholic faith, nor did any of them condemn the contrary opinion as heretical, or suspect in faith, or rash: indeed Blessed Thomas did not simply dare to affirm that Enoch and Elijah live in that terrestrial Paradise, but where he speaks of this, he is wont to say it with that qualification, as it is said or as it is believed: as in the first part question 103 article 2, and in the second of the second q. 64 art. 2, and in the 3rd part q. 49 art. 2, he teaches that Paradise, although inhabited by no one, is nevertheless not in vain; nor does he make any word about Enoch and Elijah: whom, if he himself had thought to dwell there, it would have been easier to answer that Paradise is now inhabited by no one. From these things it appears probable enough that Paradise does not now exist; nor is the credit of this opinion lessened either by any testimonies or arguments of Scripture, or by its novelty or rarity, or by the great name of the authors who have hitherto followed it. It could therefore, if it should seem able to be taught publicly, be taught and defended as probable, until a greater consensus of learned and pious men following it should make it more certain and safe.17
SED unus etiam nunc restat eximendus scrupulus ab Augustino iniectus: quippe in libro 2 contra Pelagium et Coelestium capite 23 significat Augustinus Paradisum nunc existere fidem Christianam sine ulla dubitatione sentire. Ponam hic ipsa verba Augustini:
But one scruple still now remains to be removed, injected by Augustine: for in book 2 against Pelagius and Coelestius, chapter 23, Augustine signifies that the Christian faith holds, without any doubt, that Paradise now exists. I will set down here the very words of Augustine:18

"There are some questions in which, with the faith by which we are Christians safe, either it is not known what the truth is, and a definitive judgment is suspended in words; or it is conjectured otherwise than it is, by human and weak suspicion: as when it is asked what or where paradise is, where God set the man whom He formed from the dust—although the Christian faith does not doubt that that Paradise exists. Or when it is asked where Elijah or Enoch now is, whether there or elsewhere: whom nevertheless we do not doubt to be living in the bodies in which they were born." Thus far Augustine.19

Sunt nonnullae quaestiones in quibus, salva fide qua Christiani sumus, aut ignoratur quid verum sit, et verbis sententia definitiva suspenditur; aut aliter quam est humana et infirma suspicione coniicitur: veluti cum quaeritur qualis vel ubi sit paradisus, ubi constituit Deus hominem quem formavit ex pulvere—cum tamen esse illum Paradisum fides Christiana non dubitet. Vel cum quaeritur ubi sit nunc Helias vel Henoch, an ibi vel alibi: quos tamen non dubitamus in quibus nati sunt corporibus vivere. Hactenus Augustinus.

Verum ad hoc respondendum est, Augustinum istis verbis non aliud significare voluisse nisi Paradisum quem descripsit Moses intelligendum esse locum quendam corporatum, aspectabilem et terrestrem (non autem, ut Origeni et aliis placuit, tantummodo spiritualiter et mystice esse accipiendum). Nam quod secundum fidem Catholicam sentiendum sit Paradisum nunc extare, non voluit dicere Augustinus. Ubi enim aut quomodo id fides Christiana docet? An quia persuasum est...
But to this it must be answered that Augustine, by those words, wished to signify nothing else than that the Paradise which Moses described is to be understood as a certain corporeal, visible, and terrestrial place (not, however, as it pleased Origen and others, to be taken only spiritually and mystically). For that, according to the Catholic faith, it must be held that Paradise now exists, Augustine did not wish to say. For where or how does the Christian faith teach that? Is it because it is persuaded...20
...[An quia persuasum] est multis Henoch et Eliam in Paradiso versari? at enim illo eodem loco dubium et incertum hoc facit Augustinus. An quia in libro Ecclesiastici cap. 44 scriptum est Henoch translatum esse in Paradisum? sed nec Scriptura Graeca ibi habet vocabulum Paradisi, et ea vox non tantum proprie significat illum Paradisum in quo fuit Adam, sed universe quemvis locum amoenissimum et iucundissimum. An quia ex his quae traduntur in sacris litteris hoc elici et deduci potest? Nihil minus: immo vero ex divina Scriptura contrarium magis posse colligi supra ostendimus. An quia hoc aliquando Ecclesia decrevit et credendum esse constituit? Verum nec est unquam ab Ecclesia definitum, et cum sit res quae ad Fidem Catholicam minime spectet, sub certas illas et indubitatas Ecclesiae definitiones et decreta non cadit. An denique propter multitudinem et auctoritatem eorum qui hoc senserunt ipsi et memoriae proditum posteris tradiderunt? Sed istos auctores non magnum habere pondus ad istud probandum in aperto est ex superiori nostra disputatione.
