Scotus Academicus, Tomus quintus: De Creaturarum Corporalium et de Homine

Name: Scotus Academicus, Tomus quintus: De Creaturarum Corporalium et de Homine
Author: Claude Frassen

Quaestio I: Quid sit Paradisus terrestris

Note 1. The word Paradise has been derived either from these Greek words περί and δοσος, which is formed from δευ ρίγω, so that you would call it a watered garden. So Suidas; with whom agrees A. Gellius, book 1, chapter 20.: These places, he says, which the vulgar now call Hicaria, are those whom the Greeks name κηπούς. Or, which is more likely, from the Hebrew word pardes, whereby is signified a pleasant place planted with fruit-bearing trees of every kind, in which sense it is used in Canticles 4: Thy emissions are a Paradise (in Hebrew pardes) of pomegranates: and in Ecclesiasticus 2 Solomon says: I made me gardens, and pardesim, where the Septuagint render Paradises, and Orchards. Whence Rabbi Kimchi, in his Hebrew Roots, says: Pardes is a garden planted with trees for food. Which also the Latins have used; for Procopius, book 2 of the Vandalic War, says: Where the royal seat of the Prince of the Vandals was situated, there was the most beautiful Paradise of all that I have seen; for it was wholly irrigated by fountains, and groves grew green on every side: and the trees were laden with fruits, so that the very soldiers, weary, lay broadly beneath the shade of the trees under their tents, and plucked the fruits therefrom. Nevertheless it is now received among the Interpreters of the sacred Books that pardes signifies a place of pleasure, from the root para, that is, it brought forth fruit, and hadas, that is, myrtle; as though one should say, a garden of myrtles, or one in which myrtles bring forth fruit; for Myrtle, by its odor and savor, refreshes and excels other trees.

Note 2. A threefold Paradise can be distinguished from Holy Scripture: the first indeed is Terrestrial, of which we have spoken just now, and of which we shall say more hereafter: the second is Celestial, of which Apocalypse 2: To him that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God. And St. Paul, 2 to the Corinthians, chapter 12, says that he was caught up into Paradise; but what he understood by the name of Paradise he had declared shortly before in the same place, verse 2, affirming that he was caught up even to the third Heaven: that is, say some sacred Interpreters, even to the seat of the Blessed: for they distinguish a threefold Heaven: the first first, which encompasses the waters and the earth: whence birds are called the fowls of the air [Coeli], Psalm 8. The second is the Heaven divided into those orbs which Astronomers acknowledge. Third and last, that which is the seat of the Blessed, which is called the Heaven of Heavens. Third and last, finally, that Paradise is the one which Christ the Lord signified in Luke 23, when addressing the penitent Thief crucified with him, he said: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: that is, thou shalt rest from labors and sufferings, until, borne up with me into Heaven, thou enjoy eternal felicity. — Or otherwise, Paradise is threefold: the First, corporal in the order of nature: the Second, spiritual in the order of grace: the Third, divine in the order of glory. The first for Adam: the second for the Just, whose souls, laden with virtues as with flowers, are the delights of God: the third and last for the Blessed.

Note 3. From St. Augustine, book 8 of De Genesi ad litteram, concerning the entity and truth of the earthly Paradise, there are three quasi-general opinions: One is that of those who wish Paradise to be understood only corporally: Another that of those who understand it only spiritually. The third is that of those who take Paradise in both ways: at times corporally, at other times spiritually. To the first opinion subscribe almost all Scholastic Theologians, and the more recent sacred Interpreters together with St. Augustine himself, and certain other holy Fathers. The second opinion was that of Origen, book 1 of Periarchon, chapter 2, where, heaping together many examples of those things of which in Holy Scripture there is not to be sought a true and real historical narrative, but only a mystical and spiritual understanding, among the rest he placed the Paradise of pleasure, speaking thus: Who indeed would be found so unlearned as to think that God, like some husbandman, planted in it that tree visible and palpable, so that one eating of corporal foods might receive from the tree of life; and again, eating of another tree, might attain to the knowledge of good and evil? And that also, that God is said to have walked in Paradise after midday: and Adam to hide himself beneath the tree of good and evil: I judge that no one doubts that these things are set forth by Scripture in a figurative trope, whereby by them certain mystical things were signified.

The third opinion, lastly, is that of those who, admitting the literal history of Paradise, nevertheless translate it into a mystical sense, for the attaining of certain interior and more sublime understandings of things spiritual and celestial, as did many of the holy Fathers; most especially indeed St. Augustine lib. 18. De Civit. Dei, cap. 21. who, after having recalled a certain Allegorical exposition of Paradise, subjoins these words: These things, and whatever others can be more fittingly said concerning the understanding of Paradise spiritually, let them be said with none forbidding, provided nevertheless that the truth of that history also, commended by the most faithful narration of the deeds done, be believed.

These things premised, three things are to be proved: First, that Paradise is a corporeal place; Second, that it is not the whole orb of the earth: Third, that it is not outside this our earthly orb.

First Conclusion. — Paradise, which Moses described, was a visible and corporeal place, not indeed purely spiritual and mystical. This is the common opinion among the Holy Fathers, who on that account accuse Origen of error because he overturned the literal history of Paradise by his allegories. Whence Epiphanius writes in the Ancoratus: Thus do many dispute allegorically concerning Paradise, as Origen, furiously shadowing forth I know not what species, thrust it forth into the world for truth: and St. Jerome in Epistle 61 to Pammachius, among the eight errors of Origen, reckons this in the sixth place: That he so allegorizes Paradise as to take away its historical truth, understanding Angels for the four corners [quatuor] of the world, celestial virtues for the rivers, and overturning the whole content of Paradise by tropological interpretation. Whence St. Augustine, in the book De haeresibus, chapter 59, places the Soleucians and Hermianos among Heretics, because they took away Paradise as visible and capable of being beheld.

These things will plainly stand if we shake out for a while the words of Moses concerning Paradise, both in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis. First, for he says, It was planted toward the East, that is, in the Eastern part of the world, which truly is corporeal: therefore Paradise likewise was corporeal and sensible. Secondly he says: And the Lord God brought forth (from it) of the ground every tree beautiful to the sight, and pleasant to eat of; the tree of life also in the midst of Paradise, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil: if the trees of Paradise were brought forth from the ground, or from the earth, by what reason will they not be corporeal, and Paradise not an earthly place? Of the ground, he says — what clearer? etc.

Third, he says a River irrigated the whole of Paradise, namely as a watered garden, which is wont to be irrigated by diversions of waters. Fourth, he adds that thence went forth its issue into four rivers, and that Phison compasseth the whole land of Hevillath: where gold is born, and the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. Truly then, and really, that river of Paradise existed, one branch whereof, Phison, truly and corporeally flows through the land of Hevillath; it is indeed in the earth, and truly washes the earth with its waters: that gold is beholdable, and the bdellium, and the onyx stone, all corporeal, and born in the land of Hevillath. Fifth, he asserts that Geon compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. This indeed is corporeal and visible. We omit to speak of the Tigris and the Euphrates, that they are true and sensible rivers — whoever is unwilling to believe it, let him enjoy his own wit without envy. — Which indeed St. Chrysostom urges luminously in Homily 13 on Genesis, writing: Therefore Moses, describing Paradise, and the name of the place in which it was, to wit Edem, and the Eastern region which it faced, and the names of the rivers issuing from Paradise, known almost to all, narrated so subtly and truthfully that it might not be permitted to triflers wishing to deceive the simpler folk, by saying that there was no Paradise upon the earth, but in Heaven, and other fables, boasting their own dreams. For if, together with Moses, such diligence were placed in describing Paradise, nevertheless some fablers of sacred things would say that Paradise was not above the earth, introducing many other things most alien from the doctrine of Moses, and twisting his words otherwise than they have been spoken: what would have come to pass, if he had not described Paradise so minutely, so clearly, in fine so perspicuously? Thus St. Chrysostom.

Proof 2. In that manner must the narration of Moses concerning Paradise be taken, in which manner is taken that which he makes concerning sin, both of Eve and of Adam, chapter 3 of Genesis: but this is taken in the literal and proper sense: therefore also that. The Minor stands. Its proof: in this propriety without doubt are those words to be understood: And the Lord God brought forth of the ground every tree beautiful to the sight, and pleasant to eat of, the tree of life also in the midst of Paradise, etc. As in chapter 3 it is said: And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold, and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat: for in both contexts mention is made of sight and of eating, which are corporeal actions: but it stands that the latter context is not to be understood metaphorically; otherwise all things which the Church believes concerning the sin of the first Parent would be false and vain: whence St. Epiphanius in the Ancoratus: if there is no sensible Paradise, he says, there is no fountain, no fig tree, no leaves, Eve did not eat — but already it is a fable. — Lastly, in Genesis 13, verse 10 [sic], the Region about the Jordan is compared in beauty and pleasantness to the Paradise of the Lord. It was watered, he says, as the Paradise of the Lord, and as Egypt when one cometh into Seior: but that comparison of that region with a spiritual and mystical thing would appear utterly inept, as St. Augustine rightly gathers, question 27 on Genesis: therefore it is necessary that Paradise be a corporeal place, as Egypt, to which it is compared: Therefore let their ravings be silenced, as St. Jerome infers upon chapter 10 of Daniel, verse 1, of those who, following shadows and images, endeavor to kill truth itself, so as to think that Paradise, and rivers, and trees must undermine themselves allegorically with fables. — The same is confirmed by the other Holy Fathers; most especially indeed by the holy Bishop Theophilus of Antioch, book 2 ad Autolicum: When man was created, he says, God chose a region in the Eastern places, surpassing in pleasantness, coruscating with light, illustrious with splendid air, fertile with various plants, and in this he placed man..... But that I may know...

St. Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, and Martyr, expressly against Origen, who by his allegories destroyed the corporeal Paradise, thus discourses: First, for Paradise, from which we were cast out in our first Parent, openly is in this earth a place preeminent, destined for delightful repose and a better life for the Saints. From it spring the Tigris, and the Euphrates, and the remaining rivers which are poured forth there; hence appear the courses of the rivers inundating our continent: For they are not poured out and dashed down from the supernal Heavens: for neither could the earth have sustained so great a mass of water descending in heaps from on high: nor was Adam cast down from the Heavens, but from Paradise planted in Edem toward the East. —

Also favors this the sixth general Synod of Constantinople, in Action 13, approving the Epistle of Sophronius recited in Action 11, in which the same Patriarch of Jerusalem, among other errors of the Origenists, condemned also this, that outside the paternal and Apostolic tradition he cast away the plantation of Paradise.

Yet I do not deny that this narration made by Moses concerning Paradise can be expounded in a mystical sense, for as St. Augustine observes lib. 13. De Civit. Dei, cap. 21. Some refer that whole Paradise, in which the first men are said to have been, to intelligible things: and convert those trees, and fruitful woods, into the virtues of life and manners: as though those visible and corporeal things had not been, but were so said, or written, for the sake of signifying intelligibles. As therefore Paradise could not have been corporeal because it can also be understood spiritually: as though therefore there were not two women, Agar and Sara, and from them two sons of Abraham, one of the Handmaid, another of the Free, because two Testaments figured in them the Apostle speaks of. No one therefore forbids that

Paradise be understood as the life of the Blessed: its four rivers, the four virtues, Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, and Justice; and its trees, all useful disciplines: and the fruits of the rivers, the manners of the pious; and the tree of life, Wisdom itself of all goods: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the experience of transgressing the commandment. — These things can also be understood of the Church, that we may receive them the better, as prophetic signs preceding things to come: to wit, that the Paradise is the Church itself, as is read of her in the Canticle of Canticles: moreover the four rivers of Paradise, the four Gospels; the fruitful trees, the Saints; but their fruits, their works: the tree of life, the Holy of Holies, certainly Christ; the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the proper arbiter of the will.

Thence he concludes this: And whatever others can be more fitly said concerning the understanding of Paradise spiritually, let them be said with none forbidding: provided nevertheless that the truth of that history be believed in the most faithful narration of the deeds done.

You will say 1. That narration of Moses embraces many things which can be taken only tropologically and by metaphor; for instance, the walking of God in Paradise after midday: therefore by equal reason, those things which it relates concerning Paradise itself are also to be understood metaphorically.

I answer, conceding the antecedent, denying the consequence. For it plainly stands that that walking according to the literal sense cannot be taken; since God is without partaking of body, he is also incapable of corporeal walking; and therefore that walking could not literally be used without evident and manifest absurdity: but such an absurdity does not follow from the fact that Paradise is said to be some corporeal and sensible place, and that the whole Mosaic narration concerning it is used according to the letter.

You will say 2. The earthly Paradise is that into which the soul of Christ the Lord received itself during the three days of death, and of which he spoke to the penitent Thief in Luke 23, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: but that place into which the soul of Christ received itself was not corporeal and sensible, for such a place befits not a purely spiritual soul: therefore that Paradise is not any corporeal place.

I deny the major; for, as has been said in Notable 2, a threefold Paradise is distinguished in Holy Scripture; namely Celestial, Mystical, and Earthly: The First is the heavenly Fatherland, in which blessed minds enjoy eternal vision and felicity of God: The Second is the clear vision of God itself, and the supreme rest from all labors and pressures, wherever it may be, whether in Heaven, or on earth, or even in Limbo, into which Christ himself descended during the three days of death: The Third and last is that most delightful place into which innocent Adam was carried by God from the very beginning of his condition, and from which he went into exile by sin. Christ spoke in Luke 23 of the Mystical Paradise, not of the terrestrial: and therefore our proposition is true and certain, namely that the terrestrial Paradise is a certain visible and corporeal place. Whether however it be a special place, the second Conclusion shall disclose.

Second Conclusion. — By the name of the terrestrial Paradise is understood not this whole orb of lands which we inhabit, but a certain particular place constituted in a certain region of this orb. This is against very many Recentiors, especially Pineda, book 1 of Monarchiae Ecclesiasticae, chapter 6, Abraham Ortelius in the table of sacred Geography, and others of no interior name, who wish

the Paradise of pleasure described by Moses to be this whole orb of lands, overflowing at the beginning of its condition with all beauty, fertility, amenity, and delights: but the Fountain which washed Paradise to be the Ocean, which Homer and most of the Philosophers called the parent of rivers, and the greatest fountain of all.

The truth of this conclusion is patent from the Mosaic narration itself, whence it stands, First, that Paradise was planted in the East: but the whole earth spreads far and wide, not only toward the East, but also toward the West, the North, and the South: therefore this is not Paradise. — Next, from the same it stands that God carried Adam from the place in which he had formed him into Paradise, and afterwards, in punishment of sin, cast him out of Paradise, and appointed a Cherub the guardian of Paradise itself, that it might bar Adam himself and his posterity therefrom: but it is not likely that God created Adam outside this orb of lands, that he might afterwards carry him into it: nor is it equally credible that he cast him out beyond this world; inasmuch as he dwelt in this our earth, and was buried in it, as shall most openly stand from what is to be said below. Nor, lastly, does it become in any way probable that a Cherub was appointed about this whole orb of lands, lest Adam, or his posterity, break in upon it: therefore it stands that this Mosaic history of Paradise can by no means be deduced to the whole earth except by illusory and thin little allegories.

You will say 1. That river, which went forth from the place of pleasure to irrigate Paradise, and which thence is divided into four heads, is none other than the Ocean, as holy Damascene affirms, book 2 of De Fide orthodoxa, chapter 9, in these words: There is also the Ocean, as it were a certain river encompassing the whole earth: concerning which it seems to me that divine Scripture said, that a river proceeds from Paradise, etc.

I deny the major; For that Paradisal river went forth from the place of pleasure to irrigate Paradise; but the Ocean does not go forth from this whole orb of lands. Next, it was divided only into four rivers: but the Ocean is poured forth not only into all rivers; but is also discharged and flows out into various gulfs and tracts of seas; and therefore it cannot be taken for that Paradisal fountain.

You will say 2. Paradise was a place destined for the habitation of the human race, and of all the posterity of Adam, if he had preserved innocence; whence Philoxenus, Bishop of Mobug, in the Oration on the contemplation of the tree of life, writes thus: Paradise was the first habitation of our race: for as Heaven is the seat of Angels, but of demons, after their fall, is the air, placed doubtless in the middle place: Moreover of brute animals and men, after the law violated, this earth in which we dwell: lastly, of fishes, and all swimming things, the waters: So also had Paradise been destined, that it might be the domicile of men before they sinned. But the mandate of God having been spurned, Adam was cast down through ignominy into this earth subject to sin, that he might dwell therein with brute beasts. — Moses Barcepha confirms it, in the book De Paradiso, chapter 22. Three places, he says, God had created for Adam, Heaven, Paradise, and this earth which is outside Paradise. If indeed obedient, as the reward of the cultivated precept, the heavenly kingdom would be given him, whither he would be translated from Paradise: but if rebellious and a transgressor, he would be thrust down from Paradise into this cursed earth: but if Paradise were some special place in this orb of lands, it would not be capacious enough to contain the whole multitude of men who would have been propagated in the state of innocence: therefore it is necessary that by the name of Paradise this whole orb of lands be understood.

I answer 1. It is more likely that even if original justice had stood to the human race, nevertheless innocent men would also have inhabited the earth outside Paradise; partly because, since men lived long, they would also have been endowed with innumerable progeny, and therefore the Paradisal garden, however spacious, would not have been sufficient for locating them all: partly because in Genesis 1, verse 28, when God had created man male and female, He blessed them, and said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth. In which God chiefly imposes three things upon men: First indeed, that they fill the earth, and subdue it: Second, that they rule over all living creatures that move upon the earth: Third, that they take for food the fruits of all trees, and every herb germinating throughout the whole orb. From which it is manifest that men were created by God to be inhabitants, not of one Paradise only, but also of the whole orb of lands, even if innocence had stood. —

To the foresaid authorities I say, that from them indeed is inferred that innocent men would live in Paradise: but nothing is evinced against our Conclusion, namely that Paradise is some particular place, but not this whole orb of lands; for each Author expresses this in the very words conceived.

Third Conclusion. — The terrestrial Paradise was not constituted outside this whole orb of lands. This plainly follows from what has been said in the foregoing, and is gathered, First, from Holy Scripture itself, which sufficiently indicates that Adam was created in this our orb of lands, and driven from Paradise, lived and was buried therein: but it is not likely that he was carried into another orb, that being innocent he might remain there, and from which, driven as a deadly enemy, he would again be carried back into our orb.

Next, there are noted in our orb those two immense rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, which Moses affirms to flow forth from the Paradisal fountain: but it is not credible that those rivers issue beneath the sea of the earth [sub mare terrae], and at length in this earth which we inhabit: it is clear therefore that Paradise was created in this our orb of lands.

Lastly, there is none of the holy Fathers and of the more ancient writers who subscribes to the contrary opinion, and therefore, if anyone contended to defend it, he would deserve to be banished as a commentator of a new testament.

You will say: Moses Bar-Cepha, in the book De Paradiso, chapter 9, affirms that the earth in which Paradise was constituted is not only higher than that which we inhabit, but also altogether distinct from it and disjoined by that immense sea which girds and washes our earth. Which opinion he reports from holy Ephrem, saying that Paradise encompasses the whole earth, and is so placed beyond the Ocean that it encircles the whole orb of lands from every region, not otherwise than the sphere [orbis] of the Moon encircles the Moon itself; and Moses adds in chapter 14, that those who hold that Paradise is placed beyond the Ocean also affirm that the first men came on foot from that

kindred land of Paradise into this ours across the shallow sea, since they were of most lofty stature, etc. Therefore this opinion is defended by Authors not of unknown name.

I answer. That Moses Bar-Cepha in that aforesaid book collected all the opinions whatsoever published concerning Paradise, both serious and playful, and yet did not approve them all; and therefore from that no patronage accrues to that opinion which is opposed to the truth of our Conclusion. But to that which he relates of holy Ephrem, I answer that it is not found in his works which Vossius translated from Greek into Latin and published. But if holy Ephrem so judged, I say that by "the land beyond the tenth" [ultra decennam] he perhaps designated the new orb of America: for it is certain that Africa, and Europe almost on every side are washed by the Ocean: and beyond the Ocean lies that immense continental land of the new orb not yet sufficiently opened and explored from every side. For it will be less paradoxical to judge that holy Ephrem held Paradise to be planted in America, than in another land beyond the Ocean, and America, that is, the new orb.

Quaestio II: Quis, et qualis sit Paradisi terrestris situs

Note 1. The opinion of the authors concerning the site of Paradise is manifold: for the learned Henry Valesius, in his notes on chapter 5 of the Oration of Constantine to the Assembly of the Saints, produces Stephen Gobarus, who writes that Paradise, in which Adam was placed, existed in the third heaven, and that the trees which are there are endowed with intellect and knowledge, and that Adam after his transgression was cast down from there to the earth. Tertullian seems to favor this opinion in the book On Patience, where he writes of Adam: He was innocent, and from the first a friend of God, and a tiller of Paradise. But when once impatience felled him, he ceased to be wise, and ceased to be able to bear heavenly things. Thenceforth man was given over to the earth, and cast out from the eyes of God. Similarly Origen, as Methodius relates in the book On the Resurrection, placed Paradise, of which Adam was the inhabitant, in the third heaven. Valentine had gone before them, raving as Gomarus afterwards did about a celestial site of Paradise and trees endowed with intelligence, as witness St. Irenaeus, book 1. — Nor have there been wanting those who, contriving an opinion diametrically opposed, as witness Maresino, syllogistic disputation, second part, have dared to assert that this delightful garden, in which innocent Adam had been placed, must be located beneath the earth, confusing it with hell, since it was to that Paradise that Christ declared He would depart with the thief. The most learned Grotius also is made an assertor of this opinion, but erroneously and without any foundation, as William Saldeanus clearly demonstrates, book 2, Exercitations, 2. — The third opinion is that of those who affirm that the Paradise of Adam was more excellent than all the earth and nearest to heaven. So Rupert, book 2, On the Trinity, chapter 21, and certain others cited by St. Damascene, book 2, On the Faith, chapter 11; and St. Basil seems to favor these, in the Homily on Paradise, where he writes: Paradise was a place abounding in delights, surpassing all the beauty of sensible creation; by the sublimity of the place in which it was, admitting no darkness in any part of itself: but always illumined by the splendor of the rising stars, in which there was not even a slight force of winds, no storm of tempests, no horror of winter, no excessive lowness of the air, no burning heat of torrid seasons, no troublesome and harmful autumnal dryness: but a tempered, pacific concord of all seasons within itself, etc. — On the contrary, certain ones with Pererius, book 3, on Genesis, Disputation on Paradise, question 2, judge it more probable that Paradise was situated in some plain: partly because excessive height is adverse to health, on account of the proximity of the stars and of the element of fire: partly also because lower places are more abundant and more fertile. — Finally, the last opinion, midway between these extremes, contends that Paradise was neither so depressed as to lie in some plain, nor so elevated as to transcend the higher mountains: but that it was situated in the uppermost part of this lower region of the air, and established upon the earth.

Note 2. It is constant and ascertained among the ancient Fathers of the Church that Paradise was planted in the East, which indeed they gather from Scripture itself; for whereas our Vulgate translates, And the Lord God planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning, the Seventy wrote in Edem, unto the East; for the Hebrew word Edem can be taken both of time and of place, so as to signify either the East or the time before, or the very beginning of things. Whence all the Greek Fathers, and very many of the Latins, following the Seventy, affirm that Paradise was planted in the East: and they teach that from this arose the custom whereby the Jews, turning toward the South, but we Christians toward the East, adore; that is, that looking thither we may sigh for our ancient fatherland. Let the faithful hear, says St. Athanasius in question 57 to Antiochus, and they say that the holy Apostles commanded the Churches of the Christians to pour forth their prayers toward the East for this reason, that looking toward Paradise whence we had fallen, we may supplicate God, and our Lord, that He may will to restore us to our ancient fatherland, and to the place from which we fell. But to look toward the South the Prophets commanded the Jews, because from the South, namely as regards Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the Lord was to be born; therefore the Prophet said: God shall come from the south; as Bellarmine, book 3, On the Beatitude of the Saints, chapter 3, and Baronius, tome 1, ad an. 58, n. 106, accurately weigh. There are also those who judge it hence established that Paradise is in the East: because those who wish to build sacred houses or temples fabricate altars facing the East, as if God ought to be adored toward that part of the world in which He had first established men as cultivators and adorers of His Divinity. — Now St. Thomas adduces this reason for the Eastern site of this Paradise, 1 p. q. 102. art. 1: that since the East is the right hand of the Heaven, as is clear from the Philosopher, book 2, On the Heavens: and the right hand is nobler than the left, it was fitting that Paradise, the most excellent of all places, should be established in the East. Severus in the Greek catena on Genesis subjoins another: Forewarning, he says, what was to be, God willed man first to dwell there whence the beginning of light arises. For as the stars, tending from their rising toward their setting, appear again: so it was fitting that man should hasten from life to death, and die, and be born again through the resurrection from the dead.

Note 3. That whereas Paradise is said to be planted in the East, no small controversy is moved among the more weighty Authors as to in what manner that "in the East" is to be understood. Yet now the more common opinion of the weightier Authors has prevailed, that it is to be understood of the Eastern part, the region of Mesopotamia; not indeed the whole, but in Edem, which was the Eastern part of that region. For all the regions which lie on this side of the Persian Gulf are accustomed to be named by the title of the East in Sacred Scripture, namely Persia, Arabia, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, all of which are Eastern with respect to the Holy Land. So Job 1, v. 3, it is said of Job, He was a great man among all the men of the East: and he abode in the land of Hus, which lay on the borders of Idumaea and the desert of Arabia; according to that of the Lamentations 1: Gird thee, and lament, O daughter of Edom, which dwellest in the land of Hus. Similarly in Genesis 29 we read: Then Jacob went forward and came into the eastern land: and there, and in the following chapter, it is said that he came into Mesopotamia, where Laban his uncle was. Moreover Balaam, Num. 23, says: From Aram hath Balac, king of the Moabites, brought me from the mountains of the East, that is, from Mesopotamia; for Moses, Deut. 23, says: The Moabites gathered together against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Mesopotamia of Syria, that he might curse thee.

By all these things it is established that Mesopotamia is truly Eastern with respect to Judaea. But whether the earthly Paradise was truly founded in some part of Mesopotamia, the Authors do not so agree: for some affirm, but others deny, admitting indeed that Paradise was established in the East, not only with respect to Judaea, but with respect to the whole world: but in what place, they contend, is utterly unknown. Wherefore two things especially come here to be determined: First, what kind the site of Paradise was, whether elevated or depressed. Second, in what part of the world it was fixed.

First Conclusion. — Paradise is neither so depressed as to lie in some plain: nor so elevated as to rise to the second region of the air.

The first part is proved, first indeed by the authority of the holy Fathers, who almost all agree in this, that the site of Paradise is of such sublimity that it suffers no darkness, nor any storms of tempests: of which there is a twofold foundation. First indeed, because from Paradise flow forth those four mighty rivers by which the whole earth is watered: whence Moses Bar-Cepha, book On Paradise, chapter 9, writes thus: We assert moreover, that the land in which Paradise is, exists far higher and more elevated than this which we inhabit; for that it is so, those four mighty rivers are a proof, which, arising in the land of Paradise, are borne through this our land diverse from it: for unless that land stood higher, it could not come to pass that those rivers should water the whole earth. — The second foundation is, because Paradise ought to be a most salubrious place, and ever free from the blasts of winds and from the grosser vapors of the earth; and therefore it ought to be constituted in a certain higher place than this our common habitation: whence Tertullian, book On the Judgment of the Lord, c. 8, sings thus:

Where the bright light shines, and a wholesomer breeze breathes, And everlasting day, and unchangeable time. There is a region to God most secret, richest in plains, And too blessed, and on the hinge of a seat to be desired, An air unharmed there, and ever to be in light, Mild, and a wind breathing vital blasts.

The second part is proved, namely, that Paradise was not placed higher than any whatsoever most elevated mountains: partly because, as Pererius rightly infers, book 3, on Genesis, qu. 2, and likewise Molinaeus chapter 13, a place so elevated is neither salubrious, nor accommodated to the habitation of men: for the third region of the air suffers excessive dryness, enormous heat, continual agitation, from the vicinity of the element of fire, and from the rush of the Heavens, as also from the multitude of burning bodies, namely Comets, which are formed and kindled in that region.

Next, no sweet and refrigerating wind blows there, no dew tempers the solar heat, no springing of rivers and fountains, no greenness of herbs, no sweet brightness of flowers: finally no delightful sweetness and wholesomeness of fruits can proceed from it. Finally, the air beside the supreme region is not only exceedingly thin, dry and hot, and therefore not at all fitting for the respiration of men and the refrigeration of the heart; but also so unhealthy that those who breathe aught of it seem to swallow death itself. One ocular and experienced witness of this truth will be ours, Father Acosta, book 3, History of the Indies, chapter 9, where he says:

In Peru there is a most high mountain, Periocaca: I had often heard that a cruel disturbance of the stomach befell those who surmounted its lofty ridges: I had strongly fortified myself with antidotes; yet they availed in vain, nor could I avert the present inconvenience. I had reached the summit and the highest parts, which they call the escalas, when I was seized so dreadfully of a sudden with anguish, that I nearly fell headlong from my beast. The sense of pain was most bitter; each of my companions had consulted his own safety with speed, as about to escape a certain peril of death. Left with an Indian servant I besought him earnestly to sustain me with his hands, lest he should dash me headlong from my beast, to which I clung scarcely master of my senses, upon the ground. Soon there followed giddiness of the head and eyes, wearisome nausea, enormous vomitings, in which with so violent an effort I threw up a great force of both bilious humors with all the half-digested food, that I rejected blood also: I had believed my case already desperate; but descending from that monstrous altitude to the inner and milder places, by the benignity of God, the pain began to abate for a time. I found my companions so broken by the sudden malady, that some of them, already thinking their last hour at hand, clamored with loudest cries for sacramental confession: others cast themselves from their beasts; almost consumed with vomit and flux of the bowels, some, made frantic with the rage of pain, dashed and flung their bodies upon the ground, and trembled with mournful sobbing. I learned that certain souls breathed forth their last in that torment. That perpetual tract of the Peruvian mountains, part of the Andes, running out five hundred leagues toward the South, wherever it is crossed on the summit, calls forth those dire torments of the stomach by a marvelous operation. I myself, four times surmounting those most lofty ridges in divers places, was always grievously affected with the inconvenience. That those also who traverse those mountains are afflicted in the same way is most certain. Moreover the learned affirm that the cause of the cruel evil is that the air is most thin and most subtle, which with incredible efficacy pervades, agitates, and rolls about the viscera and all the inner parts: nor indeed has a more potent remedy for warding off the present hurt been hitherto found, than to support the little body on every side with a very thin covering: I do not doubt that those mountains are the highest in the whole world, with which neither the Alps nor the Pyrenees can by any means be compared. There the air is so subtle that it is not fit for human respiration, by which it is drawn in and given back, since that requires a grosser breath. All things are desert for the space of thirty leagues: no mortals, no animals dwell in those places: the herbs are burnt with a virulent air, with a countenance of sky and soil altogether sad and malignant.» These things and others Father Acosta, from which we also infer this, that the higher a place of earth is, the more unhealthy and the less commodious it is for the life of men.

