Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Grace of the First Man
Chapter 12: That the place of the earthly paradise is most remote from human knowledge
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).
The second question about paradise is: “In what part of the earth paradise is.” Certain men have thought that the whole world is that paradise of which Scripture speaks in Genesis 2; in which opinion Josephus seems to be, book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 2, where he says that the river which watered paradise is a certain stream girdling the whole earth — by which name he is believed to have signified the Ocean. But divine Scripture is repugnant to this opinion. For if God brought into paradise the man formed outside paradise from the slime of the earth, and then led him, cast out of paradise, back into that region where he had been created, as we read in Genesis 2 and 3, how can it be that the whole earth is paradise — unless perchance the slime from which Adam was formed was outside the world, and Adam himself after the fall was driven outside the whole earth? To pass over the guard of angels set at paradise, that access to paradise might not lie open to the men inhabiting the rest of the earth. There is added also the consent of well-nigh all writers, who will have paradise to be a certain orchard of the world, and as it were the palace of the prince of living things.
Another opinion, at the other extreme, is of those who teach that paradise is outside the whole earth which we inhabit. For they hold that our earth is girdled on every side by the Ocean, and that the Ocean is girdled by another, far greater earth, and that this is, and is named, paradise. This opinion is attributed to Moses Bar-Cepha, in the book which he wrote on paradise. But neither does this opinion agree well enough with the divine writings or the tradition of the Fathers. For the Tigris and Euphrates, and the other rivers which arise from paradise, are found in this our earth; nor is it credible that they come to us, through an immense tract, from that other world which is feigned beyond the Ocean. Next, it seems now sufficiently ascertained, by the various navigations of many, both that the whole earth is not girdled by the Ocean, and that there is no other earth beyond the Ocean. Finally, it is the common opinion — and according to the version of the Seventy interpreters it is gathered from the divine Scripture itself, Genesis 2 — that paradise is situated toward the east; from which it follows that it is false that it girdles the whole Ocean.
A third is the opinion of others, that paradise is a certain lofty place, reaching even to the globe of the moon. This opinion is wont to be attributed to venerable Bede, but nowhere in his works have I been able to find it; it stands, however, in a certain gloss of Bridefert of Ramsey on chapter 41 [al. 51] of Bede On the Reckoning of Times; and Peter Lombard reports it, and does not refute it, in book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 17. But assuredly it is incredible that that is the site of paradise: both because that region is most unhealthy, and indeed uninhabitable, on account of the excessive thinness of the air and its perpetual agitation; and because, if the loftiness of that place were so great, paradise would be seen from some region, and would at some time snatch from us, or from our antipodes, the sight of the sun and moon — especially since that same opinion places paradise toward the east, as is evident from the gloss of Bridefert cited above; and finally because, if there were any proportion of the height of paradise to its breadth, the amplitude of the whole earth would not suffice to hold its base — seeing that the mathematicians demonstrate that from the surface of the earth to the globe of the moon there intervenes a space of above a hundred thousand miles. But perhaps the author of that opinion meant to use hyperbole, that from a hyperbolical height he might show the excellence of paradise, as St. Thomas admonishes, part 1, question 102, article 1 — as we understand the words of St. Basil, who in the book on paradise writes that paradise, on account of the loftiness of its site, admits no darkness; and of John Damascene, who, book 2 On the Faith, chapter 11, writes that paradise is loftier than our earth; and of Rupert, who, book 1 [al. 2] on Genesis, chapter 37 [al. 24], writes that paradise is a place nearest to heaven; and finally of Alcimus Avitus, who in book 1 of his poems on the beginning of the world sang thus of the site of paradise: “Where then, the Indies passed, the head of the world begins, where they report that earth joins its borders to heaven, a grove abides, in a height inaccessible to all mortals.” To which Claudius Marius Victor alluded, when in the first book of his poems on Genesis he says: “Where the happy earth opens its eastern recesses, on a loftier globe paradise, a grove of loveliness, spreads open, marked out with the order of its shapely wood.”
