Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Five — the state of innocence

QUESTION IV. On the knowledge of supernatural things which Adam had

LatineEnglish

QUESTION IV. On the knowledge of supernatural things which Adam had.1

QUAESTIO IIII. De scientia rerum supernaturalium quam habuit Adam.

Illud etiam quaeritur, utrum Adam habuerit scientiam rerum supernaturalium. Sed Adamum supernaturalium rerum scientiam ab initio habuisse, eo probari argumento facile potest, quod, ut infra ostendemus, Adamus creatus sit cum gratia gratum faciente, cuius quasi fundamentum est fides. Impossibile enim est, auctore Paulo ad Hebr. 11, sine fide placere Deo. Fides vero cognitio est rerum supernaturalium; definitur enim a Paulo: substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum non apparentium. Adiice, quod Adam principalius propter finem supernaturalem quam propter naturalem fuerat a Deo conditus. Cum igitur, quo finem suum naturalem consequeretur, a primo data fuerit ei scientia rerum naturalium, consentaneum profecto erat ut, ad assequendum finem suum supernaturalem, similiter cognitione rerum supernaturalium instructus crearetur. Nam qua obsecro ratione perfectus esset Adam a Deo creatus, si ei tam principalis et necessaria perfectio, cognitionem dico rerum supernaturalium, defuisset?
It is also asked whether Adam had knowledge of supernatural things. But that Adam had the knowledge of supernatural things from the beginning can easily be proved by this argument: that, as we shall show below, Adam was created with sanctifying grace, whose foundation, as it were, is faith. For it is impossible, on Paul's authority in Hebrews 11, to please God without faith. But faith is a knowledge of supernatural things; for it is defined by Paul: ‘the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.’ Add that Adam had been founded by God more principally for a supernatural end than for a natural one. Since, therefore, in order that he might attain his natural end, the knowledge of natural things was given him from the first, it was assuredly fitting that, in order to attain his supernatural end, he should likewise be created furnished with the knowledge of supernatural things. For by what reasoning, I pray, would Adam have been created perfect by God, if so principal and necessary a perfection—I mean the knowledge of supernatural things—had been lacking to him?2
Sed quarum rerum supernaturalium cognitionem tenuit Adam? Mihi quidem certe fit admodum credibile, sex genera rerum supernaturalium fuisse Adamo cognita. Primum quidem, noverat Adam praemia supernaturalia esse viris bonis et Deo sancte ac pie servientibus in coelis constituta, namque ut Paulus scribit ad Hebraeos 11: Accedentem ad Deum credere oportet quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator sit. Tum habebat sine dubio fidem et certam notitiam ultimi finis supernaturalis humanae naturae: siquidem ex fine pendet ordinatio totius vitae, sicut ordinatio scientiae speculativae pendet ex primis cuiusque scientiae principiis speculativis. Sic enim se habet finis ad actionem, ut prima principia speculativa cuiusque scientiae ad eius scientiae cognitionem. Quoniam igitur Adam factus est usu rationis et liberi arbitrii perfectus, et potens ab initio vel bene vel male agendi, convenientissimum erat ultimum finem eius statim ipsi notum esse, ut sciret quo sua omnia ac seipsum referre deberet.
But of which supernatural things did Adam hold the knowledge? To me, certainly, it becomes quite credible that six kinds of supernatural things were known to Adam. First, indeed, Adam knew that supernatural rewards are appointed in heaven for good men who serve God holily and piously, for, as Paul writes to the Hebrews 11: ‘He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.’ Then he had, without doubt, faith and a certain knowledge of the ultimate supernatural end of human nature: for on the end depends the ordering of the whole life, just as the ordering of speculative knowledge depends on the first speculative principles of each science. For the end stands to action as the first speculative principles of each science stand to the knowledge of that science. Since, therefore, Adam was made perfect in the use of reason and of free will, and able from the beginning to act either well or ill, it was most fitting that his ultimate end be at once known to himself, so that he might know whither he ought to refer all that was his, and himself.3
Deinde, novit ea quae simpliciter omni homini atque omni tempore necessaria sunt homini, quo finem illum consequatur: haec autem cetera sunt, gratia gratum faciens, et tres virtutes Theologicae, fides, spes, et charitas, et si quid aliud est huiusmodi. Haec autem sciebat Adam non a nobis proficisci, nec propriis viribus parari posse, sed gratuito donari a Deo. Ad haec, satis probabile est non latuisse Adamum horribilem illum Angelorum casum, qui propter superbiam coelo deturbati plurimas coelestium sedium vacuas reliquerunt; huius enim casus et ruinae cognitio multum prodesse Adamo poterat, ut eum...
Next, he knew the things that are simply necessary to every man and at every time, in order to attain that end: and these are sanctifying grace, and the three Theological virtues—faith, hope, and charity—and whatever else is of this kind. And these Adam knew do not proceed from us, nor can be procured by our own powers, but are freely given by God. Besides, it is sufficiently probable that there was not hidden from Adam that horrible fall of the Angels, who, cast down from heaven for pride, left many of the heavenly seats empty; for the knowledge of this fall and ruin could profit Adam much, that [it might]...4
...eum in humilitate, et divinae legis obedientia, et timore severitatis divini iudicii ac iustitiae contineret. Maximo autem gaudio animum eius complebat, nosse tantas illas ruinas coelestes per homines terrenos, qui ex ipsius stirpe progenerandi erant, reparari ac refici debere. Atque hoc sensit et scriptum reliquit Catharinus, in Commentariis suis in Genesim, super illis verbis primi capitis, Et benedixit illis dicens, Crescite et multiplicamini, in digressione qua disputat de felici statu primorum hominum ante peccatum: et ad hoc ille accommodat verba illa quae sunt in cap. 17 libri Ecclesiastici, ubi Scriptura inter alia bona quae Deum primis hominibus tribuisse narrat, ponit et hoc: Et iudicia sua, inquit, ostendit illis. Quae iudicia? inquit Catharinus, nimirum quibus Deus revelavit illis transgressionem pessimorum spirituum, et quomodo iudicaverat eos et damnaverat.
