That All the Miracles Which are Done by Means of the Martyrs in the Name of Christ Testify to that Faith Which the Martyrs Had in Christ.

Chapter 9.—That All the Miracles Which are Done by Means of the Martyrs in the Name of Christ Testify to that Faith Which the Martyrs Had in Christ.

Caput IX. Quod uniuersa miracula, quae per martyres in Christi nomine fiunt, ei fidei testimonium ferant, qua in Christum martyres crediderunt.

To what do these miracles witness, but to this faith which preaches Christ risen in the flesh, and ascended with the same into heaven? For the martyrs themselves were martyrs, that is to say, witnesses of this faith, drawing upon themselves by their testimony the hatred of the world, and conquering the world not by resisting it, but by dying. For this faith they died, and can now ask these benefits from the Lord in whose name they were slain. For this faith their marvellous constancy was exercised, so that in these miracles great power was manifested as the result. For if the resurrection of the flesh to eternal life had not taken place in Christ, and were not to be accomplished in His people, as predicted by Christ, or by the prophets who foretold that Christ was to come, why do the martyrs who were slain for this faith which proclaims the resurrection possess such power? For whether God Himself wrought these miracles by that wonderful manner of working by which, though Himself eternal, He produces effects in time; or whether He wrought them by servants, and if so, whether He made use of the spirits of martyrs as He uses men who are still in the body, or effects all these marvels by means of angels, over whom He exerts an invisible, immutable, incorporeal sway, so that what is said to be done by the martyrs is done not by their operation, but only by their prayer and request; or whether, finally, some things are done in one way, others in another, and so that man cannot at all comprehend them,—nevertheless these miracles attest this faith which preaches the resurrection of the flesh to eternal life.

Cui, nisi huic fidei adtestantur ista miracula, in qua praedicatur Christus resurrexisse in carne et in caelum adscendisse cum carne? quia et ipsi martyres huius fidei martyres. id est huius fidei testes, fuerunt; huic fidei testimonium perhibentes mundum inimicissimum et crudelissimum pel’tulerunt, eumque non repugnando, sed moriendo uicerunt; pro ista fide mortui sunt, qui haec a Domino inpetrare possunt, propter cuius nomen occisi sunt; pro hac fide praecessit eorum mira patientia, ut in his miraculis tanta ista potentia sequeretur. Nam si carnis in aeternum resurrectio uel non praeuenit in Christo uel non uentura est, sicut praenuntiatur a Christo uel sicut praenuntiata est a prophetis, a quibus praenuntiatus est Christus: quur et mortui tanta possunt, qui pro ea fide, qua haec resurrectio praedicatur, occisi sunt? Siue enim Deus ipse per se ipsum miro modo, quo res temporales operatur aeternus, siue per suos ministros ista faciat; et eadem ipsa, quae per ministros facit, siue quaedam faciat etiam per martyrum spiritus, sicut per homines adhuc in corpore constitutos, siue omnia ista per angelos, quibus inuisibiliter, incorporaliter, inmutabiliter imperat, operetur, ut, quae per martyres fieri dicuntur, eis orantibus tantum et inpetrantibus, non etiam operantibus fiant; siue alia istis, alia illis modis, qui nullo modo conprehendi a mortalibus possunt: ei tamen adtestantur haec fidei, in qua carnis in aeternum resurrectio praedicatur.

Chapter 10.—That the Martyrs Who Obtain Many Miracles in Order that the True God May Be Worshipped, are Worthy of Much Greater Honor Than the Demons, Who Do Some Marvels that They Themselves May Be Supposed to Be God.

Caput X. Quanto dignius honorentur martyres, qui ideo multa mira obtinent, ut Deus uerus colatur, quam daemones, qui ob hoc quaedam faciunt, ut ipsi di esse credantur.

