Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Grace of the First Man
Chapter 11: Objections are answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Gratia Primi Hominis. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
His first objection, then, is this: nowhere is it read in Scripture that paradise was planted on earth. I answer: this is sufficiently gathered from its being said to be planted; for gardens can be planted only in the earth. And the same is most openly taught by the trees, and the rivers, and the other things which are set down in the description of paradise. Otherwise, by the same form of argumentation we could gather thus: nowhere do we read in Scripture that the first man had inward parts; therefore he had no inward parts.
The second objection: if paradise were earthly and bodily, certainly it ought to have been founded on the third day; for then, at God's command, the earth brought forth the green herb and all trees; but the production of paradise and of its trees is described after the sixth day. I answer: St. Basil, in the book On Paradise, thinks that paradise and its trees were created, by a certain special providence of God, not with the other plants on the third day, but separately at another time. But we can also say that the trees of paradise, and so paradise itself, were founded on the third day; but that, because the thing was most memorable, its production was described more fully after the narration of the works of the six days. For the production of Adam also, from the slime of the earth, and of Eve from the side of the man, is described after the narration of the works of the six days, and yet it is settled that they were created on the sixth day. Perhaps also for this reason the Latin interpreter rendered, “Now the Lord had planted a paradise,” and not, “the Lord planted a paradise” — to signify that paradise was not then first founded, but much before, namely on the third day.
The third objection: that earthly paradise would have been created in vain, seeing it was to be of use to no one, since God was not ignorant that man would sin and be cast out of that place. I answer: Theodoret, question 24 [al. 27] on Genesis, noted that paradise was not founded in vain, although Adam was to dwell in it altogether a short time: first, because the recollection of so pleasant a dwelling, from which he knew he had fallen through disobedience, could be not a little useful to man thereafter for fleeing sin; next, because God does not punish men before they sin, nor does he cease to do them good merely because he foresees they will sin. Others add that even now there is some use of paradise, since Enoch and Elijah are believed to dwell in it. It can be added that that earthly paradise is useful to us even now, that in the description of so notable a place we may behold, as in a certain image, the excellence of the spiritual and heavenly paradise. Finally, if it was not in vain that there was given to man the power not to die and not to sin, and that he was distinguished by original righteousness, though God was not ignorant that man would sin and die and would soon lose those choice gifts, assuredly neither ought paradise to be said to have been founded in vain, though Adam was not long to use it.
The fourth objection: St. Jerome, in the Hebrew Questions, expounding that verse, “the Lord had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning,” writes that paradise was created before heaven and earth. But it cannot be that Jerome believed an earthly and bodily paradise to have existed before heaven and earth; therefore, by the judgment of St. Jerome, paradise is not earthly and bodily, but divine and spiritual. I answer: St. Jerome either spoke in that place from the opinion of others, as he often did in the commentaries on the epistle to the Ephesians and in other places; or he meant to signify that paradise was founded before the fabric of heaven and earth was altogether perfected — which is most true. For even if on the third day, on which paradise is believed to have been founded, the workmanship of heaven and earth had been begun, yet it was not completed; for on the fourth day heaven was adorned with the stars, and on the fifth and sixth the earth with living creatures. Certainly of St. Jerome's judgment there can be no doubt at all, as we showed a little before from his words.