...[that the knowledge of the angels' fall] might keep him in humility, and in obedience to the divine law, and in fear of the severity of the divine judgment and justice. And it filled his mind with the greatest joy to know that those great heavenly ruins were to be repaired and restored through earthly men, who were to be begotten from his own stock. And this Catharinus felt and left in writing, in his Commentaries on Genesis, on those words of the first chapter, ‘And he blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply,’ in a digression where he disputes about the happy state of the first men before sin; and to this he applies those words which are in chapter 17 of the book of Ecclesiasticus, where Scripture, among the other goods which it relates God bestowed on the first men, sets down this also: ‘And he showed them his judgments,’ it says. What judgments? says Catharinus—namely those by which God revealed to them the transgression of the worst spirits, and how he had judged and condemned them.5
Praeterea, distincte et explicate cognovit Adam per fidem mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis: hoc enim tradit Epiphanius in exordio eius operis quod scripsit adversus haereses. Et vero id fit admodum credibile: non enim consentaneum fuit, primum hominem tot tantisque bonis tum naturalibus tum supernaturalibus cumulatum, et in illo felici statu innocentiae positum, mysterium Trinitatis, primum scilicet et maximum omnium mysteriorum Fidei, et cuius clara visio, ut Augustinus inquit, tota est Fidei merces, ignorasse; praesertim vero cum hoc mysterium primo in creatione Adami fuisset indicatum, cum dixit Deus: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; et coram Adamo postea dixit Deus: Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est, sciens bonum et malum.
Moreover, Adam knew distinctly and explicitly, through faith, the mystery of the most holy Trinity: for this Epiphanius hands down at the opening of the work which he wrote against the heresies. And indeed this becomes quite credible: for it was not fitting that the first man, heaped with so many and so great goods both natural and supernatural, and placed in that happy state of innocence, should have been ignorant of the mystery of the Trinity—the first, namely, and greatest of all the mysteries of the Faith, and whose clear vision, as Augustine says, is the whole reward of the Faith—especially since this mystery had been indicated at the very creation of Adam, when God said, ‘Let us make man to our image and likeness’; and afterward, in Adam's presence, God said, ‘Behold, Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil.’6
Ad extremum, cognovit etiam Adamus, ut multis et magnis Doctoribus placuit, futuram Filii Dei ex ipsius progenie incarnationem. Cognovit igitur Adam Filium Dei aliquando sumpturum carnem humanam, non quidem ut per mortem suam liberaret hominem a peccato (sic enim Adam sui lapsus et peccati fuisset praescius), sed ut caput esset humani generis ad ipsum honorandum et glorificandum, sicut Ioseph (utitur hoc exemplo Bonaventura) patriarcha praevidit in somno futuram exaltationem suam, non tamen venditionem suam aut inclusionem in carcerem. Et haec quidem sententia maxime competit et quadrat in opinionem eorum qui putant, etiam si Adam non peccasset, Christum tamen fuisse incarnandum. Ac mysterium quidem incarnationis, ita ut diximus, fuisse Adamo cognitum, censet Sanctus Thomas, secunda secundae, quaestione secunda, articulo septimo; Bonaventura quoque in secundo sententiarum, distinctione vigesimatertia, in expositione textus Magistri; et Catharinus loco paulo superius nominato; et B. Prosper in capite primo primae partis eorum trium, quos de promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei composuit. Tractans enim illa verba quae sunt in secundo cap. Genes., Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, etc., et ponderans quod Paulus ad Ephesios scribens, capite quinto, super illis verbis...
Lastly, Adam also knew, as it has pleased many great Doctors [to hold], the future incarnation of the Son of God from his own progeny. Adam knew, therefore, that the Son of God would one day take human flesh—not indeed that by his death he might free man from sin (for in that case Adam would have foreknown his own fall and sin), but that he might be the head of the human race for its honoring and glorifying—just as the patriarch Joseph (Bonaventure uses this example) foresaw in a dream his future exaltation, but not his selling or his imprisonment. And this opinion most fits and squares with the view of those who hold that, even if Adam had not sinned, Christ would nevertheless have been incarnate. And that the mystery of the incarnation was, as we have said, known to Adam, Saint Thomas holds, in the second part of the second part, question two, article seven; Bonaventure too, in the second book of the Sentences, distinction twenty-three, in the exposition of the Master's text; and Catharinus in the place named a little above; and Blessed Prosper in the first chapter of the first of those three parts which he composed concerning the promises and predictions of God. For, treating those words which are in the second chapter of Genesis, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,’ etc., and weighing what Paul, writing to the Ephesians, chapter five, [says] on those words...7
...verbis dixit, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia, affirmat notam fuisse Adamo coniunctionem Christi cum Ecclesia, et quod, ut Eva ex latere suo formata erat, sic Ecclesiam formatum iri ex latere Christi in cruce pendentis. Quanquam hoc posterius dictum Prosperi non videtur verum: significat enim Adam novisse futuram mortem et passionem Christi, haud dubie hominis a peccato liberandi causa ab eo suscipiendam: ex quo efficeretur ipsum peccati sui fuisse praescium, quod negat Augustinus libro undecimo de Genesi ad litteram, capite decimooctavo, nec placet Theologis.
