A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 5 – Chapter 6
CHAP. V.
Whether there be as yet any Paradiſe or no, or rather it was deſtroyed in Noes flood.
SAint Baſill, Abulenſis, Baſil. & Abul. ſupra cit.and others aboue alledged doe ſeeme to hold that Paradiſe was not deſtroied by the deluge, and conſequently that it remaineth as yet.Iren. lib. 1. contra baer. Tertullian and the Maſter of the Sentences, yea and Ireneus in his firſt booke againſt Heretickes addeth, that it was the Paradiſe into which Paul was caried when he ſawe ſuch ineffable things which was not poſſible for man to vtter. Moreouer that this was the opinion of the auncient Aſian prieſts the Apoſtles Diſciples.
Iuſtin. in reſpon. ad. quaeſt. orth. quaeſt 75. 76. 85.Moreouer the famous Martyr Iuſtine in reſponſione ad Orthodoxorum quaeſtiones quaeſt. 75. 76. 85. Auerreth, that Paradiſe is extant as yet, and is to be euen to the worlds end, as the habitation of the two Patriarkes Enoch and Elias, who ſhall come thence, to fight againſt Antichriſt, not long before the end of the world. Finally hee concludeth as a thing vndoubtable, that this is the place, whither the good and conuerted Thiefe was carried, to whom Chriſt ſaid vponupon the Croſſe, this day ſhalt thou be with mee in Paradiſe, to wit this earthly, the firſt habitation of mankinde.
Laſtly Saint Auſtine ſeemeth more peremptory for this opinion in his ſecond booke againſt Pelagius and Celeſtius where he ſaith,Aug. lib. 2. contra Pelagium & Caeleſtiam. that there be ſome queſtions in which wee may bee ignorant without any preiudice vntounto our Chriſtian faith, and the definitiue ſentence may bee ſuſpended, or in which all humane coniectures may eaſily be deceiued, as when it is inquired what maner of place is Paradiſe? or where that region is, where God created the firſt man of the duſt of the earth? whereas notwithſtanding our Chriſtian faith doth not permit vsus to doubt, but that there is ſuch a place as Paradiſe, cum tamen eſſe illum Paradiſum fides Chriſtiana non dubitet. Wherefore, though we may be ignorant of the manner, qualities, ſituation, and the like circumſtances of Paradiſe, yet if wee will not be Infidels we cannot be ignorant that there is ſuch a place: And of this he giueth this example: Cum quaeritur vbi ſit nunc Helias vel Henoch, an ibi vel alibi, quos tamen non dubitamus in quibus nati ſunt corporibus viuere. As for example touching that queſtion where Henoch or duplicate page duplicate page Helias be? whether they be there in Paradiſe, or rather in ſome other place allotted them to liue in, as yet? without all doubt we may doubt about theſe particular curioſities, which are not plainely expreſſed in the holy Scriptures, but wee neither can nor may doubt but that they liue, not according to the ſpirit onelyonly, but corporally alſo, their ſoules being really vnited vntounto their bodies, as ours are: after the ſame manner we may doubt of the circumſtances of Paradiſe, not of the reall exiſtence or being of it.
And this the rather becauſe in the 44 Chapter of Eccleſ. it is ſaid that Enoch was tranſlated into Paradiſe that he might be a patterne of penance vntounto the Gentiles. Therefore if Henoch be there as yet, yea as a patterne of penance vntounto the Gentiles, there muſt not only bee an earthly Paradiſe, but alſo it ſeemeth that it muſt be a place habitable, or to which men may hauehave ſome acceſſe, in ſuch ſort, that they may ſee their patterne of repentance, for if either the place be deſtroyed, inacceſſible, or inuiſible, how can it bee true that Henoch is there detained as a patterne of repentance? therefore if Henoch be as yet preſerued aliue (as many doe hold) it followeth conſequently, that there is yet a terrene Paradiſe, not as yet deſtroyed by Noes flood.
Theſe be the arguments of this opinion, and for which many doe not thinke it improbable: neuer the leſſe (all the places of Scriptures and fathers, together with their reaſons well pondered) it ſeemeth much more probable, that Paradiſe, in which Adam was created is not now to bee found, but rather that it was deſtroyed by the generall deluge.
Firſt, becauſe the Scripture Gen. 7. Chap: ſaith, that all mountaines were couered with the waters of the flood, à fortiori therefore this pleaſant Region or Garden was therby ouer-flowne.
But peraduenture, this was a whole Region higher then any Mountaine, and conſequently though all Mountaines were couered, yet this place might be ſafe, as which was the habitation of that bleſſed man Henoch: or peraduenture though it was not ſo high, yet was it reſerued for the ſaid reaſon by Gods particular prouidence.
I anſwere that neither, not the firſt, becauſe as it is in the ſame place aboue alledged, the waters of the flood ouerflowed the higheſt mountaines ſeuen cubits: neither the ſecond, becauſe ſuch a great miracle was not neceſſary for the preſeruing of Enoch; who whether he bee yet aliue, or how he is, it ſhall be more at large diſcuſſed in an other place.