The fourth is the opinion of certain more recent writers — Augustinus Eugubinus, Jerome Oleaster, Francis Vatable in the annotations on chapter 2 of Genesis, and Cornelius Jansen in chapter 143 of the Concord of the Gospels — who hold that paradise was in Mesopotamia, but that in the time of the flood its beauty and loveliness so perished that no trace of paradise remained, and that now there is no need of the guard of the Cherubim and the flaming sword, and access to that place lies open not only to any men whatever, but even to the beasts. But to me, for many causes, this opinion does not commend itself. First, because it is a new opinion, and repugnant to the common consent of the Doctors, not only the Fathers, but also the Scholastics. Next, in paradise itself arose a river, which thence was divided into four heads, whose names are Euphrates, Tigris, Phison, and Gehon; but in Mesopotamia no river of that kind arises. The Euphrates and Tigris flow indeed through Mesopotamia, but they do not arise there; they have their springs in Armenia. Wherefore by this reasoning the name of paradise would rather befit Armenia (which nevertheless no one has said) than Mesopotamia. Further, the Phison and Gehon neither have their springs in Mesopotamia, nor are found in it in any way. Some answer that in Mesopotamia the Euphrates and Tigris are joined, and a little after are again separated, and thus are made four heads and as it were rivers — the two former being the Tigris and Euphrates, the two latter the Phison and Gehon, though they are not called by these names at this time. But the answer does not seem apt enough: for Scripture does not say that rivers coming from elsewhere are joined in paradise, but that a river first arises there, and after its going out of paradise is divided into four heads: a river (says Scripture) went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads. And so the fact that in Mesopotamia no river arises, but rivers already divided, coming from elsewhere, are seen there, is a proof that paradise neither was nor is in that place. Next, the Phison and Gehon are said to go round various regions; but those two heads which are born from the division of the Tigris and Euphrates are plunged into the Persian sea by a very short and very straight course — if indeed what these men say is true; for otherwise I, inspecting the geographical charts, do not see that the Tigris and Euphrates, after their junction, are again separated, but that they are discharged together into the Persian sea. Those two heads, then, cannot be called Phison and Gehon. Furthermore, the Phison and Gehon are said by many most weighty writers to be the Ganges and the Nile: for so teach Josephus, book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 2; Epiphanius, in the epistle to John of Jerusalem; Ambrose, in the book On Paradise, chapter 3; Jerome, in the Hebrew Places; Augustine, book 8 On Genesis, chapter 7; Alcimus Avitus, and Claudius Marius Victor, in the places cited a little before; Eucherius on Genesis; and others. And, what is greater: in Jeremiah 2, where the vulgate edition has, And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the troubled water?, in the Seventy interpreters is read, “to drink the water of Gehon”; and St. Jerome, in the commentary on that place, witnesses that in the common edition it was always “Gehon.” Nor is the vulgate edition repugnant to the edition of the Seventy, seeing that St. Jerome in the same place witnesses that the water of the Nile, which by the Seventy interpreters is called Gehon, is truly troubled. Add also that the divine Scripture itself, Ecclesiasticus 24, seems to teach that the Phison and Gehon are the Ganges and the Nile: Who filleth up wisdom as the Phison, and as the Tigris