Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Seven — Cain and Abel

QUESTION V. Whether Enoch, living on earth, now sees the essence of God

LatineEnglish

QUESTION V. Whether Enoch, living on earth, now sees the essence of God.1

QUAESTIO V. Utrum Henoch in terris vivens, nunc videat essentiam Dei.

Verum illud non facilè est ad explicandum, ad agnitionem tamen pulcherrimum videtur, utrùm Henoch, postquàm translatus est, videat Deum beatifica divinae essentiae visione fruens. Licèt enim vitam in corpore et in terris agat, et aliquando sit moriturus, hoc tamen non obstat quo minus hoc singulari Dei munere et beneficio affici potuerit, ad eum nempe modum quo nonnulli credunt Mosem et Paulum in raptu vidisse Deum, et quemadmodum Dominus noster, dum in terris vixit, secundùm partem superiorem animi beatus et comprehensor erat, secundum partem autem inferiorem viator. Gregorius Nazianzenus in secunda Oratione de Theologia, in dubio et incerto hoc relinquens, Licet, inquit, Henoch hinc translatus sit, non tamen constat utrùm iam comprehenderit Dei naturam, an sit adhuc comprehensurus. Beatus Hieronymus in epistola quam scripsit ad Pammachium adversus errores Ioannis Hierosolymitani, dicens Henoch frui Dei consortio et vesci cibo coelesti, id est ipso Deo, videtur indicare eum frui beatifico Dei conspectu.
But this is not easy to explain, though it seems most beautiful for knowledge: whether Enoch, after he was translated, sees God, enjoying the beatific vision of the divine essence. For although he passes his life in the body and on earth, and will at some time die, this nonetheless does not prevent him from having been able to be endowed with this singular gift and benefit of God -- namely in the manner in which some believe Moses and Paul saw God in rapture, and just as our Lord, while he lived on earth, was according to the higher part of his mind blessed and a comprehensor, but according to the lower part a wayfarer. Gregory Nazianzen, in the second Oration on Theology, leaving this in doubt and uncertainty, says: 'Although Enoch was translated hence, yet it is not established whether he has already comprehended the nature of God, or is still to comprehend it.' Blessed Jerome, in the epistle he wrote to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem, saying that Enoch enjoys the fellowship of God and feeds on heavenly food, that is on God himself, seems to indicate that he enjoys the beatific sight of God.2
Potest sane quaestio haec in utramque partem satis probabiliter agitari et disceptari. Nam quòd Henoch post suam translationem Deum viderit, hunc in modum argumentari licet: Si Henoch Deum non videt, ergo est viator et in statu merendi; et cùm sanctissimus sit Deóque charissimus, et in magna spiritus et carnis quiete vivat, et his omnibus quae hominem à bene agendo aut revocare aut retardare possunt expeditus et omnino solutus et liber sit, existimare convenit ipsum flagrantissimo amore Deum diligere et perfectissimos ac frequentissimos charitatis actus exercere. Cùm igitur tot millia annorum adhuc vixerit victurúsque sit usque ad consummationem saeculi, hinc plane conficeretur in tantùm multiplicatum et auctum iri eius merita, ut ad extremum omnes Sanctos, etiam ut videtur Beatam Virginem, meritorum multitudine ac magnitudine sit superaturus. At hoc nullo modo videtur concedendum. Pro certo enim est apud Theologos cunctósque fideles beatissimam Virginem gratiae et gloriae praestantia longissimè omnes Sanctos et coelestes spiritus esse supergressam. Quin probabile admodum est magnum Christi praecursorem Ioannem Baptistam et beatissimos Apostolorum principes Petrum et Paulum maioribus fuisse meritis praeditos quàm futurus sit Henoch; namque ut maior fuit gratia novi Testamenti quàm veteris, ita credibile est Patres et principes novi Testamenti Patriarchis et Prophetis aliísque Patribus veteris Testamenti gratiae abundantia et praestantia superiores fuisse. Si est igitur absurdum Henoch merito et praemio superiorem futurum omnibus Sanctis -- id autem sequitur ex eo quod ponitur Henoch esse in statu merendi -- hoc ergo negandum est, et quod huic est consequens sine dubitatione affirmandum: Henoch, postquam translatus est, fuisse secundùm partem superiorem animae beatum et comprehensorem, beatifica visione Dei essentiam videndo. Hanc opinionem Catharinus in libello de Consummata gloria Christi maximè approbat, sed nullis tamen eam argumentis, nullis auctoritatibus, denique sola adseveratione sua confirmat. Ex adverso autem Henoch non videre Dei essentiam multis et validis