...[Is it because] many are persuaded that Enoch and Elijah dwell in Paradise? But in that same place Augustine makes this doubtful and uncertain. Is it because in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 44, it is written that Enoch was translated into Paradise? But neither does the Greek Scripture there have the word Paradise, and that word does not only properly signify that Paradise in which Adam was, but universally any most pleasant and delightful place. Is it because from the things handed down in the sacred writings this can be elicited and deduced? Nothing less: nay rather, we have shown above that from the divine Scripture the contrary can rather be gathered. Is it because the Church once decreed this and established that it must be believed? But it has never been defined by the Church, and since it is a matter that pertains in no way to the Catholic Faith, it does not fall under those certain and undoubted definitions and decrees of the Church. Is it, finally, on account of the multitude and authority of those who themselves held this and handed it down, reported to memory, to posterity? But that those authors have no great weight for proving this is plain from our earlier disputation.21
RESTAT igitur hanc controversiam (An Paradisus nunc sit in natura rerum) de numero esse earum rerum quae contrarias in partes (salva fide Catholica) agitari et tractari possunt. Nobis tamen visum est multo probabilissimum terrestrem illum Paradisum, generali diluvio destructum, hoc tempore nullum esse. Hanc nempe sententiam doctissimi quique huius nostri saeculi maxime approbarunt, atque inter hos (ut unius et scriptoris et iam mortui, sane viri admodum Catholici et docti, nomen memorem) Cornelius Iansenius Episcopus Gandavensis in suis Commentariis super caput 143 Concordiae Evangelicae eam prodidit ac defendit. Verum de hac, aliisque supra positis quaestionibus quae scilicet pertinebant ad illa verba Mosis, Plantaverat autem Deus Paradisum voluptatis a principio, hactenus disputata lectori nec hebeti nec in sacris litteris inexercitato satis esse possunt. Nos ad reliquam Mosis orationem de Paradiso interpretandam pergamus.
It remains, therefore, that this controversy (Whether Paradise now exists in the nature of things) is among the number of those matters which can be agitated and treated on opposite sides, with the Catholic faith safe. To us, however, it has seemed by far most probable that that terrestrial Paradise, destroyed by the general flood, is at this time nonexistent. This opinion, indeed, all the most learned men of this our age have especially approved; and among these (that I may recall the name of one writer, and now dead, a man indeed very Catholic and learned) Cornelius Jansen, Bishop of Ghent, in his Commentaries on chapter 143 of the Evangelical Harmony, set it forth and defended it. But concerning this, and the other questions set above—which, namely, pertained to those words of Moses, And God had planted a Paradise of pleasure from the beginning—the things hitherto disputed can be enough for a reader neither dull nor unexercised in the sacred writings. Let us proceed to interpret the remaining discourse of Moses about Paradise.22

GENESIS, chapter 2, verse 9. — And the Lord God brought forth from the ground every tree fair to behold and sweet to eat.23

GENES. CAP. 2. VERS. 9. — Produxit Dominus Deus de humo omne lignum pulchrum visu et ad vescendum suave.

INCOMPARABILIS, et nisi traderetur in divina Scriptura plane incredibilis, fuit illius Paradisi venustas, pulchritudo, magnificentia, et omnium bonorum optabilium homini abundantia: quam quidem Moses his paucis verbis adumbravit potius quam expressit; de qua multa Basilius in oratione de Paradiso, Augustinus lib. 14 de Civitate Dei, Damascenus libr. 2 de Fide orthodoxa cap. 11 tradiderunt. Omnis autem paradisi praestantia tribus potissimum in rebus videtur esse posita: in caelo et in aëre, in aquis, et in ipso...
Incomparable, and—unless it were handed down in the divine Scripture—plainly incredible, was the loveliness, beauty, magnificence of that Paradise, and the abundance of all goods desirable to man: which indeed Moses, in these few words, adumbrated rather than expressed; concerning which Basil in his oration On Paradise, Augustine in book 14 of the City of God, and Damascene in book 2 On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 11, have handed down much. Now all the excellence of paradise seems to be placed chiefly in three things: in the sky and in the air, in the waters, and in the [soil] itself...24
...in ipso terrae solo. In caelo summa erat salubritas, et omni tempore suavissima quaedam aequabilitas et tanquam perpetuum quoddam ver. Nam etsi annus suas temporum vices ageret, tamen vicissitudo illa variabat potius voluptatem quam tollebat: erat in aëre magna serenitas et claritas; erat admodum propitius, benignus et salutaris caeli aspectus omniumque defluxus astrorum. Aquarum ingens erat copia irrigantium Paradisum, mira perspicuitas, et ad bibendum suavitas atque salubritas, et in his incredibilis piscium abundantia. In magnis laudibus Sodomae, prius quam subverteretur a Deo, illud memoratur in primis Gen. 13, quod tota irrigaretur a Iordane fluvio similiter ut Paradisus Domini. Terra autem Paradisi usquequaque optima et fertilissima, sponte sine labore et molestia hominis (non tamen sine eius cultura) omnia proferens: nihil gignens noxium aut nulli futurum usui, sed largissime suppeditans quaecumque omnes sensus hominis suavissima possent iucunditate ac voluptate complere: gustatum dico suavissimis saporibus, odoratissimis herbis et floribus odoratum, visum varietate colorum et figurarum venustate, auditum lenissimo spiratium aurarum sonitu et dulci avium concentu. Alimentorum porro suppetebat quanta optari poterat copia, salubritas, iucunditas, et parandi facilitas. Dicam uno verbo: nihil quod homini optabile esset ei loco aberat. Merito igitur Damascenus supradicto loco dixit Paradisum fuisse omnis laetitiae et voluptatis promptuarium, et universae sensibilis venustatis intelligentiam excedens.
