QUESTION VII. Whether Enoch is in the terrestrial Paradise from which Adam was cast out — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

QUESTION VII. Whether Enoch is in the terrestrial Paradise from which Adam was cast out.¹

QUAESTIO VII. Utrum Henoch sit in Paradiso terrestri unde eiectus est Adam.

At illud videtur probabilissima sententia, Henoch non esse in illo Paradiso, quòd Paradisus ille diluvio destructus nunc non existat. Fides autem huic opinioni astrui et firmari potest multis argumentis; sed omissis caeteris quae suprà 3 libro qui est de Paradiso fusè tractavimus, libet hoc loco unum duntaxat illud è sacra Scriptura ductum argumentum vehementius urgere. In capite 7 libro Geneseos scriptum est Noëtico diluvio universam terram fuisse aquis opertam et vastatam, ita ut aquae omnes montes terrae

But this seems the most probable view: that Enoch is not in that Paradise, because that Paradise, destroyed by the flood, does not now exist. Now this opinion can be built up and confirmed by many arguments; but, omitting the others which we treated at length above in book 3, which is On Paradise, it is fitting here to press more forcibly this one argument alone, drawn from sacred Scripture. In chapter 7 of the book of Genesis it is written that in Noah's flood the whole earth was covered with waters and laid waste, so that the waters [covered] all the mountains of the earth²

terrae excederent, quin etiam altissimos totius terrae montes quindecim cubitis supergressae fuerint. Verba scripturae sunt haec: Vehementer inundaverunt aquae, et omnia repleverunt in superficie terrae, et praevaluerunt nimis super terram, opertíque sunt omnes montes excelsi sub universo caelo. Quindecim cubitis altior fuit aqua super montes quos operuerat; sic est in capite 7 Geneseos. Ex quibus scripturae verbis patet diluvium illud fuisse generalissimum super universam terram, eóque omnem terram vastatam, et (ut verbo Scripturae utar) deletam fuisse. Sed paradisus terrestris erat in hoc nostro orbe terrarum et pars nostrae terrae, ergo fuit illo diluvio vastatus et destructus; quapropter qui hoc negat et contendunt eum fuisse intactum diluvio et adhuc existere, videntur tam evidenti Scripturae auctoritati contradicere.

surpassed, and even exceeded by fifteen cubits the highest mountains of the whole earth. The words of Scripture are these: The waters flooded violently, and filled all things on the surface of the earth, and prevailed exceedingly over the earth, and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains it had covered; so it stands in chapter 7 of Genesis. From which words of Scripture it is plain that that flood was most universal over the whole earth, and that thereby the whole earth was laid waste and (to use Scripture's word) 'deleted.' But the terrestrial Paradise was in this our world and a part of our earth; therefore it was laid waste and destroyed by that flood; wherefore those who deny this and contend that it was untouched by the flood and still exists seem to contradict so evident an authority of Scripture.³

Ad hoc argumentum tribus modis responderi potest, quos modos hic discutere volumus. Primò responderi potest generalem illam sententiam Scripturae intelligendam esse de omnibus terris una duntaxat excepta paradisi terra. Quemadmodùm eadem Scriptura eodem in loco et alibi dicit omnes homines diluvio fuisse deletos praeter octo qui in arca servati sunt: cui tamen generali sententiae excipere oportet ipsum Henoch, qui ante diluvium fuit et adhuc vivere creditur, nec tamen in arca fuit, sed verisimile est eum fuisse in paradiso quem aquae diluvii minimè attigerunt. Verùm, hoc responsum tripliciter refellitur. Primò, generalem illam de diluvio sententiam Scripturae diminuere ac restringere adhibita exceptione quae non potest ex aliquo Scripturae loco colligi, et quod sine ulla necessaria ratione adhibetur, non modo non est licitum sed etiam valde periculosum: sic enim omnium generalium propositionum et sententiarum divinae Scripturae fides et veritas dubia et infirma redderetur, cùm pro arbitratu cuiuslibet variis exceptionibus obnoxia esset. Nam sicut isti ex illa generali sententia de diluvio excipiunt terram paradisi, similiter alius exciperet Insulas, dicens intelligendum esse Scripturae dictum de universa terra continente, non autem de insulis; et alius diceret intelligendum esse non de omni terra simpliciter, sed de omni terra quae ante diluvium habitabatur ab hominibus, et sic efficeretur non fuisse illud diluvium generale totius terrae, quod est contra doctrinam Scripturae et omnium Patrum.

To this argument it can be answered in three ways, which ways we wish here to discuss. First, it can be answered that that general statement of Scripture is to be understood of all lands, with only one excepted, namely the land of Paradise. Just as the same Scripture, in the same place and elsewhere, says that all men were destroyed by the flood except the eight who were saved in the ark: from which general statement, however, we must except Enoch himself, who lived before the flood and is believed still to live, and yet was not in the ark, but it is likely that he was in Paradise, which the waters of the flood by no means reached. But this answer is refuted in three ways. First: to diminish and restrict that general statement of Scripture about the flood by an exception which cannot be gathered from any place of Scripture, and which is adduced without any necessary reason, is not only not lawful but even very dangerous: for in this way the faith and truth of all the general propositions and statements of divine Scripture would be rendered doubtful and weak, since they would be liable to various exceptions at anyone's whim. For as these except the land of Paradise from that general statement about the flood, so another might except the Islands, saying that Scripture's statement is to be understood of the whole continental earth, but not of the islands; and another might say it is to be understood not of all the earth simply, but of all the earth which before the flood was inhabited by men; and thus it would be made out that that flood was not general over the whole earth -- which is against the doctrine of Scripture and of all the Fathers.⁴

Si quis respondeat exceptionem illam de paradiso colligi ex ipsa Scriptura, videlicet ex 44 capite Ecclesiastici ubi traditur Henoch fuisse translatum in paradisum: nos dicimus hoc responsum esse valdè infirmum, ut paulò infrà ostendemus. Nec valet exemplum Henoch: nam quod ille excipiendus sit ex generali interitu hominum facto per diluvium, evidenter colligitur ex ipsa Scriptura quae indicat eum non fuisse mortuum sed esse translatum et in vita servari, ut patet Genes. 5 et alibi; at nusquam Scriptura indicat Paradisum non fuisse destructum diluvio et adhuc existere: quare non est similis ratio exceptionis Henoch ab ipso diluvio, atque ipsius Paradisi. Adde quòd Henoch septingentis annis ante diluvium translatus fuerit, nec posteà appa-

If anyone should answer that that exception about Paradise is gathered from Scripture itself, namely from chapter 44 of Ecclesiasticus, where it is handed down that Enoch was translated into Paradise: we say that this answer is very weak, as we shall show a little below. Nor does the example of Enoch avail: for that he is to be excepted from the general destruction of men brought about by the flood is evidently gathered from Scripture itself, which indicates that he was not dead but was translated and is kept alive, as is plain from Genesis 5 and elsewhere; but nowhere does Scripture indicate that Paradise was not destroyed by the flood and still exists: wherefore the reason for excepting Enoch from the flood is not similar to that for excepting Paradise itself. Add that Enoch was translated seven hundred years before the flood, and did not afterward ap-⁵

apparuerit in terris: unde perinde se habebat, quantum ad habitationem suam et conversationem, ac si non esset in terris: quocirca Scriptura dicit illum fuisse è terra translatum et receptum, et Augustinus dicit eum esse in alia vita quàm est haec nostra. Quò fit ut, cùm Scriptura dicit omnes homines qui erant in terra periisse diluvio, intelligat de hominibus quorum habitatio et conversatio in terris nota est, et qui vitam agunt in terris more et modo humano atque ordinario: quamobrem non fuit opus excipere Henoch, qui non sic vivebat et erat in terris.