This question can indeed be argued and disputed on both sides with fair probability. For that Enoch, after his translation, has seen God, one may argue in this way: If Enoch does not see God, then he is a wayfarer and in the state of meriting; and since he is most holy and most dear to God, and lives in great quiet of spirit and flesh, and is free, wholly loosed and unencumbered from all those things which can recall or retard a man from acting well, it is fitting to reckon that he loves God with most ardent love and exercises the most perfect and most frequent acts of charity. Since therefore he has now lived so many thousands of years and will live until the consummation of the age, it would plainly follow that his merits would be so multiplied and increased that at the last he would surpass all the Saints -- even, it seems, the Blessed Virgin -- in the multitude and greatness of his merits. But this seems in no way to be granted. For it is certain among the theologians and all the faithful that the most blessed Virgin has by far surpassed, in the excellence of grace and glory, all the Saints and heavenly spirits. Indeed it is quite probable that the great forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist, and the most blessed chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, were endowed with greater merits than Enoch will be; for as the grace of the New Testament was greater than that of the Old, so it is credible that the Fathers and chiefs of the New Testament were superior in abundance and excellence of grace to the Patriarchs and Prophets and the other Fathers of the Old Testament. If, then, it is absurd that Enoch should be superior in merit and reward to all the Saints -- and this follows from positing Enoch to be in the state of meriting -- this therefore must be denied, and what follows from it must be affirmed without doubt: that Enoch, after he was translated, was, according to the higher part of the soul, blessed and a comprehensor, seeing God's essence by the beatific vision. This opinion Catharinus, in his little book On the Consummate Glory of Christ, very much approves, yet confirms it by no arguments, no authorities, and finally by his own assertion alone. On the contrary, however, that Enoch does not see God's essence is [supported] by many and strong3
validis argumentis probari potest. Principio, sapienter illud à Sancto Thoma dictum est in 3 parte, quaestione 1, articulo 3: De his quae supra naturam sunt, nec sine magno divinae omnipotentiae miraculo effici possunt, non est quicquam affirmandum nisi quod per divinam revelationem nobis innotuit, scilicet aut quia traditum est in divina Scriptura, aut ex ea facilè colligi potest, aut certa Ecclesiae traditione constat, aut Patrum et Theologorum doctrina nititur: atqui nihil horum suppetit ad probandum Henoch videre Dei essentiam; non potest igitur sine temeritate id affirmari. Quinimo videtur isti opinioni divina Scriptura multis locis contradicere. Apud Ioannem enim capite 1 Evangelii et 1 Epistola capite 4 scriptum est, Deum nemo vidit unquam; et Dominus noster apud Ioannem capite 6 dixit, Non quia Patrem vidit quisquam, nisi is qui est à Deo, hic vidit Patrem; et Paulus 1 Epistola ad Timotheum capite ultimo, de Deo loquens, Quem, inquit, nullus hominum vidit, sed nec videre potest. Et in capite 33 Exodi traditur Mosi, roganti Deum ut ipsi ostenderet faciem suam, respondisse eum, Faciem meam videre non poteris, non enim videbit me homo et vivet. Nec verò credibile est Henoch meliori esse conditione et feliciori statu vitae quàm fuerit Adam in paradiso terrestri ante peccatum, futurúsque erat nisi peccasset: sed Adam in eo statu nec vidit nec visurus erat Dei essentiam; ergo nec eam videt Henoch.