...in the soil of the earth itself. In the sky there was the highest wholesomeness, and at all times a certain most pleasant evenness, and as it were a perpetual spring. For although the year went through its changes of seasons, yet that vicissitude varied pleasure rather than took it away: there was in the air great serenity and brightness; the aspect of the sky and the influence of all the stars was exceedingly favorable, kindly, and salutary. There was a vast abundance of waters watering Paradise, of wondrous clearness, and a sweetness and wholesomeness for drinking, and in them an incredible abundance of fish. Among the great praises of Sodom, before it was overthrown by God, this is recalled first of all in Genesis 13: that it was watered throughout by the river Jordan, similarly to the Paradise of the Lord. But the land of Paradise, everywhere best and most fertile, bringing forth all things spontaneously without the labor and trouble of man (yet not without his cultivation): begetting nothing harmful or that would be of no use, but most lavishly supplying whatever things could fill all the senses of man with the sweetest delight and pleasure: the taste, I say, with sweetest flavors; the smell, scented with most fragrant herbs and flowers; the sight, with variety of colors and beauty of forms; the hearing, with the gentlest sound of breathing breezes and the sweet harmony of birds. Of nourishments, moreover, there was at hand as great an abundance, wholesomeness, delight, and ease of getting as could be wished. I will say it in one word: nothing that could be desirable to man was absent from that place. Rightly, therefore, Damascene in the aforesaid place said that Paradise was the storehouse of all gladness and pleasure, and exceeding the understanding of all sensible beauty.25
SED perpendamus verba Mosis, Produxit Dominus Deus de humo omne lignum pulchrum visu et ad vescendum suave. Haec verba quidam legunt coniuncte, quasi Moses significet omnes Paradisi arbores fuisse simul et pulchras visu et suaves ad vescendum: quare putant isti arboribus infructiferis nullum fuisse in Paradiso locum. Nam infructuosarum arborum nunc quidem humanae vitae fragili, caducae, multorumque indigenti, multiplex usus est: ad calefaciendum corpus, coquendos cibos, fabricandum, et ad remedia et medicinas morborum; in statu vero innocentiae nihil istis opus fuisset homini. Praeterea Deus dixit Adamo, Ex omni ligno Paradisi comede: omnis igitur arbor Paradisi fructifera erat et utilis homini ad vescendum.
But let us weigh the words of Moses, The Lord God brought forth from the ground every tree fair to behold and sweet to eat. These words some read conjointly, as if Moses signifies that all the trees of Paradise were at once both fair to behold and sweet to eat: wherefore these men think there was no place in Paradise for fruitless trees. For of fruitless trees there is now indeed a manifold use for human life—fragile, perishable, and needing many things—for warming the body, cooking foods, building, and for remedies and medicines of diseases; but in the state of innocence man would have had no need of these. Moreover, God said to Adam, Eat of every tree of Paradise: every tree of Paradise, therefore, was fruit-bearing and useful to man for eating.26
His ego non assentior: perspicuis enim verbis Moses docet fuisse in Paradiso omnia genera arborum, tam quae ad oblectandum aspectum quam quae ad suavitatem cibi hominis pertinerent. Nam si aliter fuisset, profecto non fuisset in Paradiso ficus, arbor minime quidem pulchri aspectus, suavissimi tamen fructus; nec summis hominum deliciis, eaque praecipua voluptate, quae aeque visum quam odoratum hominis afficiunt (rosas dico, violas et lilia), caruisse Paradisum credendum est: quod si nulla quae ad cibum hominis non pertinet arbor in Paradiso fuisset, quomodo in illo statu innocentiae perfectam earum arborum scientiam, quae per sensus multaque experimenta colli[gitur]...
With these I do not agree: for in plain words Moses teaches that there were in Paradise all kinds of trees, both those which pertained to the delighting of the sight and those which pertained to the sweetness of man's food. For if it had been otherwise, surely there would not have been in Paradise the fig, a tree of least fair aspect, yet of sweetest fruit; nor is it to be believed that Paradise was without the highest of men's delights, and that chief pleasure, which affect a man's sight as much as his smell (the roses, I mean, the violets and lilies): and if no tree which does not pertain to man's food had been in Paradise, how, in that state of innocence, [would there be acquired] the perfect knowledge of those trees, which is gather[ed] through the senses and many experiments...27
...[quae per sensus multaque experimenta] colligitur acquisivissent homines? Adiungit huic opinioni fidem quod est apud Ezechielem cap. 31: eo siquidem loco inter arbores Paradisi numerantur quaedam cibo hominis alienae et infructuosae, velut cedri et abietes. Nec sane officit nostrae sententiae illud a Deo dictum Adae, Ex omni ligno Paradisi comede: intelligendum enim est, ex omni ligno scilicet ad comedendum idoneo; quemadmodum dictum illud Pauli in Priori epistola ad Timotheum cap. 4, iubentis Christianos omni creatura vesci cum gratiarum actione, haud dubie intelligendum est de creatura quae ad cibum hominis pertinet.