in the days of the new fruits. Who maketh understanding to abound as the Euphrates, who multiplieth it as the Jordan in the time of harvest. Who sendeth knowledge as the light, and riseth up as Gehon in the time of the vintage. In which place Rabanus, Jansen, and the other interpreters without doubt will have the Ganges understood by Phison, the Nile by Gehon. For the Ganges is a most ample river, and this very thing the name Phison signifies — for it is derived from a word which means to overflow, because beyond the other rivers it is wont to be filled; and to this etymology Ecclesiasticus alluded, saying, “Who filleth up wisdom as the Phison.” Further, the Nile begins to receive its increase after the summer solstice, and in the time of the vintage is wont to be at its fullest; and therefore Ecclesiasticus said, “and as Gehon in the time of the vintage.” Besides, as Jansen rightly noted, Ecclesiasticus, wishing to compare the wisdom of God to the five most celebrated rivers, described those rivers in the 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. And so the very order of the narration compels us to understand by Phison the Ganges, by Gehon the Nile, since we see Phison named in the first place, Gehon in the last; nor can there be any reason why the Jordan was named before Gehon, save that it is prior as to site. And if the Phison and Gehon are the Ganges and the Nile, as so many and so weighty authors constantly affirm, assuredly neither can those heads sprung from the parting of the Tigris and Euphrates be called Phison and Gehon, nor is paradise to be placed in Mesopotamia, since those two rivers of paradise pertain by no reasoning to Mesopotamia. From which is also refuted what others say, that the Phison and Gehon were indeed about Mesopotamia, but either changed their names or dried up — though this last is expressly repugnant to holy Scripture, which, as we said, in Ecclesiasticus 24 indicates that the Phison and Gehon were huge rivers, such as do not easily dry up; nor, besides the Tigris and Euphrates, are any such seen in that region. For even if one should obstinately contend that the Phison and Gehon in Ecclesiasticus are not the Ganges and Nile, yet he could in no way deny that they are greatest and most celebrated rivers, and not the overflow or branches of other rivers — unless he would have Ecclesiasticus to have ineptly compared the highest affluence of the divine wisdom to petty streams, and to have joined those same petty streams with the most celebrated rivers Tigris and Euphrates.
To these is added that paradise is so described by St. Basil in the book on paradise, by John Damascene, book 2 On the Faith, chapter 11, by St. Augustine, book 14 On the City of God, chapter 10, by Alcimus Avitus and Claudius Marius Victor and the others cited above, by Isidore, book 14 of the Etymologies, chapter 3, and by others commonly, that in it there was perpetual spring — no colds, no heats, no rains, snows, hails, no clouds even; which very thing Scripture signifies, when it says that the first human beings in paradise were naked. “Here” (says Alcimus) “the clemency of the sky preserves a perpetual spring; the stormy south wind is absent, and ever, under a clear air, the clouds flee away, yielding to the unbroken serene. Nor does the nature of the place demand the rains which it has not; but the shoots, content with their own dew, are endowed.” But Mesopotamia, though it is a most lovely region, has nevertheless its colds, its heats, rains, hails, etc. Nor can it be answered that by the flood the felicity of that place was in great part changed: for the flood did not change the site of places, nor the temper of the air. Let the trees, then, have perished by the flood, let the fruits and flowers have perished — the temper of the air could not perish. Wherefore I wonder the more at Luther, who in the commentary on the second chapter of Genesis writes that in paradise there was no winter, but perpetual spring, and yet contends that paradise was Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Damascus — in which regions there cannot have been perpetual spring, unless the course of the sun was then other than it now is. There is added, lastly, that it is the judgment of most weighty authors that Enoch and Elijah were translated into the paradise whence Adam was expelled, and there now lead a most happy life; and I believe it has never come into anyone's mind to say that Enoch and Elijah were translated into Mesopotamia. See Irenaeus, book 5 against Heresies, chapter 5, where, from the tradition of the presbyters who heard the Apostles, he writes that Enoch and Elijah were translated into the paradise where Adam was. See also Athanasius, in the book or epistle “That the Synod of Nicaea,” etc.; Jerome, in the epistle to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem; and Augustine, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 3, and book 2 On Original Sin, chapter 23. And this opinion is confirmed from that of Ecclesiasticus 44: Henoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations. That word “into paradise” is not indeed in the Greek codex; yet it is in all the codices of the vulgate Latin edition, which we cannot reject, if we will (as we ought) obey the general Council of Trent, session 4. And although the word “paradise” can signify any garden, as we said above, yet when it is set down absolutely in Scripture it is not wont to signify anything but that choice paradise in which Adam was, or that of which it was the figure, that is, the heavenly. And it is certain that Enoch did not ascend into the heavenly paradise; for no one will descend thence to give repentance to the nations.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
humana remotissimum esse. Altera de paradiso qua}stio est : « In qua parte terrarum sit paradisus. » Quidam ar¬ bitrati sunt, totum orbem terrarum esse pa¬ radisum illum, de quo Scriptura loquitur Genes, u. In qua sententia videtur esse Jo- sephus lib. i. antiq. cap. 2. ubi dicit, flu¬ vium qui paradisum irrigabat, esse amnem quemdam totam terram ambientem, quo no¬ mine Oceanum significasse creditur. Sed re¬ pugnat huic sententia} Scriptura divina. Nam si Deus hominem extra paradisum de limo terra} formatum in paradisum introduxit, ac deinde e paradiso ejectum in eam regionem reduxit ubi conditus fuerat, ut legimus Ge¬ nes. ii. et m, quomodo fieri potest, ut sit uni¬ versa terra paradisus ? nisi forte extra orbem terrarum fuerit limus ex quo Adam forma¬ tus fuit, et ipse Adam post lapsum extra uni¬ versam terram pulsus fuerit, ut omittam custodiam Angelorum paradiso appositam, ne hominibus reliquam terram incolentibus aditus ad paradisum pateat. Accedit quoque scriptorum pene omnium consensus, qui pa¬ radisum quoddam esse volunt orbis terra} pomarium, et quasi regiam principis anima¬ lium. Alia sententia in altero extremo aliorum est, qui docent paradisum esse extra totam terram , quam nos incolimus. Existimant enim terram nostram undique cingi ab Oce¬ ano. Oceanum autem cingi ab alia terra, longe majore, eamque esse, et nominari pa¬ radisum. Tribuit hanc sententiam S. Ephrem Bar-Gepha in libro, quem scripsit de paradi¬ so. Sed neque huee sententia satis cum divi¬ nis litteris, aut Patrum traditione congruit. Siquidem Tigris, et Euphrates, et esetera flu¬ mina, quse oriuntur ex paradiso, in hac ter¬ ra nostra inveniuntur, neque credibile est ea per immensum tractum ad nos pervenire ex illo alio orbe terrarum, qui fingitur ultra Oceanum. Deinde videtur jam satis comper¬ tum