can be proved by strong arguments. First, it was wisely said by Saint Thomas, in the third part, question 1, article 3: Of things that are above nature, and cannot be brought about without a great miracle of the divine omnipotence, nothing is to be affirmed except what has become known to us by divine revelation -- namely, either because it is handed down in divine Scripture, or can be easily gathered from it, or is established by a certain tradition of the Church, or rests on the doctrine of the Fathers and theologians; but none of these is available to prove that Enoch sees God's essence; therefore it cannot be affirmed without rashness. Rather, divine Scripture seems to contradict that opinion in many places. For in John, chapter 1 of the Gospel, and 1 [John], chapter 4, it is written, No one has ever seen God; and our Lord in John chapter 6 said, Not that anyone has seen the Father, except him who is from God, he has seen the Father; and Paul, in his first Epistle to Timothy, last chapter, speaking of God, says, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. And in chapter 33 of Exodus it is related that, to Moses asking God to show him his face, he answered, You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live. Nor indeed is it credible that Enoch is in a better condition and a happier state of life than Adam was in the terrestrial Paradise before sin, and would have been had he not sinned: but Adam in that state neither saw nor would have seen God's essence; therefore neither does Enoch see it.4
Mosem quidem et Paulum ad breve tempus vidisse Deum videtur subindicare Scriptura. Scriptum est enim in capite 33 Exodi Mosem loqui solitum cum Deo facie ad faciem sicut loquitur homo cum amico suo; et in libro Numerorum capite 12 dicitur Deus apparere et loqui solitus Mosi, non per aenigmata et figuras sed palam et ore ad os. Paulus quoque 2 ad Corinthios capite 12 affirmat se raptum fuisse usque ad tertium coelum et audisse arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui. Quamobrem Mosen vidisse Deum censisse videtur Basilius homilia 1 in Hexaemeron, et Ambrosius libro 1 in Hexaemeron capite 2, Augustinus item libro 12 super Genesim ad litteram capite 27 et Epistola 112 capite 12, necnon et Beatus Thomas 1 parte quaestione 12 articulo 11, et 2.2 quaestione 174 articulo 4 et 175 articulo 3.
That Moses and Paul saw God for a brief time Scripture seems to hint. For it is written in chapter 33 of Exodus that Moses was accustomed to speak with God face to face, as a man speaks with his friend; and in the book of Numbers chapter 12 it is said that God was accustomed to appear and speak to Moses, not through riddles and figures, but openly and mouth to mouth. Paul too, in 2 Corinthians chapter 12, affirms that he was caught up to the third heaven and heard secret words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Wherefore Basil (homily 1 on the Hexaemeron), Ambrose (Hexaemeron book 1, chapter 2), Augustine likewise (On Genesis according to the Letter, book 12, chapter 27, and Epistle 112, chapter 12), and also Saint Thomas (part 1, question 12, article 11, and 2-2, question 174, article 4, and question 175, article 3) seem to have judged that Moses saw God.5
Nihilominus tamen plerique Theologi et Patres constanter negarunt Deum secundum essentiam visum esse vel à Mose vel à Paulo. Horum Princeps numerandus est Dionysius Areopagita in libro de Coelesti hierarchia capite 4 et in libro de Mystica Theologia capite 1, quem secuti sunt Gregorius Nazianzenus in Oratione 6 de Theologia, Hieronymus super capite 6 Esaiae, Cyrillus libro 1 Commentariorum in Ioannem, Gregorius libro 18 Moralium capite 6; quin ipse Augustinus tractatu 2 in Evangelium Ioannis, explanans illa verba, Deum nemo vidit unquam, apertissimis verbis affirmat Deum non esse visum à Mose, idque ex ipsius Scripturae verbis argumentatur. Beatus quoque Thomas 1.2 quaestione 98 articulo 3 ait Mosen dici vidisse Deum et locutum fuisse cum eo facie ad faciem secundùm existimationem vulgi et populi Hebraei, qui sic de illo sentiebat; aut eo modo loquendi significari excellentissimam omnium cognitionem et contempla-
Nevertheless most theologians and Fathers have constantly denied that God was seen according to his essence either by Moses or by Paul. Chief among these is to be reckoned Dionysius the Areopagite, in his book On the Celestial Hierarchy chapter 4, and in his book On Mystical Theology chapter 1, whom Gregory Nazianzen followed (in Oration 6, on Theology), Jerome (on chapter 6 of Isaiah), Cyril (book 1 of his Commentaries on John), Gregory (book 18 of the Morals, chapter 6); indeed Augustine himself, in Tractate 2 on the Gospel of John, explaining those words, No one has ever seen God, affirms in the plainest words that God was not seen by Moses, and argues it from the very words of Scripture. Blessed Thomas too (1-2, question 98, article 3) says that Moses is said to have seen God and to have spoken with him face to face according to the opinion of the common people and of the Hebrew nation, which thought thus of him; or that by that manner of speaking is signified the most excellent knowledge and contempla-6
tionem Dei, quae infra claram divinae essentiae visionem homini in terris viventi concedi possit. Si igitur plerique Theologi et Patres negant Deum visum esse à Mose et Paulo -- quod tamen subindicare videtur Scriptura, et à magnis Doctoribus existimatum et proditum est -- quantò minus id sentire licet de Henoch, de quo nihil tale divina Scriptura uspiam significat, nec ab ullo Patrum traditum est?