appeared on earth: whence he stood, as regards his dwelling and manner of life, just as if he were not on earth; wherefore Scripture says he was translated and taken away from the earth, and Augustine says he is in another life than this of ours. Whence it comes about that, when Scripture says all the men who were on the earth perished in the flood, it understands of men whose dwelling and manner of life on earth is known, and who live on earth in the human and ordinary way and manner: for which reason there was no need to except Enoch, who was not living so, nor was on earth [in that sense].⁶

Altera ratio contra hoc primum responsum sit haec: Si Paradisus radicitus intactus fuit diluvio, ergo in illo loco servari potuisset Noë cum animalibus: supervacaneum igitur fuit tanto tempore et labore tam operosam arcam ad eos conservandos fabricare. Nec dici potest arcam illam non necessitatis causa, sed mysterii alicuius significandi (quod mysterium indicat Sanctus Petrus primae Epistolae capite tertio) esse fabricatam: nam Scriptura, Genes. 6 et 7 manifestis verbis ostendit homines illos et animalia fuisse ingressa in arcam ut possent vivere, ne diluvio perirent, quasi nullum aliud esset eius exitii effugium, nec alia ratione ulla servari possent. Tertia ratio contra idem responsum sit haec: Aquae diluvii secundum Scripturam excesserunt altissimos montes terrae quindecim cubitis, ergo necesse fuit omnem superficiem terrae ab illis operiri et obrui, nisi velimus credere paradisum tantae fuisse altitudinis ut supermineret supremam regionem aëris, aut etiam coelum contingeret, quod est tamen prorsus incredibile et absurdum, et à nobis suprà in 3 libro refutatum. Talis enim sublimitas paradisi nec amoenitatem ullam, nec salubritatem, neque commodam homini habitationem habere potuisset.

Let a second argument against this first answer be this: If Paradise was utterly untouched by the flood, then in that place Noah could have been preserved with the animals; it was therefore superfluous, over so long a time and with such labor, to build so laborious an ark to preserve them. Nor can it be said that that ark was built not for the sake of necessity, but to signify some mystery (which mystery Saint Peter indicates in the first Epistle, chapter three): for Scripture, in Genesis 6 and 7, shows in plain words that those men and the animals entered the ark that they might live, lest they perish in the flood, as though there were no other escape from that destruction, nor could they be saved by any other means. Let a third argument against the same answer be this: The waters of the flood, according to Scripture, exceeded the highest mountains of the earth by fifteen cubits; therefore it was necessary that the whole surface of the earth be covered and overwhelmed by them -- unless we are willing to believe that Paradise was of such height that it overtopped the highest region of the air, or even touched heaven, which is nonetheless utterly incredible and absurd, and was refuted by us above in the third book. For such a loftiness of Paradise could have had no pleasantness, nor healthfulness, nor a habitation convenient for man.⁷

Quòd si dicatur aquas diluvii miraculosè prohibitas esse à Deo ne paradisum attingerent, et iuxta ipsum (sicut accidit in mari Rubro et in Iordane) immobiles constitisse non ad breve tempus sicut illic, sed per unum ferme annum, quoad scilicet duravit diluvium: id non modò non iuvat istam opinionem, sed valdè improbabilem reddit, utpote quam isti non possint tueri nisi confictis arbitratu suo miraculis. Confugere autem sine causa ad miracula, et ad omnipotentiam Dei, reprehenditur à Patribus et Theologis, praesertim autem ab Augustino cùm alibi, tum praecipuè in libris de Genesi ad litteram non uno loco. Altero modò responderi posset ad supradictam auctoritatem Scripturae aientis universam terram fuisse opertam aquis diluvii, concedendo scilicet etiam terram paradisi fuisse inundatam et opertam diluvio, negando tamen ob id fuisse paradisum destructum et deletum, sed permansisse integrum sub aquis, sicut de olea illa cuius ramum virentem columba tulit ad Noë (sub aquis toto tempore diluvii non tantùm integra, sed etiam viridis durasse creditur). Verùm, qui sic responderent, quaererem ex ipsis utrùm putarent id miraculosè factum

But if it be said that the waters of the flood were miraculously prohibited by God from touching Paradise, and stood immovable beside it (as happened in the Red Sea and in the Jordan), not for a short time as there, but for nearly a whole year, that is, as long as the flood lasted: this not only does not help that opinion, but renders it very improbable, inasmuch as they cannot defend it except by miracles fashioned at their own whim. But to have recourse without cause to miracles, and to the omnipotence of God, is reprehended by the Fathers and theologians, and especially by Augustine, both elsewhere and chiefly in the books On Genesis according to the Letter, in more than one place. In another way one could answer the aforesaid authority of Scripture, which says the whole earth was covered by the waters of the flood, by conceding, namely, that the land of Paradise too was flooded and covered by the deluge, yet denying that on that account Paradise was destroyed and deleted, but [affirming] that it remained whole under the waters -- as concerning that olive whose green branch the dove brought to Noah (which is believed to have lasted under the waters the whole time of the flood not only whole but even green). But of those who would so answer, I would ask whether they think this was done miraculously⁸

factum esse, an sine miraculo? Si dicerent miraculosè, satis proderent improbabilitatem suae opinionis, quippe quam nisi commentitiis miraculis tueri non possent. Si dicerent factum citra miraculum, profecto non minus esset id incredibile quàm quae paulò suprà confutavimus: quis enim credat (nisi qui quodlibet, quantumvis incredibile, potest credere) locum paradisi delicatissimum, ornatissimum, summáque elegantia et politissima arte designatum et perfectum, per unum ferme annum altissimis aquis usquequaque obrutum et oppressum, sine decoris, venustatis, magnificentiae, ac pulchritudinis suae detrimento durare potuisse? cum tanto tempore etiam firmissimum et amplissimum aedificium aquis submersum perdurare non posset quin paulatim decor et elegantia eius dilaberetur ac periret, campago partium dissolueretur, integritas corrumperetur, denique firmitudo debilitaretur ac labefactaretur. Quomodo enim sub tantis aquis tanto tempore paradisus servare posset venustatem illam et decorem loci, dimensiones viarum, ordines arborum, pulcherrimam et locorum et stirpium dispositionem, varietatem tot herbarum et arborum, denique bonitatem et fertilitatem terrae? cùm à Patribus et Doctoribus traditum sit terram propter diluvium steriliorem ac deteriorem quàm antea fuerat esse factam, ob eámque causam statim post diluvium concessisse Deum homini esum carnium, et tunc vitam hominum maiorem in modum diminui coepisse.