Here perhaps our adversaries will say that their gods also have done some wonderful things, if now they begin to compare their gods to our dead men. Or will they also say that they have gods taken from among dead men, such as Hercules, Romulus, and many others whom they fancy to have been received into the number of the gods? But our martyrs are not our gods; for we know that the martyrs and we have both but one God, and that the same. Nor yet are the miracles which they maintain to have been done by means of their temples at all comparable to those which are done by the tombs of our martyrs. If they seem similar, their gods have been defeated by our martyrs as Pharaoh’s magi were by Moses. In reality, the demons wrought these marvels with the same impure pride with which they aspired to be the gods of the nations; but the martyrs do these wonders, or rather God does them while they pray and assist, in order that an impulse may be given to the faith by which we believe that they are not our gods, but have, together with ourselves, one God. In fine, they built temples to these gods of theirs, and set up altars, and ordained priests, and appointed sacrifices; but to our martyrs we build, not temples as if they were gods, but monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God. Neither do we erect altars at these monuments that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of ourselves; and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place and rank as men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked by the sacrificing priest. For it is to God, not to them, he sacrifices, though he sacrifices at their monument; for he is God’s priest, not theirs. The sacrifice itself, too, is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, because they themselves are this body. Which then can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole object in working any miracle is to induce faith in God, and in Christ also as God? They who wished to turn even their crimes into sacred rites, or those who are unwilling that even their own praises be consecrated, and seek that everything for which they are justly praised be ascribed to the glory of Him in whom they are praised? For in the Lord their souls are praised. Let us therefore believe those who both speak the truth and work wonders. For by speaking the truth they suffered, and so won the power of working wonders. And the leading truth they professed is that Christ rose from the dead, and first showed in His own flesh the immortality of the resurrection which He promised should be ours, either in the beginning of the world to come, or in the end of this world.

Hic forte dicturi sunt etiam deos suos aliqua mira fecisse. Bene, si iam incipiunt deos suos nostris mortuis hominibus conparare. An dicent etiam se habere deos ex hominibus mortuis, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum, sicut alios multos, quos in deorum numerum receptos opinantur? Sed nobis martyres non sunt di, quia unum eundemque Deum et nostrum scimus et martyrum. Nec tamen miraculis, quae per memorias nostrorum martyrum fiunt, ullo modo sunt conparanda miracula, quae facta per templa perhibentur illorum. Verum si qua similia uidentur, sicut a Moyse magi Pharaonis, sic eorum di uicti sunt a martyribus nostris. Fecerunt autem illa daemones eo fastu inpurae superbiae, quo eorum di esse uoluerunt; faciunt autem ista martyres uel potius Deus aut cooperantibus aut orantibus eis, ut fides illa proficiat, qua eos non deos nostros esse, sed unum Deum nobiscum habere credamus. Denique illi talibus dis suis et templa aedificauerunt et statuerunt aras, et sacerdotes instituerunt et sacrificia fecerunt; nos autem martyribus nostris non templa sicut dis, sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis. quorum aput Deum uiuunt spiritus, fabricamus; nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus martyribus, sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro; ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in eius confessione uicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote, qui sacrificat, inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum uero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt et ipsi. Quibus igitur potius credendum est miracula facientibus? Eisne qui se ipsos uolunt haberi deos ab his quibus ea faciunt, an eis qui, ut in Deum credatur, quod et Christus est, faciunt quidquid mirabile faciunt? Eisne qui sacra sua etiam crimina sua esse uoluerunt, an eis qui nec laudes suas uolunt esse sacra sua, sed totum, quod ueraciter laudantur, ad eius gloriam proficere in quo laudantur? in Domino quippe laudantur animae eorum. Credamus ergo eis et uera dicentibus et mira facientibus. Dicendo enim uera passi sunt, ut possint facere mira. In eis ueris est praecipuum, quod Christus resurrexit a mortuis et inmortalitatem resurrectionis in sua carne primus ostendit, quam nobis adfuturam uel in principio noui saeculi uel in huius fine promisit.

