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

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?