tion of God, such as can be granted to a man living on earth below the clear vision of the divine essence. If, then, most theologians and Fathers deny that God was seen by Moses and Paul -- which Scripture nonetheless seems to hint, and which was held and handed down by great Doctors -- how much less may it be held of Enoch, of whom divine Scripture nowhere signifies any such thing, nor has it been handed down by any of the Fathers?7
Adiice, quod simul esse comprehensorem et viatorem in terris proprium videtur fuisse Christi Domini nostri, propterea iure concessum ipsi, quia solus omnium hominum simul fuit homo et Deus, et caput omnium electorum totiúsque tam militantis quàm triumphantis Ecclesiae, denique quia auctor gratiae et gloriae omnibus hominibus futurus erat. Huc spectat illa eiusdem Domini sententia quae memoratur in capite 3 Evangelii Ioannis, Nemo ascendit in coelum nisi qui descendit de coelo, Filius hominis qui est in coelo. Illud denique ad huius sententiae confirmationem valet plurimum, quòd et sacra Scriptura significat et Patres affirmatissimè tradunt Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum aperuisse hominibus aditum in Coelum, cunctis ante ipsum clausum, et introduxisse homines in conspectum et gloriam Dei Patris; quod verum non esset si Henoch per tot annorum millia ante Christum vidisset Deum. Neque enim ad veritatem vel perfectionem visionis Dei refert videatur ne Deus ab homine vel ab Angelo, in Coelis an in terris: non enim minus perfectè ac beatè vident Deum Angeli sancti cùm sunt in terris quàm cùm versantur in Coelis; nec Dominus noster, dum fuit in terris, minus perfectè vidit Deum quàm posteà cùm in Coelos ascendit. Atque haec quidem sententia propter supradictas rationes longè probabilior haberi debet.
Add that to be at once a comprehensor and a wayfarer on earth seems to have been proper to Christ our Lord, and therefore rightly granted to him, because he alone of all men was at once man and God, and the head of all the elect and of the whole Church both militant and triumphant, and finally because he was to be the author of grace and glory to all men. To this looks that saying of the same Lord recorded in chapter 3 of John's Gospel: No one has ascended into heaven except him who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. Finally, this avails very much to confirm this view: that both sacred Scripture signifies and the Fathers most emphatically hand down that our Lord Jesus Christ opened to men the entrance into Heaven, closed to all before him, and led men into the sight and glory of God the Father; which would not be true if Enoch had seen God through so many thousands of years before Christ. For it does not matter, as to the truth or perfection of the vision of God, whether God be seen by a man or by an angel, in the Heavens or on earth: for the holy angels see God no less perfectly and blessedly when they are on earth than when they are in the Heavens; nor did our Lord, while he was on earth, see God less perfectly than afterward when he ascended into the Heavens. And this view, on account of the aforesaid reasons, ought to be held far the more probable.8
Ad illud verò quod huic sententiae suprà opponebatur -- Si Henoch post suam translationem non fuisset secundùm partem superiorem beatus et comprehensor, sed mansisset in statu viatoris et merendi, fore ut ad extremum multitudine meritorum omnes Sanctos transcenderet -- dupliciter responderi potest. Dicatur enim id quod quibusdam clari nominis in Theologia placuit: Humanum meritum apud Deum non modò crescere propter intentionem et frequentiam actus meritorii, sed etiam propter maiorem sanctitatem personae operantis et abundantiorem atque praestantiorem gratiam ei donatam à Deo, quemadmodum Theologi dicunt gratiam unionis Christi in infinitum auxisse dignitatem et vim meritorum eius. Quoniam igitur Beatae Virgini tanta concessa est à Deo gratia et sanctitas quanta nulla unquam pura creatura vel habet vel habitura est, hinc fit ut nullus homo, quantumlibet multiplicet actus meritorios, gratiam Beatae Virginis eiúsque merita sit adaequaturus. Sciebat igitur Deus quanta essent futura merita Henoch, et quia matrem suam super omnes, ut par erat, extollere voluit, intensivè tantam ei gratiam infudit, et frequentissimè, dum illa vixit in terris, ad tam perfectos actus me-