...how would men have acquired [the knowledge of those trees, which is gathered through the senses and many experiments]? Credit is added to this opinion by what is in Ezekiel chapter 31: for in that place there are numbered among the trees of Paradise certain ones alien to man's food and fruitless, such as cedars and firs. Nor indeed does that saying of God to Adam, Eat of every tree of Paradise, tell against our opinion: for it must be understood as of every tree, namely, fit for eating; just as that saying of Paul in the first epistle to Timothy, chapter 4, ordering Christians to feed on every creature with thanksgiving, is without doubt to be understood of the creature which pertains to man's food.28
POTEST etiam hoc loco ad disceptationem adduci, an intra Paradisum fuerint animalia. Negat Damascenus in lib. 2 de Fide orthodoxa cap. 11, scribens solum omnium animalium hominem habitasse in Paradiso. Nec id videtur a ratione vacuum: nihil enim de Paradiso cognoscere vel affirmare debemus nisi quod traditum est in divina Scriptura; haec autem arborum quidem atque fluminum Paradisi, et ipsius hominis qui in eum a Deo illatus est, apertam et explicatam, animalium vero quae ibi fuerint nullam plane mentionem facit. Et sane si fuissent animalia in Paradiso, ea diluvii exitium effugissent, reclamante Scriptura in septimo capite Geneseos cunctas animantes terrestres diluvii aquis interiisse. Quid item opus fuisset tanta cura ex omni specie animantium aliquot servare in arca, cum ex animalibus in Paradiso conservatis species omnium servari ac deinde multiplicari potuissent? Damasceno Tostatus in 13 caput Geneseos quaestione 87 et 98 et rursus 113 et 114 partim assentiri, partim dissentire visus est.
It can also be brought into debate at this point, whether there were animals within Paradise. Damascene denies it, in book 2 On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 11, writing that of all animals man alone dwelt in Paradise. Nor does this seem void of reason: for we ought to know or affirm nothing about Paradise except what is handed down in the divine Scripture; and this makes open and explicit mention indeed of the trees and rivers of Paradise, and of man himself, who was brought into it by God, but plainly no mention of the animals which were there. And indeed, if there had been animals in Paradise, they would have escaped the destruction of the flood—Scripture protesting, in the seventh chapter of Genesis, that all the land animals perished in the waters of the flood. What need, likewise, would there have been to preserve with such care some of every species of animals in the ark, when, from the animals preserved in Paradise, the species of all could have been preserved and then multiplied? Tostatus, on the 13th chapter of Genesis, question 87 and 98 and again 113 and 114, seemed partly to agree, partly to disagree with Damascene.29
MIHI tamen similius vero est fuisse animalia in Paradiso. Hoc tradit Iosephus in 1 libro Antiquitatum; hoc disertis verbis docet Basilius in Oratione de Paradiso; hoc confirmat Augustinus, scribens in libro 4 de Civitate Dei cap. 11 simul cum primis illis hominibus fuisse in Paradiso cetera etiam animalia, innoxia tamen illis et subdita; hoc etiam Damascenus proxime antecedente capite docuerat, ita enim ibi ait:
To me, nevertheless, it is more like the truth that there were animals in Paradise. This Josephus hands down in the first book of the Antiquities; this Basil teaches in plain words in his Oration on Paradise; this Augustine confirms, writing in book 4 of the City of God, chapter 11, that together with those first men there were in Paradise the other animals also, harmless however to them and subject; this too Damascene had taught in the immediately preceding chapter, for thus he says there:30

"All the animals, before the transgression, were subject to man and obedient even toward evil, because God had appointed him Prince and Lord of all: but the serpent was more familiar to man than the rest, frequently approaching him and fawning on him with gentle movements: wherefore through it especially the devil instilled poison into our first parents." Thus Damascene.31

Omnia animalia ante transgressionem homini subdita et ad malum obedientia erant, quia omnium constituerat eum Deus Principem et Dominum: serpens autem plus ceteris erat familiaris homini, frequenter ad ipsum accedens et placidis motibus ei blandiens: quapropter per ipsum praecipue diabolus primis parentibus venenum instillavit. Sic Damascenus.

Adscribam hic quoque verba Basilii ex oratione eius de Paradiso:
I will here also append the words of Basil from his oration on Paradise:32

"In Paradise," he says, "there were all kinds of little birds, which both by the beauty of their colors and the sweetness of their harmony incredibly delighted man. There were there also spectacles of various animals: but all were tame, obedient to man, living among themselves harmoniously and peacefully, which both heard one another and spoke intelligibly. But the serpent was not then dreadful, but mild and tame: nor did it crawl terribly on the surface of the earth, as if swimming, but went about lofty and erect, standing upright on feet." Thus far Basil.33

In Paradiso, inquit, omnia erant avicularum genera, quae et pulchritudine colorum et dulcedine concentus incredibiliter oblectabant hominem. Erant illic variorum etiam animalium spectacula: sed erant omnia mansueta, obedientia homini, inter se concorditer et pacifice viventia, quae et audiebant inter se et loquebantur sensate. Serpens autem non erat tunc horrendus, sed mitis et mansuetus: nec terribiliter in terrae superficie veluti natans reptabat, sed sublimis et erectus pedibus insistens ingrediebatur. Hactenus Basilius.