St. Augustine confirms it, book 3, On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 2, saying: Even if a certain one of the secular Poets said truly, Olympus rises above the clouds, and the summits hold peace; because it is reported that on the summit of Olympus the air is so thin that it is neither overshadowed by clouds, nor disturbed by wind, nor can it sustain birds, nor even the men who perhaps have ascended it, to breathe with the spirit of grosser air, as they have been accustomed in this air: whence those who ascend the summit of that mountain, for the sake of sacrificing or of inspecting the stars, are accustomed to carry with them sponges full of water, from which they may suck the moisture again and again to refrigerate the heart; for otherwise, on account of the utmost thinness and dryness of that air, they could not live. These things St. Augustine.

Next, if the sublimity of Paradise were so great that it reached even to the globe of the Moon, it would be descried from some region: moreover, it would at times take away the sight of the Sun or Moon either from us or from our Antipodes, especially since it is believed to be situated in the East. Some add, that if it were so high and elevated that the ascent of it were easy, its base or foundation would have to occupy almost the whole earth, that it might gradually diminish and afford an easy ascent to men from other parts of the earth ascending to it, if indeed the most blessed state of innocence had persevered; as will easily be manifest to one considering the proportion necessarily to be observed between the summit of a mountain and the extension of its root.

You will object 1. The higher mountains are, the more abundant they are, and more fertile in flowers and fruits: therefore in the summit of a certain highest mountain that garden of pleasure and delights ought to have been located. The antecedent is proved concerning Mount Atlas, of which Solinus writes thus in the Polyhistor, chapter 27: Through the people of the Autololes is the journey into the Atlantic solitudes: Atlas, a mountain rising from the midst of a vast expanse of sands, and raised up into the neighborhood of the circle of the Moon, conceals its head beyond the clouds. Where it extends toward the Ocean, to which it gave its name, it flows with fountains, bristles with woods, is roughened by crags, is squalid as if with fasting, bare of soil and not grassy. Where it is turned toward the African side, it is rich in fruits springing up of themselves, most shady with tall trees, whose odor is heavy, their locks like the Cypress, clothed with down, no whit inferior to silken fleeces. On that side also the herb Euphorbia is abundant, whose juice profits for clearness of the eyes, and as a manifold safeguard of health, nor does it strike the power of poisons moderately. Its summit is always snowy. Its glades quadrupeds and serpents of the earth have occupied, and with these Elephants. The same Solinus relates the same concerning Mount Athos of Macedonia, or the Thracian mountain, c. 17 of the Polyhist. And truly Athos is so elevated that it is judged higher than that from which rains fall, which opinion took its credence from this, that on the altars which its summit sustains ashes are never carried out, nor do they lose aught of their heaps; but they remain in the pile where they were left. On the very top was the town of Achrothon, in which the life of the inhabitants was prolonged half again longer than in other lands; wherefore from thence the Greeks called men Macrobius, our authors called them longaevi, long-lived. — I answer, these things were written and narrated by the aforesaid Authors rather from the tablets of the Poets than from experience, or from trustworthy Cosmographers: for neither are those mountains so elevated as to exceed even the middle region of the air, or reach the supreme, of which the manifest sign is that the summit of Mount Atlas is always covered with snows: it is therefore within the supreme region of the air, and is raised only to the beginning of the middle. Add that if those mountains occupied the middle region of the air, or even the supreme, they would be not only unhealthy but also utterly uninhabitable for man; since the middle region binds with excessive cold, and is the parent of snows and clouds: but the supreme, on account of the vicinity of the element of fire, and also on account of the vertiginous whirling of the Heaven, grows warm in a wondrous manner, and is unstable: therefore so far is it from being the case that men could there live wholesomely and long, that indeed not even for a brief time could they there pass their life in safety.

You will object 2. The sublimity of the site of Paradise ought to have been such that the inundation of the deadly deluge could not reach it; but that rose higher than the common mountains which are elevated: therefore it was necessary that Paradise should have been located on the most elevated of all mountains.

I answer: The Doctor answers in 2 dist. 17, qu. 2, that as the general deluge happened not by the natural occurrence of things, but by a miracle divinely wrought; so also it was done by a miracle that Paradise was preserved from the destruction of the deluge. Add that from Genesis, chapter 7: The waters prevailed greatly over the earth: and covered all the high mountains under the whole heaven: the water was fifteen cubits higher above the mountains which it covered. Therefore for this reason Paradise ought not to have been located on the most elevated mountain; since the inundation of the deluge covered all the mountains which are under heaven, it would also have covered that one on which Paradise had been located. But if they think Paradise must necessarily be excepted from that general sentence, then no reason therefore urges that Paradise be made of such great sublimity on account of the waters of the deluge. But as to the holy Fathers attributing to Paradise an altitude nigh to heaven, I say with St. Thomas, 1 part, qu. 2, article 1, that they used hyperbolic or metaphorical speech, nor did they will to signify anything else than the sublime and surpassing beauty and amenity of Paradise, far surpassing every other earthly one, and almost nigh to, and consimilar to, celestial beatitude.

Second Conclusion. — It is probable that the earthly Paradise was established in the confines of Mesopotamia and Oriental Arabia, not far from Chaldaea and Damascene Syria: so that toward the East it had that part of Persis which tends toward Parthia: toward the South the Persian Gulf, and Oriental Arabia: toward the North Assyria, and the region toward Babylon and Seleucia: toward the West Chaldaea, and Damascene Syria, and the region toward Judaea. This is the more common opinion among the Recent Writers, and they prove it with many reasons: Sixtus Senensis, book 5, of the Bibliotheca, annotation 3; Genebrard, book 1, Chronographic; Pererius, book 3, on Genesis, n. 122; Maldonatus on 27 Matt. verse 11; Cornelius on the second chapter of Genesis, etc. And they prove this opinion with very many reasons: First indeed, because Sacred Scripture expressly indicates that Paradise was established in Edem, for whereas our Vulgate has: And God had planted a paradise of pleasure, the Hebrew text, God had planted a paradise in Edem: but that Edem was in Syria, or in the confines of Mesopotamia, is gathered from the same Sacred Scripture, 1 Kings chapter 19, v. 12, where the proud Sennacherib speaks thus: Have the gods of the nations delivered each one whom my fathers have destroyed, namely Gosan, and Haram, and Reseph, and the sons of Eden which were in Thelassar? By which it is plainly signified that Edem is the name of a region; since it is joined with Gossana, Haram, and Reseph, as being neighboring and contiguous places. For Gossan, say Eusebius and St. Jerome, is in the region of Emath, on the confines of Damascus; and they think it to be the Gausanitis region which the River Chabores separates from the confines of Acrabene in Mesopotamia. Similarly the same men affirm that Reseph is a city of Syria, and judge it to be Rhesipha, which Ptolemy places in Mesopotamia; for it is certain that Mesopotamia is comprehended under Syria. But concerning Thelassar they say it is a region of Syria, or of Mesopotamia, afterwards named Seleucia: therefore truly Eden was in Syria, or Mesopotamia. But Moses asserts that Paradise had been planted in Edem; therefore in Syria, or Mesopotamia Paradise was planted. — It is confirmed from that of Ezekiel c. 27, v. 23: Haran, and Channe, and Eden, thy merchants. Now Haram is that celebrated Charra, or Haran, which Abraham inhabited, and in which his father Thare finished his life, as is established Gen. 11, v. 31, and Acts c. 7, v. 2; concerning which Eusebius and St. Jerome in the Hebrew Places write thus: Charra is a city of Mesopotamia beyond Edessa, which is to this day called Charra, where the Roman army was cut down, and the general Crassus taken captive: but that Charram was a city of Mesopotamia is indicated not only by St. Stephen in the places cited; but Plutarch also affirms it in the Life of Crassus, and Strabo, book 16, On the Situation of the World: therefore since Sacred Scripture says that Eden was not far from Charra, and the same Scripture teaches that Charras was in Syria, or Mesopotamia; and all Writers establish the same; and again the sacred Moses affirms that Paradise was planted in Eden, by an ineluctable consequence it is evinced that in the confines of Mesopotamia and Oriental Arabia, not far removed from Chaldaea and Damascene Syria, Paradise was founded.

It is confirmed moreover from that of Genesis 4, verse 16: And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive in the land on the east side of Eden; by which words Edem is doubtless the proper name of a Region: but it is likely that Cain dwelt together with his father not so far from that region in which the earthly Paradise was planted: for certain ones with Genebrard, book 1, Chronographic, judge that Cain the fugitive from the place where Adam was dwelling with the assembly of the pious removed toward the East beyond the Edem of Mesopotamia, where Paradise was, and settled in that region which was Oriental to Eden itself, or to Paradise. To wit, they say, Cain with his posterity inhabited Assyria, or some other such region beyond the Tigris and Euphrates, which was Oriental to Mesopotamia itself, or to the Garden of Eden: whereas Adam, Seth, and the other true worshippers of God, in whom was the Church, inhabited Syria and the neighboring regions on this side of the Euphrates, which were Occidental to Mesopotamia itself and to the Paradise of Eden: and so the Garden of Eden was in the midst between both, and separated these from those. Nor does it matter that our Vulgate wrote, "Paradisum inplantandatis" for "Paradisum in Eden," as if Eden were not the proper name of the place in which Paradise was founded; but only an appellative, signifying a place filled with all manner of pleasure; whence St. Augustine, book 8, On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 7, reads "Paradise in delights": and Severianus, although a Greek, also interprets Eden as delights: as if to say, Adam planted a paradise in pleasure, or delights, that is, in a place breathing forth pleasure. This, I say, does not matter, for the Seventy Interpreters interpreted Eden as the proper name of a place; and with them agree not only very many Fathers, both Greek and Latin, but also very many Hebrews: whom Maldonatus, book On Paradise, c. 18, relates at length, and praises; but let one suffice us, Moses Bar-Cepha, book 1, On Paradise, c. 21: We have said, he says, that Eden is a spacious, ample, delightful, more salubrious region: but that Paradise is a place adorned with beautiful, fruitful, excellent, and habitable trees beyond the other places in all Eden sought. For Paradise is a part of that region which is called Eden, the most excellent of all the others, most laudable, and most commodious for its inhabitants. To this subscribe Eusebius and St. Jerome, who, when they describe the Hebrew places of cities and regions, concerning Eden as concerning a particular place where Paradise was, say: Eden is the sacred place of paradise toward the East, which is transferred to pleasure and delights.

It is proved 2. From the abundance of the Mesopotamian region, which is celebrated with such encomiums of the Cosmographers that it seems far to excel all other parts of the earth in the sweetness of its fruits, in delights of every kind, and also in various gifts of nature, as Strabo and Curtius relate, book 5, etc.; which certainly is an indication that Paradise was established chiefly in this region, whose abundance indeed flowed back and overflowed into the neighboring region.

Third. Paradise does not seem to have been situated so far from Judaea, since it is likely that the first parents, cast out of Paradise, traversed no long spaces of land, but where they first found earth commodious for human habitation, there they stopped, and hired a dwelling: but it is certain that Adam lived and closed his last day in the land of Judaea, or at any rate of Chaldaea; for his sepulchre also existed in the holy land, as will be proved within: therefore Paradise was not far from Palestine, or Chaldaea: and yet Mesopotamia also does not stand far from Judaea: therefore it is likely that Paradise was located in it. The major is proved from that Gen. 3, where our Vulgate has: And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims; the Seventy Interpreters render: And he cast out Adam, and placed him over against the paradise of pleasure; but in the Complutensian, And he placed him before the paradise of pleasure. Thence the holy Fathers note particularly that Adam was placed by God not far from Paradise, and always had it in prospect, that having his loss continually before his eyes he might be spurred to severe penance for the perpetrated crime. For not this only was an argument of mercy and benignity, says St. Chrysostom, Hom. 18 on Genesis, that He sent him forth, and cast him out; but He made him to dwell over against that Paradise, that he might have continual grief daily, considering whence he had been cast out, and into what state he had thrown himself: the like is had by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechesis 2, Theodoret qu. 10, and St. Augustine book 2, On Genesis against the Manichaeans.

Fourth. Paradise was established there where the Euphrates and the Tigris are: and yet these flow in Mesopotamia and Armenia: for the Euphrates is the river of Babylonia, between which and the Tigris the intercepted region is called Mesopotamia, as it were in the middle between the two rivers; which indeed Dionysius the Geographer thus describes, touching upon the speech concerning the Euphrates and Tigris:

Yet all this land the river, which both encircle, The natives for the reason named Medamne,

Because all these mid lands the rivers gird.

For it must be known that the Tigris and Euphrates at length unite above the Persian Gulf into one, and again divide, and then change their name: for one, gliding into the Persian Gulf, is called Phasis, or Phasitigris, which seems to be the Phison, celebrated among Curtius, Pliny, and others: this circles the land of Evilach, that is Chavila, namely the Chaulataeans, whom Strabo, book 16, places in Arabia next to Mesopotamia. The other, seeking desert Arabia and the neighboring places, seems to be that which here is called Geon: this circles Aethiopia, not that of the Abyssinians which is below Egypt, but that which is about Arabia. For in Scripture the Madianites, and others dwelling beside the Persian, or Arabian, Gulf are called Aethiopians. — Paradise therefore seems to have been in that place where the Euphrates and the Tigris confluence: for from that confluence they are divided and distinguished into these four rivers; for above are the Euphrates and the Tigris; but below are Geon and Phusitigris, or Phison. That these rivers, after they have united, again divide, is clearly manifest from the more exact tables of the Cosmographers Gerard Mercator, Ortelius, and others. For Mercator in the table of Asia, table 1, plainly shows the Tigris and the Euphrates to run together near Appamia, and again to divide near the city which is called Asia; and to make an island sufficiently great; and finally for both to flow into the Persian Gulf, and there to end. Add that it is likely these rivers were more divided in the time of Moses, for the reason that afterwards they changed their channel, and confluenced more: as many other rivers and seas changed their channel from the time of Ussher, as Torniellus noted. These things will be more evident, if we discuss and open them specifically,

What indeed is the source and course of the Tigris and Euphrates?

Moses, chapter 2, describing the earthly Paradise, says: A river went out of the place of pleasure to water the paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads. The name of one is Phison; it is that which compasseth all the land of Eviluth, where gold is born.... and the name of the second river is Geon, it is that which compasseth all the land of Aethiopia; but the name of the third is Tigris: it goeth toward the Assyrians: but the fourth river is the Euphrates. Concerning these two last rivers there is no controversy, or at least only a slight one, among all Authors: for it is established that they have their origin from Mount Taurus of greater Armenia: their course through Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Chaldaea; but their exit into the Persian Gulf, as we said above. — But one is called Tigris, either from the swiftness of its course, according to Isidore, book 13, Etymologies, c. 21, by a similitude drawn from the Tiger, the swiftest of animals, whose wondrous swiftness in running Pliny describes, book 8, c. 18; or rather it is so called from its swiftness, which the Persians and Medes call Tigris, as witness Curtius. But the other is named Euphrates from the Hebrew word Purrache, drawn from the root Parrua, signifying to fructify and make fruitful: because overflowing after the manner of the Nile it waters and makes fruitful the lands: whence Cicero, book 2, On the Nature of the Gods; Mesopotamia, he says, the Euphrates makes fertile, bringing in new fields each year. — Now the origin and course of each of these rivers Strabo thus describes, book 11: Taurus, he says, separates Armenia from Mesopotamia: hence flow the Tigris and Euphrates, which surround Mesopotamia, and cohere together among the Babylonians: then they are emitted into the Persian sea, of which the Euphrates is the greater, and traverses more of the region with its flowing channel. It has its sources in the Northern part of Taurus; it flows toward the west through Armenia, which is called the greater, as far as lesser Armenia, which it has on the right, but on the left Lisiana: then, bending toward the South, it joins its confines to the Cappadocians, whom it leaves on the right, on the left the confines of the Commageni; and again, with Sophene of greater Armenia left on the left from Sicensina, it advances into Syria, and again takes another course toward the Babylonians and the Persian Gulf. The Tigris, borne from the same mountain to Seleucia, approaches the Euphrates, and there makes Mesopotamia: then it enters into the same Persian Gulf. The sources of the Euphrates and of the Tigris are distant from each other two thousand five hundred stadia, that is about three hundred miles. — Similar to these are the things which Philostratus, book 1, On the Life of Apollonius, chapter 14, hands down concerning the same rivers: This region, he says, which is therefore called Mesopotamia because it is placed in the middle between two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, flowing down from Armenia and the roots of Taurus, encircle; but it is cultivated for the most part in farms and villages: but the peoples are called partly Armenians, partly Arabs, of whom a great part wanders with uncertain abodes: thinking themselves shut in as it were as an island. But the rivers, when they have gone around that part of the continent of which we spoke, run down into the same sea. There are those who say that a very great part of the Euphrates glides away into a certain marsh, so that it does not reach the sea, but receives the end of its course in the earth: certain ones, also speaking more boldly concerning it, assert that it has flowed longer beneath the earth, to appear again in Egypt, and to be mingled with the Nile. These things Philostratus. — Quintus Curtius, book 5, hands down almost the like concerning the same rivers: Between the Tigris, he says, and the Euphrates the lands lying are so rich and fertile of soil, that cattle are said to be repelled from pasture, lest satiety destroy them. The cause of the fertility is the moisture, which flows from each river, sweating through veins of waters through almost the whole soil. The rivers themselves flow forth from the mountains of Armenia, and then with a great parting of the waters run through the journey which they began. Two thousand five hundred stadia did those measure who marked the amplest interval about the mountains of Armenia. The same, when they began to cut through the lands of the Medes and Gordianians, gradually draw together more closely, and the further they flow, the narrower space of earth they leave between themselves. Nearest to these plains are those which the inhabitants call Mesopotamia, for it shuts in the middle on either side; the same burst forth through the confines of the Babylonians into the Red sea. So Curtius. But Lucan, book 3, indicates that those rivers flow forth from the same source, when he says:

Whence with swift Tigris great Euphrates lifts its head, which they bring forth not from diverse fountains, Persians, and it is uncertain whether the earth mingle the rivers, Which rather should be the name of the water; but scattered into the fields. Fruitful Euphrates performs the office of Parim with its wave, But the earth suddenly swallows Tigris with a gaping, And covers its hidden courses, and again, reborn, With a new source the river denies not its waves to the sea.

Boethius also, book 5, On the Consolation of Philosophy, first metre, declares that the Tigris and the Euphrates have one and the same source, in these verses:

Rock of the Achaimenidae, where fleeing battle, turned, fixes its darts in the breast of the pursuer. Tigris and Euphrates resolve themselves from one source, And soon, their waters parted, are disjoined.

But, says Pererius, more is to be believed to Strabo, Curtius, and others more skilled in Cosmography, asserting their sources to be diverse, and sufficiently distant from each other: unless perchance for this reason they are said to flow from one source, because both arise from the one Mount Taurus of greater Armenia.

You ask 2. What rivers are Phison and Geon?

Since these two rivers related by Moses are in no way named by the Cosmographers, it is scarcely permitted to judge where and what they were. The common opinion of the holy Fathers and Doctors is that Geon is the Nile, and Phison the Ganges. Thus think Saint Epiphanius, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, Josephus, Damascene. And it is proved first, because the Seventy Interpreters at Jeremiah 2, v. 18, where the vulgar edition has: Quid tibi via Aegypti ut bibas aquam turbidam? (What hast thou to do with the way of Egypt, to drink the troubled water?), translate it as: that thou mayest drink the water of Geon; and St. Jerom, in his Commentary on this passage, testifies that Geon was always in the common edition: whence even today the Abyssinians call the Nile Guion, by the testimony of Francis Alvarez, Histor. Aethiopiae, cap. 122. Secondly, because the Ganges properly encircles the land of Evilath, that is, India, which lies within the Ganges, where gold is of the best; nay, the Ganges itself, by the testimony of Pliny, bears both gold and gems. Moreover Ganges is called Phison, that is, multitude, from the root Pusa, that is, to abound and multiply, because ten great rivers empty themselves into the Ganges. So Josephus, book 1. Antiquitatum, c. 2, and Isidore, book 13. Ethymologiarum, cap. 21. In like manner Geon, that is, the Nile, encircles Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, where Prester John reigns; for of all rivers the inundation of the Nile is most swift: but this also Ecclesiasticus attributes to Geon itself, cap. 24, v. 35 and 37, where speaking of the wise man he says: Qui adimplet quasi Phison sapientiam, et sicut Tigris in diebus messium: qui adimplet quasi Euphrates sensum, qui multiplicat quasi Iordanis in tempore messis: qui mittit disciplinam sicut lucem, et assistens quasi Geon in die vendemmiae (He shall fill up wisdom as Phison, and as Tigris in the days of new fruits: he shall fill up understanding as Euphrates, who multiplies as Jordan in the time of harvest: who sends discipline forth as light, and standing as Geon in the day of vintage); at which place Rabanus, Jansenius, and other Interpreters wish Phison to be understood of the Ganges, and Geon of the Nile.

Besides, as Jansenius rightly noted, Ecclesiasticus, wishing to compare the wisdom of God with the five most celebrated rivers, described those rivers in that order which they truly have among themselves: for first from the East is the Ganges: second the Tigris: third the Euphrates: fourth the Jordan, last the Nile. Hence the very order of the narration compels that by Phison the Ganges be understood, and by Geon the Nile, since Phison seems to be named in the first place, and Geon in the last; nor can there be any reason why the Jordan was named before Geon, unless because it is prior as regards situation. This Claudius Marius Victor confirms, who in book 1 of his poems on Genesis sings thus:

Nor lesser thence Geon, but gentler in placid waves, lifts up the waters of Nile, and covers with pious flood the fields soon to burn far and wide over the earth, and, rebelling against heaven, temper his waves in Ethiopian refluent pools.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE OPPOSING OPINIONS. — Truly, says Cornelius, it seems incredible that this river of Paradise, or rather these four rivers, should hide themselves under the earth across so great and so vast a space, and afterwards rise again in places so widely sundered. For, as Ptolemy teaches, between the Euphrates and the Ganges there intervenes a space of seventy degrees, that is, more than 1300 miles. The same may be said of the Nile. Secondly, these four rivers rise so moderately in the places already a little before mentioned, and sufficiently well known, that it appears at once that they are first born there, and then little by little grow by the confluence of rivulets here and there: therefore they are not born from that one great river of Paradise. Thirdly, Vega on the Apocalypse, cap. 11, Section 5, and other most learned men have noted that neither India, nor the Ganges, nor other regions or rivers which lie beyond the Persian Gulf are called in Scripture Eastern, or the East; but only those which lie this side of the Persian Gulf, such as Armenia, Arabia, Mesopotamia. Therefore the inhabitants of these, namely the Arabs, Idumaeans, Madianites, Armenians, are called Eastern, or sons of the East, with respect to the Jews: yet Paradise was in the East, as the Septuagint has it. Fourthly, if Geon is the Nile, and Phison the Ganges: then Paradise must have embraced all the intervening regions along the Nile from the Euphrates and Tigris to the Ganges, namely Babylonia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Media, Persia, and many others besides: which assuredly is not credible, since Paradise is called a garden; but who would conceive a garden of such magnitude?

I confess indeed that by these arguments our opinion seems the more probable, yet the opposing opinion is not therefore altogether to be rejected; since they could maintain that the River itself, welling up in Paradise, after it had watered and washed through the whole most delightful garden, did not from the very first founding of Paradise break forth outwardly in an open and visible course: but that there, being received at the very utmost edge of Paradise upon the earth, it was divided thence by subterranean and most vast channels into those four rivers; or, if anyone prefers, that from the very edge of Paradise those four rivers were diverted in an open course above the earth up to a certain place, where they were swallowed up through caverns: which nevertheless, entering beneath the earth through the longest spaces, sometimes glide under the sea, and emerge in the most distant regions of the world, and raise their first fountains. Whence although the sources of the Ganges, the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates appear indeed known and conspicuous in places so mutually separate, nevertheless by the flows of the inward bowels of the earth, and by perennial subterranean channels, all of them can be derived from the one fountain of Paradise. And they hold that this counsel of God was touched upon most wisely, whereby the place of Paradise should be more hidden, lest human curiosity, squandered away thence by its own fault, should attempt by the traces of all the rivers flowing thence to go again into Paradise, or at least should desire to know the place. — To these Saint Epiphanius gives favor in the Ancoratus, where he affirms that the Tigris and the Euphrates flow from Paradise under the earth, and burst forth in Armenia, writing thus: The third, he says, river Tigris, making its course in the sight of the Assyrians: for it spreads abroad through the parts of the East, and plunges beneath the earth, and rises again in Armenia through the midst of Carduchia, as of the Armenians, and breaks forth once more, that it may cut its way into the land of the Assyrians. But also the fourth river, Euphrates, in like manner entering under the earth after the same fashion, emerges from Armenia, and so washes Persia. — To this Saint Augustine concurs, book 8. De Genesi ad litteram, capit. 7, saying: Because the place of Paradise itself is most remote from the knowledge of men: thence the four parts of waters must be believed to be divided, as most faithful Scripture witnesses. But those rivers whose sources are said to be known have burst forth somewhere within lands, after tracts of prolix regions, in other places; yet these also are reported to be known in their own fountains; for who is ignorant that waters are wont to do thus?

All these things Moyses Bar-Cepha lucidly expounds in the book De Paradiso, capit. 21, discoursing in this manner: Therefore that river truly immense irrigates all Paradise: which being washed through, it is then divided into four rivers, and those themselves great, which, drawn off from it, as soon as they leave Paradise glide away beneath the very shore of the ocean sea, and thence in turn emerge in this earth inhabited by us. Nor do we devise these things of ourselves, but pronounce them as words consonant with Moses the Prophet, who sufficiently indicates that those four rivers, after they left Paradise and slipped down beneath the earth, at last burst forth and well up in this world cultivated by us. But someone will press: how can it come about that those four rivers, having gone out from Paradise, should be precipitated beneath the shore of the ocean sea, and thence at last burst out into this our earth? To him we answer first, that those things which are judged impossible for us to do are easy for God. For that which we say concerning the course of the four rivers, and others of that kind, is a divine work, not human. Next we also maintain that Paradise was situated in a far more sublime region than this our earth exists: and hence it comes to pass that thence the rivers are borne down by a precipice with such impetus as you could not express in songs; and driven by that impetus, headlong they plunge beneath the shore of the ocean sea: whence again they spring forth and bubble up in this world cultivated by us. That Lord Ephrem holds this opinion, and with him other Doctors affirm, wherefore we too gladly assent. Thence it is evident how those words of Moses, cap. 2, Fluvius egrediebatur de loco voluptatis ad irrigandum Paradisum, qui inde dividitur in quatuor capita (A river went forth from the place of pleasure to irrigate Paradise, and from thence it divides into four heads), seem to be understood; for that inde (thence), or, as the Hebrew reads there, can be referred either to the place of Eden, so that at the very going forth of the river from Eden it would straightway be divided into four heads: or to Paradise, so that that river, going out indeed from Eden as one, but having entered Paradise would be divided into four rivers, whereby the whole land of Paradise might be more conveniently irrigated: or finally it can be referred to the going forth of that river from Paradise, so that the river, after it had irrigated Paradise, having gone out beyond its bounds, was afterwards distributed into four rivers. It is uncertain moreover at how long an interval after the going forth of this river from Paradise it was cut and divided into four other rivers. Wherefore it is not necessary that the sources of those rivers conspicuous to us be near to Paradise. Finally, for greater elucidation it pleases to append here what Rupertus writes concerning the fountain of Paradise and concerning those four rivers, lib. 2. De Trinitate, cap. 21 and 29. The nature of waters, he says, is of itself salt, nor fit for drink, as the sea shows in itself: but ascending from the abyss, which is the matrix of all waters, into that as it were milk-giving breast of the great body of the earth, that is, the fountain of Paradise, it took a certain sweetness, and it irrigates the surface of the whole earth, that according to the Psalmist, all the beasts of the wood may drink, and the wild asses may expect in their thirst; nay more, that every land might grow sweet unto the nourishing of the green herb, and the fruitful tree with its fruit, which the earth had been commanded to bring forth: and this chiefly glows in the Eastern lands, most fertile not only of bread, and wine, but also of precious aromatics, metals, and stones. All potable and healthful waters therefore, wheresoever they flow, and from whencesoever they appear, draw their origin from the fountain of Paradise through hidden passages, and from its sweetness they have this, that they are potable and healthful. And as the liver in the body of an animal is the fountain of blood, as the Physici teach, dispensing blood to all the veins scattered through the body, and by this ministry preserving the life of the animal: so that fountain, irrigating the whole earth through hidden veins, is ruled, and overflows into many fountains and rivers; but of them all those four are the heads, that is, principal. Going forth therefore let the Tigris and Euphrates be shown forth in Armenia if you please; and yet through the way which the author of the rivers alone knows, God, let them be believed to flow from Paradise according to the truth of this Scripture. So Rupertus.