Chapter 11.—Against the Platonists, Who Argue from the Physical Weight of the Elements that an Earthly Body Cannot Inhabit Heaven.

Caput XI. Contra Platonicos, qui de naturalibus elementorum ponderibus argumentantur terrenum corpus in caelo esse non posse.

But against this great gift of God, these reasoners, “whose thoughts the Lord knows that they are vain” bring arguments from the weights of the elements; for they have been taught by their master Plato that the two greatest elements of the world, and the furthest removed from one another, are coupled and united by the two intermediate, air and water. And consequently they say, since the earth is the first of the elements, beginning from the base of the series, the second the water above the earth, the third the air above the water, the fourth the heaven above the air, it follows that a body of earth cannot live in the heaven; for each element is poised by its own weight so as to preserve its own place and rank. Behold with what arguments human infirmity, possessed with vanity, contradicts the omnipotence of God! What, then, do so many earthly bodies do in the air, since the air is the third element from the earth? Unless perhaps He who has granted to the earthly bodies of birds that they be carried through the air by the lightness of feathers and wings, has not been able to confer upon the bodies of men made immortal the power to abide in the highest heaven. The earthly animals, too, which cannot fly, among which are men, ought on these terms to live under the earth, as fishes, which are the animals of the water, live under the water. Why, then, can an animal of earth not live in the second element, that is, in water, while it can in the third? Why, though it belongs to the earth, is it forthwith suffocated if it is forced to live in the second element next above earth, while it lives in the third, and cannot live out of it? Is there a mistake here in the order of the elements, or is not the mistake rather in their reasonings, and not in the nature of things? I will not repeat what I said in the thirteenth book, that many earthly bodies, though heavy like lead, receive from the workman’s hand a form which enables them to swim in water; and yet it is denied that the omnipotent Worker can confer on the human body a property which shall enable it to pass into heaven and dwell there.

Contra quod magnum Dei donum ratiocinatores isti, quorum cogitationes nouit Dominus quoniam uanae sunt, de ponderibus elementorum argumentantur; quoniam scilicet magistro Platone didicerunt mundi duo corpora maxima adque postrema duobus mediis, aere scilicet et aqua, esse copulata adque coniuncta. Ac per hoc, inquiunt, quoniam terra abhinc sursum uersus est prima, secunda aqua super terram, tertius aer super aquam, quartum super aera caelum, non potest esse terrenum corpus in caelo; momentis enim propriis, ut ordinem suum teneant, singula elementa librantur. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas, quam possidet uanitas. Quid ergo faciunt in aere terrena tot corpora, cum a terra sit aer tertius? Nisi forte, qui per plumarum et pennarum leuitatem donauit auium terrenis corporibus, ut portentur in aere, inmortalibus factis corporibus hominum non poterit donare uirtutem, qua etiam in summo caelo ualeant habitare. Animalia quoque ipsa terrena, quae uolare non possunt, in quibus et homines sunt, sicut sub aqua pisces, quae sunt aquarum animalia, ita sub terra uiuere debuerunt. Quur ergo non saltem de secundo. id est de aquis, sed de elemento tertio terrenum animal carpit hanc uitam? Quare, cum pertineat ad terram, in secundo, quod super terram est, elemento uiuere si cogatur, continuo suffocatur et ut uiuat uiuit in tertio? An errat hic ordo elementorum, uel potius non in natura rerum, sed in istorum argumentationibus deficit? Omitto dicere, quod iam in tertio decimo libro dixi, quam multa grauia terrena sint corpora, sicut plumbum, et formam tamen ab artifice accipiant. qua natare ualeant super aquam; et ut accipiat qualitatem corpus humanum, qua ferri in caelum et esse possit in caelo. omnipotenti artifici contradicitur?.