was done, or without a miracle? If they should say miraculously, they would sufficiently betray the improbability of their opinion, since indeed they could not defend it except by fictitious miracles. If they should say it was done without a miracle, surely it would be no less incredible than the things we refuted a little above: for who would believe (except one who can believe anything, however incredible) that the most delicate, most adorned place of Paradise, laid out and perfected with the utmost elegance and most polished art, overwhelmed and oppressed on every side by the deepest waters for nearly a whole year, could have lasted without detriment to its beauty, grace, magnificence, and loveliness? -- when in so long a time even the firmest and largest building, submerged in the waters, could not endure without its beauty and elegance gradually falling away and perishing, the joining of its parts dissolving, its integrity being corrupted, and finally its firmness being weakened and shaken. For how, under such waters for so long a time, could Paradise preserve that loveliness and beauty of the place, the dimensions of its paths, the ranks of the trees, the most beautiful arrangement of places and of plants, the variety of so many herbs and trees, and finally the goodness and fertility of the soil? -- since it has been handed down by the Fathers and Doctors that the earth was made, on account of the flood, more sterile and worse than it had been before, and for that cause God, immediately after the flood, granted to man the eating of flesh, and then the life of men began to be diminished to a great degree.⁹

Nec iuvat istorum opinionem exemplum illud oleae, quae sub aquis diluvii frondes retinuit virentes: aliud enim est loqui de universo loco paradisi et iis omnibus quae in eo erant, et aliud de una vel altera arbore quae vel propter naturam loci quo erat, vel propter robur et firmitatem suam, sub aquis diluvii durare potuerit: qualis est olea, cui nunquam folia decidunt, et quam tradit Plinius ad ducentos annos vivere. Tertio modo responderi posset ad illam Scripturae auctoritatem, concedendo paradisum aquis diluvii fuisse opertum et destructum, sed affirmando eum posteà fuisse à Deo refectum et in priorem venustatem et magnificentiam restitutum. Sed hoc quia gratis et temerè dicitur, qua facilitate dicitur, eadem negatur et reiicitur. Ex hac igitur disputatione apparet scripturam dicentem universam terram fuisse diluvio opertam et vastatam valde suffragari eorum sententiae qui putant paradisum diluvio esse destructum, neque eum nunc in terris existere: quod testimonium Scripturae non aliter evadere potuerunt qui contra sentiunt, quàm incredibilia et absurda de altitudine paradisi usque ad supremam regionem aëris, vel etiam usque ad viciniam coeli asserendo. Quis igitur eam opinionem vel temerariam, vel suspectam, vel improbabilem dicere audeat, quae tam evidenti Scripturae testimonio nitatur et fulciatur? praesertim cum ea opinione mirificè consentiente Historia tam sacra quàm profana; ex qua liquet et paradisum fuisse citra sinum Persicum, circáque Mesopotamiam, et omnia illa loca constet esse habitata et explorata; in qui-

Nor does that example of the olive help the opinion of these men -- the olive which under the waters of the flood retained its green fronds: for it is one thing to speak of the whole place of Paradise and of all the things that were in it, and another of one or another tree which, whether because of the nature of the place where it was, or because of its own strength and firmness, could last under the waters of the flood: such as is the olive, whose leaves never fall, and which Pliny reports to live for two hundred years. In a third way one could answer that authority of Scripture, by conceding that Paradise was covered and destroyed by the waters of the flood, but affirming that it was afterward remade by God and restored to its former loveliness and magnificence. But since this is said gratuitously and rashly, with the same ease with which it is said, it is denied and rejected. From this disputation, then, it appears that Scripture, in saying the whole earth was covered and laid waste by the flood, strongly supports the view of those who think Paradise was destroyed by the flood, and does not now exist on earth: which testimony of Scripture those who think otherwise could not escape except by asserting incredible and absurd things about the height of Paradise -- reaching up to the highest region of the air, or even to the vicinity of heaven. Who, then, would dare to call that opinion rash, or suspect, or improbable, which rests and is supported by so evident a testimony of Scripture? -- especially since with that opinion History, both sacred and profane, wonderfully agrees; from which it is clear that Paradise was on this side of the Persian Gulf and about Mesopotamia, and it is agreed that all those places are inhabited and explored; in which¹⁰

bus nullum tamen paradisi vestigium ullo tempore adhuc apparuit. Sed contra hanc opinionem duo possent obiici. Unum est, in libro Ecclesiastici capite 44 secundum nostram translationem vulgatam (cuius auctoritas nobis tuenda et defendenda est) scriptum esse, Henoch fuisse translatum in paradisum; ergo paradisus etiam nunc existit, cùm in eo sit Henoch. Alterum est, sententiam esse multorum Patrum plurimorúmque Theologorum etiam nunc existere paradisum: cui sententiae contradicere videri posset temerarium. Verùm haec non tanti sunt ut nos à contraria sententia tanquam temeraria vel improbabili deterrere debeant, cùm facillimè dissolui possint, quemadmodum à nobis suprà in libro tertio discussa et profligata sunt.

in which, nevertheless, no trace of Paradise has at any time yet appeared. But against this opinion two things could be objected. One is that, in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 44, according to our Vulgate translation (whose authority we must uphold and defend), it is written that Enoch was translated into Paradise; therefore Paradise even now exists, since Enoch is in it. The other is that it is the view of many Fathers and very many theologians that Paradise even now exists: and to contradict this view might seem rash. But these are not of such weight that they ought to deter us from the contrary view as if it were rash or improbable, since they can be most easily dissolved, as they were discussed and routed by us above in the third book.¹¹

Nunc autem ad priorem obiectionem breviter ita respondemus. Primò dicimus vocabulum Paradisi (quod non habet eo loco Scriptura Graeca, habet tamen Latina translatio vulgata, quam parvipendere fas non est) non significare propriè paradisum illum in quo fuit Adam, sed in universum significare tam apud profanos scriptores Graecos et Latinos quàm apud sacros auctores quemlibet hortum et locum amoenissimum, et ad oblectandum hominem elegantissimè concinnatum: id quod nos suprà in exordio tertii libri multis exemplis profanae et sacrae Scripturae demonstravimus. Concedimus igitur Henoch esse in paradiso, non tamen in illo Adami, sed in aliquo secreto loco amoenissimo in quo (cùm magna tranquillitate et iucunditate carnis et spiritus, Deo ipsum mirabiliter conservante) vivit, et usque ad consummationem saeculi victurus est.