All these things Alcimus Avitus, bishop of Vienna, represents most beautifully in his song De creatione mundi, although he recedes somewhat from our opinion:

A river drawn forth from the smooth summit of the fountain, Straightway divides into four broad streams. Euphrates and Tigris they call them, who within fixed bound Make the long confines with the arrow-bearing Parthians. Third thence Geon, whom in Latian name Nile Is called, more noble to all for his unknown rising. Whose light wave glides gently down into Egypt, To enrich his own land at a set time. For as often as he breaks through the banks with swollen flood Watering, and bathes the plains with black sands, Fertility is rated by the water, and while the sky is void Diffused the river stretches out an earthly rain. Then Memphis lies hidden beneath the wide gulf, And above absent fields the possessor sails. Every landmark is gone, equalized by the wave as judge, The covered boundary suspending yearly disputes.

The sea smiles as the known grasses sink. And into the place of herds, acres of green field Give way — fish swimming through alien waters.

But after, enriching the buds from ample store, He married the parched inner parts of the thirsty earth, Nile returns, and gathers back his scattered waves. He becomes a river while the lake perishes: then is rendered back in fair sort The pristine barrier of the banks, the floods shut in, Until, scattering his divided end through wandering paths With sevenfold gulf he runs through the spacious open deep.

But why should thy Nile be said to lie hid only in the summit of the world? For thou who knowest not thyself from thy rising, Not alone, but wast the fourth, diffused from that one Who looks down from lofty course upon all rivers, And as father of the sea himself overtops them all, Those waters which mountains, which plains, which clouds pour forth.

Fourth will be Physon, whom India possesses as Ganges. As often as he grew with fragrant crest in motion, Those falling flowers which rivers scatter in beauty, Passing before, he steals their riches, and with gulf leads ours Into exile. For on each bank it is abundant, As with our streams 'tis wont to bear unbound papyrus reeds, Or lead down written and light seaweeds: Drawing off the refuse, so the great Ganges enriches This world also with that gift which he casts into the fair sea.

QUAERES. — In what part of the world was Paradise constituted?

Respondeo: it seems the more probable opinion which asserts that Paradise was planted in one of the Oriental islands of India, or of China. Hence Saint Isidore of Seville, libr. 14. Originum, capit. 3, makes Paradise the first region of the greater Asia from the rising of the Sun. Many other SS. Fathers also favor this; most especially Epiphanius in the Epistle to John of Jerusalem; Saint Basil, Homil. 11 on Genesis; Ambrose, in the book De Paradiso, and the rest. Whence Tertullian, in the book De Genesi, cap. 2, sings thus:

Paradise is set up in a milky hall, And beholds the lights of the first sun.

And in the book De Iudicio Domini, cap. 8, he says:

There is a spot beloved by the Lord in Eastern shores; Where bright India shines resplendent, and breathes a wholesomer air.

And Lactantius, lib. 2. Divinarum Institutionum, cap. 13: After these things God placed man in Paradise, that is, in a garden most fertile and most delightful, which he stocked in the parts of the East with every kind of trees. And in the Song concerning the Phoenix:

There is a blessed place remote in the first East,

Proba Faltonia in the Virgilian Centos De Paradiso says:

Behold now beneath the light of the first sun and its rising.

Marius Victorinus in his book of poems on Genesis, likewise De Paradiso:

The fountain opens in the blessed land, where its retreats.

Saint Alcimus Avitus in book one De initio mundi:

There is a place kept in the Eastern pole of the world, By nature's own secrets, where from the rising of the Sun Dawning, born anew, beats back upon the neighboring Indians.

And a little lower:

Therefore where, the Indians passed beyond, the crown of the world begins, A grove remains inaccessible to all mortals by an unassailed citadel It abides: shut in by an eternal boundary, after here He fell, expelled, the author of the first crime.

By which it is evident that author placed Paradise in India, or in the nearer ulterior Oriental region. Therefore it could be affirmed that Paradise was planted in one of the most delightful and most fertile Oriental islands; in which that whole Paradisine river flowed forth, and was divided into those four immense rivers, which perhaps, absorbed at the very limit of Paradise, through subterranean passages flow forth again into various parts of the world. And so concerning the site of Paradise the dispute still hangs under judgment.

Quaestio III: Quae nam sit Paradisi terrestris magnitudo, et amoenitas?

Note 1. That concerning the size of Paradise the opinions of Authors are various. For first, some judge its extent to be enormous; so much so that it would seem incomprehensible: thus St. Anastasius Sinaita, Homily 9. on Genesis, says: Since the breadth of Paradise is of incomprehensible magnitude, until out of the abundance of its irrigation it makes four rivers watering almost the whole earth. Some affirm it to be of such a size as one of the chief parts of the earth, namely Asia, or Africa, or Europe. But both of these opinions are justly rejected by all, because so great an expanse of Paradise could by no means lie hidden in the earth: especially since at this very time the whole globe has been sailed around; for without doubt someone would already have fallen in upon those regions of Paradise, which assuredly has nowhere happened. Tostatus thinks, on chapter 13. of Genesis, that Paradise had not a greater extent than three or four leagues in length, and about twelve in circuit, or not many more. Others think otherwise. From whom it is evident that the matter is doubtless entirely uncertain, so that only conjectures are permitted for uncovering the magnitude of Paradise.

Note 2. That it likewise seems uncertain whether Paradise was so prepared for man that, had the state of innocence persevered, brute animals would not have dwelt in it. For St. Basil, in the book De Paradiso, says: In Paradise there were all kinds of animals, which delighted man unbelievably both with the beauty of their colors and with the sweetness of their song. There were there also spectacles of rarer animals: but all were tame, obedient to man, moving about among themselves harmoniously and peaceably, and they conversed among themselves, and spoke with understanding. The serpent, moreover, was not then horrid, but gentle and tame: nor did it crawl terribly upon the surface of the earth as if swimming, but lofty and erect, standing on its feet, it went about. To him accords St. Augustine lib. 11. De Civit. Dei, cap. 11. where he says: That proud Angel chose the serpent in the corporeal Paradise, where together with those two human beings, male and female, the other earthly animals also were wandering, subject and harmless, namely a slippery animal, mobile with tortuous windings, congruous to his work, through which he might lie in wait. This same truth Bellarmine most vigorously defends in the book De gratia primi hominis, cap. 15. and Pererius on the 2nd chap. of Genesis, and they rest principally upon these reasons: First, because dominion over animals was given to man existing in Paradise: therefore the animals must have been in Paradise, wherein he might exercise his dominion. Second, Heva could not have failed to be vehemently horror-struck at the first sight of the serpent, if she had never before seen either a serpent or any other animal. Third, no little ornament and beauty would have been wanting to Paradise, if no fish could be seen in the waters, no little birds in the trees, especially parti-colored and melodious ones, many creatures in the forests, no cattle in the plains. Fourth, innocent man would have lacked various pleasures which he could derive from animals and birds. — Others on the contrary expressly deny that any animals would have dwelt in Paradise had the happy state of innocence persevered. Thus St. Damascenus, lib. 2. De Fide, cap. 11. A worthy place indeed was Paradise, he says, and worthy of him who had been created after the image of God for its inhabiting; in which none of the irrational beings dwelt: but man alone, the handiwork of the divine hands. Very many of the More Recent writers accord with him, drawn chiefly by these reasons: First, because that place proper to immortality did not befit animals subject to death and corruption. Second, if animals had existed in Paradise, they would either have been created there or carried thither from elsewhere. Not the first; for indeed Adam was not created there [i.e., they were not created there]. Nor even the second, because, whether they would have always remained there, or Adam having been cast out, they would have been thrust out along with him. Not the first, since God having created only one male and one female, it would follow that in our earth there would be no propagation of all the animals created by God. Nor even the second, because in the expulsion of Adam from Paradise no mention is made of expelled animals. Therefore the question remains undiscussed whether animals truly existed in Paradise.

First Conclusion. — It is probable that the earthly Paradise was neither so narrow nor so spacious as to have exceeded fifteen or twenty leagues. Thus it is gathered from St. Augustine lib. 8. on Genesis, cap. 10. where he says: Neither was Paradise a place too small, which the whole fountain watered. To him subscribes Moses Bar-Cepha in the book De Paradiso, cap. 15. where he says: It is necessary that it was a certain spacious and ample place. For that immense river, wherewith it was watered, gives credit to this thing; for if this, when it had sufficiently washed Paradise, was divided into four great rivers, which nourish by their course a great part of this globe which we inhabit; it is most certainly consistent that it was very great, most ample, and most profound before it was led forth and distributed into those four great rivers. Now indeed from the magnitude of the river it is concluded that Paradise also, which was watered by it, was most ample. And cap. 28. Paradise was said to be most suitable for the habitation and delight of men. But how great was this amplitude, sufficiently shows the great river which flowed forth from it, and after it had flowed away was divided into four rivers. For if the river itself was great, it is manifest that Paradise, which it watered, was great and spacious. Yet I confess that argument does not sufficiently prove the magnitude and vastness of Paradise. For who does not know that sometimes the greatest rivers are at their origin very small, and afterwards are increased by the influx of others and by the springs of fountains into an enormous confluence? for indeed the Danube and the Rhine have small and very near sources: nevertheless they wash several provinces; seeing that the Danube flows through Hungary and Thrace, and discharges itself after Constantinople; while the Rhine, where it has watered Germany and Holland, bursts into the Ocean. Add that the earthly Paradise was planted in that altitude, so that conveniently those four immense rivers could burst forth thence into four parts greatly distant from each other.

You will say: If Adam had not sinned, all his posterity would have inhabited the earthly Paradise: but they could not have been contained within the space of fifteen or twenty leagues: therefore the earthly Paradise ought to have been far more spacious and broader. The minor is proved; for if after Adam's sin some men lived nearly a thousand years, as Adam himself, and Mathusalem etc., doubtless in the state of innocence they would have lived not less than three or four thousand years: within which space of time an innumerable offspring, no one then dying, would have been propagated: therefore they could not have subsisted simultaneously in Paradise unless that place had equaled at least one part of the whole globe. The major also stands: seeing that Paradise had been destined as a dwelling for innocent man; therefore, since Adam had not sinned, all his posterity would have been gifted with innocence, and thus they ought to have inhabited that abode of delight. Add that in Paradise lay the health-giving tree of life, whose fruit men ought to have plucked and eaten, that they might prolong their life, and consequently it was necessary that all of them subsist in Paradise. — I answer 1. by denying the major; for if that happy state of innocence had stood, Adam's posterity would have dwelt not in Paradise alone, but throughout the whole earth; both because God blessed Adam and Eve created in Original Justice, and said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. Moreover He says: Rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth: but He speaks of the whole earth newly created by Him even outside Paradise, as also of the fishes of all seas, of the birds of all regions under heaven, of the animals, herbs, trees of the whole world. If, therefore, God subjected to man all this earth and sea with all animals, birds, aquatic creatures, herbs, and trees before sin, and willed that with his offspring he fill the earth, till it, and compel it to serve his uses with all its ornament; shall we think that, man not sinning, these things were said to him in vain, and that mankind then confined beside the walls of Paradise was going to leave forever all the rest of the earth, vast, deserted, void of inhabitant, when the earth was chiefly created for the use of men? Add, that the whole earth would be uncultivated, wild, and unlovely, if it were deserted and empty of men, since man's industry and culture contribute much to its fertility, amenity, and beauty: nay, it would be altogether idle, and created by God in vain; which repugns Sacred Scripture saying, Isaias 45.¹ The Lord made the earth, He is its fashioner: He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited. — I answer 2. The major being granted, the minor can be denied: for since in that happy state men would not have been distressed by any cold, nor by any heat of the Sun, they would have needed neither houses nor Palaces, and equally could many dwell together. Add that not all men to be born would always have remained therein: but perhaps those who were of more advanced age and perfected in merit would have been translated to heaven, as the Master of the Sentences teaches in 2. distinct. 20. Yet I confess we can determine and divine nothing certain about this matter. Therefore let

Second Conclusion. — The earthly Paradise was most lovely and most delightful. Moses sufficiently indicates this very thing while he calls it the Paradise of pleasure, that is, filled with every pleasure and loveliness; whence the Hebrews call it Gan-Eden, as Maldonatus observes, that is, the garden of delights; for among the Hebrews Gan signifies garden, but Eden delights and pleasure. This truth is strengthened by the opinions of all the holy Fathers, who express the loveliness and beauty of Paradise with all the elegance they can. But above all St. Basil must be heard in the Oration De Paradiso, where, after he had declared that this most lovely place is agitated by no storms, nor enjoys darkness on account of the loftiness of the place, he concludes thus: God so constituted this place, that each season of the year sufficiently illumined it round about; nay rather, each season, attended by its own special faculties, contributed to it from its common store; you would see spring possessing delicacy and pleasantness; summer in food fit to eat, autumnal gladness, winter leisure and quiet. Then, that the earth should be rich, soft, and as it were flowing with milk and honey; accommodated to the fertility of fragrance, and irrigated by most fruitful waters, which indeed exhibited a certain incredible beauty. For those subtle and limpid waters confer indeed much pleasantness on beholders, yet more utility. — St. Damascenus lib. 2 De Fide, cap. 11. depicts this very garden of delights thus: Whereas God was about to form man after His image and likeness, as it were a King and Prince of the whole earth and of the things that are in it, He prepared for him, as it were, a royal palace, that he might lead a happy life; and this itself is the divine Paradise of God, planted in the mountains of Eden, a storehouse of every joy and pleasure; for Eden is interpreted pleasure. Moreover all the East is elevated hill country, of most fitting temperateness, and resplendent with an air most subtle and most pure; distinguished by plants ever green, filled with sweetness of odor and full of light, surpassing in intelligence every sensible comeliness and beauty. Truly a place worthy, and worthy of him who was created after the image of God, for habitation. — By which words the holy Fathers declare that the pleasure and loveliness of the earthly Paradise consisted chiefly in five things, namely in Heaven, air, waters, earth, and plants. For in Heaven there was a perpetual salubrious influx of the stars, and at all times a certain most sweet equability, which effected, as it were, a perpetual spring. There was firm rest, serenity and purity, and presently perpetual clarity unclouded by any darkness. The abundance of waters was immense, whereby Paradise, bubbling everywhere with rivulets, was most pleasantly irrigated; but their limpidity and purity was supreme, which like a mirror reflected to beholders the most grateful aspect of this most lovely place. But the earth was most fertile, which without any labor of its cultivators brought forth trees and plants. Finally the plants themselves and trees supplied not only most sweet flowers and most precious aromatics, wherewith sight and smell were refreshed, but also most sweet fruits for food and the delight of taste. For God had planted in it, says St. Basil, the beauty of trees in every variety, which would be most pleasing to behold and exhibit their use most delightful: whence Scripture: The Lord God brought forth of the ground every tree beautiful to the eye, and pleasant to eat: by which words He signifies that in Paradise there were trees and plants not only for the necessity and sweetness of food, but also for the delight of the eyes. All these things Tertullian lucidly expresses in the lib. De iudicio Domini, capit. 8. where he sings thus:

All bears the fertile earth, with soil most rich, Flowers scent the meadows, purple decks the plains... The tree stands fairest with new blossom and fruits; And vital harvests crowd the bounteous oaks; Honey in thickets burns upon the greening field: Milk too flows drinkable from brimming rivulets: There breathes of life whatever pious earth makes green: And sweetly breathes the healing gift of Crete. A fountain there through gentle plains glides with calm course; Four rivers thence water the lands apportioned, Spring, I think, is ever present, the garden clad in flowers: No cold varies the breeze of winter's stars: And it refreshes the teeming earth with a better gale. There no stars guard the night with darkness. Fraud and snares are absent, and dread desire, And fear shut out, cares beaten from the threshold.

This same loveliness and delight of Paradise the holy Alcimus Avitus of Vienna also describes graphically in lib. 1. De initio mundi:

Here constant spring the clemency of Heaven preserves, The turbulent south wind is absent, ever under clear air, Clouds flee away, yielding to the ceaseless serene. Nor does the nature of the place demand rains it has not: But contented, they are endowed with a twofold dew. Every soil is green perpetually, and the face of the laughing earth Shines winsome: grasses stand forever on the hills, And foliage on the trees, which, when they spread themselves in frequent blossom, Consolidate their buds with swift sap. For whatever is now born for us through the whole year, The months there give in season ripened with fruit.

Lilies shine forth flowering under much sun: Nor does touch violate the violets and the redness of the rose, Grace preserving suffuses them with perpetual countenance. Thus since winter is absent, nor torrid summer boils, Autumn lacks no fruits, nor the year flowers. Here too are born the cinnamons fame feigns to be given by the Sabaeans. There the branch, sweating burning balms, Offers a perpetual flow from its fat trunk.

Then if perchance a light wind learns to breathe, With slight blasts, moved by a gentle whisper, The rich wood trembles with leaves, and wholesome flower, Which, scattered far and wide, dispenses sweet odors. Here a fountain rises resplendent with transparent flood. Such grace does not gleam in silver, so great Nor do crystals draw such light from shining cold. On the margin of the banks green pebbles glittered, And the gems which the world's ostentation admires, There lie as stones; the fields give various colors, And paint the plains with a natural diadem. The river, drawn up from the fountain's light summit, Is straightway cloven into four broad streams.

Marius Victor also must be heard, lib. 1. Comment. on Genesis, where he sings in this manner:

Where the fortunate land opens eastern recesses. Upon a higher globe the grove's delightful Paradise Is unfolded: and is marked off by the order of smooth woodland, Here where now a boundary is discerned by equal spaces, And alone it tempers eternal spring with like hours. There also a tree stands rich with its own fruits, And apples are struck down mellow by apples due in turn, Which, pleasing to the eyes, full of wondrous vigor They cherish bodies and minds, and feed with savor and odor. Here the earth, distinct, darts sidereal heats. Ever verdant with new bloom, and with fresh fruit Here breathing things release their fragile reeds, The cinnamas breathing the odors of Ambrosian gift. But neither what the Mede scents, nor with loosened hair What the Archimenian wafts fragrance, what the Assyrian rich In soft amomum, and blushing with Mareotic nard sent, What the shrubs of Tartessus, what the rod of the Sabaean, And what the Palestinian branch weeps from a torn wound. All things thou shalt think heaped hither in rivalry into this garden. For God directed hither all things alike, which singly Each nature received in fixed places, made perfect. And while, stirred by a gentle breeze's motion, the wood sways, He mingles nectar into one out of diverse odor, And it becomes a new gift which no tree may claim.

And wherever trembling, gently swayed little by little with bland sound, They quiver with leaves stirred, the sound rings through every tree: The forest hymns to God, and the tempered air whistles Songs; nor does empty motion beat an empty air.

Nor less elegantly, though more briefly, the upright Faltonia must be praised, wife of Adolphus the proconsul, most learned in Greek and Latin, who, since she held Virgil's works by memory, reduced them into centones for expounding metrically the mysteries of Christian doctrine; in which she has these things about the delights of Paradise:

Behold then beneath the light of the sun the first risings Came down to places, where soft marjoram embraces them, Breathing upon them with flowers and sweet shade. Here through the purple is summer, and in months not its own; Here liquid fountains; here at heaven's appointed season Sweet honeys are pressed; here white poplar overhangs the cave, And trailing vines weave shady bowers. They invite to praises with saffron flowers the gardens, Amid the odorous laurel grove; and the earth itself Bore all things more freely, none demanding.

Nor was this same truth unknown even to the Ethnic Poets: since Homer delineated the loveliness of the earthly Paradise under the veiled image of Alcinous' little garden, in nearly the manner in which Moses himself had described it:

There grew great trees long ago, Pears, and pomegranates, and fruit-bearing apple trees, And sweet figs, and olives flourishing, Whose fruit never perishes, nor fails, Perennial in winter nor in summer, but ever the breeze Zephyrian blowing brings one to birth, ripens another. Pear grows old after pear, and apple after apple, And grape after grape, and fig after fig.

Here for him was planted a fruitful vineyard, one area of which is dried in the Sun on level ground; others they gather vintage from, others they warm; present are unripe grapes with fallen blossom, others are ripening.

Ovid accords with him, who seems to have hinted at Paradise not obscurely at all when he sings in the first of the Transformations:

Spring was eternal, and Zephyrs, with gentle breezes warm, Breathed upon flowers born without seed: Soon indeed untilled earth bore fruits, Nor did the renewed field lack gravid ears.

Other things similar to these you will find among the holy Fathers and the more Recent Theologians, whom you may consult if you desire more.

Quaestio IV: Quibus praecipuis arboribus Paradisus terrestris consitus fuerit

Notandum 1. Certissimum esse varias arborum species in Paradiso fuisse plantatas: siquidem Gen. 2. v. 9. Moyses ait: Produxitque Dominus Deus de humo omne lignum pulchrum visu, et ad vescendum suave: Lignum etiam vitae in medio Paradisi, lignumque scientiae boni et mali: et vers. 16. Praecepitque ei dicens: Ex omni ligno Paradisi comede; de ligno autem scientiae boni, et mali ne comedas, etc. Quibus tres distingui possunt arborum species, nempe Communes, Vivificae, et Probatrices. Communes erant illae arbores ad hominis oblectamentum, et edulium conditae: Vivifica erat illa arbor vitae cuius fructu, et esu prorogari, et servari debebat hominum vita: Probatricem appello illam arborem scientiae boni, et mali: qua nempe probari debebat hominis in Deum observantia, aut perduellio. Sed ut loquitur Sererianus Gabalitanus, Tres arborum differentiae erant in Paradiso: Una quidem data erat homini, ut viveret; altera ut bene viveret: tertia ut semper viveret. — Communes autem arbores erant duplicis generis, aliae quidem frugiferae, aliae infructuosae. De frugiferis apertum est praetactum sacrae Scripturae testimonium: de infructuosis autem non ita constans. Colligitur tamen, tum ex hoc Ezechielis oraculo c. 31. Cedri non fuerunt altiores illo in Paradiso Dei; Abietes non adcreverunt summitatem eius, et Platani non fuerunt aequae frondibus illius: Omne lignum Paradisi non est assimilatum illi. At Cedri, Abietes, Platani, quas Propheta refert fuisse in Paradiso Edem, arbores sunt infructiferae. Tum quia licet arbores illae neque ad esum, neque ad usum ignis, aut aedificiorum, aut alias humanae vitae utilitates conducerent in statu innocentiae; conducebant tamen ad ornatum, varietatem, pulchritudinem, et ad oblectandum odoratum et visum: ac proinde magnam istius generis arborum copiam in Paradiso fuisse non est ambigendum. Nec sane officit illud a Deo Adae dictum, De omni ligno Paradisi comede; intelligendum enim est de omni ligno ad comedendum idoneo; sicut illud Pauli 1. ad Timoth. 4. ubi iubet Christianos vesci omni creatura cum gratiarum actione, haud dubie intelligitur de omni creatura ad hominis cibum accommodata.

Notandum 2. Iudaeos fabulis assuetos sentire lignum, seu arborem scientiae boni, et mali, ita dictam, quod cum Adam et Eva conditi fuissent ut infantes absque ullo rationis usu, hunc ex esu fructus illius arboris sunt assecuti. Non rectius sapuit Iosephus affirmans lib. 1. Antiquitatum homini fuerit Auctor adipiscendi scientiam, cum ei esum ligni vetuit. At fabulam hanc impugnant et expugnant plurima eaque non leves rationes. 1. Quia alioquin Deus non prohibuisset illius esum, neque tantum bonum homini invidisset. 2. Quia serpens non fuisset mentitus Adamo et Evae cum eis dixisset: Eritis sicut Dii scientes bonum, et malum. 3. Non adeo dolere debuissent primi parentes eum ex admissa culpa ingenio praestantiores evasissent. 4. Grande bonum, quo antea carebant, peccando fuissent assecuti, quod impium esset cogitare. — Praestat itaque asserere, arborem illam per anticipationem ex praevisto eventu futuro appellatam esse scientiae boni, et mali; quia licet Adam speculative antea sciret bonum, et malum, tamen edens ex illo vetito fructu practice, et experientia cognovit quantum bonum peccando amiserit, et in quas mala fuerit prolapsus, expertusque est quam excellens bonum esset innocentia, et quam grave malum esset peccatum. Scit Medicus quid sit sanitas, et aegritudo: at cum in morbum incidit, reipsa experitur quid intersit inter sanitatem, et aegritudinem. Sciebat Christus triplici scientia, divina, beata, et infusa quam graves hominum calamitates et molestiae, et quanta opus esset animi constantia ad eas ex animo suscipiendas et ferendas: attamen cum esset Filius Dei, didicit ex iis quae passus est obedientiam; idest, propria experientia comprobavit. — Ita praefatam appellationem interpretantur SS. Patres; maxime S. Augustinus lib. 8. De Genesi ad litteram, cap. 6. Arbor illa, inquit, appellata est scientiae dignoscendi bonum et malum, quia si post prohibitionem homo ex illa ederet, in illa erat praecepti futura transgressio, in qua homo per experimentum poenaliter disceret, quid interesset inter obedientiae bonum, et inobedientiae malum. Sed ut eleganter rem effert Basilius Seleuciensis orat. 2. De Adam: Tamquam in tabula praeceptum in arbore praescribens, latentem intus discernendi scientiam excitavit, obedientiae, et inobedientiae discrimen ad arborem adscribens. Inde agnoscibile boni et mali lignum dicitur: nam ex iis quae ille perdoctus est, lignum nomen accepit, et huius disciplinae arboris est appellatio.

Notandum 3. Lignum seu Arbor vitae, vel ut fert Hebraica lingua arbor vitae, ita appellatum, non quod esset signum vitae Adamo a Deo concessae, ut volunt aliqui: sed vitae, idest vivificum, quod eius fructus miram haberet vim ad vitam hominis servandam, et prorogandam. Primo, quia esus illius fructus efficiebat hominis vitam longaevam. Secundo, valentem et robustam. Tertio, ita constantem, ut nusquam morbo aut senio laborasset. Quarto, hilarem et iucundam, bilis enim ardorem temperasset, et omnem melancholicum humorem absorpsisset. Haec autem miranda Arbor consita erat in medio Paradisi, ut affirmat Moyses Gen. 2. vers. 9. idque Iulianus Homil. 5. Lignum scientiae instar fuit Palestrae, ac gymnasii: postquum mandatum servasses in ligno isto, praemium acciperes. Idque consulto factum est: nam cum lata a Deo lex esset ne Adam de arbore, quae scientiae boni, et mali dicebatur, gustaret, et praevericanti poena praefixa ipsa mors; congruum erat ut praemium observanti etiam demonstraretur, nempe ipsa arbor vitae, ut quantum mortis nomine Adamus a rebellando deterreretur tantum vitae perpetuae illectu ad parendum stimularetur. — Hanc eamdem veritatem luculenter explicat et confirmat Sanctus Bonaventura in 2. dist. 17. ubi recenset tria arborum Paradisi genera; Quaedam, inquit, proderant corpori ad eius nutritionem et sustentationem, de quibus Moyses in universum dixit. Produxit Deus ex humo omne lignum ad vescendum suave. Aliae arbores proderant animae hominis: huiusmodi erat arbor scientiae boni et mali, cuius fructus interdictus est homini, scilicet ad probandam eius obedientiam: ex quo fructu si praeceptis Dei obediens abstinuisset, procul dubio dulcissimum immortalitatis fructum esset adeptus. Tertii generis fuit arbor vitae ipsi homini, hoc est coniuncto ex anima et corpore profutura: quippe tribuens perpetuam homini vitam, et indissolubilem faciens corporis et animae coniunctionem. Harum dumtaxat duarum arborum proprie meminit Moyses, propter singulares, et admirandos eorum effectus, propter quos Deus eas posuerat in medio Paradisi inter se propinquas: ut aspiciens homo arborem vitae, amore immortalitatis ad observantiam divinae legis acrius incitaretur; cernens autem arborem scientiae boni et mali, mortis metu tamquam freno quodam in divinorum praeceptorum obedientia contineretur. Dicta est autem arbor vitae, non eo effectu quem ipsa habuit, sed ad quem ordinabatur, et quem sine dubio habuisset, si homo in Dei gratia perseverasset.

His omnibus praelibatis, restat determinandum: Primo quae et qualis fuerit arbor scientiae boni et mali. Secundo, quam virtutem et efficacitatem habuerit Arbor vitae.

Conclusio prima. — Variae sunt Auctorum sententiae circa determinandam speciem arboris scientiae boni et mali: sed verius augurari videntur, qui ipsam malum fuisse indicant.

Constat huiusce Conclusionis prima pars ex diversis Auctorum hac de re opinionibus; nam ut observat Moyses Bar-Cepha, c. 19. Nonnulli existimant non fuisse illam veram et naturalem arborem, cuius fructum gustaverit Adam, sed venereum amplexum quo cum uxore ille corpus miscuit: eamque ob rem, aiunt, partum mulieris esse per Dei sententiam doloribus factum obnoxium. Neque aliud sensisse illud praeceptum; Ne edatis de illa arbore, quam ne coeatis, sed sancte et absque omni libidine coeatis. Cuius delirii auctorem fuisse Origenem, affirmat Anastasius Sinaita lib. 9. in Exameron, his verbis: Nefandorum autem effector sicut obscenorum perpetrator Origenes, existimavit eam arborem esse mulierem. Verum, inquit Bar-Cepha, minime veram esse hanc sententiam id satis arguit, quod integra virginitate pulsi sint illi de Paradiso: quamdiu enim morati sunt in Paradiso, ipsos mansisse virgines communis est sanctorum Patrum sensus. Unde rectius, inquit idem ipse, censent alii, frumentum fuisse hanc arborem, atque ideo Christum quoque suum corpus in pane dedisse, ut qua re contractum esset debitum, eadem et exolveretur. Rursus alii Vitem fuisse contendunt, et ideo sanguinem suum dedisse Christum in vino, pro expianda primorum Parentum noxa. Sed nos, ait Bar-Cepha, haec vera non esse putamus, frumentum enim seges, non arbor dicitur, ut neque vitis. — Nonnulli arbitrantur hanc arborem fuisse ficum, nam statim ab eius esu nudum se videns Adam, ex foliis ficus vestem sibi consuit, ut legitur cap. 3. vers. 7. A proxima autem, et vicinissima arbore Adam propter nuditatem suam pudore suffusus, videtur accepisse haec folia et tegmina nuditatis suae: at nulla ipsi erat vicinior illa, ex qua iam fructum decerpserat, et comederat; itaque videtur illa fuisse ficus. Ita censent S. Athanasius qu. 49. ad Antiochum, Theodoretus qu. 28. Gennadius in Catena Graeca Genesis, dicens: Non est verisimile cum de gustatione illico secutus sit pudor, relicta proxima arbore, alias errabundos quaesisse quibus foliis contegerentur; sed neque cum adventientem Deum persentirent, sub illa arbore latitassent quae reos fecisset illos, nisi sub ea etiamnum comedentes deprehensi fuissent. — Similia habet Bar-Cepha, cap. 19. Neque enim simile veri potest existimari, inquit, ipsos praetermissa ea arbore quae proxima erat, ad aliam longiusque dissitam festinasse, ex cuius foliis consignatis subligaculis suum contegerent nuditatem: Erat ergo ficus arbor illa scientiae boni, et mali, qua non vesci cum essent iussi, non paruerunt edicto: unde S. Alcimus Avitus, lib. 3. in Genesim, cap. 1. ita canit:

Indumenta petunt foliis e mollibus ambo, ut Membra tegant, nudumque malum sub veste latescat. Umbrosis prope stabat ficulnea ramis, Frondentes diffusa comas quas protinus Adam Humentem capiens raso de cortice librum, Assuit: et viridi solatur veste ruborem.