...said in those words, ‘This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church,’ [Prosper] affirms that the conjunction of Christ with the Church was known to Adam, and that, as Eve had been formed from his side, so the Church was to be formed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross. Although this latter saying of Prosper does not seem true: for it implies that Adam knew the future death and passion of Christ, which doubtless was to be undergone by him for the sake of freeing man from sin—from which it would follow that Adam foreknew his own sin, which Augustine denies in book eleven of On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter eighteen, and which is not approved by the Theologians.8
Sed illud hoc loco quaeri posset, utrum cognitio rerum supernaturalium et divinarum, quam in statu innocentiae habuit Adam, fuerit sublimior et clarior quam est fides, licet inferior fuerit et obscurior quam sit cognitio earundem rerum per lumen gloriae: ita ut lumen illud quod habuit Adam medium quodammodo fuerit inter lumen Fidei et lumen gloriae, hoc videlicet inferius et superius illo. Hugo quidem certe simile quiddam sensisse videtur. Sic enim scribit, libro primo de Sacramentis, parte sexta, capite 14: Cognitionem Creatoris primus homo habuisse creditur, cognovit enim a quo creatus fuerat, non eo modo cognoscendi quo ex auditu solo percipitur, quo modo a credentibus absens quaeritur, sed quadam interiori inspiratione qua Dei praesentiam contemplabatur: non tamen ita excellenter sicut post hanc vitam sancti visuri sunt, neque ita in aenigmate qualiter in hac vita videmus. Sic Hugo.
But this might here be asked, whether the knowledge of supernatural and divine things which Adam had in the state of innocence was more sublime and clearer than faith is, although it was lower and more obscure than is the knowledge of those same things through the light of glory: so that the light which Adam had was in a way intermediate between the light of Faith and the light of glory, lower, namely, than the latter and higher than the former. Hugh certainly seems to have thought something similar. For thus he writes, in book one of On the Sacraments, part six, chapter 14: ‘The first man is believed to have had knowledge of the Creator, for he knew him by whom he had been created—not in that manner of knowing by which he is perceived from hearing alone, in the way the absent [God] is sought by believers, but by a certain interior inspiration by which he contemplated the presence of God: yet not so excellently as the saints are to see [him] after this life, nor so in an enigma as we see in this life.’ Thus Hugh.9
Cuius sententiam interpretans Beatus Thomas secunda secundae, quaestione quinta, articulo primo, dicit contemplationem Dei et rerum divinarum quae tollit necessitatem Fidei, esse contemplationem Dei quam in patria beati habent, qua scilicet supernaturalis veritas per essentiam videtur. Hanc autem contemplationem non habuit Angelus ante confirmationem, nec primus homo ante peccatum, sed eorum contemplatio erat altior quam nostra, per quam propius accedentes ad Deum plura manifeste cognoscere poterant de divinis effectibus et mysteriis quam nos possumus: unde non inerat eis fides qua ita quaereretur Deus absens sicut a nobis quaeritur. Erat enim praesentior eis Deus per lumen sapientiae quam sit nobis, licet non ita eis praesens esset ut est beatis per lumen gloriae. Et quamvis Adam non acceperit cognitionem rerum divinarum per auditum exteriorem ab alio extrinsecus loquente et docente, accepit tamen eam per auditum interiorem, Deo interius inspirante et docente, quo modo Prophetae audiebant, et David dixit: Audiam quid loquatur in me Dominus Deus.
Interpreting his opinion, the Blessed Thomas, in the second part of the second part, question five, article one, says that the contemplation of God and of divine things which removes the necessity of Faith is the contemplation of God which the blessed have in the fatherland, by which, namely, supernatural truth is seen through essence. But this contemplation neither the Angel had before his confirmation, nor the first man before sin; rather their contemplation was higher than ours, by which, approaching nearer to God, they could manifestly know more about the divine effects and mysteries than we can: whence there was not in them a faith by which the absent God would be sought as he is sought by us. For God was more present to them through the light of wisdom than he is to us, although he was not so present to them as he is to the blessed through the light of glory. And although Adam did not receive the knowledge of divine things through exterior hearing from another speaking and teaching from without, he received it nevertheless through interior hearing, God inwardly inspiring and teaching, in the way the Prophets heard, and as David said: ‘I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me.’10
Quamobrem Augustinus lib. 11 de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 33: Fortasse, ait, intrinsecus et ineffabilibus modis Deus cum primis hominibus antea loquebatur, sicut etiam cum Angelis loquitur, ipsa incommutabili veritate illustrans mentes eorum, ubi est intellectus nosse simul quaecumque etiam per tempora non fiunt simul; Forte, inquam, sic cum eis loquebatur, etsi non tanta participatione divinae sapientiae quantam capiunt Angeli, tamen...
