Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Grace of the First Man
Chapter 14: That paradise still remains
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).
Another question is treated by the theologians: “Whether the waters of the flood destroyed paradise.” And indeed those more recent writers whom we named in the preceding chapter — Eugubinus, Jansen, and others — altogether contend that nowhere on earth does that paradise now stand in which Adam dwelt. Which they prove both from chapter 7 of Genesis, where the waters of the flood are said to have covered all the high mountains under the whole heaven; and because paradise was situated in Mesopotamia, which region is most known, and in it no paradise is seen.
But because I have never read any of the ancients who wrote that the earthly paradise perished, whether by the waters of the flood or from any other cause, and on the contrary have read very many who affirm that it stands — as almost all the Scholastics, on book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 17, and St. Thomas, part 1, question 102, article 1, and besides the ancient Fathers, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Bede, Alcimus Avitus, and the rest whom I cited in the preceding chapter — I should not easily dare depart from so common and celebrated an opinion. Especially since St. Augustine seems to refer this to the Catholic faith, when he speaks thus in book 2 On Original Sin, chapter 23: “Far otherwise stand those questions which he thinks to be beside the faith, than those in which, the faith by which we are Christians being safe, either it is unknown what is true, and a definitive judgment is suspended, or it is conjectured, otherwise than it is, by human and weak surmise — as when it is asked of what kind, or where, is the paradise where God placed the man whom he formed of dust; whereas nevertheless that that paradise exists the Christian faith does not doubt.” Thus far he. Nor does it seem aptly enough answered, if it be said that Augustine does not mean to signify that paradise now stands, but that what is narrated in Genesis about paradise is not a feigned or parabolic thing. For first, those questions which can be disputed with the faith safe — of what kind paradise is, and where it is — presuppose that paradise is even now in the nature of things; otherwise it could, or rather ought, also to be asked whether paradise is, before it is asked of what kind it is, or where it is. Next, this can be known from another question which Augustine straightway subjoins in the same place: “Or when it is asked where Elijah and Enoch now are — whether there, or elsewhere — whom nevertheless we do not doubt to live in the bodies in which they were born.” In which place, as he had said, “that paradise exists the Christian faith does not doubt,” so he says, “we do not doubt that Enoch and Elijah live in their own bodies.” But it is certain not only that Enoch and Elijah are not feigned things, but also that at this time they in very deed exist and live; therefore in the same manner it is certain, with Augustine, that paradise not only is not a feigned thing, but even now in very deed stands. Finally, the same Augustine, book 2 [al. 8] on Genesis, chapter 24 [al. 7], says that it cannot be doubted that the rivers arise from paradise, because Scripture says this, though their springs are seen elsewhere — where he seems openly to indicate that it cannot be doubted that paradise stands at this time. There is added also a probable reason why paradise ought to have been preserved: namely, that Enoch and Elijah, who it is certain live in their bodies, might have a seat congruent to their state, until it should be time for them, encountering Antichrist, to exchange life for death. For that these two live, and will come, as we have said, at the end of the world, to oppose themselves to Antichrist, we proved from the Scriptures, by the common consent of the Greek and Latin Fathers, in book 3 On the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 6, to which place we send the reader.
Nor does that argument of the waters of the flood compel us to depart from the common opinion. For it is credible that the waters of the flood by no means penetrated into paradise, as the scholastic theologians teach. And to that place of Scripture where the waters are said to have covered all the mountains under the whole heaven, we answer that it is to be understood of all the mountains of that earth which was inhabited by sinners, and which had been given for the habitation of men after Adam's fall. Like is the place in the same chapter 7 of Genesis: all men died, And Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. For it is a universal proposition, “all men died,” no less than that one, “all the mountains were covered.” But it is certain that that proposition, “all men died,” is to be understood of the men who led a mortal life on this common earth, not of absolutely all; seeing that Enoch did not die, though he was not in the ark. Therefore in the same manner that proposition, “all the mountains were covered,” is to be understood of all the mountains of the earth where the men destined to death were, not of the mountains, or the region, of paradise.