Verum Tostatus in caput 3. Genesim, qu. 61. illam arborem non fuisse ficum, probat his argumentis; Primo, quia mox ut comederunt fructum illius, senserunt bonum quod amiserant, et malum in quod se coniecerant, pudore penitus suffusi; unde verisimile est ingenti horrore et odio illius arboris affectos, ex qua exitium in se excitaverant longius ab ea recessisse, nec manum ad folia eius extendere ausos, ne maius aliquod damnum in caput suum accerserent. Praesertim cum Eva serpenti dixerit Gen. 3. 6. De fructu ligni quod est in medio Paradisi praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus, et ne tangeremus illud. Secundo, Arbor scientiae boni vel mali erat pulcherrimi visus Gen. 3. 6; at certe eiusmodi non est ficulnea.

Probatur itaque secunda pars, nempe quod Arbor illa fuerit species quaedam Mali, eaque praestantissima, nempe vel Pyrum, vel Malum punicum, vel alterius etiam speciei nobilioris et suavioris; cuius rei argumentum est illud Canticorum 8. Sub arbore Mulo suscitavi te: ibi corrupta est mater tua, ibi violata est genitrix tua: ac si dicat Sponsa seu Ecclesia: sub Malo in Paradiso voluptatis excitavi te ex dulci quiete Divinitatis tuae, ut induta carne, meas subires miserias factus homo: nam (ut peccatum primorum parentum expiaret Deus humanam naturam induit) mox uti illi esu Mali peccaverunt, promisisti semen benedictum Christum: Ipse, vel ipsa conteret caput tuum. Ibi Eva mater omnium viventium, vel natura humana sub Malo corrupta, et violata est gravissimo inobedientiae peccato. Quamquam enim nomen Mali in Scriptura sacra tribuatur omnibus arboribus quarum fructus sunt levioris et mollioris corticis, quique suavem spirant odorem; nihilominus Vulgata hanc significationem restringit ad genus Mali quo pomum significetur, ut etiam appareat ex notione vocis arborem illam scientiae boni, et mali fuisse speciem aliquam pomi praestantissimi. Unde Iudaei aliqui fabulati sunt ex hac arbore vetita Seth iussu Angeli accepisse semen, illudque indidisse ori Adae sepulti: ex quo suaseverit arbor, ex qua crux Christi contexta est, quae peccatum Adae abolevit: decuisse enim, ut in eodem ligno, quo peccaverat Adam, Christus Adae peccatum lucret et expiaret. Fabulam hanc fusius narrat Pineda lib. 5. De Salom., cap. 14.

Conclusio secunda. — Fructus Arboris vitae solum hominibus vitae diuturnitatem, non autem veram immortalitatem contulisset. Haec est Doctoris in 2. dist. 19. quaest. unic. n. 1. ubi probat arborem vitae non habuisse vim naturalem et physicam conservandi hominis vitam infinito tempore, sed usque ad aliquod definitum tempus diuturnum: quo exacto translatus fuisset homo in Paradisum Caelestem antequam fuisset alteratum ipsius corpus alteratione improportionata animae rationali ipsum informanti. — Ratio ipsius est, quod virtus et efficacitas illius arboris finita erat: ergo ad infinitum tempus non poterat extendi. Insuper Deus poterat aliam arborem, illa praestantioris et maioris virtutis creare, cuius effectus longioris et diuturnioris fuisset durationis: ergo huius efficacitas in infinitum non diffundebatur. Rursus, omne agens physicum in agendo patitur, et debilitatur; quare etiam in statu innocentiae calor naturalis hominis in ipsa nutritione, aliisque actionibus defectum aliquem passus fuisset, et tandem debilitatus esset: nec fructus arboris vitae converti potuisset nobiliorem in statum, quam erat status comedentis, qui quidem infirmus et debilitatus esset. Sed ut loquitur Doctor, quidquid fuisset principium activum in homine, non potuisset continuare actionem, quin aliquando debilitaretur: quia omne agens physicum in agendo debilitatur. Esto ergo, quod natura esset debilitata, et sumeret de fructu, non potuit sustentari per istum fructum, nisi convertendo ipsum, ut alimentum in substantiam et naturam suam; sed illud conversum non potuit esse nobilius, quam convertens. Similiter natura convertens prius fuit debilitata, et in convertendo etiam nutrimentum illius fructus debilitatur magis: sicut enim in una actione, ita et in alia, et idem magis debilitatur, quanto magis et magis agit in convertendo: ergo semper debilitatur, et ideo quandoque deficiet. Exemplum Aristotelis de aqua mixta vino: nam cum primo convertit aquam in se, toties autem potest apponi aqua, quod deficiet virtus vini in convertendo: unde secunda vice minus fortiter operatur, quam prima.

Addidit Pererius lib. 3. in Genes., n. 69: si arbor vitae vim habuisset conservandi hominis vitam ad infinitum tempus, fore illam vim et potentiam plane otiosam, inanem, et supervacaneam, frustraque ei arbori tributam: cum enim homo in statu innocentiae non esset vitam in terris aeternam acturus, sed constituisset Deus eum ad tempus quoddam longissimum, definitum tamen, puta ter vel quatuor mille annorum in terris vivere; postea vero in statum meliorem commutatus, vitam ducere omni aevo in caelis beatissimam: erat profecto rationi consentaneum, ut arbor vitae potentiam haberet servandi hominem incorruptum et integrum usque ad aliud tempus praescriptum: ultra vero illud tempus, nec opus erat homini, et fuisset sine ullo usu, atque omnino supervacuum. Deus autem et natura, inquiunt Philosophi, nihil frustra, nihil sine causa, nihil ad nullum usum, et finem faciunt. Et cum corpus humanum sit intrinsece corruptibile quadruplici nomine: quia ex materia, quia ex elementis, quia ex partibus heterogeneis coagmentatum est, quia denique calor eius debilior fit in dies, et ex repugnantia alimenti, et ex impuritate humoris alimentalis, qui est pabulum eius: cum igitur ita se habeat corpus humanum, non potest fieri naturaliter, ut non aliquando corrumpatur; nec opinor ex ullo cibo, vel medicina posse fieri calorem, et humorem nativum ita perfectum et purum, sicut est ab ortu hominis, nec multiplicanda sunt miracula de illa arbore sine necessitate. — Constat ergo lignum vitae non tribuisse homini immortalitatem simpliciter, quia nec arcebat mortem, qua homini a ferro, igne, aqua, praecipitio, et aliis innumeris casibus posset obvenire: sed tantum eam, quae a senio, et deterioratione activae virtutis contingere solet: neque hanc mortem simpliciter in sempiternum aevum dispulisse: sed ad certum, et praefinitum tempus dumtaxat. Unde praestitisset homini potius, ut posset ab hac parte non mori, quam ut non posset mori: nam etsi saepius gustasset, numquam simpliciter ad aeternum tempus virtus eius activa firmaretur, sed semper maneret defectibilis, cum singulis comestionibus nonnisi ad determinatum aliquod tempus roboraretur.

Hanc esse mentem S. Augustini fere omnes fatentur. nam lib. 14. De Civitate, cap. 26. ait: Cibus aderat homini in Paradiso ne esuriret, potus ne sitiret, lignum vitae ne illum senectus dissolveret: nihil corruptionis in corpore, vel ex corpore ullas molestias ullis eius sensibus ingerebat: nullus intrinsecus morbus: nullus ictus metuebatur: extrinsecus summa in carne sanitas. Et lib. 6. De Genesi, c. 5. inquit: Corpus Adae ante peccatum, et mortale secundum aliam, et immortale secundum aliam causam dici poterat, idest, mortale, quia poterat mori: immortale, quia poterat non mori: aliud est enim non posse mori, sicut quasdam naturas immortales creat Deus: aliud est autem posse non mori, secundum quem modum primus creatus est homo immortalis: quod ei prostabat de ligno vitae, non de constitutione naturae; ex quo ligno privatus est cum peccasset, ut posset mori, qui nisi peccasset posset non mori.

Dices. Esus ligni vitae homini veram immortalitatem contulisset: ergo non solum vitae diuturnitatem. Probatur antecedens ex illo Genesis, cap. 3. v. 22. ubi Deus de perduelle Adamo sermonem faciens ait: Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est sciens bonum, et malum: nunc ergo ne forte mittat manum suam, et sumat etiam de ligno vitae, et comedat, et vivat in aeternum, ideo eiecit eum de Paradiso. Ergo edens de ligno vitae vitam habuisset immortalem. — Confirmatur ex sanctis Patribus, maxime Irenaeo lib. 3. Adversus haereses, cap. 37. ubi scribit Adamum eiectum e Paradiso, ne gustaret de ligno vitae, aitque, id factum esse non tam Dei indignatione, quam misericordia, nimirum ne post peccatum edens ex fructu vitae, crederet immortalis, vitamque sempiternam in perpetuis miseriis, et aerumnis ducere cogeretur. Quapropter, inquit, eiecit eum a Paradiso, et a ligno vitae longe transtulit, non invidens ei lignum vitae, quemadmodum quidam dicunt, sed miserans eius ut non perseveraret semper trangressus, neque immortalis esset, quod esset circa eum, et malum intolerabile: seu ut brevius loquitur S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Orat. 2. De Paschate: Inde Paradiso eiectus et a ligno vitae separatus aditam lucratur quidem mortem, nempe peccati abscessionem, ne malum esset immortale: sitque poena misericordia. Idem sentit S. Chrysostomus Hom. 18. De arbore vitae. Insuper et S. Augustinus, seu quisquis alius auctor lib. Questionum Veteris et Novi Testamenti ita videtur sensisse, nam c. 19. ait: Sic ergo immortalis, et incorruptibilis condita est caro hominis, ut suam immortalitatem et incorruptionem per observantium mandatorum Dei custodiret: in quibus mandatis hoc continebatur, ut de illis lignis concessis manducaret, et ab interdicto abstineret. Per horum edulium immortalitatis dona conservaret, donec temporalibus incrementibus productus ad aetatem, quae Conditori placeret, multiplicata progenie ipso iubente sumeret de ligno vitae, quo perfecte immortalis factus cibi alimenta ulterius non requireret. Quibus verbis per unicam comestionem ligni vitae, quae post decursum multorum annorum fieret Deo iubente, sic immortalis futurus fuisse dicitur primus homo, si mansisset, ut non indigeret ulterius alia comestione.

Nego antecedens, et ad eius probationem dico, Deum quasi irrisorio sermone, et ironice dixisse, ne forte vivat in aeternum: haec enim sicut et praecedentia verba ironice protulerat, nempe: Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est sciens bonum et malum: certum namque est Adamum perduellem revera non fuisse divinis Personis assimilatum, neque parem habuisse cum eis cognitionem boni et mali; sed solum illis verbis Deus Adamo contumeliam ingerebat, exprobrans ipsi ambitionem, qua parem Deo scientiam acquirere cupiebat, quam esu arboris vitae diabolo decipiente et promittente se consecuturum sperabat, quam tamen non est adeptus. Adde quod mille aliis modis potuisset Deus impedire, ne Adamus post peccatum comederet de ligno vitae, etiamsi in Paradiso subsisteret; poterat siquidem vel arborem illam destruere, vel eius fructui efficacitatem substrahere, sicut interdum tempore famis firmamentum panis contrivit, inquit Regius Vates; hoc est, virtutem nutriendi abstulit, vel ipsam arborem occultare, aut custodia angelica munire, quatenus ad eam homo non accederet, sicut et de facto constituit Cherubimum ante Paradisum post eiectionem Adam, ne vel ipse, vel eius posteri ad eum remeare tentarent. Verisimile est ergo, quod ironice locutus fuerit Deus dicens: Ne forte mittat manum suam, et sumat de ligno vitae, et vivat in aeternum. — Ad confirmationem dico, vel SS. Patres laudatos intelligendos esse de immortalitate et aeternitate non simpliciter et proprie dicta, sed secundum quid et improprie nominata pro vite longeva diuturnitate; eo scilicet modo quo Scriptura sacra diuturnum tempus, aeternitatem appellare solet, uti fusius explicuimus et probavimus agendo de immortalitate, et aeternitate soli Deo propria; vel dico, quod si revera intelligendi sint de immortalitate proprie dicta; eorum quidem auctoritatem oppositam sententiam probabilem efficere, nostram vero non expugnare, quippe quae similibus sanctorum Patrum auctoritatibus muniatur.

Quaeres 1. — Utrum homo innocens fuerit immortalis ea virtue ligni vitae, aut ex constitutione naturae?

Respondeo. Circa hominis immortalitatem et mortalitatem variam ac multiplicem esse cum veterum, tum recentium Theologorum sententiam. Theophilus qui anno Christi 180. septimus post S. Petrum Ecclesiae Antiochenae episcopus exstitit, lib. 2. Ad Autolycum, scribit hominem ab initio nec mortalem nec immortalem fuisse conditum: Dicat aliquis, ait, mortalisne creatus est homo? Nequaquam. Quid igitur? Num immortalis? Ne hoc quidem. Nam a primordio suae creationis, nec mortalis, nec immortalis conditus est. Si immortalem ab initio cum fecisset, Deus eum constituisset; si mortalem cum formasset ab initio, Deus sane posset auctor hominum mortis videri. Apparet igitur hominem a Deo nec mortalem, nec immortalem esse factum; sed, quemadmodum supra significavimus, atriusque quodam modo participem, ut si ea ferretur, quae ducunt ad immortalitatem, observandis Dei mandatis, mercedem ab eo acciperet immortalitatem, et deus fieret. Sin autem conversus fuerit ad peccatum, inobediens Deo, ipse sibi auctor fieret mortis. — Refert Origenes apud Theodoretum, quaest. 39. in Genes. quosdam sacros Interpretes existimasse hominem post peccatum mortali corpore a Deo fuisse vestitum et circumdatum: Quid, inquit, existimare debemus istas pelliceas? Talis quidem stultulus est, et anilis, Deo prorsus minime dignus, arbitrari Deum pelles animalium iugulatorum, et obiter mortuorum accepisse, et inde pelles illas exsuciendo, coriarii more in vestimenti formam redegisse. Cursum, ut vitetur haec absurditas, dicere vestes illas pelliceas, nihil ali esse quam corpora, probabilis quidem est, et ad assensionem eliciendam efficax: at non evidens quod sit rerum. Si enim pelliceae vestes sunt carnes et ossa, quomodo antea dicit Adam: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea? His igitur ambiguitatibus obruti nonnulli asseverant, vestes pelliceas esse mortalitatem illam, qua circumdati sunt Adam et Eva, morti propter peccatum adducti. Sed isti non facile probare possunt, quomodo Deus, et non multo magis peccatum, mortalitatem pariat successori. Praeterea necesse est eos dicere, carnem et ossa propria ratione non esse corruptibilia, cum postea Patres nostri propter peccatum conditionem mortalitatis perceperint. — Ei subscribit S. Methodius martyr, lib. De Resurrectione apud Photium, cod. 231.: Cum Deus Omnipotens Adamum immortalem fecisset, sciens eum ex insidiis diaboli malum passurum, uti et illud erat qui eum deceperat diabolus, propterea illi pelliceas vestes concinnarit, quasi illum induens mortalitate, ut per corporis solutionem omne quod in eo malum erat, moreretur. — Iis etiam concinit S. Epiphanius, Haeres. 61.: Propterea Deus pelliceas illas tunicas fecit, ut illum velut morte quadam indueret, et ea corporis dissolutione, quidquid in eo mali productum fuerat, intermoreretur.

Censuerunt nonnulli SS. Doctores mortem quidem homini inflictam occasione peccati et suae in Deum perduellionis ac inobedientiae, non tamen ex affectu vindictae et iustitia, sed misericordiae et clementiae, neque in poenam peccati, sed in miseriae solatium et innocentiae remedium. Sic Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orat. 12.: Postquam diaboli invidia, et mulieris insultu, quem, ut mollior, passa est, et ut a persuadendum accommodatior, amovit. O infirmitatem meam, mea enim est primi parentis infirmitas; accepti mandati oblitus, ab arbore illa vetita victus est, simul et a ligno vitae, et a Paradiso, et ab ipso Deo propter peccatum expellitur, et pelliceas tunicas induit, utique crassiorem carnem et mortalem, primumque turpitudinem suam agnoscit, et a Deo se abscondit, atque hic quidem tamen mortem a peccati praevisione lucratur, ne malum immortale sit. Ita poena ipsa in misericordiam cessit: sic enim Deum supplicia inferre censent. — Eiusdem etiam sententiae est S. Ambrosius, lib. De bono mortis, c. 1.: Si recolamus, quod Deus mortem non fecerit, sed postquam homo lapsus in flagitium est praevaricationis et fraudis, sententia cum comprehenderit, ut in terram suam terra remearet, inveniemus mortem finem esse peccati, ne quo esset vita sustentata, eo fieret culpa numerosior. Passus est igitur Dominus subintrare mortem, ut culpa cessaret, etc. — Adiicit S. Chrysostomus, Homil. 26. in Genes.: Mortis supplicium Adamo Deus propter hoc intulit, ut ne posthac per imperitientiam peccato denuo effectus perpetuo peccaret. Non videntur tibi haec esse maxima dementia, eiici a Paradiso, et poena hac puniri?

Ex his manifestum fit non unam eamdemque fuisse SS. Patrum de hominis immortalitate aut mortalitate sententiam. Tametsi enim convenirent omnes hominem non fore morti obnoxium quamdiu stetisset innocens, nec mortalitati addictum nisi post praevericationem; nondum tamen constans et una apud eos erat sententia mortem esse hominibus praescriptam in peccati vindictam et poenam. At ut petulans est et impatiens haereticorum genium, illa de hominis mortalitate disputatio qua diutissime inter catholicos quasi limites sese continuerat, tandem in apertum errorem erupit. Caelestius enim Pelagii assecla primus cum suo erroris socio ausus est effutire Adamum mortalem factum, qui sine Dei submutatione moreretur; et S. Augustinus, lib. De gestis Pelagii, cap. 11., et auctor libri Hypostaticon, tom. 2. apud S. Augustinum, et S. Prosper, carmine De ingratis, ubi cecinit:

Hac primos homines cretos ditione ferebat, Ut seu praescriptum mandatum transgrederentur, Sive incrimpati servata lege manerent, Mortem istam prorsus, qua carnis vita relinquit, Oppeterent, quo non peccato parta, sed ipso Instituente Deo comes esset fixa creatis.

Inde est quod Arausicana Synodus hinc primum inter Pelagianos errores damnavit. Cum enim sint ipsius octo canones adversus haeresim Pelagianam, primus omnium existit: Placuit omnibus episcopis qui fuerunt in hac sancta Synodo, ut quicumque dicit, Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, ita ut, sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, hoc est, de corpore exiret, non peccati merito, sed necessitate naturae, anathema sit. — Unicum etiam retulit in sua sanctione Honorius Imperator, idque eo maxime, quod in capite cetera complexus sibi videbatur, ortumque inde secundi erroris indicasse.

Sic enim ait: Impiae commentationis auctores Pelagium Caelestiumque percrebuit extitisse. Hi parenti cunctarum rerum Deo, praecipue semper maiestati interminatae potenti, et ultra omne principium transcanti, tam trucem inclementiam saevire nutatis assignant, dum cum formandi mundi opificem curam sumeret, qualitatemque hominis struendi profunda spiritus conceptione libraret, fundati muneris finem anteferret exordio, et mortem praemitteret nascituro: non hanc insidiis retulisse fructu peccati, sed exegisse penitus legem immutabilis constituti, ut ad declinandum lethi exitialis incursum, nihil prodesset abstinentia delinquendi: cuius ita vis putatur astricta, ut non possit aboleri delictis. Primitivi hominis errorem, in quem capti mentis, inops rationis, caecitate irruisset, delapsum ad posteros non fuisse: tantumque ipsum hominem, quem malesuada gratia infelix rapuisset illecebra, transgressionem interdicti extitisse discriminis, cum excidens catholicae legis manifestaria testetur auctoritas, illum interitus omnium fuisse testibulum, quem divinae praeceptionis sedulum liquet corripuisse mandatum. At de hoc errore Pelagianorum dogmate, paulo intra plenior erit sermo.

Quaeres. — Quae fuerit Theologicae Scholasticae Principum de hominis innocentis immortalitate sententia?

Respondeo, Doctores Angelicum et Subtilem circa huius quaestionis resolutionem invicem consentire quod Adamus secundum suam constitutionem naturalem et physicam spectatus morti quidem fuisset obnoxius, nisi divino preveniente beneficio in statu innocentiae, quamdiu ille perseverasset, a mortis aculeo fuisset et imperio liber. Verum dissentiunt invicem in eo quod Angelicus Doctor contendat illam hominis innocentis immortalitatem oriundam fuisse ex quadam supernaturali qualitate intrinsece hominem afficiente, qua a morte fieret immunis. Nam 1. p. quaest. 97. a. 1. In corpore: Tertio, inquit, modo dicitur aliquid incorruptibile ex parte causae efficientis: et hoc modo homo in statu innocentiae fuisset incorruptibilis, et immortalis: quia ut Augustinus dicit (lib. De quaest. novi et vet. Testament. q. 19.) Deus hominem fecit, qui quamdiu non peccaret immortalitate gauderet, ut ipse sibi auctor esset, aut ad vitam, aut ad mortem. Non enim corpus eius erat indissolubile per aliquam immortalitatis rigorem in eo existentem, sed in anima quaedam vis supernaturaliter divinitus data, per quam poterat corpus ab omni corruptione preservare, quamdiu ipsa Deo subiecta mansisset: quod rationabiliter factum est: quia nimium excedit proportionem corporalis materiae, ut supra dictum est, conveniens fuit, ut in principio vitae virtus daretur per quam corpus conservari posset supra naturam corporalis materiae. Et in eadem quaest. a. 3. ad 1.: Immortalitas primi status (id est innocentiae) erat secundum eam quandam supernaturalem in anima residentem. Esse autem hanc virtutem independentem a ligno vitae docet a. 4. eiusdem quaest. Non tamen lignum vitae, inquit, simpliciter immortalitatem causebat, quia neque virtus quae inerat animae ad conservandum corpus causebatur ex ligno vitae.

Doctor vero Subtilis contendit immortalitatem hominis innocentis oriundam esse non ab intrinseco, sed ab extrinseco Dei beneficio. Ait enim, in 2. dist. 19. n. 3.: Dico quod homo in statu, seu stante statu innocentiae, potuit mori: ista tamen potentia non fuisset reducta ad actum, et sic poterat non mori, sicut si diceretur de aliquo, et v.g. Petrus potest esse episcopus, qui tamen nunquam erit episcopus. Addit n. 5.: Dico tamen quod stante innocentia non accidisset mors: cuius causam assigno talem, quia quilibet fuisset translatus in Paradisum, antequam fuisset alteratus alteratione improportionata animae, sive formae: et haec translatio non fuisset mirabilis, sed iusta et regularis, ut quilibet in statu suo transformaretur. Quibus verbis declarat Doctor quod homo perseverante statu innocentiae physice et ex naturali sua constitutione fuisset quidem mortalis, tametsi nusquam moriturus ex Dei privilegio ipsum a morte preservantis per singularem custodiam et providentiam, atque etiam per praesidium ligni vitae, cuius virtute temperamentum eius semper fuisset ad pondus, ut mortis semina ex humorum discordia et oppositione naturali exsurgentia usquam sensisset. — Itaque Doctoris sententia est, quod hominis corpus ex natura sua esset quidem defectibile, numquam tamen defectum passus esset ex singulari Dei protectione. Quod autem revera defectibile esset ex natura sua, atque physice mortale, probat Doctor, num. 3. et sequentibus. Primo quia in statu innocentiae eadem essent causae mortis quae in statu naturae purae, neenon et lapsae; igitur homo esset in eo statu physice mortalis. Consequentia est evidens: antecedens vero probatur: corpus humanum in statu innocentiae iisdem constabat partibus et humoribus quibus constaret in statu naturae purae, et quibus iam constat in statu naturae lapsae, utpote cum ad naturalem ipsius constitutionem spectent: itaque ex naturali sua activitate frigida calidis, et humida siccis opponerentur, atque invicem pugnarent, seseque mutuo confi... [truncated]

Dices: Idem S. Augustinus, quaest. 19. ex lib. Questionum veteris et novi Testamenti, ait: Deus hominem fecit, qui quamdiu non peccaret, immortalitate vigeret, ut ipse sibi auctor esset aut ad vitam, aut ad mortem. — Respondeo, Thomistas in hac auctoritate frustra gloriari, siquidem manifestum est librum istum questionum in vetus et novum Testamentum perperam S. Augustino adscribi; non enim genuinus est foetus, sed omnino spurius, ut cum Lovaniensibus observavimus in recensione operum S. Augustini. Accedit quod idem auctor hominis immortalitatem non ex intrinseca et supernaturali virtute, sed ex extrinseco beneficio repetat. Subiicit enim post verba a S. Thoma laudata: Quamdiu enim in Creatoris lege durarit, dignus fuit edere de arbore vitae, ut mori non posset. Nec enim corpus tale erat ut dissolvi impossibile videretur, sed gustus arboris vitae corruptionem corporis imbibebat. Denique etiam post peccatum potuit indissolubilis fieri munere, si a Domino permissum esset illi edere de arbore vitae. Nam quomodo immortale corpus habebat, quod cibo sustentabatur? immortalis enim non eget cibo, neque potu. Cibus enim vitae praestabat, vitae autem arbor medici modo corruptionem prohibebat. Sic enim homini erat quasi inexpugnabilis murus.

Dices 2: Status innocentiae erat quadam gratia originalis communicatione beatus: ergo debuerat habere aliquam vim et qualitatem supernaturalem qua humanum corpus fieret immortale ab intrinseco, sicut beatorum corpora sunt immortalia. — Nego sequellam; virtus enim et qualitas illa est omnino improbabilis; esset enim vel spiritualis vel corporalis. Non primum, sic enim corpori non posset esse mortis antidotum; non etiam secundum, quia non apparet qua ratione virtus illa sistere posset ne corpus humanum deficeret ab intrinseco vel extrinseco. Nec eadem est ratio de conditione corporum in statu innocentiae quae de statu beatitudinis post resurrectionem. In hoc enim corpora erunt omnino immortalia non per aliquam qualitatem intrinsecam quae illa eximat a morte, sed ratione status ab omni prorsus corruptione liberi.

Instabis: Status innocentiae addit aliquid supra statum naturae purae in quo homo mori posset et moreretur, sicut et peccare posset et peccaret. Igitur, sicut anima praeservabatur a peccato per gratiam sanctificantem, ita et corpus eximi debebat a morte per aliquam qualitatem internam. — Respondeo, revera statum innocentiae purae habuisse divina beneficia quibus homo caruisset in statu naturae purae; nam praeter gratiam et auxilia preservantia animam a peccato, habebat etiam fructum ligni vitae, quo vires corporis servarentur integrae, et ab omni defectu fierent liberae. Unde discrimen hoc intercedit inter quadruplicem statum naturae, purae, lapsae, innocentis, et beatae; quod in duobus prioribus homo esset mortalis et moreretur, in tertio mortalis esset, sed non moreretur; in quarto vero omnino erit immortalis ratione status ab omni defectu immunis.

Quaeres. 2. — Utrum in statu innocentiae homo revera fuisset mortuus?

Respondeo, fide constare, quod si non peccasset hominum primus, numquam morti fuisset addictus subditus. Haec namque veritas primum determinata est in Synodo Diospolitana: refert namque S. Augustinus De gestis Pelagii, cap. 11. hoc isti ab eius Synodi Patribus obiectum ex Discipuli eius Caelestii scriptis: Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moriturus esset; quoniam peccatum Adae ipsum solum laeserit, et non genus humanum. Hanc porro, iudice illo Ecclesiastico anathematizante Pelagio, et Episcopis intervenientibus constitutam esse damnatam, ut idem scribit. — Postea vero pleniore in Concilio, cui ex omnibus Africae Provinciis interfuerunt Episcopi ducenti tres, proscripta eadem est haeresis Canone isto, Ut quicumque dixerit: Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, ita ut sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, hoc est, de corpore exiret, non peccati merito, sed necessitate naturae, anathema sit. Qui Canon licet primus habeatur in Milevitana secunda Synodo, tamen perperam, est enim Carthaginensis, sive Africanae, et recensetur in Africana collectione septuagesimus sextus; in collectione vero Graeca Canonum, cap. 9. atque hoc numero citatur a Michaeli Glyca in Annalibus. Ac novissime Tridentinum Concilium, idem sanxit in primo Canone De peccato originali. — Haec autem veritas manifeste constat ex Scriptura sacra, maxime vero ex illis verbis Dei primos parentes alloquentis et esum fructus ligni scientiae boni et mali interdicentis: In quocumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. Quibus proculdubio significatur Adamum moriturum non fuisse, nisi legem illam violasset. Quis enim, si sapiat, ei, quem vult deterrere, comminetur istud malum quod alioquin ex necessitate naturae aut aliis ex causis certo esset eventurum uterque novisset? Id ipsum constantissime docebat Apostolus Rom. 5., his verbis:

Per unum hominem, peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Quod reliquo deinceps capite repetit. Et postea: Corpus mortuum est propter peccatum: spiritus vero vivit propter iustificationem.