Wherefore Augustine, in book 11 of On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 33: ‘Perhaps,’ he says, ‘God formerly spoke with the first men in inward and ineffable ways, just as he also speaks with the Angels, illuminating their minds by that very unchangeable truth, where it belongs to the intellect to know at once whatever things, even those that come to pass through time, do not come to pass at once. Perhaps, I say, he spoke thus with them, although not with so great a participation of divine wisdom as the Angels grasp, yet...’11
...pro humano modulo quantumlibet minus, sed illo ipso genere visitationis et locutionis: fortassis etiam illo qui fit per creaturam, sive in ecstasi spiritus corporalibus imaginibus, sive ipsis sensibus corporis aliqua specie praesentata vel ad videndum vel ad audiendum, sicut in Angelis suis solet videri Deus, vel sonare per nubem. Haec Augustinus.
...however much less according to the human measure, yet by that very kind of visitation and speech: perhaps even by that which comes about through a creature, whether in an ecstasy of the spirit by bodily images, or by some species presented to the very senses of the body, whether for seeing or for hearing, just as God is wont to be seen in his Angels, or to sound through a cloud. Thus Augustine.12
Denique Sanctus Thomas in prima parte, quaestione 94, articulo primo, censet Adamum agnovisse Deum altiori cognitione quam nos cognoscamus, et fuisse cognitionem eius quodammodo mediam inter cognitionem praesentis status et cognitionem patriae, qua Deus per essentiam videtur. Constat enim Deum clarius et eminentius videri per intelligibiles effectus quam per sensibiles et corporeos. A consideratione autem plena et liquida intelligibilium effectuum retrahitur vel retardatur homo ab amore et occupatione circa res sensibiles. At primum hominem fecit Deus rectum, ut dicitur Eccles. 7, qua rectitudo in eo erat, ut quae sunt inferiora in homine subderentur superioribus, et haec nullo modo impedirentur ab illis. Quapropter primus homo non impediebatur per res exteriores sensibiles a clara et firma contemplatione rerum intelligibilium, quas ex irradiatione primae veritatis percipiebat, sive naturali cognitione sive gratuita. Et quia duplex est medium cognoscendi: unum, in quo simul videtur quod per medium videri dicitur, sicut cum homo videtur per speculum et simul videtur cum ipso speculo: alterum medium est, per cuius notitiam devenitur ad cognoscendum aliquid ignotum, sicut est medium demonstrationis: et sine huiusmodi medio Deum videbat Adamus, non tamen sine priori medio. Non enim oportebat primum hominem pervenire in Dei cognitionem per demonstrationem sumptam ab aliquo effectu sicut nobis est necessarium, sed simul in effectibus praecipue intelligibilibus suo modo Deum cognoscebat.
Finally, Saint Thomas, in the first part, question 94, article one, holds that Adam knew God by a higher knowledge than we know him, and that his knowledge was in a way intermediate between the knowledge of the present state and the knowledge of the fatherland, by which God is seen through essence. For it is established that God is seen more clearly and eminently through intelligible effects than through sensible and bodily ones. But from the full and clear consideration of intelligible effects a man is drawn back or retarded by love and occupation about sensible things. Yet God made the first man upright, as is said in Ecclesiastes 7, which uprightness was in him so that the things that are lower in man were subject to the higher, and these were in no way hindered by them. Wherefore the first man was not hindered by exterior sensible things from the clear and firm contemplation of intelligible things, which he perceived from the irradiation of the first truth, whether by natural knowledge or by gratuitous. And since the medium of knowing is twofold: one, in which there is seen at the same time that which is said to be seen through the medium, as when a man is seen through a mirror and is seen together with the mirror itself; the other medium is that by whose knowledge one arrives at knowing something unknown, as is the medium of demonstration: and without a medium of this latter kind Adam saw God, yet not without the former medium. For it was not necessary that the first man arrive at the knowledge of God through a demonstration taken from some effect, as is necessary for us, but at once, in the effects especially intelligible, he knew God in his own way.13
Similiter si quaeratur, utrum Adam tunc cognosceret Deum in aenigmate? respondendum est, in aenigmate inesse obscuritatem, quae quidem obscuritas dupliciter potest accipi: vel quatenus quaelibet creatura est obscura et velut tenebrae si cum immensitate divinae claritatis comparetur, et sic Adam videbat Deum in aenigmate, quia videbat Deum per effectus creatos: vel potest intelligi obscuritas quae accidit homini propter peccatum, de qua loquitur Augustinus libro decimoquarto de Trinitate, capite nono, prout scilicet impeditur homo a consideratione rerum intelligibilium per sensibilium occupationem, et sic Adam non cognoscebat Deum in aenigmate. Hactenus ex Beato Thoma.
Likewise, if it be asked whether Adam then knew God in an enigma, it must be answered that in an enigma there is obscurity, which obscurity can indeed be taken in two ways: either inasmuch as every creature is obscure and, as it were, darkness if it be compared with the immensity of the divine brightness—and in this way Adam saw God in an enigma, because he saw God through created effects; or the obscurity can be understood which befalls man on account of sin, of which Augustine speaks in book fourteen of On the Trinity, chapter nine—namely, as a man is hindered from the consideration of intelligible things by his occupation with sensible ones—and in this way Adam did not know God in an enigma. Thus far from the Blessed Thomas.14
Nec dissimilis est, nec hoc loco praetereunda, sed observanda lectori Bonaventurae sententia. Sic enim ille scribit in secundo sententiarum, distinctione vigesimatertia, articulo secundo, quaestione secunda: Cognitio hominis in statu innocentiae media erat inter cognitionem status gloriae et status miseriae: sicut etiam locus Paradisi medius erat inter hanc vallem miseriae et patriam coelestem. Et quemadmodum Paradisus terrestris similior erat terrae quam coelo, sic cognitio Adae in statu innocentiae conformior erat cognitioni status praesentis quam futuri. Unde in solo statu gloriae videbitur Deus immediate et in sua substantia, ita ut nulla...