Now to the former objection we answer briefly thus. First we say that the word 'Paradise' (which the Greek Scripture does not have in that place, but the Latin Vulgate translation does have, which it is not right to make light of) does not properly signify that Paradise in which Adam was, but signifies in general -- both among profane Greek and Latin writers and among sacred authors -- any garden and most pleasant place, most elegantly arranged for the delight of man: which we demonstrated above, at the beginning of the third book, by many examples from profane and sacred Scripture. We concede, therefore, that Enoch is in Paradise, yet not in that of Adam, but in some secret, most pleasant place, in which (with great tranquility and pleasantness of body and spirit, God wonderfully preserving him) he lives, and will live until the consummation of the age.¹²

Certè Rupertus, vir doctus, Catholicus, et pius, libro 3 de Trinitate et operibus eius capite 33 disertis verbis affirmat nusquam in sacra Scriptura tradi Henoch fuisse translatum in paradisum in quo fuit Adam: quinimo hoc ipse apertè et constanter negat. Sanctus etiam Chrysostomus homilia 21 in Genesim scribit non esse curiosè scrutandum et quaerendum quem in locum Deus transtulerit Henoch: cùm enim id Scriptura non dicat, nimis curiosum esse velle investigare et scire. Atqui si Chrysostomus in illo loco Ecclesiastici aut legisset vocabulum illud paradisi, aut eo vocabulo significari putavisset paradisum illum terrestrem, non utique dixisset non tradi à Scriptura quò fuerit translatus Henoch, et idcirco id esse incertum nec à nobis curiosè quaerendum. Nec existimari potest Chrysostomum non legisse librum Ecclesiastici; quippe qui plurimas eius libri sententias in suis scriptis frequenter usurpat. Cum Chrysostomo planè consentiens Theodoretus in Quaestionibus in Genesim, cùm posuisset hanc quaestionem quae est numero 45, Quem in locum Deus transtulerit Henoch, ad eam ita respondit: Non inquirenda sunt, inquit, quae silentio sunt tradita, sed veneranda quae scripta sunt. Haec ille: his verbis indicans in Scriptura non tradi quò fuerit translatus Henoch, et ideo non esse id à nobis investigandum.

Certainly Rupert -- a learned, Catholic, and pious man -- in book 3 On the Trinity and its Works, chapter 33, affirms in express words that nowhere in sacred Scripture is it handed down that Enoch was translated into the Paradise in which Adam was; nay, this he himself openly and constantly denies. Saint Chrysostom too, in homily 21 on Genesis, writes that it is not to be curiously searched out and asked into what place God translated Enoch: since, that is, Scripture does not say it, it is over-curious to wish to investigate and know. And yet if Chrysostom had either read that word 'Paradise' in that passage of Ecclesiasticus, or had thought that by that word the terrestrial Paradise was signified, he surely would not have said that it is not handed down by Scripture where Enoch was translated, and that therefore this is uncertain and not to be curiously sought by us. Nor can it be supposed that Chrysostom had not read the book of Ecclesiasticus, seeing that he frequently uses very many sentences of that book in his writings. Fully agreeing with Chrysostom, Theodoret, in his Questions on Genesis, when he had posed this question, which is number 45, Into what place God translated Enoch, answered it thus: 'The things that are handed down in silence are not to be inquired into, but those that are written are to be venerated.' These are his words: indicating by them that it is not handed down in Scripture where Enoch was translated, and that therefore this is not to be investigated by us.¹³

Deinde, ad eandem obiectionem sic respondeo: in illo loco Ecclesiastici translatio vulgata non habet Henoch esse nunc in paradiso (de quo tamen praesens quaestio tractatur), sed tantùm habet translatum fuisse Henoch in Paradisum, quod opinioni nostrae nihil prorsus adversatur, nec ad praesentem quaestionem pertinet. Cùm enim translatio illa Henoch amplius sexcentis annis ante diluvium facta fuerit, ut ex capite 5 libri Geneseos colligi potest: fieri potuit ut tunc Henoch ductus fuerit in Paradisum illum terrestrem, quem nos usque ad diluvium durasse non negamus. Hinc tamen non licet argumentari illum Paradisum intactum fuisse diluvio, et nunc etiam existere, et in eo commorari Henoch et Eliam: hoc enim est quod nos negamus ex illo loco Ecclesiastici posse concludi. Certè Beatus Gregorius homilia 29 in Evangelia non ausus est dicere Henoch et Eliam ductos esse in Paradisum, aut in eo versari, sed Eliam scribit (idem quoque sensisse eum de Henoch credendum est, cùm sit par utriúsque ratio, et auctores contrariae opinionis idem de utroque sentiant et dicant) scribit, inquam, Eliam in secreta aliqua regione versari, et in magna carnis et spiritus tranquillitate vivere, et victurum esse usque ad consummationem saeculi.

Next, to the same objection I answer thus: in that passage of Ecclesiasticus the Vulgate translation does not have that Enoch is now in Paradise (which, however, is what the present question treats), but only has that Enoch was translated into Paradise -- which in no way opposes our opinion, nor pertains to the present question. For since that translation of Enoch was made more than six hundred years before the flood, as can be gathered from chapter 5 of the book of Genesis, it could be that Enoch was then led into that terrestrial Paradise, which we do not deny lasted until the flood. Yet from this it is not permitted to argue that that Paradise was untouched by the flood, and even now exists, and that Enoch and Elijah dwell in it: for this is what we deny can be concluded from that passage of Ecclesiasticus. Certainly blessed Gregory, in homily 29 on the Gospels, did not dare to say that Enoch and Elijah were led into Paradise, or dwell in it, but writes of Elijah (and it must be believed he thought the same of Enoch, since the reasoning for both is equal, and the authors of the contrary opinion think and say the same of both) -- writes, I say, that Elijah dwells in some secret region, and lives in great tranquility of body and spirit, and will live until the consummation of the age.¹⁴

Beatus autem Augustinus libro 2 de gratia Christi contra Pelagium et Celestium scribit quaestionem hanc, utrum Elias et Henoch sint in Paradiso terrestri an alibi, esse de numero earum quaestionum quae salva fide Christiana in contrarias partes disputantur: quales etiam sunt illae, Quot sunt coeli, in quorum tertium se raptum esse commemorat Paulus; vel utrum Elementa huius mundi quatuor an plura sint. Sic Augustinus. Qui si putasset uspiam in Scriptura significari Henoch esse in Paradiso terrestri, aut suo tempore fuisse id in Ecclesia et apud doctores eius temporis certum et indubitatum, sicut erat Henoch et Eliam non fuisse mortuos sed vivere adhuc, profectò Augustinus non ita locutus fuisset. Nec subeat cuiuspiam animum suspicari fortasse Augustinum non legisse, aut pro sacra Scriptura non habuisse librum Ecclesiastici: siquidem ex plurimis eius libri capitibus, tanquam ex canonica Scriptura, permultas sententias commemorat et ad probandum vel refellendum aliquid adhibet. Quare vel ipse in illo loco Ecclesiastici de translatione Henoch non legit vocabulum illud Paradisi, quod Scriptura Graeca non habet, vel si legit, per id significatum esse Paradisum illum terrestrem nequaquàm existimavit. Patet igitur locum illum Ecclesiastici nihil officere nostrae sententiae, nihilque adiumenti contrariae opinioni afferre, ut vel hoc nomine probabilior haec opinio quàm contraria videri possit. Etenim haec opinio manifestum habet pro se illud Scripturae testimonium ex septimo capite Geneseos quod suprà fusè tractavimus: at contraria opinio nullum ex divina Scriptura praesidium aut testimonium pro se habere potest. Quocirca valdè miror iudicium Sixti Senensis, qui libro 5 Bibliothecae Annotatione 36 scribere illud non est veritus: Dicere Henoch et Eliam