Docet hoc idem liber Sapientiae, qui Deum ait, mortem non fecisse, nec laetari in perditione vivorum. Creavit enim ut essent omnia, et salvabiles fecit nationes orbis terrarum, de impiis autem moribus, et verbis accersierunt illam. Et apertius capite sequenti: Quoniam Deus creavit hominem inexterminabilem, et ad imaginem similitudinis suae fecit illum: Invidia autem diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum: quo in loco Graeca sensum hunc reddit: Deus creavit hominem ad incorruptibilitatem: hoc est, ut de facto corrumpi, morique non posset.

Respondebant Pelagiani, minas Dei sicut et alia adiecta Scriptura oracula ad mortem animae seu donorum caelestium spoliationem, et a Deo qui est fons vitae, seiunctionem referri debere: quoniam haec sola poena tanto peccato par esse poterat: non vero spectare ad corporis mortem, quia sive homo peccaret, sive non peccaret, de corpore exiret necessitate naturae. — Verum merito iure instabant Catholici Dei prohibentis minas ex sententia condemnantis intelligi debere: porro post violatam legem Deus dixit Adamo: Terra es, et in terram ibis. Quibus significat per mortem eius corpus in terram unde sumptum fuerat esse reversurum. Urgebant etiam ex duplici Apostoli textu quorum primum legitur in Epist. ad Rom., c. 8.: Si Christus in nobis est, corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus vero vivit propter iustificationem. Quod si Spiritus eius qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis, habitat in nobis, qui suscitavit Iesum Christum a mortuis vivificabit et mortalia corpora nostra, propter inhabitantem spiritum eius in nobis. Alterum ex 1 ad Corinth. XV. v. 21., et 22.: Per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur. Unde S. Augustinus pluribus colligit, sed praesertim in libris quos contra Pelagianos edidit, et in sexto De Genesi ad litteram: Per hoc, inquit, mors etiam corporis de peccato est. Si ergo non peccasset Adam, nec corpore moreretur: ideogue immortale haberet et corpus. Tum in sequenti; Verum est quidem, quod non moreretur etiam corpore nisi peccasset. Praeterea dicit Apostolus, corpus mortuum propter peccatum. Et in lib. 18. De Civit. Dei, cap. 15. Unde constat inter Christianos tenaciter Catholicam tenentes fidem, etiam ipsam nobis corporis mortem non lege naturae, quia nullam mortem homini Deus fecit; sed merito inflictam esse peccati, quoniam peccatum vindicans Deus dixit homini, in quo tunc omnes eramus: *Terra es, et in terram ib... [truncated]

Urgebant Pelagiani: Si primi hominis peccato factum est ut morremur corpore, per incarnationem Christi fieret ut credentes in eum non moreremur: neque enim praevericatoris transgressio plus nobis nocuit, quum incarnatio vel redemptio profuerit Salvatoris. — Respondet S. Augustinus, lib. 2. De peccatorum meritis et remissione, c. 30.:

Cur non potius attendunt, hoc audiunt, hoc sine dubitatione credunt quod Apostolus 1 Cor. 15., sine ambiguitate locutus est? Quia per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, sic et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur: neque enim aliunde quam de corporis resurrectione dicebat. Omnium ergo corporum mortem factam per unum hominem dixit, et omnium corporum resurrectionem in vitam aeternam per unum Christum futuram esse promisit. Quomodo ergo plus nobis nocuit ille peccando, quam iste profuit redimendo, cum per illius peccatum temporaliter moriamur, per istius autem redemptionem non ad temporalem vitam, sed ad perpetuam resurgamus?... Poterat autem etiam hoc donare credentibus, ut nec istius experirentur corporis mortem: sed si hoc fecisset, carni quaedam felicitas adderetur, minueretur autem fidei fortitudo. Sic enim homines mortem istam timent, ut non ob aliud felices dicerent esse christianos nisi quod mori omnino non possent. Ac per hoc nemo propter illam vitam quae post illam mortem beata futura est, per virtutem etiam contemnendae ipsius mortis ad Christi gratiam veniret, sed propter removendam mortis molestiam delicatius crederetur in Christum. Plus ergo gratiae praestitit, plus fidelibus suis sine dubitatione donavit. Quid enim magnum erat videndo non mori eos qui crederent, credere se non moriturum? Quanto est maius, quanto fortius, quanto laudabilius ita credere, ut se speret moriturus sine fine victurum?

Ita S. Augustinus.

The Pelagians added: If the death of the body occurred on account of sin, it would follow that after the remission of sins we would no longer be subject to the dominion of death. — St. Augustine answers, chapter 33.:

They do not understand those things whose guilt God forgives even after this life, and yet He permits them to remain for the contest of faith, that by them men may be instructed, profiting in the struggle of justice. For another man, not understanding this, might say: if on account of sin God said to man: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, and the earth shall bring forth thorns and thistles for thee: why does this labor remain even after the remission of sins, and why does the earth bring forth these hard and rough things even in the land of the faithful? Likewise, if on account of sin it was said to the woman: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; why do faithful women also suffer the same pains in childbirth even after the remission of sins? And yet it is certain that on account of the sin they had committed, those first men heard from God and merited these things; nor does anyone resist these words of the divine book which I have set down concerning the labor of man and the childbearing of woman, unless he be wholly a stranger to the Catholic faith and an adversary to the same writings.

Then he adds that just as those things before the remission are the punishments of sinners, but after the remission the contests and exercises of the just, so also God inflicted death of the body upon man on account of sin, and after the remission of sins did not take it away, that justice might be exercised. He confirms this by the example of the first parents: For just as, he says, those first men afterwards believing justly, whence "they are deservedly believed to have been delivered from the extreme punishment by the blood of the Lord," "did not nevertheless return to Paradise in that life": so also the flesh of sin, even if man should rest justly in it after his sins are remitted, does not at once not undergo that death "which he drew from the stock of sin".

From all these two things become manifest: first, that the first parents were indeed, by the constitution of nature, physically defectible even in the state of innocence, because they were composed of a body which was of itself defectible: the other, that they would never have died (had they stood innocent) by the virtue of the fruit of the tree of life.

You will ask 3. — Whether that virtue of the tree of life was natural or supernatural?

I answer., it seems more probable that that virtue was not natural and physical, but supernatural and extraordinary: and this is gathered first from St. Augustine, book 8. De Genesi, chapter 5. where he says: That tree conferred firmness upon man not as any food, but by some hidden inspiration of healthfulness, just as one collyrium nourished Elias forty days: and the flour and oil of the widow of Sareptha did not fail: but the virtue of the collyrium was supernaturally implanted, and so too that of the failing not oil and flour: therefore such was the virtue of the tree of life. Moreover, in book 13. De Civitate, chapter 20. he says: The other trees were food for man; that one however was the sacrament of life. Therefore, says St. Bonaventure in 2 dist. 17. explaining the words of the Master: just as our Sacraments do not create grace, but the divine virtue assisting them pours grace into their lawful reception; so the fruit of this tree did not give immortality, but the divine virtue, when that fruit was eaten, bestowed immortality upon man. Add that if that virtue had been natural, it would follow that the animals, which in Paradise had eaten of the fruit of life, would also have attained a certain immortality, which is surely improbable; for so great a benefit did not befit brute animals.

Therefore this long-lived duration of life, man's innocence standing, would have had various causes, which original justice embraced together with itself. The first would have been the skillful and attentive care and most vigilant providence of man in guarding against those things which could have harmed his life and integrity, whether inwardly or outwardly: which indeed he could easily accomplish, since he was most knowledgeable and most prudent in all things, and foresaw each incident that occurred. The second was the singular and outstanding providence of God, and likewise the friendly guardianship of the Angels, by which man would be strongly protected and fortified against whatever things assailed him. The third was a certain power of the soul, by which it contained and preserved the body so that nothing within could injure or dissolve it: namely, that no disease, no intemperance, no inconvenience arising from the contrariety of form and privation, or the conflict of elements and humors, would arise.

Fourthly and finally there was the tree of life; so called, says Bede in 2. Genes., because it had divinely received that whoever should eat of it, his body would be strengthened with steadfast health, lest it slip either by age into worse estate, or at last into ruin. All which Hugo of Saint Victor thus explains: The tree of life, he says, had in itself the nature to prolong life to man, if it were eaten fitly; for man was made both mortal and immortal: immortal indeed because he could not die through the sustenance of the food of which he had need: mortal however, because he could perish by external violence. But God had so fortified him within by the tree of life taken into food, and without by divine power, that he could not die, shutting within the gate of negligence by human reason, and without barring the gate of violence by divine custody, so that unless man abused his reason, opening the gate of negligence, never through the gate of violence would anything harmful enter into him: but because he would not take heed for himself, so as to keep the gate committed to him, God deservedly deserted his custody ».

You will ask. — since the fruit of the tree of life would have preserved the life of man not to infinity, but for a determined time, how long would that time be? — I answer., it seems to me that it would have been at minimum eight or ten thousand years: which may thus be argued: the state of man before sin would have been more fitted and efficacious for prolonging the life of man, in comparison with the state of man after sin before the flood, than that state was in comparison with that state in which man now is; because each of these states is that of sinful man having a weak body subject to a thousand evils: but in the state of man before the flood life was ten times longer than it is now; for it exceeded almost nine hundred years: therefore in the state of innocence the life of man would have been ten times longer than it was before the flood. But we wish this understood as far as concerns the power and efficacy of the tree of life, and the vigor of human nature in that state; for how long God might wish man to live upon the earth, not even divination can tell.

You will ask 4. — Whether the leaves and fruits of those trees of Paradise would ever fall away?

I answer 1., it seems more likely that none of the trees of Paradise would ever be entirely stripped bare of their leaves: truly, since they would not be wholly immortal, I judge that as certain leaves grew old and little by little withered, new ones would always spring up in place of those falling; so that nowhere would a tree be wholly despoiled of leaves; but it would flourish always with wondrous beauty and verdure, like the olive and the palm, so that to them would belong that blessing of Psalm 123. And its leaf shall not fall.

I answer 2. The fruitful trees would have produced flowers in perennial succession, which would soon coalesce into fruits with swift maturity; so that upon the plucking or falling of the ripe fruit, immediately a new flower would arise in its place, which would then mature into fruit, and thus this continuous alternation of flowering and fruiting would ever persist in the trees; namely with an alternating and wondrous variety, whereby there would always be present some flowers, and fruits some green, some ripening, some ripe; which would conduce to the outstanding beauty of the trees and the excellence of the place, so that Ezechiel seems to have looked to those trees in chapter 17. when he says: And upon the torrent there shall rise upon its banks on either side every fruit-bearing tree: its leaf shall not fall off, and its fruit shall not fail.

All which the sacred Poets wondrously celebrate: for Tertullian, On the Judgment of the Soul chapter 8. thus sings:

And the groves alone ever green, without hail: No leaves fall, and no flower is wanting in any season... The tree stands most beautiful with new blossom and with fruits, And the blessed oaks thicken the vital crop.

Likely Marius Victor, book 1. On Genesis:

There each tree rich stands with its own fruits, And ripe fruits are driven off by falling fruits, Which are pleasing to the eyes, and full of wondrous vigor, Would be membered and smallest, and feed with savor and odor.

Finally St. Alcimus Avitus book 2. On Genesis, chapter 2. says:

Is taken in turn the fruit from the thin sod, For when the boughs with fertile weight bend down, Yielding sweet fruits from the lofty tree Straightway the barren shoot begins to swell into flower And to produce fruit in new buds.

Whether however those trees would at some time dry up and die, or rather live perpetually, is a problem; since in Paradise no sign of defect and death would appear had the happy state of innocence stood. Nevertheless I judge it more probable that those trees would not be altogether immortal: but some would be of longer age than others, as some of ours are. But as they grew old and died, they would with easy conversion dissolve into earth, and in their place others of the same nature would sprout from reviving germs, as often happens in our trees both fruitful and unfruitful. — This seems to be the opinion of St. Athanasius, question 18. to Antiochus, where inquiring: Do we call Paradise corruptible or incorruptible? he answers: Neither do we say that it is subject to corruption, after the manner of our plants and fruits, which are gnawed both by rot and by worms: nor yet altogether incorruptible and destined to attain the greatest old age: but in respect of our fruits and gardens it is superior to all corruption: yet in respect of the future glory of the good, of which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, it is inferior, and so believed.

You will ask finally 5. Whether the Earthly Paradise still subsists?

I answer., the solution of this question appears altogether uncertain, and therefore will be problematical for us: whose affirmative part is thus urged: that truth ought to be most constant for us which the holy Fathers affirm, and testify that they received by Apostolic tradition: but such it is concerning the existence of Paradise. The minor is proved: first indeed from St. Irenaeus, (whom St. Epiphanius, Heresy 23. calls most holy, a theologian of the ancient race, and successor of the Apostles.) He, I say, in book 5. against heresies, c. 5 affirms that Henoch and Elias were translated into Paradise, from which Adam was cast forth into this world, and adds: Wherefore the Presbyters, who are disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were translated thither were translated thither. (For Paradise is prepared for just men and such as have the Spirit, into which Paul the Apostle also was taken, and heard unspeakable words, as John in the Spirit saw the region of Paradise revealed, which follows upon the other. Does any soul elsewhere show itself except of the martyrs? How did the perpetual and most valiant martyr under the day of her passion see in the revelation of Paradise only her co-martyrs there: save because no one keeps the guardian sword of Paradise, save those who have departed in Christ? Is not in Adam a new death for God, and extraordinary, for Christ another, snatched away from a private lodging? Forgive then the difference between the heathen and the faithful in death, if thou recall for God, as Tertullian warns, not in soft fevers and on couches, but in martyrdoms: If thou take up thy cross, and follow the Lord, as He Himself commanded, all the glory of Paradise is thy blood.)

St. Augustine confirms it, book 2. On Original Sin, chapter 23. saying: There are certain questions in which, the faith being safe by which we are Christians, either what the matter is is unknown, and judgment definitively suspended, or it is conjectured otherwise than it is by human and infirm surmise: as when it is asked, what manner of thing, or where Paradise is, wherein God placed the man whom He formed from the dust: although nevertheless the Christian faith does not doubt that that Paradise exists. Or when it is asked where Elias, or Henoch now is, whether there or elsewhere; whom nevertheless we do not doubt to live in the bodies in which they were born. In which words he seems to assert that the actual existence of Paradise is of faith. The same think all those holy Fathers who affirm that Henoch and Elias are preserved alive in the Paradise of pleasure until the end of the world; thus Victorinus Martyr, St. Athanasius, Jerome, and others confirm: and all those who describe the beauty and delights of Paradise as though delineating a present thing: but best of all St. Alcimus says:

It remains enclosed within an everlasting bound, since from hence He fell out, expelled, the author of the primal crime.

The same is urged by reason: if the earthly Paradise did not survive, especially since it would have been overwhelmed by the general flood of the waters: but that does not seem probable. For the flood was sent for this purpose, that it might wash away the earth contaminated by the crimes of men, as appears Genesis chapter 6. Therefore it ought to have absorbed and washed only that which had been defiled after Adam was cast out of Paradise; not however Paradise prepared for innocent men alone; the sign of which is, that immediately after sin, Adam and Eve were cast out from there, and an Angelic guard was placed, lest anyone thereafter approaching might contaminate it.

Secondly, Ecclesiasticus, chapter 11. we read: Henoch pleased God, and was translated into Paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations: therefore he was truly translated into Paradise, as was Elias also: but that translation and carrying away of them was not made into the heavenly Paradise, because from it no one has fallen; but they again must converse with men to withstand Antichrist, by whom they will alike be slain: therefore into the earthly; and accordingly since they were preserved unharmed from the inundating and murderous waters, it seems beyond doubt that the place of delight in which they dwell ought equally to have been preserved.

Thirdly, Sacred Scripture says of the earthly Paradise that four rivers go forth from it, namely Phison, Geon, Tigris, and Euphrates, of which mention is made more than once in Scripture after the flood; unless authority urged the contrary, especially that context. chapter 7. Genes. in which it is thus had: The waters inundated, and filled all things upon the surface of the earth, and overflowed exceedingly above the earth; and all the high mountains were covered under the whole heaven: fifteen cubits higher was the water above the mountains which it had covered: but this sacred Text does not stand in the way; for in that chapter we read that all men and souls in which was the breath of life perished, and shortly after it is added: But Noe alone remained, and they that were with him in the Ark: and yet no one admits that Henoch was shut up in the Ark, nor that he perished in those murderous waters: therefore just as in this universal proposition: All men died, except Noe, and they that were with him, Henoch is excepted; why should not Paradise also be excepted from that universal deluge?

The part denying the problem may thus urge: if the earthly Paradise was destined for the habitation of men remaining in the state of innocence, the inhabitants removed, it is likely that the place and its inhabitation perished together. Then, since it could by no man through so many ages be found, nor even the slightest trace of it detected, although the whole world be inhabited and explored, it is an argument that it itself does not survive. Which is indeed confirmed by this, that the regions which the aforesaid four rivers water are now most well known and most full of inhabitants and dwellers: therefore if the Paradise from which they flow still survived, why might not some one of the inhabitants pass through to it, led by the waters of the rivers? — For what is read concerning a certain Macarius the Roman, and three other Monks: who having devoted themselves with all zeal to investigating the site of Paradise, having journeyed through distant regions, came at last to the very entrance of Paradise itself, but were forbidden entrance therein, nor dared approach it, terrified by that horrible custody of the Cherub; this, I say, I reckon among old wives' tales.

Nor do I judge greater faith to be given to the narrative which we find described in John Gionzale, in the itinerary of the new world c. 18.: a certain king of Benyalce, past which the Ganges flows, inflamed with desire of finding the fountain of the river, and so of Paradise, sent certain men in ships, furnished with provision for many months, who, having sailed far up the river, after a navigation of many days came to plains where the Ganges lay quietly stagnant, flowing more sluggishly. There a gentler breeze breathed, and a wondrous odor of flowers and spices poured over the minds of all an incredible sweetness. Judging the fountain to be not far off, they strove strongly with oars and sails into the interior; but all effort and labor vanished; for although all things were most favorable, and they judged themselves going most swiftly, yet they advanced nothing from the place. Understanding that they were held back by some hidden force, and that from the signs of the places the fountain of the Ganges and Paradise were not far distant, whither they were forbidden to penetrate. — But those narratives deserve no greater faith than that which the Jews fable concerning Josue, namely, that when he was near death, God sent to him an Angel of death, who asked of him whether he wished anything before his death? and he asked only that the place of his abode in the garden Eden be shown to him; and being led to the enclosure of Paradise, that he might look within, slipping from the hands of the Angel, he suddenly leaped with his foot into Paradise, and there surveying all things, he found seven mansions, each in length a hundred thousand miles, and in breadth ten thousand. First he saw the pagans who, abandoning ethnicism, converted themselves to God; in the second the penitents; in the third Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the sons of Israel who went out of Egypt and died in the desert; in the fourth no one; in the fifth the Messiah the Son of David, thus relates this Carpzov in Schickard, On Hebrew Liturgical Law, chapter 6.

In the first chamber (he says) (Josue) came upon (Iehosua) proselytes of justice under the name of Obadiah the Just: in the second sinners converted by penance, under the name of Manasses son of Hiskiah; in the third Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the Israelites who long ago went out of Egypt, and who died in the desert, and all David's children, except Absalom, David himself and Solomon, and all the kings of Juda, except Manasseh son of Hiskiah, inasmuch as he is set forth penitent in the second chamber: over these presided Moses and Aaron. In the fourth chamber he found set forth the just and the faithful; in the fifth, most splendid of all, the Messiah son of David, and Elias; in the sixth those dead in the way of precept; in the seventh finally those dead of sickness on account of the iniquities of the Israelites. But these are mere chimaeras of a raving brain, not to say insane one, which we leave to their authors, says G. Saldenus Exercitation 6. book 2.

From these and similar tales, truer to say empty fictions and fables, nothing is elicited to prove the subsistence of the earthly Paradise. — To the confirmation of the denying opinion is added this, that whereas the waters of the flood, moving with continual and enormous force going and returning for a whole year, laid low all trees, houses, cities, and even hills, and moved nearly the whole surface of the earth: therefore they also subverted the form and adornment of Paradise.

Finally, if anything urges the existence of Paradise, especially that text Ecclus. 11. wherein Henoch is said to be translated into Paradise: yet from that it does not follow that he was translated into the Paradise of Adam. First, because in Greek that word Paradisus is not found, but only that he was translated that he may give repentance to the nations. Secondly, even if we keep the Vulgate translation, it does not follow from that that he was translated into the Adamic Paradise: for the word Paradise is by no means everywhere taken in the sacred books for some delightful place, or garden planted with fruit-bearing trees, as appears Canticles 4. vers. 13. Thy plants are a paradise of pomegranates with the fruits of the orchard.

This very truth Rupert teaches book 3. De Trinitate et operibus eius, c. 33. in these words: Nowhere does Scripture give us to understand that God took Henoch and Elias into that very Paradise where they might eat of the tree of life and live forever: but they were so taken up that they were led into a certain secret region of the earth, where they live in great quiet of flesh and spirit until they return at the end of the world, and pay the debt of death. But Gregory writes things similar to Rupert concerning Elias, whom these men wish to dwell together with Henoch in Paradise. For Homily 29. on the Gospels St. Gregory thus says: Into the air, that is the heaven, Elias was lifted up, that he might suddenly be led into a certain secret region of the earth, where he already lives in great quiet of flesh and spirit, until he return at the end of the world, and pay the debt of death: For he postponed death. From the aforesaid words therefore of Rupert and Gregory, it is clearly understood, says

Pererius, that they thought Henoch and Elias were not translated into that earthly Paradise, but live in another certain secret region of the world: although that Henoch was translated into that Paradise of Adam offers no hindrance to this opinion: for Henoch was translated 660 years before the flood, as appears from chapter 5. of Genesis, at which time we do not deny that Paradise existed, but that it survived the flood, exists today, and that Henoch dwells in it, is uncertain.

But as regards the Holy Fathers, I say their doctrine is not to be followed absolutely in all things, but only in dogmas of faith and morals, as Vincent of Lerins warns: The ancient, he says, consensus of the ancient Fathers is not to be investigated and followed with great diligence in all the little questions of the divine law; but only in the rule of faith.

To St. Augustine I say that he teaches there that it is not certain, and therefore not of faith, whether Henoch and Elias are in Paradise: and presently his mind is not that it is of faith that Paradise now exists, but only that it once truly existed; and was a certain corporeal and visible place; not however, as Origin pleased, to be understood spiritually and mystically. Which is indeed discovered from other similar questions which he proposes there, and which he affirms can be unknown without harm to the faith: Consider, he says, of what size the Heavens are, into the third of which the Apostle records himself to have been raptured; or whether the elements of this visible world be four, or more! What makes the sun and moon fail in those defects which Astrologers have been accustomed to predict by a certain reckoning of times? Why did the ancients live so long as Holy Scripture testifies: and whether in proportion to their longer age they began to beget sons of late puberty. How Matusalem could live, who was not in the ark, and who as in most codices, both Greek and Latin, the years are counted, is found to have survived the flood? Or whether fewer years are rather to be believed in those codices, which are found most rarely, in which the number of years is written in such wise that he is shown to have died before the flood? For who does not perceive in these and questions of this kind various and innumerable, pertaining either to the most obscure works of God, or to the deepest recesses of the Scriptures, which it is difficult to embrace and define by any certain genus, that many things may be unknown with the Christian faith safe, and to err somewhere without any crime of heretical dogma?

Articulus II: De naturalibus et ingenitis hominis innocentis dotibus

In the preceding Disputation we have delineated the various and most excellent gifts implanted by nature in men; now it remains to set forth what were the natural excellences of Adam and Eve in the state of innocence. And it must be observed above all, with St. Bernard, Sermon 11 on the Psalm Qui habitat, that we owe a fourfold thanksgiving to God on account of the fourfold great benefit bestowed on us by Him. First, He says, because He bestowed on us that we are ourselves. For He Himself made us, and not we ourselves: does this seem to you a little thing, because He made you? Consider what He made you. Truly even according to the body an excellent creature, but according to the soul more so, as being marked with the image of the Creator, a partaker of reason, capable of everlasting beatitude. Moreover, both together, beyond all other creatures, most admirable in their coherence joined to itself by an incomprehensible artifice and by the investigable wisdom of the Maker. Therefore so great is this gift, and how great a thing is man. But how gratuitous was it bestowed? It is plain, since he merited nothing before, who at first was nothing.

Was it hoped afterwards that he would repay grace to its Author? I have said to the Lord: Thou art my God, for thou hast no need of my goods. We therefore, being about to repay necessary gratitude to Him who thus suffices to Himself in all things: but being about to render devoted thanks to Him who was thus hoped to merit it. Why should he not give thanks? If anyone seemed in any way to have restored to you the light of your eyes, the use of your ears, of your nostrils, of your hands, of your feet; if anyone had by some occasion aroused in you your reason when sunk in sleep; who would not be most vehemently kindled against you, if he should ever find you forgetful of such a benefit, or ungrateful to the benefactor? Indeed the Lord God Himself bestowed upon you these very instruments, and made all these things out of nothing. Nor did He only make them, but also compacted and formed them, and adorned them with His own service. How should not He demand of you by every right the ampler thanks? For He was not content even with this (though greatest) gift, who gave that you might be who before were not, but added also whence you might subsist who already were. Nor did He work this less liberally than that miraculously. Let us make man, He says, to our image and likeness. What then afterwards? and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the beasts of the earth, etc. For He had taught beforehand that the heavenly elements also created themselves for your uses: namely, they are related to have been made, that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. For whom do you think? For none surely but you. For the rest, how much for consolation, how much hence already for correction, how much also for delight? Two other benefits he subjoins; namely, those of redemption and of remuneration, which since they are supernatural, we have judged must be passed over here.

But far greater and ampler thanksgivings was the first Father of men bound to render to God on account of the immense benefits conferred on him by God; which St. Augustine thus elegantly weighs, lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 26. Man bore, he says, in Paradise as he willed, so long as he cultivated what God had commanded: he lived enjoying God, from which man was good: he lived without any want, having it thus in his power always so to live. Food was at hand lest he hunger: drink lest he thirst: the tree of life lest old age dissolve him: no corruption in the body, or from the body did any molestations press upon any of his senses. No disease from within, no blow changed him from without: supreme health in the flesh, entire tranquillity in the soul. As in Paradise there was no heat or cold: so in its inhabitant no offense of good will arose from covetousness or fear. Nothing at all was sad, nothing vainly joyful: the joy of things was perpetuated from God, towards whom charity burned from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned; and between themselves the faithful society of spouses from honorable love, the concord of mind and body's vigilance, and the keeping of the commandment without labor, wearied not him at leisure, nor did sleep prove fruitless, etc. But in chapter 10 he had premised: How happy therefore will the first men be, who will be agitated by no perturbations of soul, will be wearied by no inconveniences! So happy would the whole human society be, if neither did they have evil, which they would hand on even to posterity, nor did anyone commit iniquity from their stock, which would receive damnation. And thus, happiness remaining, by the gift of that blessing wherein it was said: Increase and multiply, the number of predestined saints would be filled up: another greater gift would be given, such as was given to the most blessed Angels, that there would then be certain security that no one would sin, and no one would die: and such would be the life of the Saints, after no experience of labor, sorrow, death, as it will be after all these things in the incorruption of bodies... [truncated]

These things being premised, three points especially come to be determined in the present Article: First, what and of what sort was the bodily formation and occupation of Adam and Eve. Second, what was the illumination and wisdom of their mind. Third, of what sort would the propagation of men be in the state of innocence.

Quaestio I: Quaenam fuerit protoparentum corporea formatio, et exercitatio

Note 1. That the name of Adam is not only the appellation of the whole human species, as is "man," but is also the proper name of the first parent of men, who in Hebrew is called Adam from Adamah, that is, earth, or red clay. For in Hebrew Adam means to grow red, and Adamah is earth so called from redness, such as clay has. Hence Esau in Hebrew is called Edom, the reason of whose name Genesis 25 and 30 unfolds, when he himself says to Jacob: Give me of this red pottage, namely of lentils, and Moses straightway infers for what cause his name was called Edom, evidently as it were "red."

Some ancient Fathers of the Church judge that the first man was called Adam for this reason, that his body was molded of earth taken from the four parts of the world: and thence obtained the name Adam, because each letter of this word begins each of those four chief parts of the world, according to the Greek idiom, which St. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the book On the Mountains of Sinai and Sion against the Jews, indeed thus expounds: The Hebrew Adam is interpreted in Latin as earth touched by flesh, because out of the four cardinal points of the world He grasped earth with His fist, as it is written, I measured the Heaven with my palm, and grasped the earth with my fist, and fashioned man out of all the mire of the earth, I made him to the image of God: It behooved him to bear in himself from these four cardinal points of the world the name Adam. We find in the Scriptures that by each cardinal point of the world four stars were constituted by the Maker of the world in each cardinal point. The first Eastern star is called Anatole. The second Western Dysis. The third star of the North Arctos. The fourth Southern star is called Nesembria. From the names of the four stars, take from each star's name its principal letter: from the star Anatole, a; from the star Dysis, d; from the star Arctos, a; from the star Nesembria, m: in these four letters of the cardinal points you have the name Adam.

This same opinion St. Augustine confirms, tractates 9 and 10 on John, where he says: In Adam, a square of four letters, the four parts of the world are demonstrated through Greek appellations. For if in Greek there be named Prions (south), decidens (west), Aquilo (north), Meridies, as Scripture commemorates them in most places, in the heads of the words you find Adam. The same teach Sixtus Senensis, book 3 of the Bibliotheca, Salmeron, Prolegomenon 1 on the Evangelical history, Pererius on the first chapter of Genesis. From which it is plain how worthy of laughter Erasmus is, who after his fashion laughs because the Holy Fathers wished the etymon of the name Adam, though it be Hebrew, to be sought from the Greek tongue. For what is inept or incongruous, when names from Hebrew first origin become common in other languages, to derive their etymon and allusion also from those same languages? Thus Optatus interpreted the name Cepha not in Syriac, but in Greek as caput (head).