Nor unlike [this], nor here to be passed over, but to be noted by the reader, is the opinion of Bonaventure. For thus he writes in the second book of the Sentences, distinction twenty-three, article two, question two: ‘The knowledge of man in the state of innocence was intermediate between the knowledge of the state of glory and of the state of misery: just as the place of Paradise too was intermediate between this valley of misery and the heavenly fatherland. And just as the earthly Paradise was more like to earth than to heaven, so the knowledge of Adam in the state of innocence was more conformed to the knowledge of the present state than of the future. Whence in the state of glory alone will God be seen immediately and in his substance, so that there be no...’15
...sit ibi obscuritas; in statu vero innocentiae et naturae lapsae videtur Deus mediante speculo, sed differenter. Nam in statu innocentiae videbatur Deus per speculum clarum: nulla enim in anima erat peccati nebula: in statu vero miseriae videtur per speculum obscuratum propter peccatum primi hominis, et ideo nunc videtur per speculum et in aenigmate. Aenigma enim, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro decimoquarto de Trinitate, capite nono, est similitudo obscura.
...there be obscurity there; but in the state of innocence and of fallen nature God is seen by means of a mirror, yet differently. For in the state of innocence God was seen through a clear mirror, for there was no cloud of sin in the soul; but in the state of misery he is seen through a mirror darkened on account of the sin of the first man, and therefore now he is seen through a mirror and in an enigma. For an enigma, as Augustine says in book fourteen of On the Trinity, chapter nine, is an obscure likeness.16
Est autem quadruplex genus cognoscendi Deum, videlicet per fidem, per contemplationem, per sensibilem apparitionem, per apertam visionem. Primum est gratiae communis: secundum, gratiae excellentis: tertium est gratiae specialis: quartum est gratiae consummantis et glorificantis. Et sufficientia istorum modorum ita colligitur: quia omne quod cognoscitur per aliquid praesens intellectui cognoscitur: Deum quoque per aliquid praesens intellectui cognosci ab homine necesse est. Aut igitur cognosco Deum per hoc quod est praesens mihi, aut quia est praesens alii. Si quia est praesens alii, haec est cognitio fidei: cognosco enim et credo Deum esse trinum et unum, quia Dei Filius hoc enarravit et Spiritus sanctus inspiravit: quod enim credimus, debemus auctoritati, ut scribit Augustinus in libro de Utilitate credendi, capite undecimo. Si autem cognosco Deum per hoc quod est praesens mihi, id potest fieri tripliciter: aut quia est praesens mihi in proprio effectu, et sic est contemplatio, quae tanto excellentior est quanto effectum divinae gratiae magis in se homo sentit, et quanto melius potest Deum considerare in exterioribus creaturis. Aut est praesens mihi Deus in proprio signo, et sic est apparitio, sicut apparuit Deus Abrahae in subiecta creatura qua ipsum Deum figurabat, et Spiritus sanctus in columba. Aut denique praesens est homini Deus in lumine suo et in seipso, secundum quod dicitur cognosci facie ad faciem: et est aperta visio, quae quidem merces est tota humanorum meritorum.
Now there is a fourfold kind of knowing God, namely by faith, by contemplation, by sensible apparition, by open vision. The first is of common grace; the second, of excellent grace; the third is of special grace; the fourth is of consummating and glorifying grace. And the sufficiency of these modes is gathered thus: because everything that is known is known through something present to the intellect; God too must be known by man through something present to the intellect. Either, then, I know God through this, that he is present to me, or because he is present to another. If because he is present to another, this is the knowledge of faith: for I know and believe God to be three and one, because the Son of God declared this and the Holy Spirit inspired it; for what we believe, we owe to authority, as Augustine writes in the book On the Usefulness of Believing, chapter eleven. But if I know God through this, that he is present to me, this can come about in three ways: either because he is present to me in his proper effect, and so it is contemplation, which is the more excellent the more a man feels in himself the effect of divine grace, and the better he can consider God in exterior creatures. Or God is present to me in his proper sign, and so it is apparition, as God appeared to Abraham in a subject creature by which he figured God himself, and the Holy Spirit [appeared] in a dove. Or finally God is present to man in his own light and in himself, according to what is said to be known face to face: and this is open vision, which indeed is the whole reward of human merits.17
Primum igitur et ultimum genus cognitionis Dei non competebat statui innocentiae: primum quidem propter cognitionem aenigmaticam, et quia cognitio fidei ut plurimum ex auditu est: ultimum vero propter summam perfectionem non exhibebatur homini in terris, sed promittebatur dandum in coelis. Secundum vero et tertium genus cognitionis Dei, scilicet contemplationis et apparitionis, in utrumque statum competunt, sed in statu innocentiae potissimum vigebat contemplatio: tum propter animae puritatem, tum etiam propter carnis et inferiorum virium subiectionem: quibus duabus rebus ut plurimum anima caret in statu naturae lapsae, ideoque non potest ad illum gradum contemplationis attingere. Sic Bonaventura.