But blessed Augustine, in book 2 On the Grace of Christ against Pelagius and Caelestius, writes that this question -- whether Elijah and Enoch are in the terrestrial Paradise or elsewhere -- is among the number of those questions which, with the Christian faith safe, are disputed on both sides: such as these too: How many heavens are there, into the third of which Paul records that he was caught up; or whether the Elements of this world are four or more. Thus Augustine. And if he had thought that anywhere in Scripture it was signified that Enoch is in the terrestrial Paradise, or that in his time this was certain and undoubted in the Church and among the doctors of that time -- as it was that Enoch and Elijah were not dead but still live -- Augustine surely would not have spoken thus. Nor let it enter anyone's mind to suspect that perhaps Augustine had not read, or did not hold as sacred Scripture, the book of Ecclesiasticus: seeing that from very many chapters of that book, as from canonical Scripture, he cites very many sentences and employs them to prove or refute something. Wherefore either he himself did not read, in that passage of Ecclesiasticus about the translation of Enoch, that word 'Paradise,' which the Greek Scripture does not have, or, if he read it, he by no means thought that the terrestrial Paradise was signified by it. It is clear, therefore, that that passage of Ecclesiasticus in no way opposes our view, and brings no help to the contrary opinion -- so that even on this account this opinion may seem more probable than the contrary. For this opinion has manifestly for itself that testimony of Scripture from the seventh chapter of Genesis, which we treated at length above: but the contrary opinion can have for itself no defense or testimony from divine Scripture. Wherefore I greatly wonder at the judgment of Sixtus of Siena, who in book 5 of his Library, Annotation 36, did not fear to write this: To say that Enoch and Elijah¹⁵

et Eliam non esse translatos in illum Paradisum terrestrem inibíque versari, esse contra divinam Scripturam, et à recta fidei regula exorbitare. Itane contra Scripturam? Ergo Rupertum, Theodoretum, Chrysostomum, Augustinum, et Gregorium, qui vel id negarunt, vel incompertum esse dixerunt, vel salva fide aut negari aut affirmari posse tradiderunt, contra Scripturam et contra fidei regulam, censore Sixto, sensisse et scripsisse existimabimus? Sed contra quam obsecro Scripturam est, Henoch non esse in illo Paradiso? Contra illam, ait, Ecclesiastici 44, Henoch placuit Deo, et translatus est in paradisum: at eam Scripturam nihil Sixto posse suffragari, satis superque ostensum est. Quod si hoc est contra Scripturam, ergo est contra Fidem. At Beatus Augustinus docet libro 2 contra Celestium et Pelagium capite 23 opinari Henoch et Eliam non esse in illo Paradiso non solùm non esse contra fidem, sed nec pertinere ad fidem. Utri igitur credemus potius, Augustino neganti pertinere ad fidem, an Sixto asseveranti esse contra Scripturam et à fidei regula exorbitare? Vides, lector, quo sese per imprudentiam Sixtus proiecerit, clarissimos Ecclesiae Patres tam praecipiti iudicio atrocíque censura inscienter condemnando?

'and Elijah were not translated into that terrestrial Paradise and do not dwell there, is against divine Scripture, and departs from the right rule of faith.' Is it so against Scripture? Shall we then think that Rupert, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Gregory -- who either denied it, or said it was undetermined, or handed down that, with faith safe, it could be either denied or affirmed -- thought and wrote against Scripture and against the rule of faith, with Sixtus as their censor? But against what Scripture, I beseech, is it that Enoch is not in that Paradise? Against that, he says, of Ecclesiasticus 44: 'Enoch pleased God, and was translated into Paradise'; but that this Scripture can in no way support Sixtus has been shown more than sufficiently. And if this is against Scripture, then it is against the Faith. Yet blessed Augustine teaches, in book 2 against Caelestius and Pelagius, chapter 23, that to think Enoch and Elijah are not in that Paradise is not only not against faith, but does not even pertain to faith. Whom, then, shall we rather believe -- Augustine, denying that it pertains to faith, or Sixtus, asserting that it is against Scripture and departs from the rule of faith? You see, reader, into what Sixtus has cast himself by imprudence, in condemning the most illustrious Fathers of the Church, by so hasty a judgment and so harsh a censure, unknowingly.¹⁶

Ad alteram obiectionem ductam ex multitudine Doctorum qui contra nos sentiunt, ad hunc modum respondemus. Consensum Doctorum (ut prudenter monet Vincentius Lyrinensis, idque profectò verum est) non in quibuslibet quaestionibus, sed in his quae ad Catholicae fidei regulam pertinent, diligenter observare ac religiosè sequi oportet. At quaestio haec, utrum Paradisus non existat, nequaquàm pertinet ad fidem, minus etiam profectò quàm illa, utrum Henoch sit in illo Paradiso terrestri, quam tamen Augustinus docet salva fide in utramque partem disputari posse, vel diffinitivam sententiam suspendendo, vel aliter quàm revera est humana et infirma suspicione coniiciendo. Neque verò novum et inusitatum est apud Doctores, in iis quae ad fidem non spectant, à veteri et communi sententia discedere, si ex adverso opinio aliqua existat valde probabilis, hoc est magnis vel Sacrarum litterarum vel humanarum rationum munita praesidiis. Possem multa eius rei proferre exempla; sed ero, ne longior sim ubi minime opus est, uno duntaxat contentus exemplo. Aquas quae super coelos esse dicuntur in Sacris litteris revera locatas esse super orbes coelestes, eásque vel naturae elementari vel substantia coelesti constare, vetus et communis tam priorum quàm posteriorum Doctorum sententia est. Contraria tamen opinio, aquas illas coelestes non alias esse intelligendas quàm quae in media regione aëris generatae ad refrigerandam foecundandámque terram naturali potentia, modo, et ordine delabuntur, non solùm non est habita unquam vel temeraria vel improbabilis, sed eam Beatus Thomas in prima parte inter maximè probabiles de illis aquis sententias commemorat; et Sanctus Augustinus libro 2 de Genesi ad litteram capite quarto eam opinionem magna laude dignissimam iudicat, quippe quae nec contra fidem sit,

To the other objection, drawn from the multitude of the Doctors who think against us, we answer in this manner. The consensus of the Doctors (as Vincent of Lerins prudently warns, and it is certainly true) must be diligently observed and religiously followed, not in any questions whatever, but in those which pertain to the rule of the Catholic faith. But this question -- whether Paradise does not exist -- in no way pertains to faith; even less, indeed, than that other, whether Enoch is in that terrestrial Paradise, which nonetheless Augustine teaches can, with faith safe, be disputed on both sides, either by suspending a definitive judgment, or by conjecturing otherwise than it really is, with a human and weak surmise. Nor indeed is it new and unusual among the Doctors, in matters that do not pertain to faith, to depart from an old and common view, if on the opposite side some very probable opinion exists -- that is, one fortified by great supports of either Sacred Scripture or human reasons. I could bring forward many examples of this thing; but, lest I be too long where there is least need, I shall be content with only one example. That the waters which are said in Sacred Scripture to be above the heavens are really located above the celestial orbs, and consist either of an elemental nature or of a celestial substance, is the old and common view of both earlier and later Doctors. Yet the contrary opinion -- that those celestial waters are to be understood as none other than those which, generated in the middle region of the air, fall down by natural power, manner, and order to cool and fertilize the earth -- has not only never been held rash or improbable, but blessed Thomas, in the first part, mentions it among the most probable opinions about those waters; and Saint Augustine, in book 2 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter four, judges that opinion most worthy of great praise, since it is neither against faith,¹⁷