But, thou wilt say: if the waters of the flood did not touch paradise, in vain did Noah with so great labor build the ark; for he could have been preserved, with all the living creatures, in paradise. Next, since the waters of the flood were fifteen cubits higher than all the mountains of the whole earth, certainly it could not without miracle come to pass that the waters did not overwhelm paradise; and miracles are not to be lightly feigned. Finally, a universal proposition of Scripture ought not to be restricted, unless an exception be made in Scripture itself, or necessary reason demand it; and an exception of paradise from the waters of the flood covering the whole earth neither stands in Scripture nor is brought in by any necessary reason. To the first I answer: paradise is not a place for men who are sinners, and subject to human calamities, but only for those who are not liable to the common miseries of this life — such as were once Adam and Eve, and now Enoch and Elijah. And so the region of paradise did not befit Noah, and his sons, and their wives; and therefore it was necessary that their life be provided for by the Lord in another way. To the second I answer: the miracle is not feigned by us at our pleasure, but is necessarily affirmed on account of the testimony of divine Scripture. For Scripture witnesses that Enoch did not perish at the time of the flood, and yet was not in the ark; wherefore we are compelled to posit some miracle which preserved him from the flood. And it was a more usual and more congruent miracle that the waters be hindered from overwhelming paradise, than that Enoch be preserved in the air above the waters, or on the earth in the midst of the waters, through a whole year. To the third I answer that the exception of paradise is brought in with the best reason: both on account of the preservation of Enoch, and because the flood had been sent upon the lands on account of the sins of men; hence it ought to have destroyed only the things that served the use of such men. But suppose the waters of the flood had penetrated into paradise, and Enoch had been preserved by God, by some singular providence, in the midst of the waters — thou wilt not thence necessarily conclude that paradise was altogether destroyed. For the flood did not change the site of the place, nor the temper of the air, nor did it uproot or wither all the trees; otherwise where, I ask, would the dove have found the branch of the green olive which immediately after the flood it brought to Noah? Some damage, then, the waters of the flood perhaps brought to paradise, but not such that paradise ceased to be.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Tractatur alia quaestio a Theologis : «Num aquae diluvii paradisum destruxerint. » Et quidem recentiores illi, quos capite superio- (1) Eccl. XL1V. 10. — (2) Ezech. XXVII ; IV Reg. XVIII, 33; Gen. IV, 10. Tom. V. H 202 LIBER I. re nominavimus, Eugubinus, Jansenius. et alii, omnino contendunt, nusquam in terris nunc exstare paradisum illum, in quo Adam habitavit. Quod probant tum ex cap. vn. Gen. ubi dicuntur aquee diluvii cooperuisse omnes montes excelsos sub omni coelo, tum quia paradisus in Mesopotamia situs erat, qua; regio notissima est, nec in ea ullus cernitur paradisus. Quia vero nullum unquam ex veteribus legi, qui paradisum terrestrem, vel aquis di¬ luvii, vel alia de causa periisse scripserit, et contra legi plurimos, qui illum exstare af¬ firmant, ut Scholasticos fere omnes, in 2. Sentent. dist. 17. etS. Thomam. l.p. qusest. 102. art. 1. ac prmterea veteres Patres, Ire- nseum, Hieronymum. Augustinum, Theodo- retum, Bedam, Alchimum Avitum, et caete- ros, quos capite superiore citavi, non facile auderem a tam communi, celebrique opi¬ nione recedere. Praesertim cum S. Augusti¬ nus videatur ad fidem Catholicam hoc re¬ ferre, cum sic loquitur in ii. lib. de peccato originali cap. 23: « Longe’ aliter se habent quaestiones ista;, quas esse praeter fidem ar¬ bitratur, quam sunt illae, in quibus salva fide, qua Christiani sumus, aut ignoratur quid verum sit, et sententia definitiva sus¬ penditur, aut aliter quam est humana et infirma suspicione conjicitur, veluti cum quaeritur, qualis, vel ubi sit paradisus, ubi constituit Deus hominem, quem formavit ex pulvere, cum tamen esse illum paradisum fides Christiana non dubitet. » Haec ille. Nec videtur satis apte responderi, si dica¬ tur, Augustinum non velle significare, para¬ disum nunc exstare, sed non esse rem fi¬ ctam, aut parabolicam id, quod in Genesi de paradiso narratur. Nam in primis quaestio¬ nes illae, quae salva fide disputari possunt, qualis sit, et ubi sit paradisus, praesuppo- nunt paradisum esse etiam nunc in rerum natura; alioqui posset etiam, vel potius de¬ beret quaeri sitne paradisus, antequam quaeratur qualis sit, vel ubi