variis multorum navigationibus, neque ab Oceano cingi omnem terram, neque esse ultra Oceanum aliam terram. Denique com¬ munis est opinio, et secundum versionem LXX. interpretum colligitur ex ipsa divina Scriptura Genes, ii. paradisum situm esse ad orientem. Ex quo sequitur ut sit falsum ab eo cingi Oceanum universum. Tertia est aliorum sententia, paradisum esse locum quemdam sublimen, et usque ad globum luna3*pertingentem. Tribui solet haec sententia venerabili Bedie ; sed in ejus ope¬ ribus nusquam eam reperire potui. Exstat autem in quadam glossa Brideferti Rame- siensis ad cap. 41. Beda} de ratione tempo¬ rum, et eam refert, nec refellit Petrus Lom- bardus in ii. lib. Sententiarum distinet. 17. At profecto incredibile est eum esse situm paradisi, tum quod ea regio insaluberrima sit, atque adeo inhabitabilis propter nimiam aeris subtilitatem, et perpetuam agitationem, tum quia si tanta esset ejus loci sublimitas, ab aliqua regione paradisus conspiceretur, et vel nobis, vel antipodis nostris aliquando solis, et luna} conspectum eriperet ; preeser- tim cum eadem illa opinio ad orientem pa¬ radisum constituat, ut perspicuum est cx Glossa Brideferti supra citata. Tum denique quia si ulla esset proportio altitudinis para¬ disi ad latitudinem, non sufficeret totius ter- CAPUT XII. 199 ree amplitudo ad basim ejus capiendam; si¬ quidem mathematici demonstrant, a super¬ ficie terra; usque ad globum luna; intercede¬ re spatium supra centum millium milliario- rum. Sed fortasse auctor ejus sententi® hyperbole uti voluit, ut ex altitudine hyper- bolica paradisi excellentiam demonstraret, ut admonet S. Thomas 1. part. qu. 102. ar- tic. i. Quemadmodum intolligimus verba S. Basilii qui in lib. de paradiso scribit, para¬ disum ob situs sublimitatem nullas tenebras admittere; et Joannis Damasceni, qui lib. 2. de fide, cap. ii. scribit, paradisum esse terra nostra sublimiorem; etliuperti, qui lib. I. in Genes, cap. 37. scribit, paradisum esse lo¬ cum coelo proximum ; et denique Alchimii Aviti, qui lib. i. carminum de initio mundi cap. 9. de paradisi situ ita cecinit. «I Ergo ubi, transmissis, muldi caput incipit. Indis, Quo perhibent terram confinia jungere coelo, Lucus inaccessa cunctis mortalibus arce Permanet. Quo allusit Cl. Marius Victor cum libro primo carminum in Genesim ait : Eoos aperit felix qua terra recessus, Editiore globo nemoris paradisus amaeni, Panditur, et teretis distinguitur ordine sylvae Quarta sententia est recentiorum quorum¬ dam, Augustini Eugubini, Hieronymi ab Ole¬ astro, Francisci Vatabli in annotationibus ad cap. 2. Genes, et Cornelii Jansenii in cap. 143. Concordi® Evangelic®, qui existimant paradisum fuisse in Mesopotamia, sed dilu¬ vii tempore ita ejus pulchritudinem et amoe¬ nitatem periisse, ut nullum remanserit ve¬ stigium paradisi, et jam neque sit opus custodia Cherubin, et flammei gladii, et non solum hominibus quibuscumque, sed etiam bestiis pateat ad eum locum aditus. Mihi vero multis de causis h®c sententia non probatur. Primum, quoniam est opinio nova, et repugnans communi Doctorum con¬ sensui, non solum Patrum, sed etiam Scho¬ lasticorum. Deinde in ipso paradiso orieba¬ tur fluvius, qui inde dividebatur in quatuor capita, quorum nomina sunt Euphrates, Ti¬ gris, Phison, et Geon : at in Mesopotamia nullus ejusmodifluviusoritur. Fluunt quidem per Mesopotamiam Euphrates, et Tigris, c®- terum non ibi oriuntur, sed in Armenia fon¬ tes suos habent. Quare secundum hanc ra¬ tionem Armeni® potius (quod tamen nullus dixit) quam Mesopotami® paradisi nomen congrueret. Porro Phison et Geon neque in Mesopotamia fontes habent, neque in ea ullo modo reperiuntur. Respondent aliqui : in Mesopotamia Eu¬ phratem, et Tigrini conjungi, at paulo post iterum separari, atque ita effici quatuor ca¬ pita, ac veluti flumina ; et