But to that which was above objected against this view -- that if Enoch, after his translation, were not blessed and a comprehensor according to the higher part, but had remained in the state of a wayfarer and of meriting, it would come about that at the last he would surpass all the Saints in the multitude of his merits -- it can be answered in two ways. For let that be said which has pleased certain men of famous name in Theology: that human merit before God grows not only by the intention and frequency of the meritorious act, but also by the greater holiness of the person acting and by the more abundant and more excellent grace given to him by God -- just as the theologians say that the grace of Christ's union infinitely increased the dignity and the force of his merits. Since therefore so great a grace and holiness was granted by God to the Blessed Virgin as no pure creature ever has or ever will have, hence it comes about that no man, however much he multiplies meritorious acts, will equal the grace of the Blessed Virgin and her merits. God therefore knew how great Enoch's future merits would be, and because he willed to exalt his mother above all, as was fitting, he intensively poured into her so great a grace, and most frequently, while she lived on earth, [moved her] to acts so perfectly meri-9
ritorios edendos cum ea concurrit, ut longè maiora et excellentiora fuerint merita beatissimae Virginis quàm omnia Henoch merita futura sint. Illud praeterea respondeatur: Henoch fuisse tantùm in statu merendi usque ad suam translationem; post id verò temporis, usque ad extremum mundi tempus quo iterum apparebit hominibus et veritati doctrinae Christi testimonium perhibebit adversus Antichristum, nihil meruisse eum aut meriturum. Voluit enim Deus ut hoc ei translatio illa esset quod aliis hominibus est mors, terminus scilicet bene aut malè merendi. Plurimum tamen meruit Henoch tempore suae translationis, tam longam dilationem suae glorificationis (quod eam intelligeret ad magnam Dei gloriam et utilitatem Ecclesiae pertinere) promptissimo et laetissimo animo approbando et amplectendo. Plurimùm quoque merebitur novissimo mundi tempore, testificando, praedicando, et defendendo fidem Christi adversus Antichristum, et pro ea morté, ut creditur, subeundo: intermedio autem tempore expers meriti est. Et licet in maxima corporis et animi quiete et iucunditate vivat, non tamen Deum videt, sed maximis bonis et gaudiis tam corpore quàm animo fruitur. Itaque cogitare oportet de Henoch nondum mortuo quod de iustis hominibus mortuis (licet non verè) senserunt plurimi et gravissimi Patres, affirmantes eorum animas corporibus egressas amplissimis et iucundissimis bonis potiri, ante diem tamen iudicii faciem Dei non videre.
torious, that the merits of the most blessed Virgin were far greater and more excellent than all Enoch's merits will ever be. Let this besides be answered: that Enoch was in the state of meriting only until his translation; but after that time, until the last time of the world when he will again appear to men and bear witness against Antichrist to the truth of Christ's doctrine, he has merited nothing nor will he merit. For God willed that that translation should be for him what death is for other men -- namely the terminus of meriting well or ill. Yet Enoch merited greatly at the time of his translation, by approving and embracing with a most ready and joyful mind so long a deferral of his glorification (since he understood it to pertain to God's great glory and the benefit of the Church). He will also merit greatly at the last time of the world, by testifying, preaching, and defending the faith of Christ against Antichrist, and (as is believed) undergoing death for it; but in the intermediate time he is without merit. And although he lives in the greatest quiet and delight of body and soul, yet he does not see God, but enjoys the greatest goods and joys in both body and soul. And so we must think of Enoch, not yet dead, what many and very grave Fathers thought (though not truly) of just men who had died: affirming that their souls, gone out of their bodies, possess the fullest and most delightful goods, yet do not see the face of God before the day of judgment.10
Et huic quidem opinationi fidem Moses facere videtur hoc loco, dicens omnes annos Henoch fuisse trecentos sexagintaquinque, solùm commemorans tempus eius ante translationem, et quod deinde secutum est reticens, quasi ut hominis mortui computari debeat. Videlicet Henoch, non solùm quantum ad notitiam hominum (quibus eius habitatio, conversatio, et videndi modus planè incognitus est), sed etiam quantum ad viam, extra statum merendi est constitutus. Si neutrum hoc responsum doctis viris placuerit, cogitent ipsi atque commententur aliquid quo melius hic nodus exolvatur. Nam mihi ad praesens nec iis quae dixi probabilius aliud in mentem venit, et stat dicentibus Henoch Dei essentiam videre nequaquàm assentiri.