To these four objections of Francis Georgius we can add two others. The fifth objection, then, which the old Valentinians and Origenists used: the Apostle Paul, in the second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 12, writes that he was caught up into the third heaven, and straightway, repeating the same, says that he was caught up into paradise; therefore paradise is in the third heaven. I answer: blessed Methodius, in Epiphanius, and St. Epiphanius himself, in the places noted before, teach that there were two raptures of the Apostle, one into the third heaven, the other into paradise; hence it ought not to be gathered from this place that paradise is in the third heaven. It can be answered more easily that the paradise from which Adam was cast out and that into which Paul was caught up are not the same, as the commentary ascribed to St. Ambrose rightly teaches, on chapter 12 of the second to the Corinthians. For the word “paradise” signifies a place of delights, or a garden; and in the Scriptures it is sometimes taken for the bodily paradise — not only in Genesis 2 and 3, but also in Ecclesiastes 2, where, where we read I made me gardens, and orchards, the Hebrew has “gardens and paradises”; and Canticles 4: Thy plants are a paradise of pomegranates with the fruits of the orchard; but sometimes for the spiritual paradise, of which that bodily one was the figure, as Ezekiel 28, Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God; Luke 23, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise; and 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 without doubt paradise seems to be so taken in 2 Corinthians 12.
The sixth objection is drawn from the authority of St. Ambrose, who not only in the book On Paradise explains that whole narration mystically and spiritually, but also in epistle 42 [al. 45] to Sabinus — being now (as he himself says) a veteran priest, and asked by Sabinus by letter what he thought of paradise — answered that he had written a whole book on that matter; and, the opinions of others being recounted, says that all agree in this, that it is spiritual: “All agree that in paradise both the tree of life was rooted, and the tree of knowledge, which discerns good and evil; and the other trees also full of vigor, full of quickening, breathing and rational. From which it is gathered that paradise itself cannot be seen to be earthly, in some soil, but in our ruling part, which is animated and quickened by the virtues of the soul and the inpouring of the Spirit of God.” I answer: St. Ambrose did not deny that the paradise in which Adam was was bodily; but, that being laid down as certain from the sacred history, he was wholly occupied in explaining the significations and mysteries of paradise. Which we can prove in many ways. First, because in the book On Paradise, chapter 1, he has these words: “In this paradise, then, God placed the man whom he had fashioned. Understand that he placed not that man who is according to the image of God, but him who is according to the body; for the incorporeal is not in a place.” These words indicate plainly enough that paradise, by Ambrose's judgment, was bodily, since Adam was placed in it insofar as he was endowed with a body, not insofar as with a spirit. Second, because in the same book, chapter 3, Ambrose confesses that from paradise go out those rivers, Phison, Gehon, Tigris, and Euphrates; and he explains that Phison is the Ganges itself, and Gehon the Nile — most true and most known rivers; and he adds that the Tigris and Euphrates, which flow from paradise, are the very ones which so enclose Mesopotamia in their midst that that region took its name from them. And if St. Ambrose believed that bodily rivers arise in paradise and go out thence, assuredly he by no means doubted that paradise itself was bodily. Third, because in the same book, chapter 7 [al. 9], he proposes the question