The first, therefore, and the last kind of the knowledge of God did not belong to the state of innocence: the first, indeed, on account of enigmatic knowledge, and because the knowledge of faith is for the most part from hearing; but the last, on account of its supreme perfection, was not exhibited to man on earth, but was promised as to be given in heaven. But the second and third kinds of the knowledge of God, namely of contemplation and of apparition, belong to both states; yet in the state of innocence contemplation especially flourished, both on account of the purity of the soul, and also on account of the subjection of the flesh and of the lower powers: of which two things the soul is for the most part deprived in the state of fallen nature, and therefore cannot attain to that grade of contemplation. Thus Bonaventure.18
Sed in hac Bonaventurae sententia, quod dixit cognitionem fidei propter obscuritatem non fuisse in Adamo ante peccatum, id ego, si praecise intelligatur, minime probare possum. Nam, ut supra diximus, nec Adam nec Angelus, dum erant in via, poterant sine fide aut placere Deo, aut mysterium Trinitatis certo et indubitanter cognoscere: propterea enim mysterium istud vocatur supernaturale, quia vim et facultatem omnis creatae intelligentiae longissime supe-...
But in this opinion of Bonaventure, in that he said that the knowledge of faith, because of its obscurity, was not in Adam before sin, this—if it be understood precisely—I am by no means able to approve. For, as we said above, neither Adam nor the Angel, while they were on the way, could without faith either please God, or know the mystery of the Trinity certainly and without doubt: for this is why that mystery is called supernatural, because it far surpasses the power and faculty of every created intelligence...19
...rat, nec certa eius cognitio haberi potest nisi per fidem in via, aut per visionem in patria. Denique, etiam in Adamo priusquam peccaret, verissime dici poterat quod Propheta ille dixit, Iustus ex fide vivit: et quod scribit Paulus, Dum sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a Domino, ambulantes per fidem et non per speciem: et nunc videmus per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem.
...[surpasses the power of every created intelligence], nor can certain knowledge of it be had except by faith on the way, or by vision in the fatherland. Finally, even of Adam, before he sinned, it could most truly be said what that Prophet said, ‘The just man lives by faith’: and what Paul writes, ‘While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord, walking by faith and not by sight’: and ‘now we see through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face.’20
Scire tamen convenit, cognitionem rerum divinarum quam habuit Adam dupliciter ea quam nos habemus fuisse praestantiorem. Primo quidem propter praestantiam ingenii et scientiae, quo fiebat ut multa ille de rebus divinis ratione et intelligentia comprehenderet, ad quae mens nostra nunc aspirare non potest nisi lumine Fidei adiuta. Quemadmodum etiam nunc inter Christianos nonnulla de Deo et rebus divinis docti et sapientes viri non tantum fide, sed etiam naturali ratione et scientia noverunt, quae tamen idiotis sola fide percepta et cognita sunt. Deinde, nos habemus fidem tam respectu obiecti revelati quam Dei revelantis: non enim est nobis evidenter notum revelata esse a Deo mysteria quae credimus. At primus homo, licet non haberet evidentem cognitionem ipsius obiecti Fidei, habebat tamen evidentem revelationis a Deo factae: noverat enim evidenter mysteria illa sibi esse a Deo revelata. Sed unde noverat? quia sentiebat mentem suam interius illuminatam ad cognoscenda ea quae humana ratione non possunt cognosci, idque sine ordine ad phantasmata: hoc autem ab alio quam a Deo, qui solus in mentem humanam illabi potest et solus in eam habet potestatem et efficacitatem, proficisci et effici non potest.
Yet it is fitting to know that the knowledge of divine things which Adam had was in two ways more excellent than that which we have. First, on account of the excellence of his intellect and knowledge, whereby it came about that he comprehended by reason and understanding many things about divine matters, to which our mind now cannot aspire unless aided by the light of Faith. Just as even now, among Christians, certain things about God and divine matters, which learned and wise men know not only by faith but also by natural reason and knowledge, are nevertheless to the unlearned perceived and known by faith alone. Next, we have faith both as regards the revealed object and the revealing God: for it is not evidently known to us that the mysteries we believe have been revealed by God. But the first man, although he did not have evident knowledge of the object of Faith itself, nevertheless had evident [knowledge] of the revelation made by God: for he knew evidently that those mysteries were revealed to him by God. But whence did he know it? Because he felt his mind inwardly illuminated to know those things that cannot be known by human reason, and that without reference to phantasms: but this can proceed and be effected by none other than God, who alone can glide into the human mind and alone has power and efficacy over it.21
Genus autem contemplationis quo in beato illo statu innocentiae usus est Adam, usque adeo sublime et excellens fuit, ut saepenumero mens eius ab omnium usu sensuum abstracta, et in ecstasim rapta, curiae coelesti et Angelorum choris interesset. Audiat lector non meam sed Augustini sententiam, qui extremo capite libri noni de Genesi ad litteram ita scribit:
Now the kind of contemplation which Adam used in that blessed state of innocence was so sublime and excellent that very often his mind, abstracted from all use of the senses and rapt into ecstasy, was present at the heavenly court and the choirs of Angels. Let the reader hear not my opinion but Augustine's, who in the last chapter of book nine of On Genesis according to the Letter writes thus:22

‘That ecstasy which God sent upon Adam, so that, made drowsy, he fell asleep, is rightly understood to have been sent for this end: that his mind too, through the ecstasy, might become a partaker, as it were, of the angelic court, and, entering into the sanctuary of God, might understand the last things. And then, awaking as one full of prophecy, when he saw the rib brought to him, his wife, he immediately burst forth with what the Apostle commends as a great sacrament: “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” etc. Which words, although Scripture itself attests them to have been the first man's, the Lord nevertheless declared in the Gospel that God had said—so that we might understand from this that, on account of the ecstasy that had preceded in Adam, he could speak this divinely, as a prophet.’ Thus Augustine.23

Illa ecstasis quam Deus immisit in Adam ut soporatus obdormiret, recte intelligitur ad hoc immissa, ut et ipsius mens per ecstasim particeps fieret tanquam angelicae curiae, et intrans in sanctuarium Dei intelligeret novissima. Denique, evigilans tanquam prophetia plenus, cum ad se adductam costam, mulierem suam videret, eructavit continuo quod magnum sacramentum commendat Apostolus: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea, etc. Quae verba cum primi hominis fuisse Scriptura ipsa testetur, Dominus tamen in Evangelio Deum dixisse declaravit, ut hinc intelligeremus, propter ecstasim qua praecesserat in Adam, hoc eum divinitus tanquam prophetam dicere potuisse. Sic Augustinus.