sit, et in promptu posito documento fiat credibilis. Quanto magis id Augustinus diceret de hac opinione, quod Paradisus nunc non existat? cùm ea non modò non sit contra fidem, sed etiam maximè sit secundum fidem Scripturae affirmantis capite 7 Geneseos omnem superficiem omnésque montes qui sub universo coelo erant aquis diluvii fuisse opertos, omnémque terram vastatam ac deletam. Deinde, in disceptandis et diiudicandis quaestionibus non pertinentibus ad fidem, non tantùm spectari debet qui aut quod auctores aliquid sentiant aut dicant, sed etiam aestimari et examinari debent rationum momenta, et quemadmodum quod illi dicunt argumententur ac probent. Dixerunt plurimi et gravissimi auctores Paradisum terrestrem nunc existere. Dixerunt sane, atque ob eam solam causam ea sententia non solùm probabilis sed etiam venerabilis omnibus esse debet. Verùm hoc illi nulla probabili vel scripturae auctoritate, vel historia, vel experientia, vel humana ratione aut coniectura confirmarunt. Quinimo cum supradicto Scripturae ex capite 7 Geneseos testimonio valde urgerentur ac premerentur, non aliud effugium invenire potuerunt quàm vel nova inducendo miracula, vel de altitudine Paradisi supra aquas diluvii incredibilia et absurda fingendo. Praeterea, considerare convenit quem ad finem usúmve Paradisum isti doctores tanto miraculo conservatum à Deo esse voluerint. Certè, plerique veterum eò servatum esse Paradisum putaverunt ut idoneum et dignum esset receptaculum sanctarum animarum inibi commorantium usque ad diem iudicii: quod sane non modò falsum est,

and is made credible by a document set ready at hand. How much more would Augustine say this of this opinion, that Paradise does not now exist? -- since it is not only not against faith, but is even most in accord with the faith of Scripture, which affirms, in chapter 7 of Genesis, that the whole surface and all the mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered by the waters of the flood, and the whole earth laid waste and deleted. Next, in debating and deciding questions not pertaining to faith, one must regard not only who the authors are or what they think or say, but the weight of the reasons must also be assessed and examined, and how they argue and prove what they say. Very many and most weighty authors have said that the terrestrial Paradise now exists. They said so indeed, and for that cause alone that view ought to be to all not only probable but venerable. But this they confirmed by no probable authority of Scripture, nor by history, nor by experience, nor by human reason or conjecture. Rather, when they were strongly urged and pressed by the aforesaid testimony of Scripture from chapter 7 of Genesis, they could find no other escape than either by introducing new miracles, or by fabricating incredible and absurd things about the height of Paradise above the waters of the flood. Moreover, it is fitting to consider to what end or use these doctors would have Paradise preserved by God by so great a miracle. Certainly most of the ancients thought that Paradise was preserved for this, that it might be a fit and worthy receptacle of the holy souls dwelling there until the day of judgment: which indeed is not only false,¹⁸

sed iampridem ab Ecclesia damnatum. Aliis quàmplurimis visum est servatum esse Paradisum propter habitationem Henoch et Eliae, quos eo in loco nunc esse non dubitant. Verùm id multi doctores vel negant, vel incompertum esse dicunt, vel tanquam dubium et incertum, citra ullam fidei iniuriam, vel negari vel affirmari posse tradunt. Nulla igitur vel probabili argumentatione Paradisum nunc existere persuaderi potest. Caeterum, illa sit huius disputationis clausula: veteri sententiae non aliud suffragari quàm vetustatem eius et consensum doctorum, quae tamen duae res vel solae pro magno haberi debent, eaéque in quaestionibus ad fidem non spectantibus valdè probabilem sententiam, in his quae ad fidem pertinent etiam certam possunt efficere. Huic autem opinioni, quòd Paradisus non existat, adsunt et Sacrarum litterarum praesidia et humanarum rationum firmamenta, nec quicquam ei deesse videtur praeter antiquitatem et sectatorum multitudinem atque claritatem. Et haec quidem sunt quae libuit ad ea quae tertio libro de hac quaestione disputata sunt in praesens addere.

but has long since been condemned by the Church. To very many others it has seemed that Paradise was preserved for the habitation of Enoch and Elijah, whom they do not doubt are now in that place. But this many doctors either deny, or say is undetermined, or hand down, as doubtful and uncertain, that it can, without any injury to faith, be either denied or affirmed. By no probable argumentation, then, can it be persuaded that Paradise now exists. For the rest, let this be the conclusion of this disputation: that nothing favors the old view except its antiquity and the consensus of the doctors -- which two things, however, even by themselves ought to be held of great weight, and can, in questions not pertaining to faith, make a view very probable, and, in those that pertain to faith, even certain. But to this opinion, that Paradise does not exist, there are present both the supports of Sacred Scripture and the buttresses of human reasons, and nothing seems lacking to it except antiquity and a multitude and renown of followers. And these indeed are the things which I chose, for the present, to add to those which were disputed on this question in the third book.¹⁹

Illud autem non fuerit alienum, occasione huius quaestionis quam tractavimus, in universum lectorem hoc loco admonere, in huiusmodi quaestionibus recens exorientibus, quae nec ad fidem spectent et videntur tamen admodùm probabiles atque plausibiles, magna esse utendum cautione

But it would not be out of place, on occasion of this question which we have treated, to admonish the reader in general in this place, that in questions of this kind newly arising -- which do not pertain to faith and yet seem quite probable and plausible -- great caution must be used,²⁰

cautione, tutissimúmque fore non statim eas ut planè veras et certas divulgare, praefractéque ac mordicus tueri, veteri doctorum sententia non solùm posthabita sed etiam fastidiosè superbéque reiecta. Verùm eas opiniones cunctanter, lentè, ac morosè examinare et probare oportet, nec nisi ut probabiles tantùm prodere, expectaréque doctorum piorúmque hominum et florentissimarum Academiarum iudicia atque suffragia, ut si ab illis repudiatae damnataéque fuerint, prorsus abiiciantur aeternóque premantur silentio; sin autem laudatae probataéque pervulgentur, tunc inoffensè ac securè non tantùm privatim approbari, sed etiam publicè doceri et defendi queant, verùm ita ut nihilominus tamen debitus veteri sententiae honor et reverentia semper exhibeatur.

and that it will be safest not at once to publish them as plainly true and certain, and to defend them stubbornly and tooth-and-nail, with the old view of the doctors not only set aside but even fastidiously and proudly rejected. But those opinions ought to be examined and tested hesitantly, slowly, and scrupulously, and be brought forth only as probable, and one ought to await the judgments and votes of the doctors and of pious men and of the most flourishing Academies -- so that, if they be repudiated and condemned by them, they may be utterly cast off and buried in eternal silence; but if they be praised and approved and published abroad, then they may, without offense and safely, be not only privately approved but also publicly taught and defended, yet in such a way that nonetheless the due honor and reverence be always shown to the old view.²¹