Note 2. That the first woman was named Eve by Adam, because she was to be the mother of all the living, according to that of Genesis, chapter 3: And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. That this signification may indeed be legitimate, she seems to be called not Eva, but Chaffa, that is living, or life-giving, from the root Chaia, that is, he lived. But it is not sufficiently clear whether this imposition of the name was made before the fall; for there are those who opine that Adam, touched with immense grief and stupefaction, because for the sake of his wife he had been despoiled of such great goods, and had been condemned to such great evils and to the death of evils the greatest of all, called his wife mother of the living through a certain bitter irony, just as the Greeks call the infernal Furies Eumenides, that is, well disposed and mild, from the contrary indeed, since they are said to be hard and inexorable. Unless perhaps with Lyranus and Abulensis you say that Eve signifies mother of all, not simply, but of those living laboriously and miserably in this mortal life. Hence piously some contemplate that Eve was fitly so called, as if this name alluded to the wailing of the little ones begotten from Eve. For a male newly born crying says A, but a female says E, whence the Poet:

Dicent e, vel a, quotquot nascentur ab Eva.

Again, Eve by anastrophe and apocope in Latin is ave, by anastrophe alone ava, which Gabriel the Archangel brought in saluting the Blessed Virgin.

Note 3. That it is certain the body of the first Parent of men was formed by God from the slime of the earth; for this in most open words: He fashioned God from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. In which words He assigns four causes of man: the Efficient indeed, namely God, saying: Therefore the Lord God formed man. The matter when He subjoins: from the slime of the earth: the form when He adds: He breathed into his face the breath of life: finally the end: man became a living soul, that is, that he may be a living soul, or a living animal, namely sensing, moving himself, knowing himself and other things, and exercising all the operations of life. Although He had declared the form together with the end of man more significantly and expressly above, saying in chapter 1, verse 26: Let us make man to our image and likeness. For that is the genuine and proper form of man, whereby he bears the similitude and image of God: and this is the rational soul.

Now the end of man is this, that by meritorious works, aided by the help of God, he may be assimilated to God as much as possible through sanctifying grace in this life, and through glory in the other, as St. John writes, 1 John chapter 3: We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him.

It is likewise to be observed that in Hebrew and Chaldaic it is thus had: God molded or fashioned man dust or clay from the earth; whence the Seventy Interpreters so translated: God fashioned man taking dust from the earth, by which is signified that man was made dusty, earthly: whence St. Paul, 1 Corinthians c. 15: the first man of earth earthly; and men are for the most part called Earth-born in Sacred Scripture: wherefore the contemplation of our earthly origin is so often inculcated in Sacred Scripture, that it may admonish us of the fragile and falling condition of man, soon to perish. Which Rupertus indeed treats expressly and piously in chapter 20 of book 2 On the Trinity. While, he says, it was said by Moses what it is worth the while diligently to attend to, namely that God formed man, and formed him not of whatsoever, but from the slime of the earth. For weighing this as it had been said, holy men called this very Creator of theirs the Molder, but themselves clay, in elegant confession and tearful declamation: and now, O Lord, says Isaias in chapter 61, Thou art our Father, and we clay: our maker, and we all the work of thy hands: and in Jeremias, chapter 18, the same is expressed of God our molder: shall I not be able to do to you as this potter, O house of Israel? Behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand.

And He showed him the potter doing his work upon the wheel; and it was broken, he says, the vessel which he himself was making with his hands, and turning he broke it into another, as it had pleased in his eyes to make. Hence the same Isaias, as above, says: Woe to him who contradicts his maker, a shard of earthen pottery.

Knowing these and like things, that Celestial Jurisperitus Paul says in Romans 9: O man, who art thou that answerest God? Shall the thing formed say to him who fashioned it, why hast thou made me thus? Or does not the potter have power to make of the same clay one vessel indeed unto honor, another unto contumely? Therefore we too, when we read that God formed man from the slime of the earth, must not discuss why He so made him, but rather that must be feared by each of you concerning himself, lest the vessel which He Himself made be dissipated in His hands; and this cast off He make another vessel as it pleased in His eyes. Thus Rupertus.

These things thus premised, three things are to be resolved in the present Question: First, where Adam and Eve were formed. Second, of what sort and in what body they were endowed. Third, what their occupation was and would be in the state of innocence.

First Conclusion. — It is more probable that Adam was formed outside Paradise: but Eve in Paradise.

The first part is [the doctrine] of all the Holy Fathers; and Sacred Scripture clearly indicates it, Genesis 2, v. 15, where of created man it says: Therefore the Lord God took man, and put him in the paradise of pleasure, to dress and to keep it: and Genes. 3, v. 23: The Lord God sent him forth from the paradise of pleasure to till the earth from which he was taken. If God received man created, and put him in Paradise, where he never before had been, therefore he was not created in Paradise: if created outside Paradise to inhabit the earth from which he was framed, then already outside Paradise he was molded of earth.

But why God willed not to create man in Paradise, various reasons are brought forward by authors: First indeed, says Pererius on chapter 2 of Genesis, because the dwelling of Paradise did not suit man according to his nature, but on account of the dower of immortality, which God was about to concede to him as about to remain in the state of innocence. But since the dower of immortality was not natural to man, but tributed to him by the gratuitous gift of God: that therefore Adam might understand the more manifestly that that place was not due to him naturally, but conceded by the sole grace of God, it was congruous that Adam be created outside Paradise. Second, if Adam had been created in Paradise, nor had before seen other places, he might perchance have thought that place to suit him and be due to him naturally: but created outside Paradise, more clearly acknowledging by comparison of other places the preeminence of Paradise, without doubt he understood the eminent benevolence and beneficence of God toward himself, who deigned him so happy a place and dwelling. Third, that Adam might be the more cautious, and the readier to execute the will of God, and the more diligent and attentive in keeping His commands and precepts: most certainly knowing that he must abide in Paradise only so long as he obeyed the command of God. Finally fourth, he could have no cause of grieving and complaining of God, when he would be cast out of Paradise for sin, as if denied a place naturally due and suitable to him: whereas God is not at all wont on account of sin to mulct and deprive man of natural goods.

As to the formation of Eve, Josephus judges, lib. 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 1, that she was formed also outside Paradise: for after narrating the production of Adam and Eve, describing also the beauty and amenity of Paradise, he thus subjoins: Moses asserted therefore that God planted a garden toward the east with every green plant: into this garden when God had led him together with his wife, he commanded them to have full care thereof. Such are his words. He judges therefore Adam and Eve begotten elsewhere. Then Josephus seems plainly to affirm that they were introduced into Paradise by God. Tertullian, lib. 2 against Marcion, seemed to indicate the same when he says: No one of mortals, not even Adam himself, was born in the Paradise of God. Nevertheless Sacred Scripture indicates quite plainly enough that Eve was formed in the terrestrial Paradise, while it says she was brought forth from Adam already translated into Paradise.

St. Ambrose confirms all these things, the book On Paradise, chapter 4, saying: Mark that outside Paradise the man was made, and the woman within Paradise; that you may know that not by nobility of place, nor of birth, but by virtue does each one procure grace for himself. Finally, the man made outside Paradise, that is, in an inferior place, deservedly falls: and she who was made in a better place, that is, in Paradise, is found inferior. For the woman was first deceived, and she herself deceived the man: Whence the Apostle Peter subjoining, remembered that women, the stronger cause, obey the holy men their husbands as Lords.

From these things it is established that both first Parents had the same efficient cause; namely God, the immediate and sole artificer of their body and soul: but a wholly diverse material cause; for the man was formed from dusty earth, but the woman from a rib extracted from Adam, formed of a rib: for Moses says Genes. chapter 2, v. 21 and 22: Therefore the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam, and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it, and the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam. Which words comprise three things most noteworthy: First indeed, that a sleep was cast upon Adam by God, that is, as the Septuagint render it, extasim: for that sleep was ecstatic, such that not only was his mind loosed and free for the natural use of reason and the exercise of the soul, but it was even illuminated divinely and filled with a prophetic spirit, understanding in his very sleep that a woman was being formed from his side, and perceiving the mystery of that fact, then awaking he said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Let us say therefore that there was indeed a sleep, but such nevertheless that in it, the senses bound, the mind nonetheless loosed and divinely illuminated both discerned the things which were being done at that time and understood the mysteries which lay hidden in them.

But this sleep had so bound the external senses that Adam felt not the rib taken from him. Whence Alcimus Avitus, in the Poem on the formation of man, represents this Adamic sleep thus:

Dumque petunt dulcem spirantia cuncta quietem, Solvitur et somno laxati corporis Adam. Cui Pater Omnipotens pressum per corda soporem Iecit, et immenso tardavit pondere sensus, Vis ut nulla queat sopitam solvere mentem. Non si forte fragor securas verberet aures, Nec si commoto coelum tunc intonet axe, Sed nec pressa manu rupissent membra quietem.

But this ecstatic sleep to have been the figure of the future death of Christ, and of the Church about to arise from His side, thinks the Master of the Sentences in 2 dist. 18.: Not without cause, he says, was the rib withdrawn also from the sleeping man rather than from the waking, of which rib the woman was formed for the man as a help to generation: namely, that it might be shown that he felt no pain therein, and at the same time the marvelous work of divine power might be shown forth, which opened the side of the sleeping man, yet roused him not from the quiet of sleep. In which work also was figured the sacrament of Christ and the Church, because as the woman was formed from the side of the sleeping man, so the Church from the sacraments which flowed forth from the side of Christ sleeping on the cross: or as St. Augustine speaks in the Sentences, sent. 328. Adam sleeps, he says, that Eve may be made: Christ dies, that the Church may be made. While Adam sleeps Eve is made from the side: the dead Christ's side is pierced by the lance, that the sacraments may overflow, whereby the Church is formed.

To these concords the above-praised Alcimus Avitus:

Of this dream the judgment of death was the sequel, Which Christ of His own accord undertook when He had taken a body. And when, about to suffer, He hung on high upon the tree, Nailed and bound fast, while He hung bearing the sins of the world, The Executioner fixed the spear deep in His outstretched side.

Forthwith, springing forth, He fortified with that wound the shield. For the peoples round about, even then while the chalice was being promised, the stream of blood was a sign of martyrdom. Thence, while He lay at rest in the twofold night, the Church, rising from the member of His side, was wedded.

Secondly, as it occurs in the first formation of woman, it is to be noted that woman was formed from the rib of Adam; and this for various reasons, which St. Thomas expounds thus in I part, qu. 92, art. 2: First, he says, it was fitting that woman should be formed from man rather than from any other creature; first indeed, that in this way a certain dignity might be preserved to the first man, so that, according to the likeness of God, he himself might be the principle of his whole species, as God is the principle of the whole universe. Hence Paul also said, Acts 17, that God made of one man the whole race of mankind. Secondly, that man might love woman the more, and cleave to her more inseparably, since he knew that Eve had been brought forth from himself: whence it is said, Genesis 2, She was taken from man; wherefore shall a man leave father and mother, etc.

Hence Adam was vehemently incited to love Eve by four causes: namely, on account of the similitude of the same nature; on account of carnal union; on account of the generation of offspring; but above all, because Eve was something of himself, that is, procreated from his substance: for it is chiefly for this reason that parents love their children so greatly. But if the mind of Adam had not been so occupied with love of the woman, when afterwards at her persuasion and impulse he fell into sin, and on that account was despoiled of so many and so great gifts and endowments of God, he would have conceived an immense and implacable hatred against her, and would ever have borne a mind estranged from her and turned away. The third reason (says St. Thomas) is sacramental; for there was figured thereby that the Church takes her beginning from Christ: hence the Apostle says to the Ephesians 5: This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.

A fourth reason Pererius adds on chapter 2 of Genesis, n. 187: namely, that man is by a certain mean nature between the Angels and the animals: wherefore a mean manner also of origin befitted the human race. Now the Angels, all and each without exception, were created proximately by God: nor among so great a number of Angels may one be found who was procreated from another Angel: but the animals arose from others, yet not all, even those of the same species, were generated from one: for at the beginning of the world God made many males and many females of each species of animal, by whom the rest might easily and numerously be procreated: but in man the matter stood in a certain middle way: for the first man was made proximately by God; from him the woman was fashioned; and from both proceeded every offspring of men.

Thence we can distinguish four modes of human production: one without man and woman, as of Adam; another from man without woman, as of Eve: a third from woman without man, as of Christ our Lord from the Virgin Mary: a fourth from man and woman, as of the rest of men, which is the natural and common mode of generation.

It must be observed likewise that Eve was not formed from any part whatsoever of the body of man, says the Master of the Sentences in the place cited, but she was formed from his side; that it might be shown that she was created for fellowship. Lest perchance, if she had been made from the head, she might seem to be given for domination over the man: or if from the feet, to be subjected unto servitude: therefore, since neither mistress nor handmaid was being prepared for man, but companion, she was to be produced neither from the head nor from the feet, but from the side: that he might recognize her to be set beside himself, whom he had learned to have been taken from his side.

Thirdly, finally, concerning the formation of woman from the aforesaid words of Scripture it is to be noted that God drew out one rib from Adam, and filled up flesh for it: whence a doubt arises whether that rib withdrawn from Adam was one of those ribs necessary to the integrity of the human body: for the Physiologists and Physicians relate that our body is constructed and joined together of twenty-four ribs, twelve on either side: whether then that rib was superabundant and superfluous, e.g., so that Adam had thirteen ribs on his left side: whichever way it be said, the matter seems absurd. For if that rib be among the necessary ribs: then after its withdrawal Adam remained mutilated and imperfect: but if it was superfluous: then Adam was created monstrous and deformed, having, namely, more ribs on one side than on the other: which was a notable mark of deformity, no less surely than if he had been made two-headed, or three-headed, or with six fingers on both hands or on one.

Theologians answer commonly that that rib was partly superfluous to Adam, partly necessary: superfluous, indeed, if Adam be considered as some singular man and particular person: for beyond the just number of ribs that rib was over and above, pertaining nowise to the integrity of the body of Adam: but if Adam be considered as the first man, and destined to be the principle of the whole human race, and from whom Eve was to be formed, then that rib was necessary; not simply, indeed, nor according to the natural order and reason — for Eve could have been formed of another thing — but only according to the election and ordination of God, who had determined to fabricate the body of Eve from the substance of Adam.

I grant, as more probable, that this rib withdrawn from Adam was among those ribs necessary to the constitution and integrity of his body: for if that rib had been superfluous to Adam, and outside his nature, it could not truly be said that Eve was formed from Adam; nor would Adam have said truly that Eve was bone of his bones: for that rib would not have been his natural and proper bone, but, as far as he was concerned, beside nature and accidental, and had been imposed upon him for the briefest time. Therefore, to signify the most intimate union of Adam and Eve, and the natural origin and dependence of woman upon man, it was more fitting and congruent that Eve be formed from a rib which was a natural and necessary part of Adam, than from one which was superfluous and beside his nature.

You will ask: To whom, Adam or Eve, will that rib, withdrawn from Adam, have to be restored in the resurrection of the dead? It seems indeed that it must be restored to Adam, because from the beginning it was Adam's, as an integral part of him: but on the contrary it seems that it must be restored to Eve: since from it Eve was principally formed. — I answer: That rib will remain with Eve, since from it her body was compacted as it were of matter and foundation: and therefore it is necessary that it subsist in Eve. Nor on that account is the body of Adam to be judged imperfect, since in place of that rib God substituted flesh: not soft indeed, but hardened and thick, which in the course of time supplied the use and office of the rib. Add, moreover, that not all things which were of our body are to be restored in the resurrection: otherwise our body would rise monstrous and enormous: for it is certain that the parts of flesh throughout the whole course of life flow away continually from birth, namely, even unto death, and are lost; and in their place others in turn are regenerated through nutrition. If therefore all that had been dispersed were restored, the body of the rising man would be gigantic. — Noyssius adds, on Genesis 23, v. 21, that Adam joined to himself in marriage the woman whom he had formed, making her his wife by God's command. Which Alcimus Avitus, cited above, admirably represents, where he thus prescribes the laws of matrimony:

At the beginning the priest, preparing to consecrate So great a bond, ties the nuptials with his word: Live with concordant zeal, and fill the world, Let the long-lived offspring grow from happy seed; Neither let number fail with years, nor term of life. A progeny without end have I given, which through all time Thou shalt behold, thou who art set as the first author of thy race. Thy grandson's sons, scattered through ages, Shall count their living forefathers; and into the mouths of parents The aged pledges of their sons shall lead the children of their children. Then the law of wedlock, venerable through every age, Unstained shall be kept in its own order by all. Let the woman persist, taken from the bowels of man, To keep faith to her husband: nor let anyone sever What God joins and associates: and let the husband, bound By rightful love, leave father And mother. Let not these bonds of parental care be broken, But let the flesh of both be held as one. Thus joining their vows in an everlasting covenant, He spoke the joyful hymeneal; and to chaste modesty With mingled melody sang an angelic song. For bridal chamber there was Paradise, and the world was given them Forever, and the stars rejoiced in cleansed flames.

Second Conclusion. — Our first parents were created in perfectly complete and ordered magnitude and beauty of body.

This is gathered from Holy Scripture, which so often testifies that the works of God are most perfect; and accordingly it equally fits that man, the most excellent work of God the Creator, was formed absolutely complete in his first creation. It is proved, indeed, of rightly perfected things: for those first works of God which in the fashioning of the world were made proximately by Him ought to have been perfect. As therefore He created the other living creatures complete in bulk of body, so also, and much more, must He be judged to have created man in a perfect state. It is confirmed by this, that as soon as Adam and Eve were created, God said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth: from which it may be understood that Adam and Eve were created already of firm age, and fit for generation. This very point St. Augustine proves, book 6, De Genesi ad litteram, chapter 13, writing thus: But how did God make man of the slime of the earth? Was it suddenly into adult perfection, that is, into virile and youthful form; or as He has ever since formed in the wombs of mothers, so that Adam had this alone proper to himself, that he was not born of parents, but made of earth; or yet in such wise that in perfecting and augmenting him through stages these numbers of times were fulfilled which we see attributed to the nature of mankind? Or rather ought this not to be inquired into? For whichever way He made him, He did what befitted God, omnipotent and wise, to be able to do and to do fittingly. For thus He assigned certain general laws of times and of the qualities of things to be brought forth into the manifest from some beginning, so that His will is above all, etc. Although in these words he may seem to weigh this question on both sides and to leave it undetermined, nevertheless he inclines to our side, as appears from the examples by which he proves that God can bring His work to a perfect state in a single moment of time, which nature could compass only by long labor of time: whence he subjoins: *Do not all serpents coalesce, are they not formed, born, and strengthened, each kind in its own appointed numbers of days? Were not these days awaited, that the rod... [truncated]

Some think the Protoparents were created at a youthful age, namely, that at which our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that is, between the thirtieth and fortieth year. But I judge it more credible that they were created at that age at which a man of fifty years might be matched: for since then the life of man was longest, namely, tenfold more enduring than now, each several age also was longer alike than now it is: childhood and adolescence were longer: and each age prolonged beyond the former, the next following came later: therefore, by comparison and proportion of the whole life exceeding nine hundred years, the youthful age of the first man could not have fallen to him before the fiftieth year.

The second part is proved, namely, that Adam was made of perfect stature of body, not tending to gigantic bulk: for Scripture and the holy Fathers with one voice confirm that Adam was procreated by God perfect in soul and body: but a gigantic bulk of body is an excess of nature running wild: and therefore this is not to be attributed to the most excellent of the divine works.

You will say: In Joshua, chapter 14, it is found written: the name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest among the Enacim is there said to be: now that the Enacim were giants is manifest from what the spies, returning from exploring the land of Chanaan, said to Joshua, chapter 13 of the book of Numbers: The people, say they, whom we beheld is of tall stature; there we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac of the giant race, compared with whom we seemed as locusts. By which words Scripture seems to signify that Adam was the greatest among the Enacim giants: and therefore that he was the greatest Giant.

I deny the consequence: for the aforesaid words of Joshua are not to be understood of the first man, whom we shall show below, from the holy Fathers, to have been buried not in Hebron but on Mount Calvary: nor is that word Adam there the proper name of the first parent of mankind, but it is common and appellative, signifying the same among the Hebrews that the word Man does among the Latins: whence the city of Hebron was anciently called Cariath-Arbe, that is, the city of Arbe, because Arbe was the greatest man among the Enacim: greatest, I say, in celebrity of name and glory of achievements; or in amplitude of principality, power, or duration of life; or finally because he was the founder of that city, or the parent of the race of the Enacim.

Third Conclusion. — The occupation of the bodies of men, had the happy state of innocence persevered, would have been the tillage of the earth, but exempt from labor and weariness.

It is proved from Scripture, Genesis, chapter 2, verse 15, where we read: And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress and to keep it. Although St. Augustine, book 8, De Genesi ad litteram, chapter 10, seems to refer these words to man, so that the sense of them is, that God placed Adam in Paradise chiefly for this cause, that He Himself might work Adam more and more, that is, perfect him, by cultivating him with clearer precepts, and by inviting and aiding him toward the more excellent works of virtue; or, as he says, He who created man that man should be, Himself works man, and keeps him that he be also good and blessed. Wherefore, as by that manner of speaking man is said to work the earth, which already was earth, that it may be adorned and fruitful; by the same manner of speaking God is said to work man, who already was man, that he may be devout and wise; and to keep him, since man, delighting in the power which he had over himself rather than that which God had over him, and despising His dominion, could not be safe. This interpretation the Hebrew text excludes, because in Hebrew the pronoun it, which in Greek and Latin has an ambiguous reference to man and to Paradise, is put in the feminine gender, and is necessarily joined with the word Eden, or Paradise, which in Hebrew signifies garden.

Whence the sense of the aforesaid words is: God placed Adam in Paradise, that Adam himself by his own works, care, and industry might dress that Paradise, that is, cultivate it, exercising, namely, various works which concerned the culture and adornment of the place itself: and might keep it, both from the wild beasts which were outside Paradise, says St. Basil, and from the very animals which were in Paradise, lest they injure or defile its beauty and pleasantness: whence St. Chrysostom, Homily 11, on Genesis: God willed, he says, that a certain pure and temperate charge should rest with man, both in keeping and in dressing. For that culture was wholly exempt from molestation, and afforded him some occupation without pain and hardship.

That this operation and keeping, however, was not laborious and troublesome, but easy and delightful — whereby, namely, the first parents of mankind laid out and arranged for themselves various places, whether for dwelling, or for walking commodiously and with pleasure — St. Augustine elegantly unfolds, book 8, De Genesi ad litt., chapter 8, where, when it had been objected to him that before sin God condemned man to the labor and hardships of agriculture, he answers: So indeed we should think, did we not see some men till the ground with such delight of mind that it is a great punishment to them to be called away thence to anything else. Whatever delight, therefore, agriculture has, then assuredly it had far more, when nothing adverse happened, either to earth or to heaven. For there was no affliction of labor, nor exhilaration of indulgence, when He dealt with that which God had created by the aid of human labor, and the fertile fields brought forth, whereby the Creator Himself might be more abundantly praised. He who gave to the soul, constituted in an animal body, a reason for working, and faculty enough, as much as sufficed the willing soul of man, not compelled by any goad of unfruitful need of the body. For what greater and more wonderful spectacle is there, or where can human reason in a manner hold converse more with the nature of things, than when, seeds having been sown, shoots planted, saplings transplanted, grafts ingrafted, as if it were questioned at every turn what the power of root and germ can do, and what cannot: whence it can, whence it cannot: what power of unseen moisture and inward potency avails therein, what diligence applied from without; and in that very contemplation to perceive that neither he who planteth is anything, nor he who watereth, but God who giveth the increase, etc.

Corollary. — From these things gather, first, the antiquity of agriculture: for it began with man and with the world, since it was the first imposed upon man in the state of innocence, and after sin it alone was laid upon him in penance and punishment. Secondly, its dignity, both because it was instituted by God and enjoined upon Adam: and because Adam, from whom all nobility descends, and his nobler posterity, namely Abel, Seth, Noë, Abraham, and all the most celebrated men of old, were husbandmen. Thirdly, its innocent exercise: for this among other arts was commended to innocent man in Paradise as involving injury to none, but profitable to all: which Virgil elegantly expounds in the second Georgic:

O too fortunate, if they knew their own good, The husbandmen! for whom, far from discordant arms, Most just Earth herself pours forth an easy livelihood from her soil.

And again:

This life of old the Sabines cultivated, This Remus and his brother. Thus valiant Etruria grew; Doubtless thus too was Rome made the fairest of realms. Golden Saturn lived this life upon earth.

Cicero also is to be heard, in the book De Senectute, where he says that nothing seems to him so royal as the pursuit of agriculture: of all things, says he, from which anything is acquired, nothing is better than agriculture, nothing more abundant, nothing sweeter, nothing more worthy of a free man. Rightly therefore does St. Augustine say: agriculture is the most innocent of all arts: yet the impious Faustus the Manichee did not blush to condemn it; saying that husbandmen violated the precept of God, Thou shalt not kill. Hence it was the custom that those chiefs of Roman nobility, men of antiquity, were summoned from the fields to commands and dictatorships: which offices when they had held, they returned to their earlier exercises of husbandry: or, as Valerius Maximus says, even those men endowed therewith who are called from the plough that they may become consuls, tilled the soil of the Roman people, sterile of pleasures and most productive of virtues [restored], and with abundant sweat furrowed the chastest clods, gymnasia though they were of delights: nay rather, those whom the perils of the republic claimed as generals, straitened means compelled to become oxherds.

Quaestio II: Qualis, et quanta fuerit protoparentum in statu innocentiae sapientia, et scientia

Notandum 1. From Hugh of St. Victor, lib. 1. De Sacramentis, par. 6. cap. 12., that man was first instructed from the very beginning of his condition with a threefold knowledge: namely, the knowledge of his Creator, that he might know by whom he had been made. Secondly, knowledge of himself, that he might know what had been made, and what he ought to do. Thirdly, finally, knowledge of Him with whom he had been made, and what he ought to do concerning Him, and in Him. Of what kind, however, this threefold knowledge was must be determined here.

Notandum 2. From the Seraphic Bonaventure in 2. dist. 23. art. 2. qu. 3., that there is a fourfold genus of knowing God: namely, through faith, through contemplation, through apparition, and through open vision. The first is of common grace; the second of excellent grace; the third of special grace; and the fourth of consummating glory. And the sufficiency of these modes is gathered thus: for everything that is known is known through something present; if, therefore, God is known, it is necessary that He be known by the intellect through something present. But I call present this according as Augustine calls it present which is present to the intellect to be seen. Either, therefore, I know God through His being present to me, or through His being present to others. If through His being present to others, this is the cognition of faith: for that God is Three and One, this I believe on the word of the Son of God, who declared and preached it, and of the Holy Ghost, who inspired it. For what we believe we owe to authority, as Augustine says. De Utilitate credendi, cap. 11. But if I know God through His being present to me, this can be in a threefold manner: either through His being present to me in His proper effect: and then it is contemplation; which is so much the more eminent as man more sensibly feels in himself the effect of divine grace, or as he likewise knows better how to consider God in exterior creatures. Or He is present to me in His proper sign: and thus there is apparition, as God appeared to Abraham in a subject creature, which figured Him, and as the Holy Ghost appeared in a dove. Or God is present in His light, and in Himself: and such is the cognition whereby God is seen in His countenance, or face to face; and such is open vision, which is wholly called the reward of all merits. Therefore the first and last genus of cognition did not befit the state of innocence. The first indeed, on account of its enigmatic cognition, and because the cognition of faith is for the most part from hearing. But the last could not be there on account of its supreme perfection: therefore it was not exhibited to man, but rather promised as a reward. Now the two middle ones, namely of contemplation and of apparition, could be common to both states: especially the cognition of contemplation, which is in both states: yet it flourished there above all, both on account of the purity of the soul, and also on account of the subjection of the flesh and of the lower powers, which two the soul for the most part lacks in the state of lapsed nature; therefore it cannot attain to that degree of contemplation. This is from St. Bonaventure. Yet I would not tacitly concede that Adam did not have the light of faith, since faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, and the hinge and pivot of all eternal salvation; unless perhaps the Seraphic Doctor should wish that Adam indeed had the habit of faith, but not the act regarding those things of which he had evident and scientific knowledge.

Notandum 3. From the same author, ibidem qu. 1., that progress in knowledge can be considered in a threefold way: either on the part of the things knowable, or on the part of the modes of knowing, or on the part of a greater aptitude in knowing. According to the first mode, since some things come to pass in the natural course, or miraculously; others in a voluntary course; it is certain that in the cognition of those things which indeed come to pass in the natural course, Adam could not have progressed as regards the acquisition of a new habit: for he received (as Hugh says, and the Master in the text) from the beginning of all things full knowledge. He could nevertheless have progressed as regards another mode of knowing, and as regards a greater habit of knowing. As regards another mode, he could progress, because what he knew by simple knowledge he could know by experience: and what he knew by intellect he could know also by sense. He could also progress as regards a greater aptitude, because from frequent consideration of those things which he knew, he would have been readier and more prepared to judge concerning those things of which he had cognition through an innate habit. For although the first man had no slowness of dullness through the burden of a mortal body, yet his spirit had a certain lesser swiftness through the vitalization of an animal body: and thus in the cognition of natural things Adam would in some way by no means have stood still. — But in the cognition of those things which come to pass in a voluntary course, and miraculously, or simply supernaturally, he could have progressed: not only as regards the mode of knowing, but even in acquiring new cognition. Nor is this wonderful, because in order to know divine mysteries he needed supernatural illumination: but in order to know the secrets of another, he needed the direction of that person himself. Nor did such progress derogate from the state of innocence, since even the blessed Angels make progress in the cognition of divine mysteries and human secrets: wherefore it is said in Ephesians 3.: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to Principalities and Powers through the Church. So far he.

These matters having been thus set forth in outline, there remains here to be determined of what kind was the wisdom and knowledge of Adam, both as regards natural things and as regards supernatural things.

First Conclusion. — Adam in the state of innocence possessed the most perfect science of all natural things, and a certain and evident cognition thereof.