quidem duo pri¬ ora esse Tigrini, et Euphratem, duo poste¬ riora Phison, et Geon, quamvis his nomini¬ bus hoc tempore non vocentur. Sed non vi¬ detur satis apta responsio : nam Scriptura non dicit, flumina aliunde venientia in pa¬ radiso conjungi, sed inde primum exoriri, et post egressionem de paradiso dividi in qua¬ tuor capita : Fluvius (inquit Scriptura) egre¬ diebatur de loco voluptatis ad irrigandum paradisum, qui inde dividitur in quatuor ca¬ pita (1). Itaque quod in Mesopotamia nullus oriatur fluvius ; sed flumina jam divisa aliunde venientia, illic cernantur, argumen¬ to est, non fuisse in eo loco, neque esse pa¬ radisum. Deinde Phison, et Geon dicuntur circuire varias regiones, illa autem duo capita, qu® nascuntur ex divisione Tigris et Euphratis brevissimo rectissimoque tractu in mare Perficum demerguntur. Si tamen verum est quod isti dicunt. Nam alioqui ego inspiciens tabulas geographicas non video Tigrim et Euphratem post conjunctionem iterum se¬ jungi, sed simul in mare Persicum exonera¬ ri. Non igitur dici possunt duo illa capita Phison et Geon. Ad h®c Phison, et Geon a multis gravis- simisque scriptoribus dicuntur esse Ganges et Nilus. Sic enim docet Josephus lib. i. an- tiquit. cap. 2. Epiphanius in epist. ad Joan. Hierosolymit. Ambrosius lib. de paradiso, cap. 3. Hieronymus in locis Hebraicis, Au¬ gustinus lib. vm. de Genes, cap. 7. Alchi- mius Avitus, et Claudius Marius Victor locis paulo ante citatis, Eucherius in Genes, et alii. Et quod majus est, Hieremi® ii. ubi vulgata editio habet : Quid tibi vis in via sEgypti , ut bibas aquam turbidam ? (2) In se¬ ptuaginta interpretibus legitur : Ut bibas aquam Geon. Et S. Hieronymus in commen¬ tario ejus loci testatur semper in communi editione fuisse Geon. Neque repugnat vulga¬ ta editio cum editione Septuaginta, siquidem (i) Gen. II, 10. — (2) Hierem. II, 18. 200 LIBER I. aquam Nili, qui a septuaginta, interpretibus dicitur Geon, vere turbidam esse testatur in eodem loco S. Hieronymus. Adde etiam quod ipsa divina Scriptura Eccl. xxiv. docere videtur, Phison, et Geon, esse Gangem, et Nilum : Qui adimplet, inquit, quasi Phison sapientiam, et sicut Tigris in die¬ bus novorum. Qui adimplet quasi Euphrates sensum : qui multiplicat quasi Jordanis in tem¬ pore messis : qui mittit disciplinam sicut lucem, et assistens quasi Geon in die vindemia; (1). Quo loco Raban. Jansenius, et alii interpre¬ tes sine dubio per Phison, Gangem, per Ge¬ on Nilum intelligi volunt. Nam Ganges est flumen amplissimum, et hoc ipsum signifi¬ cat nomen Phison, dicitur enim a quod est redundal-e, quia prieter ceetera flumina im¬ pleri solet. Et ad hanc etymologiam allusit Ecclesiasticus dicens : Qui adimplet quasi Phison, sapientiam. Porro Nilus incrementum accipere incipit post solstitium sestivum, et in tempore vin¬ demia; plenissimum esse solet. Et ideo dixit Ecclesiasticus, Etsicut. Geon in die vindemiae. Praeterea ut recte notavit Jansenius, compa¬ rare volens Ecclesiasticus sapientiam Dei quinque celeberrimis fluminibus, descripsit ea flumina illo ordine, quem vere inter se habent : Primus enim ab oriente est Ganges, secundus Tigris, tertius Euphrates, quartus Jordanis, ultimus Nilus. Itaque ipse ordo narrationis cogit, ut per Phison intelligamus Gangem, per Geon Nilum, cum videamus primo loco nominari Phison, ultimo loco Geon, neque ulla ratio esse possit cur Jor¬ danis prius nominatus sit quam Geon, nisi quia prior est, quoad situm. Quod si Phison et Geon sunt Ganges et Nilus, ut tot, et tam graves auctores constanter affirmant, pro¬ fecto neque capita illa ex Tigris et Euphra¬ tis disjunctione exorta dici possunt Phison, et Geon, neque in Mesopotamia collocandus est paradisus, cum duo ista flumina paradisi ad Mesopotamiam nulla ratione pertineant. Ex quo etiam refellitur quod alii