But against what I have formerly said they can find nothing to say, even though they introduce and make the most of this order of the elements in which they confide. For if the order be that the earth is first, the water second, the air third, the heaven fourth, then the soul is above all. For Aristotle said that the soul was a fifth body, while Plato denied that it was a body at all. If it were a fifth body, then certainly it would be above the rest; and if it is not a body at all, so much the more does it rise above all. What, then, does it do in an earthly body? What does this soul, which is finer than all else, do in such a mass of matter as this? What does the lightest of substances do in this ponderosity? this swiftest substance in such sluggishness? Will not the body be raised to heaven by virtue of so excellent a nature as this? and if now earthly bodies can retain the souls below, shall not the souls be one day able to raise the earthly bodies above?

Iam uero contra illud, quod dixi superius, etiam istum considerantes adque tractantes elementorum ordinem, quo confidunt, non inueniunt omnino quod dicant. Sic est enim hinc sursum uersus terra prima, aqua secunda, tertius aer, quartum caelum, ut super omnia sit animae natura. Nam et Aristoteles quintum corpus eam dixit esse et Plato nullum. Si quintum esset, certe superius esset ceteris; cum uero nullum est, multo magis superat omnia. In terreno ergo quid facit corpore? In hac mole quid agit subtilior omnibus? In hoc pondere quid agit leuior omnibus? In hac tarditate quid agit celerior omnibus? Itane per huius tam excellentis naturae meritum non poterit effici, ut corpus eius leuetur in caelum, et cum ualeat nunc natura corporum terrenorum deprimere animas deorsum, aliquando et animae leuare sursum • terrena corpora non ualebunt?

If we pass now to their miracles which they oppose to our martyrs as wrought by their gods, shall not even these be found to make for us, and help out our argument? For if any of the miracles of their gods are great, certainly that is a great one which Varro mentions of a vestal virgin, who, when she was endangered by a false accusation of unchastity, filled a sieve with water from the Tiber, and carried it to her judges without any part of it leaking. Who kept the weight of water in the sieve? Who prevented any drop from falling from it through so many open holes? They will answer, Some god or some demon. If a god, is he greater than the God who made the world? If a demon, is he mightier than an angel who serves the God by whom the world was made? If, then, a lesser god, angel, or demon could so sustain the weight of this liquid element that the water might seem to have changed its nature, shall not Almighty God, who Himself created all the elements, be able to eliminate from the earthly body its heaviness, so that the quickened body shall dwell in whatever element the quickening spirit pleases?

Iam si ad eorum miracula ueniamus, quae facta a dis suis obponunt martyribus nostris, nonne etiam ipsa pro nobis facere et nobis reperientur omnino proficere? Nam inter magna miracula deorum suorum profecto magnum illud est, quod Varro commemorat, Vestalem uirginem, cum periclitaretur falsa suspicione de stupro, cribrum inplesse aqua de Tiberi et ad suos iudices nulla eius parte stillante portasse. Quis aquae pondus supra cribrum tenuit? Quis tot cauernis patentibus nihil inde in terram cadere permisit? Responsuri sunt: ‘Aliquis deus aut aliquis daemon.’ Si deus, numquid maior est Deo, qui fecit hunc mundum? Si daemon, numquid potentior est angelo, qui Deo seruit, a quo factus est mundus? Si ergo deus minor uel angelus uel daemon potuit pondus umidi elementi sic suspendere, ut aquarum uideatur mutata fuisse natura: itane Deus omnipotens, qui omnia ipsa creauit elementa, terreno corpori graue pondus auferre non poterit, ut in eodem elemento habitet uiuificatum corpus, in quo uoluerit uiuificans spiritus?

Then, again, since they give the air a middle place between the fire above and the water beneath, how is it that we often find it between water and water, and between the water and the earth? For what do they make of those watery clouds, between which and the seas air is constantly found intervening? I should like to know by what weight and order of the elements it comes to pass that very violent and stormy torrents are suspended in the clouds above the earth before they rush along upon the earth under the air. In fine, why is it that throughout the whole globe the air is between the highest heaven and the earth, if its place is between the sky and the water, as the place of the water is between the sky and the earth?