whence the death of Adam befell — whether from the nature of the tree, or from God; and answers that death befell neither from the nature of the tree nor from God, but from the disobedience of Adam, who presumed to taste of the fruit of the forbidden tree. In which question, and in the solution of the question, he takes as settled that that tree was bodily. Fourth, because in epistle 42 cited above to Sabinus, after he had said that various opinions about paradise stand, he subjoins thus: “For Josephus, as being a historiographer, says it is a place stocked with trees and very many shrubs, watered too by a river which is divided into four streams,” etc. — where he does not condemn Josephus, but only indicates that he, as a historian, was solicitous only about the description of the history. From which we understand that the history of the thing done is not denied by Ambrose, but omitted as a thing known and explained by others; otherwise he would not say that Josephus, as a historiographer, described a bodily paradise, but as a Jew dreaming of nothing but bodily delights. Fifth, because in the same epistle he says that all agree in this, that in paradise there were trees breathing and rational — which indeed, if it be understood of paradise mystically taken, will be true; if of paradise simply, it neither is true, nor could it come into St. Ambrose's mind to believe it true. For, to omit the writings of St. Epiphanius against the Origenists denying a bodily paradise, which do not seem to have been able to be unknown to St. Ambrose, certainly the same Ambrose had read the book of St. Basil on paradise. For as from the homilies of Basil on the work of the six days Ambrose composed his Hexameron, so from the same author's book on paradise he transferred many things into his own book on paradise; and Basil most openly writes that paradise was bodily, and at the same time expounds the mystical significations of the same paradise. What Ambrose says, therefore — that paradise itself cannot be seen to be earthly, in some soil, but in our ruling part — is to be taken not of any paradise whatever, but only of that in which he had said a little before that there were trees breathing and rational.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Igitur prima ejus objectio talis est. Nus¬ quam legitur in Scriptura, paradisum in terra fuisse plantatum. Respondeo : satis id colligitur ex eo quod dicitur plantatus. Ne¬ que enim nisi in terra plantari queunt horti- Quod idem apertissime docent arbores, et flumina, et caetera qua; in paradisi descri¬ ptione ponuntur. Alioqui eadem forma ar¬ gumentationis ita colligere possemus : Nus¬ quam legimus in Scriptura primum hominem habuisse praecordia : non igitur habuit ille praecordia. Secunda objectio. Si paradisus terrenus et corporalis esset, certe tertia die condi de¬ buisset, tunc enim jussu Dei protulit terra herbam virentem, et omnes arbores. At pa¬ radisi et arborum ejus productio post sextum diem facta describitur. Respondeo : S. Basi¬ bus in lib. de paradiso existimat, paradisum, ejusque arbores creatas fuisse speciali qua¬ dam providentia Dei non cum cceteris plantis tertia die, sed seorsim alio tempore. Sed pos¬ sumus etiam dicere, arbore» paradisi, atque adeo ipsum paradisum tertia die fuisse con¬ ditum, cajterum quia res erat maxime me¬ morabilis, fusius descriptam fuisse produ¬ ctionem ejus post narrationem operum sex dierum. Nam Adami quoque productio ex limo terra;, et Eva; ex latere viri describitur post narrationem operum sex dierum, et tamen constat eos creatos fuisse sexta die. Fortasse etiam ideo interpres Latinus red¬ didit : Plantaverat autem Dominus paradisum, et non, Plantavit Dominus paradisum ; ut significaret , non tunc primum conditum paradisum, sed multo antea, nimirum tertia die. • Tertia objectio. Frustra paradisus ille ter¬ renus creatus fuisset, quippe qui nulli usui esset futurus, cum non ignoraret