It is proved first from that passage of Ecclesiasticus, c. 17., where concerning the first parents we read thus: Discipline of understanding filled them: knowledge of the spirit he created in them: with sense he filled their heart, and showed them good and evil; in whom are not obscurely signified the four principal parts of Philosophy. Indeed Logic, through discipline of the understanding, since that discipline consists wholly in handing down rules and precepts by which the intellect, when instructed, reasons perfectly: but Metaphysics, through knowledge of the spirit, since it is concerned with the noblest species of being, namely God and the Angels: but Physics, through which "with sense he filled their heart," that is, he adorned their soul with sciences drawn from corporeal things by the aid of the senses: and by the last words Moral Philosophy is plainly expressed, since it directs the intellect to knowing good and evil, that the will may embrace the former and abhor the latter.

It is proved likewise by a threefold argument: The first indeed: that which God produces proximately and immediately, those things are most perfect: but Adam God alone created without any intervening efficient cause contributing concurrence, both as to body and as to soul: therefore he was created most perfect by God on both sides. Therefore just as he was formed with a perfect body, namely as regards completeness of age, height of stature, strength and firmness of powers, and the power of generating others; so there is no doubt that he was created perfect in soul and mind: and therefore since the natural perfection of the mind is science, Adam had this from the beginning. — Second reason: as Adam was to be the sower and parent of humankind according to carnal generation, therefore he had to be created at a perfect age, and fit for generation: and since the same man was to be the first Doctor and Ruler of men, it was indeed fitting that he be created with a perfect faculty of teaching and ruling other men: but this cannot be done without science. For, as Aristotle writes in the first and second books of the Metaphysics, The sign of one who knows is the ability to teach others: and that which is the cause why other things are such, must itself be maximally such. — Third reason: if Adam had been created without science, and ought to have acquired it gradually by study and labor, he would have dwelt for a long time in ignorance of truth: but ignorance of truth, and unacquaintance with things that lie open to the senses, would have been exceedingly troublesome and bitter to a man most desirous of knowledge: yet nothing troublesome or bitter would have happened to him in that state, either in soul or in body: therefore Adam was not created ignorant and unknowing. For if he had long been ignorant, he would easily, on account of ignorance of truth and of things, have assented to false opinions and lapsed into absurd errors; namely by approving false things as true, or rejecting true things as false, which, as Augustine said most excellently, belongs not to the nature of man as created, but to the punishment of the condemned.

You will say 1.: Adam believed the serpent, who deceived him, to be capable of speech: therefore he did not acknowledge its nature, and consequently was not a Philosopher. Next, he believed this serpent promising science, and in order to obtain it broke the commandment imposed upon him by God: therefore he then did not possess science. Finally, after the eating of the forbidden fruit Holy Scripture testifies that the eyes of the First Parents were opened: not indeed the eyes of the body, for they were not blind, but the eyes of the mind and of the heart: therefore they were ignorant, for ignorance is called blindness of the mind.

I answer to 1. and to 2., denying that Adam supposed serpents to be capable of speech: but he believed that beneath the serpentine form some Angel lay hid, who spoke true things to him, promising a science, not natural and philosophical, which he already possessed most perfectly, but supernatural, theological, and independent, namely such as God comprehends in Himself, as is clear from those words uttered from the serpentine mouth: You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. To which add that not Adam, but Eve was deceived by the serpent. To 3. I say that the eyes of their mind were opened, not by any infusion or acquisition of a new science, but by the use and experience of the former; for they knew themselves stripped and despoiled of all the gifts and ornaments of innocence and of original grace, with which they had been enriched at their formation, and they experienced the rebellion of the inferior part against the superior, namely of the body against the soul, which before sin was unknown to them.

You will say 2.: With Cajetan expounding the passage of Moses about the imposition of names made by Adam: Adam did not have science of all corporeal things, seeing that evidently he did not know the elements, the heavens, and the stars: for since these are the principal parts of the world, out of which this world is joined together and constituted integral, their perfect cognition is reserved to God alone, who, as David says Psalm 116.: He that telleth the multitude of the stars, and calleth them all by their names: whence it follows that the cognition of celestial things is known to God alone, and therefore not granted to Adam himself.

I deny the antecedent; for first it is false that the cognition of the heavens and of the stars is reserved to God alone; seeing that Solomon, cap. 7. of the book of Wisdom, says of himself: He himself gave me the true knowledge of the things that are, that I might know the disposition of the world, and the virtues of the elements, the beginning and ending and midst of times, the alterations of their courses and changes of seasons, the circuits of years and positions of stars: the natures of living creatures and the rage of beasts, the force of winds and thoughts of men, the differences of plants and virtues of roots, and whatsoever things are hidden and unforeseen I learned: for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me. From which it is clear that there was granted to Solomon perfect science of the world, of the elements, and of the stars, and of all things hidden and concealed: therefore much more to Adam. Nor is it true that the perfect cognition of those things was so reserved to God alone that Adam could not obtain it. Nor does it matter that Adam imposed names only upon flying and terrestrial animals, but not upon earth, nor sea, nor heavens, and stars, as if he had not had science of them. For he had perfect science of stones, metals, plants, and fishes, yet we nowhere read that he imposed names upon these things: — It must nevertheless be observed that three things are to be excepted from this general science which I contend was in Adam: First indeed, he did not know all future contingents. Secondly, certainly and evidently he did not know the arcanum and secrets of hearts, for both of these cognitions lie hidden even from the Angels. Finally thirdly, he did not have science of all the present individuals of each species: for he did not know all the individuals of fishes, nor every number of grains of sand, or of stones: for cognition of this kind neither pertains to the perfection of the human intellect, nor contributed to the perfection and felicity of the state of innocence.

You will ask: Whether Adam excelled the other men in wisdom?

I assert: that he did; since first he had a greater amplitude of science; for he knew all natural things, which has been granted to no one hitherto. Next he had a more excellent mode of knowing; for others know many things only by probable reasoning, or not from causes but from effects, or not by ostensive demonstration but only by that which leads to impossibility: but Adam held perfect cognition of each thing and from its proper causes. Finally thirdly, he had a more firm immobility of science: for in the state of innocence science could not be lost, neither through long cessation from act, nor through corruption of the interior sense, nor through forgetfulness, as sometimes happens in other mortals.

Nor does it matter that Holy Scripture makes Solomon wiser than all men who had gone before him, and who were to come after him: for thus God speaks to Solomon in 3. Kings, cap. 3.: I have given thee a wise and understanding heart, insomuch that there hath been no one like thee before thee, nor shall arise after thee. For thence it is not concluded that Solomon was wiser than Adam: otherwise it would be permitted to infer that he also surpassed in wisdom Christ the Lord, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge: which certainly no believer would admit. Therefore the aforesaid words of Scripture signify only either that Solomon was wiser than all those who acquired wisdom for themselves by study, labor, and art, among whose number Adam is not to be reckoned: or that he was wiser than all, not indeed men, but Kings and princes, as he himself indicates near the end of the first chapter of Ecclesiastes: I, he says, am become great, and have surpassed in wisdom all that were before me in Jerusalem: or finally he is said to be wiser than all those who at that time were accustomed to be called wise: which is indeed signified in 3. Kings, cap. 5. in these words: The wisdom of Solomon surpassed the wisdom of all the Orientals and Egyptians, and he was wiser than all men: wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Dorda, sons of Mahol etc... And he discoursed upon trees from the cedar that is in Libanus unto the hyssop that cometh out of the wall: and he discoursed upon beasts, and birds, and creeping things, and fishes, and they came from all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

Second Conclusion. — Moreover Adam in the state of innocence had cognition of supernatural things.

This is sufficiently gathered both from the preceding Conclusion, wherein it was proved that he was constituted in a most perfect state as to body and soul: and therefore it was necessary that he have a most excellent cognition of all things, such as that whereby supernatural things are known: and from the following Article, wherein it will be proved that he was formed with sanctifying grace, of which faith is as it were the foundation: For it is impossible, says St. Paul to the Hebrews 11., to please God without faith: But faith is a cognition of supernatural things; for it is defined by the same Apostle, ibidem, as the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

Moreover this truth is urged by a theological reason: for Adam had been founded by God principally on account of a supernatural end rather than a natural one: therefore just as in order that he might attain his natural end, the science of natural things was struck into him from the beginning, much more was it consonant that he be instructed in the cognition of supernatural things, whether through faith, or through contemplation, whereby he might attain his supernatural end: therefore it must be concluded with Hugh of St. Victor, lib. 1. De Sacramentis, parte 6. cap. 12: Man therefore knew his Creator: not with that cognition which is perceived outwardly from hearing alone, but with that which is rather ministered inwardly through inspiration. Not indeed with that whereby God is now sought by believers through faith while absent: but with that whereby He was then more manifestly discerned through the science of present contemplation.

But of what supernatural things he had attained cognition, it is uncertain to us. Probably, however, it seems that five genera of supernatural things were known by him: First indeed, he knew that supernatural rewards were laid up in the heavens for just men serving God holily and piously; and therefore he knew God as remunerator in the order of glory and eternal beatitude. For, as St. Paul writes to the Hebrews 11.: He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. Hence without doubt he knew that he had been founded for a supernatural end; since when he had been made perfectly endowed with the use of reason and free will, and able from the beginning to act well or ill, it was most fitting that his ultimate end should straightway become known to him: that he might know to what he ought to refer all his goods and himself. Thence he knew also all the means necessary for attaining that supernatural end, such as sanctifying grace, the three Theological Virtues, which cannot proceed from us, nor be acquired by our own powers, but must be gratuitously given by God. — Secondly, almost all Theologians agree that Adam in the state of innocence distinctly knew the mystery of the most holy Trinity, as St. Epiphanius affirms at the beginning of the book Panarius haereses. And truly indeed; for it was not consonant that the first man, heaped with such great goods, both natural and supernatural, should be ignorant of the mystery of the Trinity; especially since this mystery was indicated in the very formation of Adam himself in these words: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and afterwards God Himself said before Adam: Behold Adam is become as one of us. — Thirdly, he also knew the future Incarnation of the Son of God, as the Subtle Doctor affirms, teaching that although Adam had not sinned, nevertheless the Son of God would have become incarnate. St. Prosper adds in cap. 1. of the first part of De promissionibus Dei, et praedictionibus, that the union of Christ with the Church was also known to Adam himself: which Adam himself indeed signified in 2. Genesis uttering concerning his wife: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: which words St. Paul adapts to the union of Christ with the Church in Ephesians, c. 5., subjoining: This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ, and in the Church. — Fourthly, also it is not improbable that Adam knew the fall of the Angels, who on account of pride were cast down from heaven and hurled into Tartarus: for this cognition greatly profited Adam, both unto humility and unto observance of the commandments of God, namely that he might avoid so tremendous a judgment: which Ecclesiasticus, cap. 17., indeed seems to signify, where among various gifts granted by God to the First Parents he also places the fact that he showed them his judgments. — Finally fifthly, Adam had perfect cognition of himself: for, as Hugh of Victor writes in the place cited, it was fitting that man from his first formation should have perfect cognition of himself, inasmuch as he should acknowledge both the debt of his obedience toward a superior, and not be ignorant of the debt of his providence toward an inferior. For this was to acknowledge himself: his condition, and order, and due, whether above him, or in himself, or below him, not to be ignorant: to understand of what sort he had been made, and how he ought to walk, what to do, what likewise to guard against. This whole was to acknowledge himself. If man had not had the cognition and discernment of these things, he would not have known himself, nor would he afterwards have stood guilty of transgression of them, if he had not previously been illuminated unto their cognition. But if it is asked, whether man then from the beginning had cognition of those things which were to come about concerning him, that is, whether he foresaw his fall and ruin, and all the other evils which passed first into himself, afterwards through him into all who were from him: and similarly whether he foresaw the goods which he would have had, if he had persevered in obedience; this seems altogether probable and consequent, that what pertained to instruction and the form of right living was of greater moment, that things to be done should be indicated to him rather than that future things should be foretold to him. For it would seem entirely to diminish the liberty of his arbitrium and the purity of his obedience, if man himself before merit were said to be prescient of future things: because he could neither hope for good things with a prescience of evils; nor, with a prescience of good things, would he have feared evils to come. Therefore for this reason it is judged more fitting, that the first man received science and precept of those things indeed which were to be done: but prescience of those things which were to come he had not, that his arbitrium might stand free toward either side. Thus Hugh. — This very thing St. Augustine confirms, lib. 11. De Genesi ad litteram, cap. 18., where concerning the first man existing in Paradise he inquires: If he was prescient of his future sin and of the divine vengeance, whence could he be blessed? Therefore drawn into Paradise he was not blessed. But if he was not prescient of his own future sin: therefore through this ignorance, either uncertain of that same beatitude: and how already believed blessed? Or certain by false hope, not by science, and how not foolish? He answers: But nevertheless of man still constituted in an animal body, to whom the fellowship of the angels was still to be given obediently serving, and the change of body from animal to spiritual, we can understand blessed life after a certain mode, even though he was not such as they were to whom the Apostle says: you who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the Spirit of lenity, watching thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Nevertheless not absurdly nor unworthily do we say that they were already blessed in this very thing, that they were spiritual, not only in body, but also strong in hope of faith, patient in tribulation. How much more, therefore, and in a more ample mode was man in Paradise blessed before sin, though uncertain of his own future fall, who so rejoiced in hope on account of the future reward of change, that there was no tribulation for which patience had to serve in enduring it? For although, not by vain presumption certain of the uncertain like a fool, but by hope not unfaithful, before he apprehended that life, wherein most certain of eternal life itself he was going to be, he could exult, as it is written, with trembling and exultation, much more abundantly in Paradise than the saints in these lands, he was blessed in a certain inferior mode than in that eternal life of the saints supercelestial angels, yet not in none.

But whether the cognition of supernatural and divine things which Adam had in the state of innocence was more sublime and clearer than faith, though it was more interior and more obscure than the cognition of the same things through the light of glory; so that that light which Adam had was in some mode a medium between the light of faith and the light of glory: Hugh of Victor seems to affirm ibidem cap. 12., saying: it must nevertheless be known, that that first cognition of man which he had of his Creator, we truly say to be greater and more certain than that cognition which now consists in faith alone: so also that which will afterwards be revealed manifestly in the excellence of divine contemplation, we must confess it to be less. Man therefore, though supreme, knew his Creator, yet not so excellently, as he ought afterwards to have known, if he had persevered: for as the disobedience of man took away much of the first cognition through subsequent ignorance: so to that same cognition, if man had persevered in obedience, much would have been added through subsequent revelation. Here Hugh. Thence St. Bonaventure in 2. dist. 23. qu. 3. art. 2. qu. 3. says, that truly the cognition of the state of innocence is midway between the cognition of the state of glory and the state of misery, as also the place of Paradise is midway between this vale of misery and the heavenly Fatherland: and as earthly Paradise holds more with earth than with Heaven, so the cognition of Adam or the state of innocence is more conformable to the cognition of the present state than of the future. Whence in the state of glory alone will God be seen immediately, and in His substance, so that there will be no obscurity there: but in the state of innocence, and of lapsed nature, God is seen through a medium mirror, but differently: because in the state of innocence God was seen through a clear mirror: for there was no cloud of sin in the soul: but in the state of misery He is seen through a mirror obscured by the sin of the first man, and He is now seen the same through a mirror, and in an enigma. For an enigma, as St. Augustine says in the book De Trinitate, is an obscure similitude. Thus St. B... — But this cognition which Adam had in the state of innocence was so sublime and excellent that, refreshed by the contemplation of heavenly things, his mind was often rapt into ecstasy: which indeed the holy Fathers explain lucidly, weighing those words of Genesis 2.: The Lord God sent a sleep upon him: or as the Septuagint render it, he mingled ecstasy: whence St. Augustine De Genesi ad litteram, lib. 9. cap. 19.: That ecstasy, he says, which God sent upon Adam so that, lulled to sleep, he might slumber, is rightly understood to have been sent by God, that his very mind through ecstasy might become partaker as it were of the angelic court, and entering into the sanctuary of God might understand the last things: finally awaking as it were a prophet full, when he saw the woman his wife brought to him with the rib, he straightway uttered that which the Apostle commends as a great document: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, etc.; which words, since Scripture itself testifies they were spoken by the first man, the Lord at length declares in the Gospel that God had spoken, that hence we might understand that on account of the ecstasy which had preceded in Adam, he could not speak divinely as a Prophet.

Quaestio III: Qua ratione propagatum esset genus humanum in statu innocentiae

Notandum 1. Certain of the holy Fathers were of the opinion that, had the innocence of that state persevered, men would have been born without the commingling of the sexes. This was especially the sentiment of S. Gregory of Nyssa, in his book De hominis opificio, asserting in c. 17 that if the first man had not sinned, there would have been no use of marriage, nor would men have been multiplied as now happens through carnal copulation; but that the race of men would have been propagated in some certain and unknown manner, namely in that way in which he believed the Angels to have been multiplied; for, says he, if that emulation by which we create ourselves equal to the Angels had not fallen away through sin — "we would have had no need of marriage for our increase: but whatever is that great mode of increase belonging to incorrupt nature, which indeed assuredly cannot be set forth in words, nor grasped by the conjectures of men, yet exists in them in some measure: the same would avail for those who are diminished but a little from the Angels, men; which would have brought the increments of the human race up to the full culture of the Creator."

The same is the opinion of holy Damascene, lib. 2, cap. 30, affirming that the propagation and succession of men from themselves occurred in consequence of their condemnation to death on account of transgression. To these are consonant the words written by S. Chrysostom, Homil. 18 in Genesim, expounding those words of the fourth chapter: Adam knew his wife. But the chiefest reason of these was the shameful character of the conjugal act on account of the heat of lust and the corruption of integrity: wherefore

Notandum 2. From S. Bonaventure, in 2 dist. 20, art. 1, quaest. 3: that if the state of innocence had persevered, there would indeed have been delight in the conjugal act, yet moderate and measured, according as the reason of man was able to temper it: and therefore it would not have been so great as it is now. For now, because that power has chiefly gone forth from under the empire of reason — since reason lost the bond and bridle of original justice, whereby it commanded the interior powers — the same, its reins loosened, precipitates itself with its whole impulse and endeavor upon whatever delightful thing is offered it, not by reason of the intensification of the moving power, but by reason of the defect of the retarding power. Hence, just as an unruly horse, its bridle broken, runs more swiftly and impetuously than when it is bridled and held back by its rider, although it has not greater strength; and so must this matter be understood in the case at hand. And this is what Augustine says, De Civitate Dei: Those marriages worthy of the felicity of Paradise would have begotten offspring to be loved, and would not have had shameful lust. And therefore the reasons are to be granted which show that there would not then have been so great an intensity of delight as there is now, when it is now so great that it does not observe due measure and order. So the Seraphic Doctor.

Notandum 3. From the same, qu. 1: that the corruption of integrity entails three things: namely, the opening of the enclosures, penal suffering, and foul delight. The first is of nature: the second is punishment: the third truly is the viciousness of corruption, which holds a middle place between fault and punishment. If therefore man had known his wife in the time of instituted nature, there would have been therein an opening of the enclosures: yet there would not have been therein penal suffering, nor foul delight; because the generative power would neither be corrupt nor infected: nay, those members would obey reason, as Augustine says, just as the mouth, the hands, and the tongue obey. Whence, as the hand is opened and closed, and the mouth opened and closed, and there is therein no suffering or punishment, nor any foul delight, so would it have been in instituted nature: nor would it have been more shameful then to speak of those members than it is to speak of others; for it is not shameful to speak of a thing because nature shrinks from and blushes at that act by reason of the foulness residing in it; but by reason of the intemperate and disordered delight annexed to it.

Conclusio prima. — In very truth the human race would have been propagated in the state of innocence through the commingling of the sexes. So it accords with the more numerous throng of holy Fathers, by whom it was judged that the posterity of Adam was to be begotten in no other manner than by the customary union of the sexes: yet without that heat of lust which overrode reason. Let one suffice above the rest, S. Augustine, who in lib. 1 contra Iulianum, cap. 1, says: Nor even if human nature had not been vitiated by the sin of the first men, could sons be begotten otherwise than from the commixture of bodies: but they are under the power of the devil who are born of the commixture of bodies before they are reborn through the Spirit, because they are born with concupiscence, whereby the flesh concupisceth against the spirit, and compels the spirit to concupiscence against itself. And in lib. 2 De peccato originali, c. 35 and 36: Marriages, says he, without doubt would have existed even had sin not preceded, for neither for any other cause was she made for him as an aid, not of another man, but a woman. And those words of God, increase and multiply, are not a foretelling of sins to be condemned: but a blessing of marriages to be founded, etc. But had nature not been dishonored by sin, we think such marriages would have been in Paradise that in them, for the sowing of offspring, the will of nature would move the genital members as the foot moves to walk, the hand to work, the tongue to speak: but they would not be moved by the heat of lust: nor, as now happens, would the integrity of virginity be violated for conceiving offspring by a turbulent ardor: but it would have obeyed the command of most tranquil charity. And in that manner there would be neither pain nor blood of the virgin in her coming together, even as there would not be the groaning of the mother in childbirth.

S. Bonaventure proves this truth in the place cited, quaest. 1, both by the authority of Scripture and by reason. For, says he, men were spoken to in the state of innocence, as it is written: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. And another text of Scripture declares that woman was made for a helper unto man. This also accords with right reason, which says that the power of generating pertains to the completion of nature: but the use of generation to the complement and perfection of the heavenly city; and because in the state of innocence nature was more perfect than in the state of the way: and had man stood, the heavenly city would by no means have been defrauded of the multitude of its citizens; it must be posited that man in the state of innocence could generate, and would have generated; and because neither man by himself nor woman by herself would have sufficed for generating, therefore by commixtion there would be made a conjunction of one to the other, and they would render each other mutual aid in the procreation of offspring for multiplying the human race; and therefore had man stood, there would have been generation and the commixtion of the sexes. — It is confirmed from Genesis 2: Woman was given as a help unto man: but surely for nothing else than for the generation of offspring; for in all other things man could be aided by man either better or certainly no less well. Then again, the distinction of the sexes is for nothing save generation: but in its primary condition the distinction existed in the human species as in others: therefore if distinct sexes concur to one effect only by being mingled, it seems that had man stood, man and woman would have been mingled. Finally, man had generative power: but it is plain that he could not conceive offspring within himself, since he had neither the place in which the fetus should be nourished, nor the passage by which it should go forth: therefore it seems that, that he might generate, it was necessary for him to mingle with and come together with woman.

Dices 1: The commixtion of the sexes implies shamefulness: but in the state of innocence there would have been no dishonesty nor shamefulness: therefore neither the commixtion of the sexes.

Respondeo: I distinguish the major: the commixtion of the sexes, with immoderate ardor of lust and unbridled motions of concupiscence, implies shamefulness — this I grant; where these are absent, I deny. That shamefulness and loathing, indeed, which now inheres in the very act of generation, is felt by reason of the deformity of lust and the immoderate pleasure of the sexes, which our first parents immediately after sin, to use the words of Augustine, felt, blushed at, and covered themselves. But this ardor of lust, shaming and deforming the act of generation, would not have been in the state of innocence. For in it the soul would have been wholly subject to God; and the interior part of man perfectly subjected and obedient to reason; so that, with that same facility and moderation with which we now move the other members of the body — feet for walking, hands for taking, mouth and tongue for speaking — in that state, without disturbance of reason, without ardor of lust, and without all foulness, man would have moved, ruled, and moderated those members of the body which nature furnished for generating.

Dices 2: There can be no generation except from the decision of seed: but in the state of innocence there would have been no decision of seed; for seed is a superfluity of nutriment: but wherever there is superfluity, there is vitiosity: but in instituted nature there was no vitiosity: therefore neither superfluity: consequently neither the seminal humor. Further, seed is a superfluity of the third digestion: but had man stood, there would not have been in him a superfluity of the second digestion, namely dung and urine: therefore neither a superfluity of the third. The first is plain from the Philosopher: the second is manifest, because those superfluities are never without foulness and ignominy: therefore if foulness and ignominy are not in man except through fault, in no wise would there have been superfluity in them.

Nego minorem: and for its proof I answer with S. Bonaventure in the place cited, quaest. 2, that there is a twofold superfluity, namely of residuum and of impurity. The superfluity of residuum is in seed; and this superfluity does not exclude necessity; nay, the very same thing which is necessary is superfluous — necessary for the species, superfluous for the individual: necessary for the generative power, but superfluous for the nutritive: and this superfluity is not repugnant to the goodness and complexion of nature, because it sounds not in defect but in complement. — There is also another superfluity of impurity, such as dung and urine, the flow of rheum, the emission of sweat, and things like these; and this is of a twofold difference: some comes from weakness of the contentive and conservative powers, as sweat and rheum, and such was not in Adam, for this cause, that the natural powers in him were efficacious in their operations; but the other is that which comes from the impurity of nutriment, and this would have been in Adam — such as the superfluity of excrement and urine, which exist for the separation of the pure from the impure; and that which is pure and fit should be assumed into nourishment, but that which is less fit should be cast outward, though not with such great stench and foulness, as the vessels and intestines and passages sufficiently indicate, which are naturally assigned to man from his first condition. So S. Bonaventure.

Dices 3: The generation of offspring cannot come to pass without corruption of the seal and virginal integrity: but in the state of innocence there would have been no corruption: therefore neither generation of offspring.

S. Augustine answers, lib. 14, De Civitate Dei, cap. 26, that amid so great a facility of things and felicity of men, far be it from us to suspect that offspring could not be made without the motion of lust: but those members would be moved by the nod of the will as the others; and without the seductive stimulus of ardor, with tranquillity of soul and body, without any corruption of integrity, the seed of the marital wife would have been infused: for neither because experience cannot prove it is it therefore not to be believed; since those parts of the body would not be acted upon shamefully by ardor, but spontaneous power would employ them as need required: thus then could the male seed be implanted while the feminine integrity of the genital member remained whole in one of the spouses: even as now, with the same integrity preserved, the flux of menstrual blood can be emitted from the womb of a virgin: for by the same path could that be implanted by which this can be emitted; for as, in giving birth, not the groaning of pain but the impulse of maturity relaxes the female womb: so, for cherishing and conceiving, not appetite of lust but voluntary use would unite both natures.

Respondeo 2. It seems more probable that the seal of virginal integrity would even then have been opened through the act of generation. For the manner in which the act of generation is now accomplished, through the opening of the female part, is natural, seeing that it is observed also in the other animals. Therefore, setting aside the ardor of immoderate lust and the deformity of concupiscence, which befell the act of generation through sin and the privation of original Justice, this manner too would have been in the state of innocence: for the things natural to man were not changed on account of sin. Further, why should we fear to say that feminine bodily integrity would then have been taken away through the act of generation, when we cannot deny that it is corrupted in childbirth through the going forth of the offspring from the womb? Unless anyone should be so senseless and mad as to think that what in the most blessed Virgin was an excellent and singular miracle — that she bore her Son with her womb closed — would have been the customary lot of all women in that state. — I add that the sentiment of S. Augustine can be expounded in that sense in which S. Bonaventure used and distinguished it, as was observed in the 3rd Notabile.

Quaeres: Whether, if the state of innocence had persevered, only those men would have been born who are now elected unto eternal beatitude? — quaest. 100, a. 2, where answering the authority borrowed from S. Gregory the Pope, who says that if the state of innocence had persevered, only the predestined would have been about to be born, Dicendum, says he, that if Adam had not sinned he would not have begotten from himself children of gehenna: namely in such sort that from him they would contract that sin which is the cause of gehenna. They could become children of gehenna through free choice by sinning. He adds indeed: And if they did not become children of gehenna through sin, this would not be because they were confirmed in grace, but on account of divine providence, whereby they would be preserved immune from sin. Where you see that in this second part of the response he indicates that they would not sin mortally unto gehenna, God preserving them from sin. Yet since he places first, in the first position, the prior response denying that preservation, dicendum rather inclines toward that opinion.

AFFIRMING the opinion in truth, the Subtle Doctor defends it in 2 dist. 20, qu. 2: I say, says he, that only those now elect would have been born in the state of innocence; and he proves this first by the authority of S. Gregory, 1 Moralium, cap. 36, who says: had no rust of sin corrupted the first parent, he would by no means have generated from himself children of gehenna, but those alone who are now to be saved through the Redeemer would alone have been born elect from him; whose assertion, since no theological reason and no implication is repugnant to it, faith itself is not to be denied.

The Doctor proves it by theological reason, because everyone willing orderly some end, and those means which conduce to its attainment, wills first the means nearer the end than those more remote: but God is one willing orderly: therefore He first wills Himself, or His goodness to be communicated to creatures, as His own ultimate end: therefore equally He ought to will those means which proximately confer upon fruition of His beatitude and goodness. Now of these means nearer is the election of man unto glory than that he be produced by this or that man, or that sin be permitted: therefore prior does that election take place than the permission of sin be decreed, or the nativity of that man from this or that man; and hence parents of this kind could not vary those determined and elected unto beatitude from the divine will, but the same in number would be born.

Verily, however, since this proof of the Doctor can only be understood of election incomplete and merely designative, but not of election absolute, complete, and determinate, as we said demonstrating that the predestination of men is rendered efficacious only after merits foreseen, therefore I judge otherwise that the assertion of S. Gregory, and likewise of the Subtle Doctor, is to be proved. Those alone then would have been born who were foreseen as about to depart this life in final grace: but only those now elect are such: therefore only those would then have been born. The minor stands: the Major likewise, both because S. Gregory openly confesses that, had Adam stood, he would by no means have generated from himself children of gehenna: therefore all then to be generated were about to depart this life in final grace: then also because, as will be proved below, all the posterity of Adam, had he stood, after having conquered the first temptation and occasion of sinning, would in truth have been confirmed in grace: and hence none of them would have departed this world without sanctifying grace: finally, because though some had sinned, nevertheless they could have repented of sin, and repaired lost sanctifying grace through an act of contrition, and through a more fervent act of charity discharged the penalties due to their sin; and thereafter avoid occasions of sinning with greater prudence, and repel them with firmer mind: therefore none of them would have departed this life without sanctifying grace, and thus none of them would have been damned. — To the confirmation there accrue several probable reasons and conjectures, which Francis Macedo reports thus from S. Augustine, collat. 6, diff. t., sec. 4. The first is drawn from the condition of that state, which, since it was of integrity and innocence, ought to have been like virginity: namely either to remain intact, or to perish corrupted, for no middle was given. The second from the like, or rather from the opposite: through sin that whole state perished from the foundations: therefore through its innocence it would wholly stand entire and complete. The third from the proportion between the propagation of nature and the transfusion of justice: for as from one parent the whole nature is transmitted into posterity, so justice seemed to be transfused, God so ordaining, that one should answer to the other. The fourth from the covenant of God with man: which seems to have been of such kind that, had Adam obeyed, all his posterity would be saved: if otherwise, all damned, as happened through sin. The fifth from the difference of this state from the state of Redemption after sin: because if in that state there were mortal sins, private persons would need a necessary Mediator and Redeemer, and the grace of necessary redemption, which condition is proper to the present state of fallen nature, not to another. Whence it follows ex absurdo. Sixth, namely from the confusion of these states: for that state would become altogether like our state with Redemption and with the grace of the Mediator, with the Sacraments and remedies of sins, which do not appear able to be done away without the grace of the Redeemer: and consequently Christ would be in it passible, and there the grace of the Cross, or something similar. So Macedo.