For my part (for with these last words, and with this testimony of my counsel and purpose, I wish to end this former volume of my Commentaries on Genesis) I wished to treat the probability of this opinion with care and diligence -- not from any zeal for novelty, nor for the display of talent or learning (the Lord knows, the conscious witness of my mind and thoughts), but from a most ardent love of investigating and finding the truth, and especially from a certain zeal for Sacred Scripture: namely, that the things handed down in these Scriptures about the place of Paradise, about its four rivers, and other like matters, as they have been explained by us, might not only not seem to anyone fictitious, incredible, and absurd, but, as being most agreeable to reason and most probable, might be able to be approved by anyone, even of the unbelievers. But if in this too anything has been erred, it was certainly an error not of arrogance or rashness, but of a certain piety and zeal: which I trust will seem to the prudent and fair reader worthy of easy pardon. THE END. In the year from the Lord's birth 1589, but of the Author's age 53, these seven books of Commentaries on Genesis were first published at Rome; three years before, the same Author's sixteen books on Daniel the Prophet, and thirteen years before, his fifteen books of Philosophy, had been published. Issued a second time at Lyons at the press of the Giunta, in the year 1590; a third time again at Lyons, 1594; a fourth time and more corrected, 1599, at the press of Horatius Cardon. Praise be to God, and to the God-bearer and ever-Virgin Mary.²²

Equidem (volo enim his novissimis verbis, et hac consilii et propositi mei testificatione, priorem hunc tomum Commentariorum meorum in Genesim terminare) probabilitatem huius opinionis cum cura et diligentia tractare volui, non studio aliquo novitatis, nec ad ostentationem ingenii aut Doctrinae (Dominus scit, animi sensúsque mei conscius et testis), sed flagrantissimo amore investigandae reperiendaéque veritatis, praecipuè autem zelo quodam Sacrarum litterarum: scilicet, ut quae traduntur in his de loco Paradisi, de quatuor eius fluminibus, aliísque rebus similibus, sicut à nobis explicata sunt, non modò non viderentur cuiquam commentitia, incredibilia et absurda, sed quasi maximè consentanea rationi maximéque verisimilia, cuivis etiam infidelium probari possent. Quòd si quid etiam in hoc erratum fuerit, certè non arrogantiae aut temeritatis, sed pietatis cuiusdam atque zeli error fuit: quem ego facili dignum venia prudenti et aequo lectori visum iri confido. FINIS. Anno ab ortu Domini 1589, aetatis vero Auctoris 53, hi septem libri Commentariorum in Genesim sunt Romae primùm editi; cùm triennio ante eiusdem Auctoris libri sexdecim in Danielem Prophetam, et tredecim annis ante libri quindecim de Philosophia fuissent evulgati. Lugduni secundo apud Iuntas emissi, anno 1590; tertio iterum Lugduni, 1594; quarto et emendatius, 1599, apud Horatium Cardonem. Laus Deo ac Deiparae sempérque Virgini Mariae.