And to this opinion Moses too seems to lend credit in this place, saying that all the years of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five -- recording only his time before the translation, and passing over in silence what followed, as though he ought to be reckoned as a dead man. That is, Enoch is set outside the state of meriting, not only as regards the knowledge of men (to whom his dwelling, manner of life, and mode of seeing are utterly unknown), but also as regards the 'way' (as a wayfarer). If neither of these answers pleases learned men, let them themselves think and devise something by which this knot may be better untied. For at present nothing more probable than what I have said comes into my mind, and I stand firm in by no means assenting to those who say that Enoch sees God's essence.11
Sed quaerat aliquis quorsum Deus Henoch tanto miraculo per tot annorum millia vivum in terris conservet. Nam si ideo conservatur à Deo ut ipse, qui ferè in exordio mundi fuit (annos enim propè trecentos cum Adamo primo homine versatus est), in fine mundi et in persecutione Antichristi multùm laboranti Ecclesiae magno sit subsidio et solatio, sua testificatione et praedicatione fidem Christi et doctrinam Evangelicam adversus furorem et rabiem Antichristi fortissimè propugnando et defendendo: videtur fuisse convenientius futurum, tunc temporis cùm opus erit, eum à Deo ex mortuis ad vitam revocari, sicut multi ex mortuis resurrexerunt ut testificarentur resurrectionem Christi; ad id igitur perficiendum non videtur opus
But someone may ask to what end God preserves Enoch alive on earth by so great a miracle for so many thousands of years. For if he is preserved by God so that he -- who lived nearly at the beginning of the world (for he passed nearly three hundred years with Adam the first man) -- may at the end of the world, and in the persecution of Antichrist, be a great help and comfort to the sorely-laboring Church, by his testimony and preaching most stoutly championing and defending the faith of Christ and the Gospel doctrine against the fury and rage of Antichrist: it would seem to have been more fitting that, at that time when there shall be need, he be recalled by God from the dead to life, as many rose from the dead to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ; for the accomplishing of this, therefore, there seems no need12
opus fuisse tanto miraculo. Sed profectò si quis attendat, facilè intelliget minus consentaneum fuisse Henoch, iam beatum in coelis Deóque fruentem, iterum in corpus mortale ac patibile retrudere, et acerbissimis cruciatibus mortíque per summam Antichristi crudelitatem inferendae subiicere.
of so great a miracle. But surely, if one attends, he will easily understand that it would have been less fitting to thrust Enoch -- now blessed in the heavens and enjoying God -- back again into a mortal and passible body, and to subject him to the most bitter torments and to a death inflicted through the utmost cruelty of Antichrist.13

Translator’s notes

  1. Fifth quaestio of the disputation on Enoch. ↩
  2. Marginal references: Exodus 33; 2 Corinthians 12 (Moses and Paul seeing God in rapture). The question: whether Enoch now enjoys the beatific vision, though still living in the body and destined to die -- as Moses and Paul are believed to have seen God in rapture, and as Christ on earth was 'comprehensor' (blessed) in the higher part of his soul and 'viator' (wayfarer) in the lower. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration on Theology II) leaves it uncertain whether Enoch has yet comprehended God's nature; Jerome (Ep. to Pammachius) seems to imply Enoch enjoys the beatific vision. ↩
  3. Marginal glosses: 'The argument that Enoch sees God'; 'That Enoch does not see [God].' The argument for Enoch's vision: if he does not see God, he is still a wayfarer 'in the state of meriting,' and given his holiness and thousands of years of ardent charity his merits would surpass all the Saints -- even, it seems, the Blessed Virgin. But this cannot be granted: theologians and all the faithful hold the Virgin far surpasses all Saints and angels; likely too John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul exceed Enoch (New Testament grace being greater than Old). So, the wayfarer premise being absurd, Pererius affirms that Enoch after his translation is blessed and a comprehensor in the higher part of the soul, seeing God's essence -- an opinion Catharinus (De consummata gloria Christi) strongly approves but supports by mere assertion. The opposite view (that Enoch does not see God's essence) is then introduced. Continues on the next page (catchword 'validis'). ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: 'That Enoch does not see God's essence is proved by many reasons.' The contra case: Aquinas (Summa III q.1 a.3) -- of things above nature nothing is to be affirmed but what divine revelation makes known; none of these supports Enoch's seeing God's essence. Scripture opposes it: John 1:18 / 1 John 4:12; John 6:46; 1 Tim 6:16; Exod 33:20. Nor is Enoch better off than sinless Adam, who did not and would not have seen God's essence in the earthly Paradise. ↩