ADEST quoque huic opinioni ratio valde probabilis. Si enim homini in Paradiso habitanti datum est a Deo imperium in omnes animantes, non est dubitandum quin fuerint in Paradiso animalia in quae posset imperium suum exercere. Eva quoque in Paradiso, si nec serpentem nec ullum aliud animal vidisset, profecto aspectu serpentis et sermone, tanquam re prius insolita, commota fuisset, nec tam secure ac familiariter sermonem cum eo miscuisset. Adiice et illud: si non fuissent animalia in Paradiso, qui eo loco fuissent homines privati essent multis nec exiguis voluptatibus quas ex variis animantibus capimus, nec absolutam animalium scientiam (non sine certis eorum experimentis parabilem) potuissent consequi. Aiunt illi hoc nusquam tradi a Mose; at enim sat est id esse consequens atque congruens aliis a Mose traditis: quanquam nec hoc non indicavit Moses cum dixit omnia animalia ducta esse ad Adamum in Paradiso versantem, ut is nomina eis imponeret—nisi forte iuvet fingere ea, nominibus acceptis, protinus omnia e Paradiso excessisse. Insistunt praeterea nos urgere, si fuissent animalia in Paradiso, fore ut ea servata essent ex illo generali diluvii exitio. Sed non est id necessario consequens: nam vel una cum Adamo eiecta sunt ex Paradiso, vel (quia Paradisum diluvio destructum existimamus) simul etiam illa, si quae in Paradiso usque ad id temporis remanserant, interierunt.
There is also for this opinion a very probable reason. For if to man dwelling in Paradise dominion over all animals was given by God, it is not to be doubted that there were animals in Paradise over which he could exercise his dominion. Eve too, in Paradise, if she had seen neither the serpent nor any other animal, would surely have been startled by the sight and speech of the serpent as by a thing before unusual, and would not have so securely and familiarly mingled speech with it. Add this also: if there had been no animals in Paradise, the men who were in that place would have been deprived of the many and not slight pleasures which we take from various animals, nor could they have attained the complete knowledge of animals (acquirable not without certain experiments of them). They say this is nowhere handed down by Moses; but it is enough that it is consequent upon and congruous with the other things handed down by Moses: although Moses did not fail to indicate even this, when he said that all the animals were led to Adam, dwelling in Paradise, that he might impose names on them—unless perhaps it pleases anyone to imagine that they, the names having been received, all immediately departed from Paradise. They press further to urge against us that, if there had been animals in Paradise, it would follow that they were preserved from that general destruction of the flood. But that is not necessarily consequent: for either they were cast out together with Adam from Paradise, or (because we hold Paradise was destroyed by the flood) those also, if any had remained in Paradise up to that time, perished along with it.34

Translator’s notes

  1. The fifth question of the disputation: whether the terrestrial Paradise still exists today. ↩
  2. Marginal gloss: "Quid in huiusmodi novis opinionibus nec ad fidem spectantibus, probabilibus tamen, servandum esse videatur, monet Auctor extremo libro 7 huius operis." Pererius states his thesis: reason and Scripture agree there is now no terrestrial Paradise. He grants this is only a probable opinion, not a matter of faith, and that the prudent course is to defer to the old common opinion until this view gains acceptance in the schools—a counsel he praises and joins. Continues onto next page (catchword "monens"). ↩
  3. Continues the disclaimer: Pererius published the arguments not so others would adopt the view, but so they could weigh its probability and learn how the contrary is attacked (the same applies to the rivers of Paradise, discussed below). Then the geographical argument: Paradise was where the Tigris and Euphrates run (or near)—they rise in Armenia, run through Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, and empty into the Persian Gulf. The early men (before the flood, and after it before Babel) dwelt near Paradise's region for its fertility and as mankind's origin; Gen 10–11 places habitation around Mesopotamia/Armenia, and Noah's ark rested on the mountains of Armenia. ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: "Ubi fuerit Henoch tempore diluvii." The argument: Paradise lay around Mesopotamia/Armenia, but those known, inhabited lands contain no Paradise—so it no longer exists, but was taken away. Moreover Moses (Gen 7) says the flood covered all mountains under heaven by 15 cubits; Paradise was on this earth, so it was overwhelmed by the deluge. (These texts—Gen 7 and Ecclus 44 on Enoch's translation—are treated fully in Book 7, the last disputation, On the Translation of Enoch, q.7.) An objection: where was Enoch during the flood (who neither died in it nor was in the ark)? Answer: Enoch could have been raised into the air above the flood-waters and preserved by God. Scripture and 1 Peter 3 say all perished but the eight in the ark—yet Enoch must be added, who lived before the flood and lives still; but being outside human society, unknown to all mortals... Continues onto next page (catchword "mortali"). ↩