Deus ho¬ minem peccaturum, et ex eo loco proji¬ ciendum. Respondeo, Theodoretum q. 24. in Gen. annotavit, non frustra conditum para¬ disum, quamvis Adam omnino modico tem¬ pore in eo habitaturus esset, primum quidem quia non parum utilis esse potuit homini dein¬ ceps ad peccatum fugiendum recordatio tam jucunda; habitationis, aqua ob inobedientiam se excidisse noverat. Deinde quia Deus non punit homines antequam peccent, neque de¬ sinit eis benefacere ex eo solum, quod pra;- videtpeccaturos. Addunt alii nunc etiam usum esse aliquem paradisi, cum in eo Enoch, et Elias habitare credantur. Addi potest, utilem quoque nunc esse nobis terrenum illum pa¬ radisum, ut in descriptione illa tam insignis loci, tamquam in imagine quadam jntueamur excellentiam spiritalis, ac coelestis paradisi. Denique si non frustra datum fuit homini ut posset non mori, et non peccare, et ut origi¬ nali justitia insignis esset, quamvis non igno¬ raret Deus hominem peccaturum, et mori¬ turum, et dona illa eximia brevi amissurum; profecto nec frustra dici debet conditus pa¬ radisus, tametsi Adamus eo diu non esset usurus. Quarto objectio. S. Hieronymus in qua;- stionibus Hebraicis, exponens illud : Planta¬ verat Dominus paradisum voluptatis a prin¬ cipio, scribit, paradisum ante coelum et ter¬ ram fuisse creatum. At fieri non potest, ut paradisum terrenum et corporalem Hiero¬ nymus crediderit ante coelum et terram extitisse : igitur sententia S. Hieronymi pa¬ radisus non est terrenus est corporalis, sed divinus et spiritualis. Respondeo : S. Hiero¬ nymus aut eo loco ex aliorum sententia locu¬ tus est, ut sa;pe fecit in commentariis epi¬ stola; ad Ephesios, et in aliis locis : aut significare voluit, paradisum conditum fuisse, antequam coeli et terra; fabrica omnino per¬ ficeretur quod verissimum est. Nam etiamsi, tertia die, qua paradisus conditus creditur, coeli et terra; opificium inchoatum esset, non tamen absolutum erat. Nam quarto dic CAPUT XI. 107 coelum sideribus, quinto autem et sexto terra animantibus ornata fuit. Certe de S. Hieronymi sententia nullo modo dubi tari potest, ut paulo ante ex verbis ejus os¬ tendimus. Addere possumus ad has quatuor Francisci Georgii objectiones, duas alias. Est igitur quinta objectio, qua utebantur veteres Valentiniani, et Origeniani : Apo¬ stolus Paulus in epist. posteriore ad Corinth. cap. 12. scribit se raptum fuisse in tertium coelum, et continuo idipsum repetens dicit, se raptum in paradisum : igitur in tertio coelo est paradisus. Respondeo : B. Methodiusapud Epiphanium, et ipse S. Epiphanius locis antea notatis docent, duos fuisse Apostoli raptus, unum in tertium coelum, alterum in paradisum, proinde non debere ex hoc loco colligi, in tertio coelo esse paradisum. Faci¬ lius responderi potest, non esseeumdem pa¬ radisum, ex quo ejectus fuit Adam, et in quem raptus fuit Paulus, ut recte docet com¬ mentarius S. Ambrosio adseriptus in cap. 6. prioris ad Corinthios. Vox enim Paradisus locum deliciarum, sive hortum significat, et in Scripturis interdum accipiturpro paradiso corporali, non solum Gcn. ii. et iii sed etiam Ecclesiastm ii. Ubi enim nos legimus : Feci mihi hortos , et pomaria , in hebraeo habetur, hortos et paradisos. EtCanticor. iv. Emissiones lux paradisus malorum punicorum cum pomo¬ rum fructibus (1). Interdum autem pro para¬ diso spirituali, cujus corporalis ille figura fuit, ut Ezechiel. xxvm. Iu deliciis paradisi fuisti. Luc. xxm. Hodie mecum eris in para¬ diso. Et Apocal. ii. Vincenti dabo edere de ligno vitx, quod est in paradiso Dei mei (2). Et sine dubio sic accipiendus videtur paradisus 11 ad Corinth..xn. Sexta objectio ducitur ab auctoritate S. Ambrosii, qui non solum in libro de para¬ diso totam illam narrationem mystice , et spiritualiter explicat, sed etiam in epist. 