dicunt, Phison et Geon fuisse quidem circa Mesopo¬ tamiam, sed aut mutasse vocabula, aut exa¬ ruisse. Quamquam hoc postremum repugnat expresse Scripturae sacrae, quae ut diximus Eccl. 24. indicat, Phison et Geon fuisse flu¬ mina ingentia, qualia non facile exarescunt, nec praeter Tigrini et Euphratem, in ea re¬ gione conspiciuntur. Nam etiamsi quis ob¬ stinate contenderet, Phison et Geon apud Ecclesiasticum, non esse Gangem et Nilum, tamen nullo modo negare posset esse flumi¬ na maxima, et celeberrima, non autem exun¬ dantiam, aut ramos aliorum fluminum : nisi vellet Ecclesiasticum inepte comparasse summam affluentiam divinae sapientia; exi¬ guis fluviis : et eosdem exiguos fluvios con¬ junxisse celeberrimis fluminibus Tigri et Eu¬ phrati. Accedit ad ha;c, quod paradisus ita de¬ scribitur a S. Basilio in libro de paradiso, a Joan. Damasceno lib. ii. de fide, cap. 11. a S. Augustino lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 10. Ab Alchimio Avito, etClaud. Mario 4ictore, et aliis supra citatis. Isidor. lib. xiv. etymo- log. cap. 3. et aliis communiter, ut fuerit in eo ver perpetuum, nulla frigora, nulli a;stus nulla; pluvia;, nives, grandines, nulhe etiam nubes ; quod ipsum significat Scriptura, cum dicit primos homines in paradiso fuisse nu¬ dos. Hic (inquit, Alchimius ) ver assiduum cceli clementia servat. Turbidus auster adest, semperque sub aere sudo Nubila diffugiunt jugi cessura sereno. Nec poscit natura loci quos non habet imbres, Sed contenta suo dotantur germina rore. Sic cum desit hyems, nec torrida fer veat aestas, Fructibus Autumnus, Ver floribusoccupat annum. At Mesopotamia, quamquam est amoenis¬ sima regio, sua tamen habet frigora, suos mstus, pluvias, grandines etc. Neque re¬ sponderi potest, ob diluvium mutatam esse magna exparte loci illius frelicitate. Nam di¬ luvium non mutavit situm locorum, et aeris temperamentum. Itaque perierint ob dilu¬ vium arbores, perierint fructus et flores, temperamentum aeris perire non potuit. Quo magis Luthcrum miror, qui in comment. 2. diteap. Genes, scribit in paradiso non fuisse hyemem, sed ver perpetuam, ettamen conten- paradisum fuisse Syriam, Mesopotamiam, iEgyptum et Damascum, in quibus, regioni¬ bus non potest fuisse ver perpetuum, nisi alius tunc fuerit cursus solis, quam nunc est . Accedit postremo, quod sententia est gra¬ vissimorum auctorum, Enoch et Eliam trans¬ latos esse in paradisum, unde expulsus fuit Adam, atque illic nunc vitam felicissimam degere. Credo autem nemini unquam venis¬ se in mentem, ut diceret, Enoch et Eliam (1) Eccl. XXIV, 35, 30. CAPUT XIV. 201 translatos fuisse in Mesopotamiam. Vide I ren seu m lib. v. adversus haeres. cap. 5. ubi ex traditione presbyterorum, qui Apostolos audierunt, scribit, Enoch et Eliam translatos esse in paradisum, ubi fuit Adam. Vide etiam Athanasium in lib. sive epist. Quod Nicama Synodus etc. Hieronymum in epist. ad Pammach. de erroribus Joan. llierosoly- mit. et Augustin. lib. I. de peccat, inerit, et remiss. cap. 3. et lib. H. de peccat, orig. cap. 23. Et confirmatur haec sententia ex illo Eccles.xLtv. Enoch]placuit Deo, et transla¬ tus est in paradisum, ut det gentibus poeniten¬ tiam (1). Non est quidem in codice Graeco vox illa (in Paradisum) tamen est in omnibus co¬ dicibus vulgatae editionis Latinae, quam re¬ jicere non possumus, si Concilio generali Tridentino, sess. 3. (ut debemus) obtempera¬ re volumus. Et quamquam vox « paradisi » quemlibet hortum significare possit, ut su¬ pra diximus, tamen cum in Scriptura abso¬ lute ponitur, non solet significare, nisi exi¬ mium illum paradisum, in quo fuit Adam ; aut eum, cujus ille figura fuit, id est, coele¬ stem. Certum autem est Enoch in coelestem paradisum non ascendisse, nemo enim inde descendet, ut det gentibus poenitentiam. CAPUT XIII. Solvuntur objectiones.