But ſuppoſing that the contrarie opinion is probable, to wit, that Paradiſe is as yet extant, not onelyonly according to the place it ſelfe, but alſo to the beauty and pleaſure which the Scripture teſtifieth it had, at the firſt creation; it may well bee inquired, what ſhould be the reaſon why it hath neuer been diſcouered of any amongſt ſo many as hauehave compaſſed the world.
Some as I hauehave already touched, anſwere, that the reaſon is, becauſe Almightie God offended with Adams tranſgreſſion, hath inuironed it with huge Hills, mightie mountaines, ſwelling ſeas, fearefull rockes, and great wilderneſſes full of all kinde of terrible beaſts, and venemous Serpents, ſo that it is impoſſible for any mortall man to paſſe thither.
Others againe anſwere that Paradiſe hath not beene diſcouered, neither ſought for by Infidels, becauſe they thought it to be but a fable, neither by the faithfull or Chriſtians; becauſe they know it to be inacceſſible. But if I may interpoſe my opinion and freely ſpeake what I iudge in this matter, I think that none of theſe reaſons are ſo concludent and certaine as that the place of Paradiſe is as yet vnknowne by the particular diſpoſition and prouidence of God; as part of our puniſhment, for that ſinne, for which wee were baniſhed thence, as not only vnworthy to inhabite the place it ſelfe, but alſo of the notice where it was. Or ſecondly becauſe it is not in any wiſe neceſſary to bee knowne, either as belonging to the furtherance of our felicity in this mortall life, or to the obtaining of the eternall happines in the other immortall. As in like manner this alſo was the reaſon, why though our Sauiour knew at leaſt way by ſupernaturall meanes, and as he was the eternall wiſedome of God, the time of the end of this world, and of his ſecond comming to iudgement, yet becauſe this was not neceſſary for man to know, therefore hee denied the reuelation thereof euen vntounto his Apoſtles: inſomuch that our Sauiour ſaid Act. 1. cap. verſ. 7. vntounto his Apoſtles, that it was not for them to know the times or ſeaſons which the Father hath put in his owne power. So neither is it for vsus, too curiouſly to inquire after this place of Paradiſe, which God hath either deſtroyed, or hidden from vsus, as part of our puniſhment for our firſt and originall offence in that place.
CHAP. VI.
Of the trees of Paradiſe, whether all were fruitfull, or rather ſome only beautifull, though vnfruitfull.
CErtaine it is, as we read in the beginning of Geneſis, that in the beginning of the world God produced omne lignum pulchrum viſu, & ad veſcendum ſuaue, EueryEvery tree that is pleaſant to the ſight and good for food; the tree of life alſo in the midſt of the Garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and euill.
Now the difficulty is, how theſe words are to be vnderſtood? whether coniunctiuely, or diſiunctiuely? to wit, whether all the trees of Paradiſe were as well beautifull to the ſight, as ſweete in taſt: or rather ſome were only delightfull to the ſight, ſome pleaſant onelyonly in taſt, others both, as well beautifull in ſight, as pleaſant in taſt?
Many (I know) anſwere, that all the trees of Paradiſe had both proprities, ſo that there was no one tree there vnfruitfull, neither any fruitfull, which was not alſo beautifull: inſomuch that thoſe vnfruitfull trees, which now, after our miſerable exile out of Paradiſe, are neceſſary, were not planted in Paradiſe: Becauſe Moſes ſaith that God planted eueryevery tree beautifull in ſight, and ſweete in taſt, to wit, coniunctiuely: which could not be true, if any tree wanted either ſweetneſſe, or beauty, or was not both beautifull, and fruitfull.
Yea, which is more, God himſelfe alſo commanded Adam that he ſhould eate of eueryevery tree of Paradiſe, Gen. 2.16. excepting the tree of the knowledge of good and euill: conſequently eueryevery tree of Paradiſe was fruitfull, if fruitfull, queſtionleſſe then pleaſant both to taſt and ſight.
I dare not condemne this opinion, becauſe it hath authours of no ſmall authority, neuertheleſſe to me it is alltogether vnprobable: ſeeing there be many fruitfull trees not very beautifull: and many moſt beautifull, though not fruitefull.
It is therefore more conformable both to reaſon and the ſacred text alſo, that it be vnderſtood diſiunctiuely: to wit, that there was trees of both ſorts, ſome beautifull, ſome fruitfull, ſome both. Yea, this is plaine out of Ezekiel 31, the 8. verſe. where both the Cedar and Firre trees altogether vnfruitfull, are named as trees of Paradiſe, to whom the glory of the Aſſirian was thus compared, the Cedars in the Garden of God could not hide him, the Firre trees were not like his boughes, and the Cheſnut trees were not like his branches, nor any tree in the garden of God was like vntounto him in his beauty. I hauehave made him faire, by the multitude of his branches; So that all the trees of Eden, that were in the Garden of God, enuied him.