42. ad Sabinum, jam (ut ipse dicit) veteranus Sacerdos, interrogatus a Sabino per litteras, quid sentiret de paradiso, respondit, se de ea re librum integrum scripsisse, et comme¬ moratis aliorum sententiis, dicit, in eo con¬ venire omnes, ut spiritualis sit : « Omnes, inquit, congruunt, in paradiso et lignum vita) radicatum, et lignum scientia}, qua; discernat bonum et malum : esetera quoque ligna plena vigoris, plena vivificationis spirantia, et rationabilia. Ex quibus colligitur para¬ disum ipsum non terrenum videri posse, non in solo aliquo ; sed in nostro principali, quod animatur, et vivificatur anima; virtutibus, et infusione Spiritus Dei. » Respondeo : S. Am¬ brosius non negavit, paradisum, in quo fuit Adam, corporalem fuisse, sed eo posito, ut certo ex historia sacra, totus fuit in expli¬ candis paradisi significationibus atque myste¬ riis occupatus. Quod multis modis probare possumus. Primo, quia in libro de paradiso cap. 1. habet haec verba : « In hoc ergo paradiso Deus hominem posuit, quem plasmavit. In- tellige, quod non eum hominem, qui secun¬ dum imaginem Dei est, posuit : sed eum qui secundum corpus : incorporalis enim in loco non est. » Haec verba satis aperte indicant, paradisum ex Ambrosii sententia fuisse cor¬ poralem, cum in eo positus fuerit Adam, qua corpore, non qua spiritu praeditus erat. Secundo, quia in eodem libro, cap. 3. fa¬ tetur Ambrosius de paradiso egredi flumina illa, Phison, Geon, Tigrim, et Euphratem ; et explicat, Phison ipsum esse Gangem, Geon autem Nilum, flumina verissima atque no¬ tissima, et addit Tigrim et Euphratem, qua; fluunt de paradiso, ipsa esse qua; ita mediam includunt Mesopotamiam, ut inde ea regio nomen acceperit. Quod si flumina corporalia in paradiso oriri, et inde egredi S. Ambro¬ sius credidit, profecto paradisum ipsum corporalem fuisse minime dubitavit. Tertio, quia in eodem libro cap. 7. propo¬ nit qumstionem, unde mors Adae acciderit, utrum a natura ligni, an a Deo ; et respon¬ det, mortem neque a natura ligni, neque a Deo accidisse, sed ab inobedientia Adami, qui de fructu ligni vetiti gustare praesum- psit. In qua quaestione, et quaestionis solu¬ tione , pro comperto accipit illud lignum fuisse corporale. Quarto, quia in epist. 42. supra citata ad Sabinum, posteaquam dixerat, varias de pa¬ radiso extare sententias, ita subjungit : «Nam Josephus, inquit, ut pote Historiographus, locum dicit refertum arboribus, virgultisque plurimis, irrigari etiam flumine, qui dividi¬ tur in quatuor fluvios etc. » Ubi Josephum non damnat, sed tantum indicat, cum ut hi¬ storicum de solius historiae descriptione fuisse sollicitum. Ex quo intelligimus, historiam rei gestae ab Ambrosio non negari , sed (1) Eccl. II, 5; Gen. IV, 13. — (2) Ezech. XXVIII, 13; Luc. XXIII, 43; Apo. II, 7. 1*J8 LIBER I. omitti ut rem notam, atque ab aliis explica¬ tam, alioqui non diceret, Josephumut histo¬ riographum, paradisum corporalem descri¬ psisse, sed ut Judseum nihil nisi corporales delicias somniantem. Quinto, quia in eadem epistola dicit, om¬ nes in eo convenire, ut in paradiso fuerint ligna spirantia, et rationabilia. Quod quidem si de paradiso mystice accepto intelligatur, verum erit, si de paradiso simpliciter, neque verum est, neque potuit S. Ambrosio in mentem cadere, ut id verum crederet. Nam, ut omittam scripta S. Epiphanii contra Ori- genistas, negantes paradisum corporalem, qua} non videntur incognita S. Ambrosio esse potuisse, certe legerat idem Ambrosius librum S. Basilii de paradiso. Quemadmo¬ dum enim ex homiliis Basilii de opere sex dierum, composuit Ambrosius suum Exame- ron, ita ex libro ejusdem de paradiso multa in suum librum de paradiso transtulit. Basi- lius autem apertissime paradisum corpora¬ lem fuisse scribit, et simul mysticas ejusdem paradisi significationes exponit. Quod igitur Ambrosius ait, paradisum ipsum non terre¬ num videri posse, non in solo aliquo, sed in nostro principali, non de quocumque para¬ diso accipiendum est, sed de eo tantum, in quo paulo ante dixerat, inesse ligna spiran¬ tia et rationabilia. CAPUT XII. Locum terrestris paradisi , a cognitione