Horum similia scribit Gregorius in primo capite libri quarti Dialogorum: Postquam, inquit, de Paradisi gaudiis, culpa exigente, expulsus est primus humani generis parens, in huius caecitatis atque exilii quam patimur venit aerumnam: quia peccando extra semetipsum fusus, iam illa coelestis patriae gaudia quae prius contemplabatur videre non potuit. In Paradiso quippe assueverat homo verbis Dei perfrui, et Beatorum Angelorum...
Things similar to these Gregory writes in the first chapter of the fourth book of the Dialogues: ‘After,’ he says, ‘the first parent of the human race was expelled from the joys of Paradise, his fault demanding it, he came into the misery of this blindness and exile which we suffer: because, poured out beyond himself by sinning, he could no longer see those joys of the heavenly fatherland which before he contemplated. For in Paradise man had been accustomed to enjoy the words of God, and [to be present at the company] of the Blessed Angels...’24
...Angelorum spiritibus, cordis munditia et celsitudine visionis interesse. Sed postquam huc cecidit, ab illo quo implebatur mentis lumine recessit. Ex cuius videlicet carne nos in huius exilii caecitate nati, audimus quidem coelestem esse patriam, audimus eius cives Angelos Dei, audimus eorundem Angelorum socios spiritus iustorum et perfectorum: sed carnales quique, quia illa invisibilia scire non valent per experimentum, dubitant verum ne sit quod corporalibus oculis non vident. Quae nimirum dubietas in primo parente esse non potuit, quia exclusus a Paradisi gaudiis, hoc quod amiserat, quia viderat, recolebat. Hactenus sunt verba Gregorii. Ex quibus licet argumentari, saltem auctore Gregorio, Adamum aliquandiu fuisse in statu innocentiae: affirmat enim Gregorius eum consuevisse Dei verbis perfrui et beatorum Angelorum choris interesse; vocabulum autem consuetudinis in brevissimo tempore poni non solet.
...to be present, by purity of heart and loftiness of vision, with the spirits of the Angels. But after he fell to this place, he withdrew from that light of the mind by which he was filled. From his flesh, namely, we, born in the blindness of this exile, hear indeed that there is a heavenly fatherland, we hear that its citizens are the Angels of God, we hear that the companions of those same Angels are the spirits of the just and perfect: but carnal men, because they cannot know those invisible things by experience, doubt whether that be true which they do not see with bodily eyes. Which doubt, of course, could not be in the first parent, because, excluded from the joys of Paradise, he recalled what he had lost, because he had seen it. Thus far the words of Gregory. From which it is permitted to argue, on Gregory's authority at least, that Adam was for some time in the state of innocence: for Gregory affirms that he was accustomed to enjoy the words of God and to be present at the choirs of the blessed Angels; and the word ‘accustomed’ is not usually applied to a very brief time.25

Translator’s notes

  1. Question divider opening the fourth of the five questions. ↩
  2. Marginal gloss: 'Ad Hebr. cap. 11.' Adam created in sanctifying grace, whose foundation is faith (Heb 11:6 'without faith it is impossible to please God'; Heb 11:1 the definition of faith). Argument from his supernatural end. ↩
  3. Marginal gloss: 'Sex genera rerum supernaturalium cognita Adamo' (six kinds of supernatural things known to Adam). First two of the six: (1) the supernatural rewards in heaven (Heb 11:6); (2) faith and knowledge of man's ultimate supernatural end. ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: 'Ruinam Angelorum notam fuisse Adamo' (the fall of the Angels was known to Adam). Third and fourth of the six supernatural things: (3) the means necessary for all to reach the end—sanctifying grace and the three theological virtues, known to be free gifts; (4) the fall of the rebel angels. Catchword 'eum' (signature YY); continues to next page. ↩
  5. Continues the fourth of the six supernatural things (the fall of the angels), from p.537 catchword 'eum'. Catharinus (Ambrosius Catharinus) on Genesis 1:28 and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 17:9-11 ('he showed them his judgments'). ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: 'Mysterium Trinitatis fuisse notum Adamo' (the mystery of the Trinity was known to Adam). The fifth supernatural thing. Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus Haereses), proem; Augustine (the vision of the Trinity is the whole reward of faith). Genesis 1:26 ('Let us make man...') and 3:22 ('Behold, Adam is become as one of us')—plural forms read as hints of the Trinity. ↩
  7. Marginal glosses: 'Adamum cognovisse futuram filii Dei incarnationem' (that Adam knew the future incarnation of the Son of God); 'Genes. 37' (the Joseph example). The sixth supernatural thing. Authorities: Aquinas ST II-II q.2 a.7; Bonaventure Sent. II d.23; Catharinus; Prosper of Aquitaine (De promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei). Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:31-32 (the Christ/Church 'great sacrament'). Continues to next page (catchword 'verbis'). ↩