  5. Marginal gloss: 'Authors who said Moses saw God.' Scripture seems to hint Moses and Paul saw God briefly: Exod 33:11 (face to face); Num 12:8 (openly, not in riddles); 2 Cor 12:2-4 (Paul caught to the third heaven). Authorities that Moses saw God: Basil (Hexaemeron hom. 1), Ambrose (Hexaemeron I.2), Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram XII.27; Ep. 112.12), Aquinas (ST I q.12 a.11; II-II q.174 a.4, q.175 a.3). ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: 'Authors who said Moses did not see God.' On the other side, most theologians and Fathers deny Moses or Paul saw God's essence: Dionysius the Areopagite (De caelesti hierarchia 4; De mystica theologia 1) -- their chief -- followed by Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome (on Isa 6), Cyril, Gregory (Moralia XVIII.6); even Augustine (Tractate 2 on John, on 'No one has ever seen God') plainly denies Moses saw God. Aquinas (ST I-II q.98 a.3) reads the 'face to face' either per the common Hebrew opinion or as the most excellent knowledge and contemplation. Continues on the next page (catchword 'templa-'). ↩
  7. The vision that could be granted to a man living on earth is below the clear vision of the divine essence. If most theologians and Fathers deny even Moses and Paul saw God's essence (though Scripture hints it and great Doctors held it), far less may it be held of Enoch, of whom Scripture says nothing and no Father hands it down. ↩
  8. Marginal glosses: 'God is seen equally perfectly by the blessed on earth as in heaven'; 'The more probable view.' To be at once comprehensor and viator on earth was proper to Christ alone, since he alone was at once man and God, head of the whole Church (cf. John 3:13). Christ opened heaven, closed to all before him -- which would be false if Enoch had seen God for millennia before Christ. (Vision-perfection does not depend on place: angels see God as perfectly on earth as in heaven; even the Lord on earth saw God no less perfectly than after his ascension.) This view is far the more probable. ↩
  9. Marginal glosses: 'Whether Enoch, living until judgment day, will surpass all the Saints in the multitude of his merits'; 'Why no one can ever approach the merits of the Blessed Virgin.' First reply to the objection: merit grows not only by intention and frequency of acts but by the greater holiness of the person and more abundant grace (as Christ's grace of union infinitely raised the worth of his merits). Since the Virgin received grace beyond any pure creature, no man can equal her merits; God, foreknowing Enoch's merits and willing to exalt his mother above all, infused into her such grace that her merits far exceed all Enoch's. Continues on the next page (catchword 'ritorio'). ↩
  10. Marginal glosses: 'Enoch has merited nothing after his translation'; 'At the world's end he will merit greatly.' Second reply: Enoch was in the state of meriting only until his translation, which for him is what death is for others. He merited greatly in accepting the long deferral of his glory with joyful will, and will merit greatly at the end by preaching against Antichrist and (as believed) dying for the faith; but in between he is without merit. Living in great quiet and delight, he yet does not see God -- as many grave Fathers thought (wrongly) of the just dead: their souls enjoy the fullest goods but do not see God's face before judgment day. ↩
  11. Pererius's resolution: Moses supports this by giving only Enoch's 365 years before his translation and passing over the rest in silence, as if he must be reckoned a dead man; thus Enoch is set outside the state of meriting both as to men's knowledge and as to the 'way.' If neither reply satisfies the learned, let them devise a better solution; for the present nothing more probable occurs to him, and he stands firm in not assenting to those who say Enoch sees God's essence. ↩
  12. Marginal gloss: 'Whether it would have been better for him to die and afterward rise than to be kept alive so long.' A new sub-question: why does God keep Enoch alive by so great a miracle? If it is to aid the Church against Antichrist at the world's end, it would seem more fitting to recall him from the dead when needed -- as many rose to testify to Christ's resurrection -- so there seems no need [of so great a miracle]. Continues on the next page (catchword 'opus'). ↩
  13. Resolution of the sub-question: yet, rightly considered, it would have been less fitting to thrust Enoch -- were he already blessed in heaven and enjoying God -- back into a mortal, passible body and subject him to the bitterest torments and to death by Antichrist's utmost cruelty; hence God keeps him alive rather than raising him from the dead. ↩