Deinde cum aera medium ponant inter ignem desuper et aquam subter, quid est quod eum inter aquam et aquam et inter aquam et terram saepe inuenimus? Quid enim uolunt esse aquosas nubes, inter quas et maria aer medius reperitur? Quonam, quaeso, elementorum pondere adque ordine efficitur, ut torrentes uiolentissimi adque undosissimi, antequam sub aere in terris currant, super aera in nubibus pendeant? Quur denique aer est medius inter summa caeli et nuda terrarum, quaqua uersum orbis extenditur, si locus eius inter caelum et aquas, sicut aquarum inter ipsum et terras est constitutus?

Finally, if the order of the elements is so disposed that, as Plato thinks, the two extremes, fire and earth, are united by the two means, air and water, and that the fire occupies the highest part of the sky, and the earth the lowest part, or as it were the foundation of the world, and that therefore earth cannot be in the heavens, how is fire in the earth? For, according to this reasoning, these two elements, earth and fire, ought to be so restricted to their own places, the highest and the lowest, that neither the lowest can rise to the place of the highest, nor the highest sink to that of the lowest. Thus, as they think that no particle of earth is or shall ever be in the sky so we ought to see no particle of fire on the earth. But the fact is that it exists to such an extent, not only on but even under the earth, that the tops of mountains vomit it forth; besides that we see it to exist on earth for human uses, and even to be produced from the earth, since it is kindled from wood and stones, which are without doubt earthly bodies. But that [upper] fire, they say, is tranquil, pure, harmless, eternal; but this [earthly] fire is turbid, smoky, corruptible, and corrupting. But it does not corrupt the mountains and caverns of the earth in which it rages continually. But grant that the earthly fire is so unlike the other as to suit its earthly position, why then do they object to our believing that the nature of earthly bodies shall some day be made incorruptible and fit for the sky, even as now fire is corruptible and suited to the earth? They therefore adduce from their weights and order of the elements nothing from which they can prove that it is impossible for Almighty God to make our bodies such that they can dwell in the skies.

Postremo si ita est elementorum ordo dispositus, ut secundum Platonem duobus mediis, id est aere et aqua, duo extrema, id est ignis et terra, iungantur caelique obtineat ille summi locum, haec autem imi uelut fundaminis mundi. et ideo in caelo esse non potest terra: quur est ipse ignis in terra? Secundum hanc quippe rationem ita ista duo elementa in locis propriis, imo ac summo, terra et ignis esse debuerunt, ut, quem ad modum nolunt in summo esse posse quod imi est, ita nec in imo posset esse quod summi est. Sicut ergo nullam putant uel esse uel futuram esse terrae particulam in caelo, ita nullam particulam uidere debuimus ignis in terra. Nunc uero non solum in terris, uerum etiam sub terris ita est, ut eum eructent uertices montium, praeter quod in usibus hominum et esse ignem in terra et eum nasci uidemus ex terra; quando quidem et de lignis et de lapidibus nascitur, quae sunt corpora sine dubitatione terrena. Sed ille, inquiunt, ignis est tranquillus, purus, innoxius, sempiternus; iste autem turbidus, fumeus, corruptibilis adque corruptor. Nec tamen corrumpit montes, in quibus iugiter aestuat. cauernasque terrarum. Verum esto, sit illi iste dissimilis, ut terrenis habitationibus congruat: quur ergo nolunt, ut credamus naturam corporum terrenorum aliquando incorruptibilem factam caelo conuenientem futuram, sicut nunc ignis corruptibilis his conuenit terris? Nihil igitur adferunt ex ponderibus adque ordine elementorum, unde omnipotenti Deo, quominus faciat corpora nostra talia, ut etiam in caelo possint habitare, praescribant.