  8. Ephesians 5:32 ('This is a great sacrament...'). Prosper held Adam knew the Christ/Church union (Eve from Adam's side prefiguring the Church from Christ's pierced side); Pererius objects with Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram 11.18): Adam did not foreknow his own sin. Continues from p.538 catchword 'verbis'. ↩
  9. Marginal gloss: 'Vtrum Adam in statu innocentia Deum cognoscebat sublimiori genere cognitionis quam sit cognitio fidei' (whether Adam in the state of innocence knew God by a higher kind of knowledge than the knowledge of faith). Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis I.6.14: Adam's knowledge of God by interior inspiration, intermediate between faith and the beatific vision. Block-quote ends 'Sic Hugo.' ↩
  10. Aquinas ST II-II q.5 a.1 interpreting Hugh: Adam's contemplation was higher than ours but below the beatific vision. Adam received divine knowledge by 'interior hearing' (God inspiring), like the prophets; Psalm 84:9 ('I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me'). ↩
  11. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 11.33, on how God spoke inwardly with the first humans, as with the angels. Quote continues onto next page (catchword 'pro [humano modulo]'). ↩
  12. Completes the Augustine quote (De Gen. ad litt. 11.33) from p.539, ending with the attribution marker 'Haec Augustinus.' ↩
  13. Aquinas ST I q.94 a.1 (quoted): Adam's knowledge of God intermediate between wayfarer and beatific; God seen through intelligible effects without need of demonstration. Ecclesiastes 7:29 ('God made man upright'). ↩
  14. Marginal gloss: 'Vtrum Adam cognoverit Deum in aenigmate' (whether Adam knew God in an enigma). Conclusion of the Aquinas quotation (ST I q.94 a.1), ending 'Hactenus ex Beato Thoma.' The twofold obscurity, with reference to Augustine De Trinitate 14.9. ↩
  15. Bonaventure, Sent. II d.23 a.2 q.2: Adam's knowledge intermediate between glory and misery, as earthly Paradise lay between this valley of misery and heaven. Quote continues onto next page (catchword 'sit'). ↩
  16. Continues the Bonaventure quote (from p.540): the threefold mirror—none in glory, a clear mirror in innocence, a darkened mirror in fallen nature. Augustine De Trinitate 14.9: 'an enigma is an obscure likeness.' ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: 'Quadruplex genus cognoscendi Deum' (the fourfold kind of knowing God). Bonaventure's four ways: faith, contemplation, apparition, open vision—matched to four grades of grace. Augustine, De Utilitate credendi 11; Abraham's vision (Gen 18); the Spirit as dove (Matt 3:16). ↩
  18. Marginal gloss: 'Rom. 10.' (faith from hearing—Rom 10:17). Conclusion of the Bonaventure quotation, ending 'Sic Bonaventura': first (faith) and last (open vision) ways do not fit innocence; the second (contemplation) and third (apparition) do, contemplation especially. ↩
  19. Marginal gloss: 'Excutitur Bonaventurae sententia' (Bonaventure's opinion is examined/shaken out). Pererius's critique: he cannot accept that faith-knowledge was wholly absent in Adam before sin, since without faith neither Adam nor angel could please God or know the Trinity. Continues to next page (catchword 'superat'). ↩
  20. Completes the critique of Bonaventure (from p.541 catchword 'superat'): the supernatural mystery requires faith. Habakkuk 2:4 ('the just lives by faith'); 2 Corinthians 5:6-7; 1 Corinthians 13:12. Marginal refs: Habac.2, 2 Corint.5, 1 Corin.13. ↩
  21. Marginal gloss: 'Cognitio rerum supernaturalium quae fuit in Adamo dupliciter praestantior quam nostra' (the knowledge of supernatural things in Adam was in two ways more excellent than ours): by superiority of intellect, and by evident knowledge of the fact of God's revelation. ↩
  22. Marginal gloss: 'Vide quanta fuerit contemplationis Adami excellentia' (see how great was the excellence of Adam's contemplation). Lead-in to the Augustine block-quote. ↩
  23. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 9 (final chapter), on the ecstasy in which Adam shared the angelic court and prophesied at Eve's formation. Genesis 2:23 ('bone of my bones'); Christ's attribution of Gen 2:24 to God in Matthew 19:4-5 (marginal ref: Matth.19). Block-quote ends 'Sic Augustinus.' ↩
  24. Gregory the Great, Dialogues 4.1, on Adam's loss of heavenly contemplation through sin. Quote continues onto next page (catchword 'Angelorum'). ↩
  25. Marginal gloss: 'Adamum aliquandiu, secundum Gregorium, in statu innocentiae mansisse' (that Adam, according to Gregory, remained for some time in the state of innocence). Completes the Gregory quote (Dialogues 4.1), ending 'Hactenus sunt verba Gregorii'; the argument from 'accustomed' that Adam's innocence lasted more than a moment. ↩