Translator’s notes

Seventh quaestio of the disputation on Enoch. Marginal gloss: 'Whether Paradise perished in the flood.' ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Whether Paradise perished in the flood.' Pererius's view: Enoch is not in that Paradise, because Paradise, destroyed by the flood, no longer exists. Omitting the arguments given at length in his own book 3 (De Paradiso), he presses one from Scripture: Genesis 7 says the whole earth was covered and laid waste by Noah's flood, the waters covering all the mountains. Continues on the next page (catchword 'terrae'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'The passage of Genesis 7 examined.' The argument: Genesis 7:19-20 -- the waters prevailed, covering all high mountains under heaven, 15 cubits above them; so the flood was wholly universal and 'deleted' the whole earth. But the terrestrial Paradise was part of this earth; therefore it too was destroyed. To deny this and hold Paradise untouched and still existing contradicts evident Scripture. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Three replies to the aforesaid Scripture authority are refuted. 1 Peter 3; Genesis 5.' Three responses can be made. First response: the general statement means all lands except only Paradise -- as Scripture says all men died except the eight in the ark, yet Enoch (alive, not in the ark) must be excepted, being likely in the untouched Paradise. First refutation: to restrict a general statement of Scripture by an exception drawn from no Scripture passage and adduced without necessary reason is dangerous -- it would make every general statement doubtful; for so one might likewise except islands, or restrict the flood to inhabited lands, making it not universal, against Scripture and all the Fathers. ↩
Marginal ref: Wisdom 14. If one answers that the Paradise-exception is drawn from Ecclesiasticus 44 (Enoch 'translated into Paradise'), Pererius calls this very weak (to be shown below). The example of Enoch does not help: that he is excepted from the flood is plain from Scripture (he was translated and kept alive, Gen 5), but Scripture nowhere says Paradise was undestroyed and still exists; so the two exceptions are not parallel. Moreover Enoch was translated 700 years before the flood and did not afterward appear. Continues on the next page (catchword 'appa-'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Augustine.' Completing the first refutation: Enoch did not afterward appear on earth, so as to dwelling and way of life it is as if he were not on earth (Scripture says he was translated and taken away, and Augustine says he is in another life than ours). Hence when Scripture says all men on earth perished in the flood, it means those whose earthly life is known and ordinary -- so Enoch needed no explicit exception, unlike the fabricated Paradise-exception. ↩
Second argument: if Paradise were wholly untouched, Noah and the animals could have been saved there, making the laborious ark superfluous -- yet Scripture (Gen 6-7; cf. 1 Pet 3) shows they entered the ark as the only escape from the flood. Third argument: the flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains, so the whole earth's surface was covered -- unless Paradise were so high as to overtop the air or reach heaven, which is absurd (refuted in Pererius's book 3); such height would give it no pleasantness, health, or fit habitation. ↩
Marginal refs: Exod 14 (Red Sea); Josh 3 (Jordan); 'To resort to miracles and God's omnipotence without necessity is reprehended by the Fathers'; Gen 8. If one claims the flood waters were miraculously kept from Paradise, standing beside it for nearly a year (as at the Red Sea and Jordan), that only makes the view more improbable, defended only by invented miracles -- and needless appeal to miracle is reproved by the Fathers, especially Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram). Second response: concede Paradise was flooded but deny it was destroyed -- it remained whole under the waters, like the olive whose green branch the dove brought to Noah (Gen 8). Continues on the next page (catchword 'factum'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'He proves that the place of Paradise perished in the flood.' The second response refuted: whether miraculous (betraying the view's improbability) or not (equally incredible) -- for who could believe Paradise, the most delicate and elegantly-arranged place, overwhelmed by the deepest waters for nearly a year, could survive without harm to its beauty? Even the firmest building submerged so long would decay. How could Paradise keep its loveliness, paths, tree-ranks, plant-arrangement, and fertility -- when the Fathers teach the earth was made more sterile and worse by the flood, whence God then granted the eating of flesh (Gen 9) and human life began to shorten? ↩
Marginal ref: Pliny bk 16 ch 44 (the olive lives 200 years, never sheds its leaves). The olive-example does not help: one tree may survive by the nature of its place or its own strength, unlike the whole Paradise. Third response (Paradise destroyed but afterward remade by God) is rejected as gratuitous. Conclusion: the Genesis-7 testimony strongly favors those who hold Paradise was destroyed and no longer exists on earth; the contrary view escapes it only by absurdly placing Paradise as high as the air or heaven. History sacred and profane agrees, locating Paradise near the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia, in explored, inhabited lands. Continues on the next page (catchword 'bus'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Two objections.' Yet no trace of Paradise has ever appeared in those explored lands. Two objections against Pererius's view: (1) Ecclesiasticus 44 (Vulgate) says Enoch was translated 'into Paradise,' so Paradise still exists since Enoch is in it; (2) many Fathers and theologians hold Paradise still exists, and to contradict them might seem rash. But these are easily dissolved (as done in Pererius's book 3) and do not deter him. ↩
Marginal glosses: 'Solution of the first objection'; 'The passage of Ecclesiasticus 44 examined.' First answer: the word 'Paradise' (in the Vulgate, though absent from the Greek there) does not properly mean Adam's Paradise, but any garden or most pleasant place elegantly arranged for man's delight (shown by many examples in Pererius's book 3). So Enoch is conceded to be 'in Paradise' -- not Adam's, but some secret, most pleasant place where, God wondrously preserving him, he lives in great tranquility until the world's end. ↩
Marginal glosses: 'Rupert denies Enoch was translated into [Adam's] Paradise'; 'Chrysostom says he does not know where Enoch was translated.' Rupert (De Trinitate et operibus eius III.33) expressly denies Scripture anywhere says Enoch was translated into Adam's Paradise. Chrysostom (hom. 21 on Genesis) says it is over-curious to ask where God translated Enoch, since Scripture does not say -- which he could not hold had he read (or so understood) 'Paradise' in Ecclesiasticus (a book he often cites). Theodoret (Questions on Genesis 45) agrees: what is passed over in silence is not to be inquired into. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'St. Gregory does not dare to assert that Enoch dwells in Paradise.' Second answer: Ecclesiasticus 44 does not say Enoch is now in Paradise (the present question), but only that he was translated into Paradise -- which fits Pererius's view. Since the translation was more than 600 years before the flood (Gen 5), Enoch may then have been led into the terrestrial Paradise, which lasted until the flood; but it cannot be argued from this that Paradise was untouched and still exists with Enoch and Elijah in it. Gregory (hom. 29 on the Gospels) does not dare say they were led into Paradise, but writes that Elijah (and by equal reasoning Enoch) dwells in some secret region, living in great tranquility until the world's end. ↩
Marginal glosses: '...does not pertain to the Faith'; '2 Corinthians 12'; 'Animadversion on the censure of Sixtus of Siena.' Augustine (De gratia Christi contra Pelagium et Caelestium II) ranks the question -- whether Enoch and Elijah are in the terrestrial Paradise or elsewhere -- among those disputable on both sides without harm to faith (like 'how many heavens?' [2 Cor 12] or 'are the elements four or more?'). Had Augustine thought Scripture placed Enoch in the terrestrial Paradise, or that this was certain in his day (as Enoch and Elijah's still living was), he would not have spoken so -- and he surely read Ecclesiasticus as canonical (citing it often); so either he did not read 'Paradise' there (absent from the Greek) or did not take it of the terrestrial Paradise. Thus Ecclesiasticus does not oppose Pererius's view nor help the contrary, making his view the more probable, since it alone has the Genesis-7 testimony. Pererius then marvels at Sixtus of Siena (Bibliotheca Sancta V, Annotation 36), who did not fear to write 'To say that Enoch and Elijah...' (continued on the next page, catchword '& Eliam'). ↩
Completes Sixtus of Siena's censure (begun on the previous page): 'To say that Enoch and Elijah were not translated into the terrestrial Paradise and do not dwell there is against divine Scripture and departs from the rule of faith.' Pererius's rebuttal: that would condemn Rupert, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Gregory. Against what Scripture? Only Ecclus 44, already shown not to support Sixtus. And Augustine (contra Caelestium et Pelagium II.23) says the question does not even pertain to faith -- so Sixtus rashly condemned the most illustrious Fathers. ↩
Marginal glosses: 'Solution of the latter objection'; 'Whether it is ever lawful to depart from the common opinion of the Doctors'; Gen 1; Ps 148; Daniel 3; 'St. Thomas, part 1, q. 68, art. 2.' Answer to the second objection (the multitude of Doctors): their consensus (Vincent of Lerins) binds only in matters of the rule of faith. Whether Paradise still exists does not pertain to faith (even less than whether Enoch is there, which Augustine calls disputable both ways). Doctors may depart from the common view in non-faith matters when a very probable opinion opposes it -- e.g. the 'waters above the heavens': the old view places them literally above the celestial orbs, but the contrary (that they are waters generated in the middle air, falling to cool and fertilize the earth) is reckoned most probable by Aquinas (ST I q.68 a.2) and praised by Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram II.4). Continues on the next page (catchword 'sit'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'How one ought to conduct oneself in questions not pertaining to faith.' Augustine would all the more hold that Paradise does not now exist, since that is most in accord with Gen 7 (the whole earth covered and 'deleted'). In non-faith questions one must weigh reasons, not just count authors. The many who said Paradise still exists confirmed it by no Scripture, history, experience, or reason; pressed by Gen 7, they escaped only by inventing miracles or absurd height-claims. And to what end would God preserve it by so great a miracle? Most of the ancients thought it a receptacle for the holy souls until judgment day -- which is not only false, ↩
The view that Paradise is a receptacle for holy souls until judgment day is not only false but long since condemned by the Church. Others hold it preserved for Enoch and Elijah's habitation -- but many doctors deny this or call it uncertain and disputable without harm to faith. So no probable argument shows Paradise now exists. Conclusion of the disputation: the old view has for it only its antiquity and the Doctors' consensus (weighty, and enough for probability in non-faith questions, certainty in faith-questions); but Pererius's view has Scripture supports and rational buttresses, lacking only antiquity and famous followers. This supplements his third book. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'A useful lesson to be observed concerning new opinions, even very probable ones.' Pererius adds a general admonition on newly-arising, non-faith questions that seem quite probable: great caution must be used. Continues on the next page (catchword 'cautione'). ↩
The lesson concludes: it is safest not to publish such opinions at once as certainly true, defending them stubbornly with the old view proudly rejected, but to test them slowly and bring them forth only as probable, awaiting the judgment of the doctors, pious men, and the flourishing Academies (universities) -- so that if condemned they be buried in silence, but if approved they may be safely taught and defended in public, always with due honor and reverence to the old view. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Why the author has discussed these things so accurately.' THE END OF THE VOLUME. Pererius's closing testimony: with these last words he ends this first volume of his Commentaries on Genesis; he treated this opinion not from love of novelty or display of talent, but from ardent love of truth and zeal for Scripture -- and any error was one of piety and zeal, worthy of pardon. Colophon: first published at Rome 1589 (Pererius then aged 53; three years after his 16 books on Daniel, thirteen after his 15 books of Philosophy); this edition issued at Lyons by the Giunta press, 1590; again at Lyons 1594; and, corrected, 1599, at Horatius Cardon's. 'Praise be to God and to the ever-Virgin Mary.' This completes the seven books (Vol. I) of the commentary. ↩