Chapter 12.—Against the Calumnies with Which Unbelievers Throw Ridicule Upon the Christian Faith in the Resurrection of the Flesh.

Caput XII. Contra calumnias infidelium, quibus Christianos de credita carnis resurrectione inrident.

But their way is to feign a scrupulous anxiety in investigating this question, and to cast ridicule on our faith in the resurrection of the body, by asking, Whether abortions shall rise? And as the Lord says, “Verily I say unto you, not a hair of your head shall perish,” shall all bodies have an equal stature and strength, or shall there be differences in size? For if there is to be equality, where shall those abortions, supposing that they rise again, get that bulk which they had not here? Or if they shall not rise because they were not born but cast out, they raise the same question about children who have died in childhood, asking us whence they get the stature which we see they had not here; for we will not say that those who have been not only born, but born again, shall not rise again. Then, further, they ask of what size these equal bodies shall be. For if all shall be as tall and large as were the tallest and largest in this world, they ask us how it is that not only children but many full-grown persons shall receive what they here did not possess, if each one is to receive what he had here. And if the saying of the apostle, that we are all to come to the “measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” or that other saying, “Whom He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son,” is to be understood to mean that the stature and size of Christ’s body shall be the measure of the bodies of all those who shall be in His kingdom, then, say they, the size and height of many must be diminished; and if so much of the bodily frame itself be lost, what becomes of the saying, “Not a hair of your head shall perish?” Besides, it might be asked regarding the hair itself, whether all that the barber has cut off shall be restored? And if it is to be restored, who would not shrink from such deformity? For as the same restoration will be made of what has been pared off the nails, much will be replaced on the body which a regard for its appearance had cut off. And where, then, will be its beauty, which assuredly ought to be much greater in that immortal condition than it could be in this corruptible state? On the other hand, if such things are not restored to the body, they must perish; how, then, they say, shall not a hair of the head perish? In like manner they reason about fatness and leanness; for if all are to be equal, then certainly there shall not be some fat, others lean. Some, therefore, shall gain, others lose something. Consequently there will not be a simple restoration of what formerly existed, but, on the one hand, an addition of what had no existence, and, on the other, a loss of what did before exist.

Sed scrupulosissime quaerere et fidem, qua credimus resurrecturam carnem, ita quaerendo adsolent inridere: utrum fetus abortiui resurgant; et quoniam Dominus ait: Arnen, dico uobis, capillus capitis uestri non peribit, utrum statura et robur aequalia futura sint omnibus an diuersae corporum quantitates. Si enim aequalitas erit corporum, unde habebunt quod hic non habuerunt in mole corporis illi abortiui, si resurgent et ipsi? Aut si non resurgent, quia nec nati sunt, sed effusi, eandem quaestionem de paruulis uersant, unde illis mensura corporis, quam nunc defuisse uidemus, accedat, cum in hac aetate moriuntur. Neque enim dicturi sumus eos non resurrecturos, qui non solum generationis, uerum etiam regenerationis capaces sunt. Deinde interrogant, quem modum ipsa aequalitas habitura sit. Si enim tam magni et tam longi erunt omnes, quam fuerunt quicumque hic fuerunt maximi adque longissimi, non solum de paruulis, sed de plurimis quaerunt, unde illis accessurum sit, quod hic defuit, si hoc quisque recipiat, quod hic habuit; si autem, quod ait apostolus, occursuros nos omnes in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et illud alterum: Quos praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, sic intellegendum est, ut statura et modus corporis Christi omnium, qui in regno eius erunt, humanorum corporum sit futurus: ‘Multis erit, inquiunt, de magnitudine et longitudine corporis detrahendum; et ubi iam erit: capillus capitis uestri non peribit, si de ipsa corporis quantitate tam multum peribit?’ Quamuis et de ipsis capillis possit inquiri, utrum redeat quidquid tondentibus decidit. Quod si rediturum est, quis non exhorreat illam deformitatem? Nam hoc et de unguibus uidetur necessario secuturum, ut redeat tam multum quod corporis curatura desecuit. Et ubi erit decus, quod certe maius, quam in ista esse corruptione potuit, in illa iam inmortalitate esse debebit? Si autem non redibit, ergo peribit Quo modo igitur, inquiunt, capillus capitis non peribit? De macie quoque uel pinguedine similiter disputant. Nam si aequales omnes erunt, non utique alii macri, alii pingues erunt. Accedet ergo aliis aliquid, aliis minuetur; ac per hoc non, quod erat, recipiendum, sed alicubi addendum est, quod non fuit, et alicubi perdendum, quod fuit.