To these conjectures the SS. Fathers also give the suffrage of their authority. For besides S. Gregory the Great already cited, S. Anselm adds, lib. 1, c. 18.: Had the first parents so stood that, tempted, they had not sinned, they would have been confirmed together with their whole progeny, so that thereafter they could not sin. — S. Augustine also favors it, lib. 12. De Civit. Dei, cap. 23, where, inquiring whether in the state of innocence other men were to be generated from the first parents, it being objected that there would be among them some sinners, and accordingly only the first parents righteous would remain, he answers against this affirmatively, saying: Much rather is it to be believed that the number of saints sufficient to complete that most blessed City would have been as great, even had no one sinned, as it is now gathered through the grace of God out of the multitude of sinners. He has like things in the book De correptione et gratia, cap. 10.

But whether truly those very ones alone who are in fact elected unto glory — that is, the selfsame men individually who are now effectually destined unto eternal beatitude — would have been born, innocence persevering, the Doctor seems to affirm in 2 dist. 20, quaest. 2, n. 3, where he says: I say (as has been said) that the same man in number, not only as regards the soul but even as regards the organic body, could have been son of Adam and son of Abraham; and from whichever of these two he had been, the same in number he would have been, because if nothing of the substance of the son be of the substance of the father, but the whole from the menses, as the Philosopher holds in the second De generatione animalium, or if the seed of the man concur there with that seed of the woman, I say nevertheless that the same matter from which this one is generated, which was in the state of fallen nature under the form of nutriment, could have been in the state of innocence under another form, for instance of an apple, or the like. So the Doctor, in which words he establishes two things, namely, that the same in number would have been born in the state of innocence who already are predestined; although perhaps they would not have had the same parents, because, says he, the same man can be son of Adam and of Abraham, that is, have had a different father. For in this individual man there are two things, namely form and matter, that is, soul and body. But the soul does not depend on parents, but is created and infused by God; the body, however, is formed from seed, which is not so proper to one that it might not be of another, since from diverse aliments the same seed can be generated. — Third, in a matter so doubtful and uncertain it is licit only probably to opine: let it suffice therefore with that Doctor and S. Gregory constantly to assert that no man in that state would have been damned, but that all would have been predestined and saved.

Articulus III: De eximiis hominis innocentis corporis et animae supernaturalibus dotibus

It is established that the first man possessed various supernatural gifts of innocence, each surpassing the rest; for, as says the Royal Psalmist, God had crowned him with glory and honor, and had set him over the works of His hands. Glory, I say, that is, He had illumined him with all the charisms of divine wisdom; but honor, because He had imbued him with all virtues, and with graces freely given and sanctifying: lastly, He had set him over the works of His hands, granting him supreme dominion over all living creatures and over every worldly thing. So that wisdom had fashioned him a doctor, grace a just man, and dominion a monarch of the whole world. This state Saint Bernard delineates thus in his First Sermon on the Annunciation:

I seem to myself to see, most beloved, man here clothed at the very beginning of his creation with four virtues, and, as the Prophet recalls, clad in the garment of salvation. For in these four lies that integrity of salvation; nor can salvation stand without all of them: especially since neither can there be virtues if they are separated from one another. Man, therefore, had received Mercy, namely as guardian and handmaid, so that she might go before him, she might follow him, and she might everywhere protect and preserve him. You see what kind of nurse God bestowed upon His little one, what kind of handmaid He gave to man newly born.

But there was need for him also of a teacher, as being a noble and rational creature, that he might be brought up not like some beast of burden, but educated like a little child. And surely no master could be found more fit for this task than Truth itself, which would one day lead him on to the knowledge of the highest truth. In the meantime, however, lest he be found wise unto doing evil, and sin become to him as to one knowing the good and not doing it, he received also Justice, whereby he might be governed. And still further, for the peace whereby he was cherished and delighted, the most benign hand of the Creator added Peace, assuredly twofold, so that there was neither struggle within nor fears without, that is, neither did flesh lust against spirit, nor was any creature a terror to him: for he freely imposed names upon all the beasts, and the serpent itself, which presumed not upon violence, assailed him rather by fraud. What was wanting to him whom Mercy guarded, Truth taught, Justice governed, Peace cherished?

He adds, moreover, how man by sin was despoiled of these. "Man lost," he says, "Justice when with Eve Adam obeyed the voice of the serpent, rather than the woman's the divine... He lost mercy also, when Eve so burned in her concupiscence that she spared neither herself, nor her husband, nor her children yet unborn, devoting them all together to a terrible malediction and to the necessity of death. Adam likewise cast the woman, for whose sake he had sinned, before the divine indignation: as though wishing to turn aside behind her back the arrow... The woman also was deprived of truth: first indeed evilly perverting what she had heard, thou shalt die the death, and saying, lest perhaps we die: finally believing the serpent, who altogether denied it, saying: No, ye shall not die. Adam too was deprived of truth, where he blushed to confess it, holding forth leaves, that is, coverings of excuses... Straightway also they lost peace, because there is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord. For had they not found a contrary law in their members, who had begun newly to be ashamed of their nakedness? I feared, he says, because I was naked. Not so, wretched man, not so didst thou fear a little while before! thou soughtest not leaves, though naked in body even as now."

These things premised, three points above all come forward for discussion in this Article: First, what original Justice was, and of what kind: Second, what grace was granted to Adam and Eve, and of what kind: Third, what was their dominion over corporeal things, and especially over those endowed with life.

Quaestio I: Quaenam et qualis fuerit primorum parentum iustitia originalis

Note 1. That among the princes of theology there are various opinions concerning original Justice. For Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet 6, qu. 11, teaches that original Justice was a certain natural rectitude infused into the human will, by which the will itself could dominate the sensitive appetite and bend it at its nod whithersoever it would: to which rectitude is opposed the natural curvature and proneness to evil inflicted upon the will on account of sin. This he explains by the example of a rod, which is first straight, then is bent and curved. And he confirms it from this, that if original Justice were not something purely natural, it does not appear how man was wounded in his natural endowments through sin; for he would only be said to have been despoiled of gratuitous gifts, if original Justice, which he lost through sin, had been something supernatural. — But the Doctor rejects and impugns this opinion as false and improbable in 2 dist. 29 n. 3; whence the other theologians agree with the Subtle Doctor himself that original Justice was something supernatural. Yet they differ among themselves in explaining it. First, indeed, very many Thomists, with Soto, lib. 1 De Virtute et Gratia c. 5, judge that original Justice was sanctifying grace itself granted to the first Parents, and they strive to draw Saint Thomas, 1 part qu. 95 art. 1, and in 2 dist. 20 art. 1, over to their side. An entirely opposite opinion is maintained by Saint Bonaventure in 2 dist. 29 art. 2 qu. 2, and Alexander of Hales, 2 part qu. 90, as well as Cajetan, expounding Saint Thomas conformably in 1 part qu. 95. For these affirm that original Justice is a certain supernatural charity entirely distinct from charity and sanctifying grace. The other theologians, however, contend that original Justice is neither charity and sanctifying grace, nor something one and distinct from them, but something aggregated out of charity together with other gratuitous gifts bestowed upon the first Parents, by which namely their will was subjected most perfectly to God, and the sensitive appetite to the will, nor did it rebel against it.

Note 2. That it is most certain that the first Parents, so long as their innocence lasted, did not experience that rebellion of the interior part against the superior, which is customarily named concupiscence, or the fuel of sin. And this is gathered, First, from that text Ecclesiasticus 7: God made man right. Second, from the Apostle to the Romans 7, ascribing the repugnance of flesh against spirit, and of concupiscence against reason, to the precept as their cause. Third, a posteriori, because Adam and Eve before sin were naked and were not ashamed; but after sin they knew themselves to be naked and immediately covered themselves, on account namely of the inordinate motions which they then felt, from which they were before immune. Fourth, by the authority of Saint Augustine and of the other Fathers, who everywhere set down concupiscence as an effect of original sin. This doctrine is also that of many Councils, and especially of the Council of Trent, session 5, in the decree on sin, where it says that Concupiscence is indeed called sin, not because it is truly and properly sin, but because it comes from sin and inclines to sin. — Now this gift is called Justice, because it was the natural perfection of the whole man and of all his faculties, and the best disposition and affection of all the powers of the soul, both among themselves and in order to their proper acts, by which namely God is said to have made man right. Moreover it is called original, both because the first Parents had it from their origin, and because it was to be transmitted through original generation from Adam to his posterity; not indeed by the power of natural propagation and seed, or of any purely natural cause, but proximately from God, no otherwise than the natural soul itself is created by Him immediately as the organic body is capable of receiving it.

Note 3. That five effects of original Justice can above all be distinguished. First, for it made human nature entire; that is, equipped in its faculties for acting, and complete and perfect in all things that naturally belong to it. Second, it constituted it right, namely with that natural rectitude from which arose man's vehement and prompt moral propensity to every good, and his alienation and aversion from every evil; by the defect of which rectitude, which happened through sin, man took on a certain curvature and obliquity of soul, so often named and upbraided in the divine letters; which is nothing else than a certain natural inclination of the soul toward created and fleeting goods, and aversion from goods eternal and divine. Third, it so perfected in orderly fashion all the powers of our nature that the inferior were most perfectly subjected to and obedient of the superior, and their actions in no wise impeded or retarded them, but rather assisted them; while the superior suffered no sadness in ruling and moderating the inferior. Fourth, it made man not only most greedy of knowing every truth, but also rendered him capable of attaining perfect knowledge and science of all things that can naturally be known, as well as strong and constant for performing every moral good and for declining every evil and vice. Fifth and last, it secured for man every felicity naturally desirable: so that, as Saint Augustine says, lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 10, No good would be lacking to man which a right will could wish; nor any evil present which would offend the flesh or the soul of man living happily.

These things briefly premised, it must be determined: First, what original Justice was, namely whether something supernatural, or truly purely natural. Second, whether it was some supernatural quality distinct from charity and sanctifying grace. Third, in what subject it was placed, whether in the body or in the soul.

First Conclusion. — Original Justice was truly something supernatural. This is against Henry, whose opinion the Doctor impugns in this manner as false and improbable in the place cited. First indeed: if, as Henry wills, it is necessary that the naturally rectifying quality be taken away through sin, inasmuch as it is doubtless the difference between sinful man and man constituted in pure natural conditions: if, I say, this were necessary, it would follow that the will could not sin unless it previously had that natural rectitude: because according to him sin is the corruption of that rectitude itself: but this is absurd: both because the will of itself is free to conform itself rightly to reason or not to conform; and because in fact it sins thereafter even when it is already stained by sin; and therefore while it has not that rectitude: ergo for sinning it is not necessary that the rectifying quality be taken away. — Confirmation 1. If God were to create a will without that rectitude (as He truly can; for this quality, as Henry confesses, is separable from the will, as being really distinct from it), that will could doubtless, being free, elicit an act congruent or discrepant with right reason and the divine law; and consequently could sin: for if the first man could sin, even though furnished with original Justice, much more could he sin if he had it not; nor indeed did it compel him to disobedience, nay rather it stimulated and assisted him unto obedience: but in such a case he would not be deprived of that natural rectitude through the sin he committed: ergo for sinning it is not necessary that man be deprived of such a naturally rectifying quality. — Confirmation 2. If the rectifying quality ought necessarily to be removed by the first sin, it ought also to be removed by the second sin: but this is false, because it cannot be removed by the second, since it was already removed by the first; but what does not exist cannot be removed: ergo neither ought it be removed by the first. If, therefore, the first sin corrupted that rectitude, as Henry wills, the second and third also ought to corrupt it; which is certainly impossible, since it is supposed to have been taken away by the first sin.

He impugns, secondly: that rebellion of appetite against reason would equally and in like manner have existed in man created in pure natural conditions: ergo it did not happen through the privation of any natural rectitude. The antecedent is proved: it is natural for every appetite to be borne toward its proper object: and if it is an appetite not free, it is natural to it to be borne toward it supremely, and as much as it can; for such an appetite is drawn by its natural weight, and as it is not in its power to act or not act, so neither can the intensity of its act be greater or less; but it acts as much as it can. Since, therefore, the sensitive appetite of man, even in pure natural conditions, would have its own delightful object, it would tend toward it with all its force, and for that reason would impede the act of reason: for these powers, since they are in one and the same soul, impede one another mutually in their intense acts on account of that unity. Wherefore reason would then have to repress and curb that impulse of appetite: which could not be done without some difficulty and sadness on its part. Wherefore there would be rebellion there: for this is nothing else than the inclination of the inferior power toward its delightful object, and the difficulty of the superior power in restraining that appetite.

You will say 1. Mortality, and the rebellion of the sensitive part against reason, are effects and penalties of sin: ergo if nature stood in pure natural conditions without any supernatural gift and without sin, neither mortality nor rebellion would exist: and consequently immortality would be had, and concord of the sensitive part with reason: and therefore on account of that immortality and concord no supernatural gift is to be posited, and consequently original Justice, which confers these effects of immortality and concord, does not signify any supernatural gift. — I distinguish the antecedent. The Doctor [says]: they are penalties in fact, supposing the conferral of the gift by which they would be excluded, from which gift man was deprived on account of sin; [in this sense] he grants the antecedent: absolutely and simply, or considering nature itself precisely in itself, without gratuitous gifts superadded, he denies the antecedent: for thus considered, nature's condition would be to be subject to death and to suffer that rebellion, no less than it is the natural condition of a dog to die, and of a stone to descend downward.

You will say 2. If original Justice were a supernatural gift: ergo original sin would be merely the privation of that supernatural gift, since it is merely the privation of original Justice: but this is absurd; because then one constituted in pure natural conditions would be of equal condition with one having original sin, seeing that each would lack every supernatural gift: but it is absurd that they should be of equal condition: for thus each would be liable to punishment. — The Doctor answers in the same place: whatever may be said of the first consequence, denying the assumption with its proof; because although each would be equal as regards all positive natural perfections, and as regards the lack of every supernatural gift; nevertheless they would differ in this, that he who would have original sin would have the debt of death founded in the divine pact made with the first man concerning the having of original Justice; but one constituted in pure natural conditions would not have such a debt; whence in the latter the lack of the supernatural gift, in which original Justice consisted, would be a privation; in the former, however, it would not be a privation, but a simple absence of some form which he was not bound to have.

You will say 3. The will in pure natural conditions is right; for no curvature seems to belong to its nature, because such would be refunded into God, who is its author: ergo if it were produced without anything supernatural, it would have original rectitude; and consequently original Justice: ergo original Justice does not involve anything supernatural. — I answer 1., with the Doctor, that in the will, or in man, a twofold rectitude and original Justice can be considered: one which is nothing else than the faculty of free choice for acting well, without any derangement of actual or habitual sin: another which is some gift bringing with it the effects of concord of the inferior sensitive power with the superior rational, and of immortality, which he supposes the first Parents in fact had from the origin, and their successors would have had had they not sinned. The argument proceeds from the prior rectitude, not from the posterior; wherefore, granting the whole, it makes nothing to the point. I answer 2., with the same Doctor, by distinguishing the antecedent: rectitude excluding any sin whatever, I grant the antecedent; rectitude excluding rebellion and mortality, I deny the antecedent. Similarly I distinguish the consequence: original rectitude and justice excluding the curvature of sin, I grant the consequence; excluding rebellion and mortality of sin, I deny the consequence. I distinguish also the final consequent: ergo original Justice, that is, the rectitude of nature excluding sin, I grant the consequence; that is, that which removes rebellion and mortality, I deny the consequence.

You will say 4. According to the opinion of all theologians, man on account of the sin of Adam is not only despoiled of gratuitous gifts, but also wounded in his natural endowments: ergo he lost not only supernatural rectitude, but also that natural rectitude infused in him; otherwise he would only be said to be despoiled of gratuitous gifts. — I answer. That man is said to be wounded in his natural endowments is not with respect to human nature considered in pure natural conditions, but as it was created by God with original Justice, by which it had the power of rectifying and perfecting all natural things in order to every good connatural to man: which justice being lost through sin, that perfection of the natural powers also perished, and for that cause man is said to be wounded in his natural endowments. But if anyone were created in pure natural conditions, he would not be of equal condition with man infected by original sin; for because the latter is debtor to original Justice, which he received in Adam, whereas the former is not at all, therefore the latter is guilty, the former not at all: and the loss of the vision of God, contingently incumbent upon both, is in the one a privation and penalty on account of sin; in the other a mere negation of dignity arising from the condition of nature.

Second Conclusion. — Original Justice was really distinct from and different from sanctifying grace.

This seems to be the genuine opinion of the Subtle Doctor in 2 dist. 29 num. 1, where he says: What if original Justice were some supernatural gift? It does not follow, however, that it must be a principle of meriting. For it stands related to grace, which is the principle of merit, as the exceeding to the exceeded: exceeding indeed, because it joins the will more firmly to the ultimate end than grace does: for thus it joins according to some, that no venial sin was thought to be compatible with it; but Charity suffereth together. And according to the premises, at least it joined in such sort that it was easier and more delightful for him to suffer from some sadness of the inferior than to acquiesce in some inferior delight, withdrawing from the delight of the end. This faculty grace had not, together with which remains proneness to evil and difficulty in good. But it exceeds grace in this, that it joins to the end as to a supernatural good, and supernaturally by meriting the attainment of such a good: not so this gift, but it joined only to that good as fitting and delightful.

Secondly, sanctifying grace perfects man in order to the supernatural end, but not in order to the natural end, nor to the natural integrity and perfection of man: but this original Justice secured; they were therefore gifts diverse and pertaining to diverse ends and states of man. And as by original Justice man was not perfected supernaturally, because it was a gift of nature given to complete its integrity and perfection; so sanctifying grace, because it is of the supernatural order and directed to the supernatural state and end of man, had not the power of perfecting man naturally and in those things that pertain to the completeness of human nature: and since we can feign in our mind and conceive in thought some man perfect according to the whole integrity of nature and of its powers and their natural rectitude without supernatural sanctifying grace; for the natural order is diverse, nor does it depend essentially on the supernatural; it is consistent besides that original Justice was a thing distinct from sanctifying grace, and that it does not contradict its being able to be separated from it.

Lastly, thirdly, if original Justice were not distinct from sanctifying grace, it would follow that original justice ought to have been restored to Adam by penance, and to us by baptism: for Adam through penance recovered the grace he had lost through sin; and the same is given through the Sacrament of baptism also to the baptized: but the consequent is false: ergo also that from which it follows.

You will say. The effect of original Justice was to subject the sensitive appetite to the rational, and the soul to God: but this very thing sanctifying grace secures, and accordingly it seems not to be a diverse habit. — I distinguish the minor. That sanctifying grace secures the same with the same facility as original Justice, I deny; with some repugnance on the part of either appetite, I grant: and thus original Justice not only subjected the soul to God and the body to the soul; but it also secured this subjection without any reluctance, nay with the greatest complacency and delight of either subject part. Otherwise it happens in the subjection wrought by sanctifying grace: since this subjection is fulfilled only with the greatest difficulty; for although the Apostle had been illumined by sanctifying grace, and that preeminently, nevertheless he cried out groaning: I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind.

Third Conclusion. — Original Justice, adequately taken, was not one and a simple habit: but a manifold gift of God, by which the whole man would become upright and perfect: and therefore it desired not a single, but a various subject. Thus the Doctor in the place cited n. 1, where, after he had proved it necessary for man to have some supernatural gift whereby he might easily withdraw himself from sensible delights and moderate the sensitive appetite; he affirms again that other gifts were necessary in the inferior appetites, whereby they might be moved delightfully by the will according to right reason, even when they would abandon their own delights. "If it be said," he says, "that the inferior power of itself obeys reason delightfully, then it seems that something must be posited in the inferior power, whereby it is thus delightfully borne toward the delight of the will; for it does not seem that from the nature of that power it would be delightfully torn away from its delight; nor was it of its nature, inasmuch as it is inferior to the will, that it be delightfully torn from its delight by the will itself, because this essential order remains now, and yet now there is not such delight." For it would be necessary to posit in each inferior appetitive power individual gifts, so that each might be moved delightfully by the will through its own gift, and the will itself through its gift might move itself delightfully toward the inferior powers; and if there were such many gifts, nevertheless original Justice, which was in the will, was the chiefest. — By which it is evident how perversely certain Recent writers affirm

that the Doctor asserts original Justice to have been one single and simple habit, to be placed in the will alone. Original Justice, therefore, was the complex of all habits by which man became fitted to exercise expediently and perfectly all the actions befitting his nature. That it was not a single and simple habit is evident from this, that the faculties of our soul are some incorporeal and immortal, as mind and will: others mortal and corporeal, as those belonging to the sentient and nutritive soul: but how could it come about that one numerical habit should perfect so many powers distinguished not only in number and species but even in genus, especially since habit is distinguished by acts, and acts by objects? For in what power, I beseech, would that single habit of original Justice have been? If in the intellect, how would it have perfected the will? And even if it had been in both faculties, how nevertheless could it have made the powers of the sentient soul expedite and perfect for acting suitably to the judgment and command of reason? Therefore original Justice was not one habit, but contained all the habits that are needed for the completion of the integrity and rectitude of man and of all his faculties. — And so in the speculative intellect it contained all the speculative sciences of all things that can naturally be known by man, as Metaphysics, Physics, and all Mathematical disciplines. — In the practical intellect, concerning those things that man must do both privately and publicly, it had most exquisite prudence; also those arts which have an ingenuous and liberal use and honest delectation, as Agriculture, Music, Architecture, the art of painting and of sculpting. — In the will there were two habits: one toward God, namely of Religion, which renders worship and honor to God as the supreme principle of all things and their natural end, both by interior veneration of mind and by external rites and ceremonies: the other toward one's neighbor, namely of Justice, which is divided into distributive and commutative. — In the sensitive appetite, which is twofold, irascible and concupiscible, there were the moral virtues, by which they are gifted and rendered obedient to reason, namely Temperance and Fortitude: for it is natural that powers be perfected through their habits: and this is the natural mode whereby each several power is perfected, that it may be fit to perform its functions as it ought. And all the aforesaid habits original Justice contained in the most perfect, and, as they call it, heroic degree.

You ask: whether in the state of Innocence the sensitive appetite was so subjected to reason that it would never rise against its prescription, neither resisting it nor anticipating it?

The Doctor answers in 2 dist. 29 num. 1 that nothing certain can be determined in this matter: "For it can be said," he says, "that if original Justice in the soul had that effect, namely to make perfect tranquillity in the soul as regards all powers, so that the inferior nature would not incline against the judgment of the superior, or if it inclined as far as in it lies, it could yet be regulated and ordered by the superior without difficulty of the superior and without sadness of the inferior: since the fluctuating power had not this in pure natural conditions, it is necessary to posit in it a supernatural gift, whereby that tranquillity may be in the soul. Then it is asked: but is never by this removed all rebellion, so that the inferior power delightfully withdraws itself from its own proper delight?" "I answer," he says, "if the will delightfully abstains by condelighting with the inferior power, the whole man delightfully abstains from the delight of the inferior sensitive appetite: but not the whole man abstains without sadness if that inferior itself abstains with sadness: for this belongs to man simply, that it belongs to him according to his superior power, nor is it denied to him on that account, even though it does not belong to him according to his inferior power." He adds, moreover: nor perhaps is it necessary to posit that any sense of appetite could then be saddened, and hearing hear a shameful delectable thing, and either could offend the sensitive appetite, as a fitting sensible could delight; but the will would then have used well those sadnesses and delights of the inferior appetites, so that it would not have been immoderately saddened by the inferior appetites, as it would have used well their delights, not immoderately condelighting. By which the Doctor leaves it in doubt what is to be held concerning the proposed question. — Nevertheless I should believe it more probable that in that happy state of original Justice the motions of the sensitive appetite were so subject to reason that they never resisted it nor outran it: otherwise there would seem to be no difference between the state of innocence and of integral nature, and between the state of fallen nature repaired by the grace of Christ. And the Apostle proves this opinion, Romans 7, where he affirms that the rebellion of flesh against spirit arose chiefly from sin. Saint Augustine also teaches, lib. 11. De Civit. Dei, cap. 19, where he says: The motions of the appetite before sin in Paradise were not vicious. For they were not moved against right will toward anything: whence it would be necessary for them to be restrained by reason governing as with bridle-reins. For that now they are so moved, and in those who live temperately, and justly, and piously, are modified by restraining and bridling them, some more easily, some with more difficulty, is assuredly not health from nature, but languor from guilt.

You ask: How would it have come about that in that state the rational will, naturally conjoined to the sensitive appetite, would not be allured and affected by its delights, and would abstain from them of itself, without any difficulty or molestation? — The Doctor answers in the same place, that this happened because the will was held with a far greater delight about its object than was sensible delight: for it was more delightful to it to adhere to its ultimate end, and to those things ordered to that end, than to enjoy the pleasures of the senses.

↑ Top of work

Tractatus I: De Creaturarum Corporalium, seu totius Mundi formatione, et ordinatione

Disputatio I: De opere primae diei

Disputatio II: De opere secundae diei

Disputatio III: De opere tertiae diei

Disputatio IV: De opere quartae diei

Disputatio V: De opere quintae diei

Disputatio VI: De opere sextae diei

Tractatus II: De mirando Hominis opificio, ejusque varia sorte

Disputatio I: De statu purae naturalis hominis, seu de nativis et ingenitis hominum dotibus

Articulus I: De naturali hominis statu, et ingenita ejus praecellentia

Quaestio I: An possibilis sit naturae purae status

Quaestio II: Qualis esset naturae purae status; sive an eisdem corporis, et animae defectibus, quibus nunc praemimur, subiaceret

Quaestio III: Qualiter homo per ingenitas suas praecellentias cunctis creaturis praecellat

Articulus II: De dignitate et praecellentia humani corporis

Quaestio I: Qualis, et quam miranda sit humani corporis fabrica

Quaestio II: Quanta sit hominis dignitas ex recta eius dispositione

Quaestio III: Quanta sit humani corporis dignitas ex eius unione cum anima rationali

Articulus III: De animae rationalis dignitate et praecellentia

Quaestio I: Quid, qualis, et ex quo sit anima rationalis

Quaestio II: An, et quomodo anima rationalis formata sit ad imaginem, et similitudinem Dei

Quaestio III: In quo maneat sita ratio imaginis, et similitudinis Dei in homine

Disputatio II: De statu naturae innocentis

Articulus I: De Paradiso terrestri protoparentum innocentium domicilio

Quaestio I: Quid sit Paradisus terrestris

Quaestio II: Quis, et qualis sit Paradisi terrestris situs

Quaestio III: Quae nam sit Paradisi terrestris magnitudo, et amoenitas?

Quaestio IV: Quibus praecipuis arboribus Paradisus terrestris consitus fuerit

Articulus II: De naturalibus et ingenitis hominis innocentis dotibus

Quaestio I: Quaenam fuerit protoparentum corporea formatio, et exercitatio

Quaestio II: Qualis, et quanta fuerit protoparentum in statu innocentiae sapientia, et scientia

Quaestio III: Qua ratione propagatum esset genus humanum in statu innocentiae

Articulus III: De eximiis hominis innocentis corporis et animae supernaturalibus dotibus

Quaestio I: Quaenam et qualis fuerit primorum parentum iustitia originalis

Quaestio II: Qualis, et quanta fuerit gratia primis parentibus concessa

Quaestio III: An, et quale homo innocens dominium habebat in animantes, et alios homines

Disputatio III: De statu naturae lapsae

Articulus I: De tentatione, lapsu, et poena primorum Parentum

§ I: De tentatione primorum Parentum

Quaestio I: Quonam instrumento diabolus usus fuerit ad primos parentes tentandos

Quaestio II: Quonam motivo ductus fuerit diabolus ut Protoparentes nostros tentaret

Quaestio III: Quis fuerit serpentis tentationis progressus et ordo

§ II: De primariae legis impositione, transgressione, et vindicta

Quaestio I: Qua de causa Deus legem praescripserit protoparentibus non edendi ex fructu arboris scientiae boni et mali

Quaestio II: Quonam mortali peccato divinam legem sibi praescriptam Adam, et Eva primario fuerint transgressi

Quaestio III: Qualis, et quanta fuerit peccati primorum parentum gravitas

§ III: De poena primis Parentibus ob eorum perdullionem irrogata

Quaestio I: Quibusnam specialibus poenis primi parentes in sui reatus vindictam flerunt affecti

Quaestio II: Quid primis parentibus contigerit post divinam in eos animadversionem

Articulus II: De peccato originali ab Adamo in omnes ejus posteros transducto

§ I: De originalis peccati existentia

Quaestio I: Quibus momentis probari possit originalis peccati existentia

Quaestio II: Quid sit peccatum originale

§ II: Quomodo peccatum originale in posteros traducatur

Quaestio I: Qualiter, et in quos peccatum originale traducatur

Quaestio II: Quinam sint praecipui effectus originalis peccati

Articulus III: De peccato personali

§ I: De peccato personali generatim spectato

Quaestio I: In quo maxime consistat ratio formalis peccati

Quaestio II: Quotuplex, et qualis sit peccatorum divisio

Quaestio III: A quibus petenda sit specifica, et numerica peccatorum distinctio

Quaestio IV: An, et quae peccatum habeat interiores causas efficientes

Quaestio V: Quaenam sint causae exteriores peccati

Quaestio VI: De affectionibus peccatorum

§ II: De peccatis capitalibus sigillatim