  5. Marginal glosses: "Virum [=Utrum] Henoch sit in Paradiso terrestri" and "Expenditur locus Ecclesiastici." Enoch, living unknown to all mortals, is passed over in Scripture as if not on earth. The strongest argument for a still-existing terrestrial Paradise is that Enoch was translated there until the world's end—Ecclus 44: "Enoch pleased God and was translated into Paradise that he might give the nations repentance." But Pererius shows this weak: **the Greek of Ecclesiasticus (its original language) lacks the word "Paradise,"** reading only "was translated, that he might give the nations repentance." And Augustine (Contra Pelagium et Celestium 2.23) holds it certain Enoch and Elijah live, but uncertain where (Paradise or elsewhere)—a question not pertaining to the faith. So per Scripture it is not certain Enoch is in Paradise. ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: "Vide Bedam super cap. 12 Epistolae 2 ad Corinth." Conceding the Vulgate reading (whose authority must be upheld) that Enoch is "in Paradise": it still does not follow he is in Moses's terrestrial Paradise. "Paradise" in Scripture is not the proper name of one place but a general term for any most pleasant place, and is more than once used of the spiritual/heavenly Paradise (as Pererius expounded earlier). So Enoch may be in some other place, where God can preserve him in a quiet, delightful life without death or trouble for as long as He wills. ↩
  7. Marginal gloss: "Rupertus sentit Henoch et Eliam non esse translatos in illum Paradisum terrestrem unde eiectus fuit Adam; idque significat Gregorius." Pererius adduces Rupert of Deutz (a weighty, Catholic, pious author) who positively denies Enoch was translated into the terrestrial Paradise. The quotation follows. ↩
  8. Block quotation of Rupert of Deutz (De Trinitate et operibus eius, bk. 3, ch. 33): Scripture nowhere says Enoch and Elijah were taken into Paradise itself to eat of the tree of life, but into a secret region of the earth, where they live in quiet until they return at the end of the world to pay the debt of death. ↩
  9. Pererius adds Gregory the Great, who writes the like of Elijah (whom the opposing view places in Paradise with Enoch). The quotation, from Homily 29 on the Gospels, follows (spanning to p.305). ↩
  10. Block quotation of Gregory the Great (Homily 29 on the Gospels), spanning the page break (pp.304–305): Elijah was raised into the airy heaven, then led into a secret region of the earth where he lives in quiet until he returns at the world's end to pay the debt of death—"for he postponed death, he did not escape it." ↩
  11. Continuation/conclusion of the Rupert–Gregory point (Gregory quote ends at top of p.305 with "...mortem distulit, non evasit"). Pererius: both authors held Enoch and Elijah live not in the terrestrial paradise but in some secret region. That Enoch was translated into Adam's paradise does not harm this—he was translated 669 years before the flood (Gen 5), when paradise indeed existed; but that it survived the flood and that Enoch still dwells there is denied to be certain. ↩
  12. Marginal gloss: "Qui Auctores putent etiam nunc esse Paradisum terrestrem." Pererius lists the weighty authorities for a still-existing Paradise, lest their number overwhelm his view: **Justin Martyr** (Responses to the Orthodox q. 75, 76, 85)—Paradise exists till judgment day, housing Enoch, Elijah, the good thief ("Today you will be with me in Paradise"), and all just souls awaiting the resurrection; **Irenaeus** (Against Heresies bk. 5)—same, adding it is the paradise to which Paul was caught up, citing the Asian presbyters, disciples of the Apostles; **Tertullian** (Apologeticum; De Anima, on the underworld); **Isidore** (On the Life and Death of the Patriarchs, on Enoch); and **Peter Lombard the Master** (Sentences 2 d.17) with most Scholastics. ↩
  13. Pererius's methodological point: is it rash to dissent from so many ancient, learned, holy authors? No—an argument from the number of authors must be weighed carefully. In general: even if very many Doctors agree on a view, if it does not pertain to the Catholic faith but is the sort of question that may be argued either way, their consensus does not make it a firm theological argument, nor is the contrary view of one or a few to be condemned merely for opposing the multitude. His illustrative example: almost all the Fathers before Augustine, and after him Bede, Rabanus, Strabo, Bonaventure, and many others, held the creation of the world was done gradually over the six days... Breaks mid-sentence (catchword "perfe"; signature Q; page-foot "Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1"). Resume PDF 347 with "...perfectum esse." ↩
  14. Marginal gloss: "Observandum Vincentii Lyrinensis dictum." Concluding the example (from p.305): though almost all the Fathers held creation was gradual over six days, **Augustine's contrary view—that all was made at once, in a single instant—was always reckoned probable in the Church and freely defensible.** This illustrates the methodological point. Pererius clinches it with Vincent of Lérins (Commonitorium): the consensus of the Fathers is to be followed zealously only in the rule of faith, not in every minor question. He now turns to weigh the authorities cited against his own view (Q.V). ↩