The difficulties, too, about the corruption and dissolution of dead bodies,—that one is turned into dust, while another evaporates into the air; that some are devoured by beasts, some by fire, while some perish by shipwreck or by drowning in one shape or other, so that their bodies decay into liquid, these difficulties give them immoderate alarm, and they believe that all those dissolved elements cannot be gathered again and reconstructed into a body. They also make eager use of all the deformities and blemishes which either accident or birth has produced, and accordingly, with horror and derision, cite monstrous births, and ask if every deformity will be preserved in the resurrection. For if we say that no such thing shall be reproduced in the body of a man, they suppose that they confute us by citing the marks of the wounds which we assert were found in the risen body of the Lord Christ. But of all these, the most difficult question is, into whose body that flesh shall return which has been eaten and assimilated by another man constrained by hunger to use it so; for it has been converted into the flesh of the man who used it as his nutriment, and it filled up those losses of flesh which famine had produced. For the sake, then, of ridiculing the resurrection, they ask, Shall this return to the man whose flesh it first was, or to him whose flesh it afterwards became? And thus, too, they seek to give promise to the human soul of alternations of true misery and false happiness, in accordance with Plato’s theory; or, in accordance with Porphyry’s, that, after many transmigrations into different bodies, it ends its miseries, and never more returns to them, not, however, by obtaining an immortal body, but by escaping from every kind of body.

De ipsis etiam corruptionibus et dilapsionibus corporum mortuorum, cum aliud uertatur in puluerem, in auras aliud exhaletur, sint quos bestiae, sint quos ignis absumit, naufra. gio uel quibuscumque aquis ita quidam pereant, ut eorum carnes in umorem putredo dissoluat, non mediocriter permouentur adque omnia ista recolligi in carnem et redintegrari posse non credunt. Consectantur etiam quasque foeditates et uitia, siue accidant siue nascantur, ubi et monstrosos partus cum horrore adque inrisione commemorant, et requirunt, quaenam cuiusque deformitatis resurrectio sit futura. Si enim nihil tale redire in corpus hominis dixerimus, responsionem nostram de locis uulnerum, cum quibus Dominum Christum resurrexisse praedicamus, se confutaturos esse praesumunt. Sed inter haec omnia quaestio difficillima illa proponitur, in cuius carnem reditura sit caro, qua corpus alterius uescentis humana uiscera fame conpellente nutritur. In carnem quippe conuersa est eius, qui talibus uixit alimentis, et ea, quae macies ostenderat, detrimenta subpleuit. Utrum ergo illi redeat homini cuius caro prius fuit, an illi potius cuius postea facta est, ad hoc percontantur, ut fidem resurrectionis inludant ac sic animae humanae aut alternantes, sicut Plato, ueras infelicitates falsasque promittant beatitudines aut post multas itidem per diuersa corpora reuolutiones aliquando tamen eam, sicut Porphyrius, finire miserias et ad eas numquam redire fateantur; non tamen corpus habendo inmortale, sed corpus omne fugiendo.

Chapter 13.—Whether Abortions, If They are Numbered Among the Dead, Shall Not Also Have a Part in the Resurrection.

Caput XIII. An abortiui non pertineant ad resurrectionem, si pertinent ad numerum mortuorum.