sit. Deinde id cognosci potest ex alia quaestione quam ibi¬ dem continuo subjungit Augustinus : « Vel, inquit, cum quaeritur ubi sint nunc Elias, vel Enoch, an ibi, an alibi, quos tamen non dubitamus in quibus nati sunt corporibus vivere. » Quo loco sicut dixerat : paradisum esse fides Christiana non dubitat, ita dicit : Enoch, et Eliam non dubitamus in suis cor¬ poribus vivere. At certum est, non solum Enoch, et Eliam non esse res fictas, sed etiam re ipsa hoc tempore exstare, et vivere : igitur eodem modo certum est apud Augu¬ stinum paradisum non solum non esse rem fictam, sed etiam nunc re ipsa extare. Denique idem Augustinus lib. ii. in Genes, cap. 24. dicit, non posse dubitari quin flumina orian¬ tur ex paradiso, quia Scriptura hoc dicit, licet fontes alibi videantur. Ubi aperte indi¬ care videtur, non posse dubitari, quin hoc tempore exstet paradisus. Accedit etiam ratio probabilis, cur para¬ disus conservari debuerit, videlicet ut Enoch, et Elias, quos certum est in suis corporibus vivere, congruentem suo statui sedem haberent, donec tempus esset, ut cum Antichristo congredientes vitam cum morte commutarent. Hos enim duos vivere, et venturos, ut diximus, ad mundi finem, ut se Antichristo opponant, probavimus ex Scripturis, communi Patrum Graecorum , Latinorumque consensu, lib. m. de summo Pontifice cap. 6. ad quem locum lectorem remittimus. Neque argumentum illud de aquis diluvii cogit, ut a communi sententia recedamus. Nam credibile est, in paradisum aquas dilu¬ vii minime penetrasse, ut scholastici theo¬ logi docent. Ad illum autem Scripturae locum, ubi dicuntur aquae cooperuisse om¬ nes montes sud universo coelo, respondemus, id esse intelligendum de omnibus montibus ejus terrae, quae a peccatoribus incolebatur, quaeque habitationi hominum post lapsum Adae data erat. Similis est locus in eodem cap. vii. Genes. Mortui sunt universi homines, remansitque solus Noe, et qui cum eo erant in arca (1). Est enim universalis propositio : Mortui sunt universi homines , non minus quam illa : Cooperti sunt omnes montes. At certum est, illam propositionem : Mortui sunt universi homines, intelligendam esse de hominibus , qui vitam mortalem in communi hac terra degebant, non de omni¬ bus omnino; siquidem Enoch mortuus non est, quamvis non esset in arca. Igitur eodem modo propositio illa : Cooperti sunt omnes montes, intelligenda est de omnibus monti¬ bus terra;, ubi erant homines morti destinati, nonde m jntibus, aut regione paradisi. At, inquies, si aqua; diluvii paradisum non attigerunt, frustra Noe tanto labore (I) Gen. VII, 23. CAPUT XV. 203 confecit arcam. Poterat enim cum omnibus animantibus in paradiso conservari. Deinde cum aqusc diluvii fuerint altiores quindecim cubitis omnibus montibus universa} terra}, certe non potuit sine miraculo fieri, ut aqua} non obruerent paradisum. Non sunt autem facile miracula confingenda. Denique pro¬ positio Scripturae universalis, non debet restringi, nisi in ipsa Scriptura exceptio fiat, aut ratio necessaria eam exposcat. Exceptio autem paradisi ab aquis diluvii omnem ter¬ ram operientibus , neque in Scriptura ex¬ stat, neque ulla necessaria ratione inducta est. Ad primum respondeo, paradisum non esse locum hominum peccatorum, et huma¬ nis calamitatibus subjectorum, sed eorum tantum qui communibus hujus vita} miseriis non sunt obnoxii, quales fuerunt olim Adam et Eva, et nunc Enoch atque Elias. Itaque non conveniebat regio paradisi Noe, et filiis, atque uxoribus eorum. Et ideo necessarium fuit alia ratione vita} ipsorum a Domino provideri. Ad secundum respondeo, miraculum non fingi a nobis pro arbitrio, sed necessario af¬ firmari ob Scripturae divina} testimonium. Scriptura enim testatur Enoch non periisse tempore diluvii, nec tamen fuisse in arca : quare cogimur miraculum aliquod ponere quod illum a diluvio conservaverit. Usita¬ tius autem et congruentius miraculum fuit prohiberi aquas ne paradisum obruerent, quam Enoch in aere supra aquas, aut jn ter¬ ra in mediis aquis per integrum annum con¬ servari. Ad tertium respondeo, exceptionem para¬ disi optima ratione esse inductam, tum ob conservationem Enoch, tum quia diluvium terris immissum fuerat propter, hominum peccata. Proinde destruere debuit solum ea, qua} usui taliumhominum serviebant. Sedfac in paradisum aquas diluvii penetrasse, et Enoch a Deo siugulari aliqua providentia in mediis aquis conservatum, non inde efficies necessario paradisum omnino esse destructum. Diluvium siquidem non mutavit situm loci, neque aeris temperamentum, nec arbores omnes eradicavit, vel arefecit, alio- qui, ubi, qua}so, reperisset columba ramum virentis oliva}, quem statirn post diluvium detulit ad Noe ? Detrimentum igitur aliquod paradiso aqua} diluvii forsitan attulerunt, sed non ejusmodi ut paradisus esse desierit. CAPUT XV. In paradiso non solum homines, , in statu inno¬