  15. Marginal glosses: "Expenditur Iustini et Irenaei sententia"; "Augustinus lib. 2 contra Pelagium et Celestium ca. 23"; "Excutitur locus Lucae ca. 23." Pererius weighs Justin and Irenaeus: venerable as martyrs, but their teaching on Paradise carries little weight—partly uncertain, partly Church-condemned, partly contrary to Scripture. (a) Enoch and Elijah dwelling there is uncertain (per Augustine). (b) Their view that Paradise preserves all just souls until Judgment Day is rejected by all Catholic theologians and was **condemned at the Council of Florence.** (c) Their reading of "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23) as the terrestrial paradise is excluded by "Today": Christ's soul descended that day to the underworld (the "heart of the earth," near its center) and did not ascend before the third-day resurrection. (d) Their view that Paul's paradise (2 Cor 12) was the terrestrial one is refuted by Paul's own words—he was caught up "to paradise and the third heaven," so it was heavenly, not earthly. ↩
  16. Pererius presses on Irenaeus's appeal to the Asian presbyters (disciples of the Apostles): their report is no guaranteed dogma—Irenaeus himself reports they taught things false and contrary to Scripture. He cites the **Chiliast (millenarian) error**, sown chiefly by these presbyters, and Irenaeus's own claim (Adv. haer. 3.36) that **Christ lived nearly fifty years on earth**—proved by the same presbyters' alleged apostolic tradition—an opinion far from the truth and contrary to Church history and the Gospel. Continues onto next page (catchword "cae"). ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: "Multa quae ad hanc quaestionem pertinent latius et diligentius infra lib. 7 in ultima Disputatione, quae est de Translatione Henoch, quaest. 7, ab Auctore disputantur." (Cross-ref also to Pererius's own Commentaries on Daniel, bk. 11, q. 7, on Christ's age.) Reply to the Doctors cited against him: (1) they followed earlier authorities in good faith; (2) they affirmed a present Paradise only because they believed Enoch and Elijah dwell there—an obscure, non-faith matter (per Augustine). None held it as certain or de fide, nor condemned the contrary as heretical/rash. **Aquinas** himself hedges ("as it is said," "as it is believed") and (Summa I q.103 a.2; II-II q.64 a.2; III q.49 a.2) teaches Paradise, though uninhabited, is not in vain—saying nothing of Enoch and Elijah. So Pererius's view is probable enough, not lessened by its novelty or rarity, and may be taught as probable until a wider consensus confirms it. ↩
  18. Marginal gloss: "Obiectio ex verbis S. Augustini." One last scruple: Augustine (Contra Pelagium et Celestium 2.23) seems to say the Christian faith holds beyond doubt that Paradise now exists. Pererius quotes him in full (block-quote following). ↩
  19. Block quotation of Augustine (Contra Pelagium et Celestium 2.23): some questions can be left open without harm to the faith—e.g. what or where Paradise is (the faith does not doubt it *exists*, but its quality/location is open), or where Enoch and Elijah now are (uncertain, though they certainly live in their natural bodies). The pivot is that Augustine affirms only that Paradise *exists* (i.e. was a real place), not that it survives now—Pererius's reply turns on this. ↩
  20. Marginal gloss: "Diluitur obiectio." Reply to the scruple: Augustine meant only that Moses's Paradise is a real corporeal, visible, terrestrial place—**not** (against Origen and others) a merely spiritual/mystical allegory. He did **not** say the faith requires holding that Paradise still exists now. For where does the faith teach that? (A series of rhetorical "is it because..." rebuttals begins.) Continues onto next page (catchword "est"; signature Q2). ↩
  21. Pererius tests each ground on which the faith might be thought to require a present Paradise, and rebuts all five: (1) the belief that Enoch and Elijah dwell there—Augustine himself makes it doubtful; (2) Ecclus 44—**the Greek lacks the word "Paradise,"** and the word is general anyway; (3) deduction from Scripture—the contrary is rather deducible; (4) a Church decree—it was never defined, and is not a faith-matter; (5) the multitude of authors—shown to carry little weight. ↩
  22. **Verdict on Question V:** whether Paradise now exists is a question that may be argued either way without prejudice to faith—but Pererius finds it far most probable that **the terrestrial Paradise, destroyed by the general flood, no longer exists.** The most learned of his age approve it; he names **Cornelius Jansen (the Elder), Bishop of Ghent** (d. 1576), who defended it in his commentary on ch. 143 of the *Concordia Evangelica* (the Gospel Harmony). This closes the questions on "God had planted a Paradise of pleasure from the beginning" (Gen 2:8); the commentary now resumes interpreting Moses's text on Paradise (Gen 2:9). ↩
  23. Scripture lemma heading: Genesis 2:9, the verse Pererius now expounds, set off as a centered head with the side-reference "GENES. CAP. 2. VERS. 9." ↩
  24. Opening of the Gen 2:9 exposition: Paradise's loveliness, beauty, magnificence, and abundance of all desirable goods was incomparable and—but for Scripture—incredible; Moses only adumbrated it in few words. Fuller treatments: Basil (oration *On Paradise*), Augustine (*City of God* bk. 14), John Damascene (*On the Orthodox Faith* bk. 2 ch. 11). Paradise's excellence lies chiefly in three things—the sky/air, the waters, and the soil. Continues onto next page (catchword "in ipso"). ↩
  25. Marginal gloss: "Triplex praestantia Paradisi, ex caelo, aquis, et terra." Paradise's threefold excellence elaborated: (1) **Sky/air**—supreme wholesomeness, a most pleasant evenness, a perpetual spring (the seasons varied pleasure rather than diminishing it); great serenity, a favorable aspect of sky and stars. (2) **Waters**—a vast, wondrously clear abundance, sweet and wholesome to drink, teeming with fish. (Among Sodom's praises before its overthrow, Gen 13 notes it was watered by the Jordan "like the Paradise of the Lord.") (3) **Soil**—everywhere most fertile, bringing forth all things spontaneously (yet not without cultivation), nothing harmful or useless, but filling every sense with delight: taste (sweet flavors), smell (fragrant herbs/flowers), sight (colors and forms), hearing (breezes and birdsong). Food was abundant, wholesome, and easy to get. In a word, nothing desirable to man was lacking—so Damascene called Paradise "the storehouse of all joy and pleasure, exceeding the understanding of all sensible beauty." ↩
  26. Pererius weighs Gen 2:9. **One reading** takes "fair to behold and sweet to eat" conjointly—so all Paradise's trees were both, leaving no place for fruitless (non-fruit-bearing) trees. Their reasons: fruitless trees now serve fragile mortal life (warming, cooking, building, medicine), but innocent man needed none of this; and God said "Eat of every tree of Paradise" (Gen 2:16), so every tree was fruit-bearing and edible. ↩
  27. Marginal gloss: "Fuisse in Paradiso arbores etiam quarum fructus non pertinebant ad cibum hominis." **Pererius dissents:** Moses plainly teaches Paradise had *every* kind of tree—both those pleasing to sight and those for food. Otherwise the **fig** (a homely tree but sweetest fruit) would be excluded, and Paradise would lack the things that most delight men and please eye as much as smell—**roses, violets, and lilies.** And if no non-food tree existed there, how, in the state of innocence, would the perfect knowledge of such trees (gathered through the senses and many experiments) [be acquired]... Continues onto next page (catchword "colli"; signature Q3). ↩
  28. Continuation (from p.309) finishing Pererius's argument that Paradise had non-food trees: otherwise men could not have gained the empirical knowledge of such trees. Confirmed by Ezekiel 31, which numbers fruitless, inedible trees (cedars, firs) among Paradise's trees. And God's "Eat of every tree of Paradise" (Gen 2:16) means every tree *fit for eating*—as Paul's "feed on every creature with thanksgiving" (1 Tim 4) means every creature that is food. ↩
  29. Marginal gloss: "An intra Paradisum fuerint animalia." A new question: were there animals in Paradise? **Damascene** (de Fide orth. 2.11) denies it—man alone of animals dwelt there. The case for denial: affirm of Paradise only what Scripture says, and Scripture names its trees, rivers, and man, but no animals; had animals been there they would have escaped the flood (against Gen 7, where all land animals perished); and why stock the ark from every species if Paradise's animals could have restocked the world? **Tostatus** (Gen 13 qq. 87, 98, 113, 114) partly agrees, partly disagrees with Damascene. ↩
  30. Marginal gloss: "Auctoris sententia." **Pererius's own view: it is more probable that there WERE animals in Paradise.** Authorities: Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1); Basil (Oration on Paradise); Augustine (City of God bk. 4 [sic; the Paradise material is in bk. 14], ch. 11)—the other animals were in Paradise with the first humans, harmless and subject to them; and Damascene himself, in the chapter just before the one cited for denial. The Damascene quotation follows. ↩
  31. Block quotation of John Damascene (de Fide orthodoxa 2.10): before the Fall all animals were subject and obedient to man, whom God had made their Prince and Lord; the serpent was the most familiar, fawning on man with gentle motions—wherefore the devil used it especially to instill poison into our first parents. (The clause "ad malum obedientia" is printed thus; rendered "obedient even toward evil.") ↩
  32. Pererius introduces a second block quotation, from Basil's oration On Paradise. ↩
  33. Block quotation of Basil (oration On Paradise): Paradise held all kinds of birds delighting man by color and song, and tame animals living peacefully and obedient to man, who heard and spoke intelligibly among themselves; and the serpent was not then dreadful but mild, walking erect on feet rather than crawling. (A vivid patristic picture of the prelapsarian animal world; the upright serpent is a traditional motif.) ↩
  34. A strongly probable reason for animals in Paradise: God gave Paradise-dwelling man dominion over all animals, so there were animals to rule. Also, had Eve seen no animal, the serpent's sight and speech would have startled her, not been met so familiarly. And without animals men would have lacked the pleasures and the complete (empirical) knowledge of animals. **Objection:** Moses nowhere reports it. **Reply:** it follows from what he reports—indeed he indicated it when the animals were brought to Adam in Paradise to be named (unless one pretends they all left at once after naming). **Objection:** then they would have escaped the flood. **Reply:** not necessarily—either cast out with Adam, or perished with Paradise (which Pererius holds the flood destroyed). ↩