To these objections, then, of our adversaries which I have thus detailed, I will now reply, trusting that God will mercifully assist my endeavors. That abortions, which, even supposing they were alive in the womb, did also die there, shall rise again, I make bold neither to affirm nor to deny, although I fail to see why, if they are not excluded from the number of the dead, they should not attain to the resurrection of the dead. For either all the dead shall not rise, and there will be to all eternity some souls without bodies though they once had them,—only in their mother’s womb, indeed; or, if all human souls shall receive again the bodies which they had wherever they lived, and which they left when they died, then I do not see how I can say that even those who died in their mother’s womb shall have no resurrection. But whichever of these opinions any one may adopt concerning them, we must at least apply to them, if they rise again, all that we have to say of infants who have been born.

Ad haec ergo, quae ab eorum parte contraria me digerente mihi uidentur obposita, misericordia Dei meis nisibus opem ferente respondeam. Abortiuos fetus, qui, cum iam uixissent in utero, ibi sunt mortui, resurrecturos ut adfirmare, ita negare non audeo; quamuis non uideam quo modo ad eos non pertineat resurrectio mortuorum, si non eximuntur de numero mortuorum. Aut enim non omnes mortui resurgent et erunt aliquae humanae animae sine corporibus in aeternum, quae corpora humana, quamuis intra uiscera materna, gestarunt; aut si omnes animae humanae recipient resurgentia sua corpora, quae habuerunt, ubicumque uiuentia et morientia reliquerunt, non inuenio quem ad modum dicam ad resurrectionem non pertinere mortuorum quoscumque mortuos etiam in uteris matrum. Sed utrumlibet de his quisque sentiat., quod de iam natis infantibus dixerimus, hoc etiam de illis intellegendum est, si resurgent.

Chapter 14.—Whether Infants Shall Rise in that Body Which They Would Have Had Had They Grown Up.

Caput XIV. An infantes in ea sint resurrecturi habitudine corporis, quam habituri erant aetatis accessu.

What, then, are we to say of infants, if not that they will not rise in that diminutive body in which they died, but shall receive by the marvellous and rapid operation of God that body which time by a slower process would have given them? For in the Lord’s words, where He says, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” it is asserted that nothing which was possessed shall be wanting; but it is not said that nothing which was not possessed shall be given. To the dead infant there was wanting the perfect stature of its body; for even the perfect infant lacks the perfection of bodily size, being capable of further growth. This perfect stature is, in a sense, so possessed by all that they are conceived and born with it,—that is, they have it potentially, though not yet in actual bulk; just as all the members of the body are potentially in the seed, though, even after the child is born, some of them, the teeth for example, may be wanting. In this seminal principle of every substance, there seems to be, as it were, the beginning of everything which does not yet exist, or rather does not appear, but which in process of time will come into being, or rather into sight. In this, therefore, the child who is to be tall or short is already tall or short. And in the resurrection of the body, we need, for the same reason, fear no bodily loss; for though all should be of equal size, and reach gigantic proportions, lest the men who were largest here should lose anything of their bulk and it should perish, in contradiction to the words of Christ, who said that not a hair of their head should perish, yet why should there lack the means by which that wonderful Worker should make such additions, seeing that He is the Creator, who Himself created all things out of nothing?

Quid ergo de infantibus dicturi sumus, nisi quia non in ea resurrecturi sunt corporis exiguitate, qua mortui, sed quod eis tardius accessurum erat tempore, hoc sunt illo Dei opere miro adque celerrimo recepturi? In sententia quippe Domini, ubi ait: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, dictum est non defuturum esse quod fuit, non autem negatum est adfuturum esse quod defuit. Defuit autem infanti mortuo perfecta quantitas sui corporis; perfecto quippe infanti deest utique perfectio magnitudinis corporalis, quae cum accesserit, iam statura longior esse non possit. Hunc perfectionis modum sic habent omnes, ut cum illo concipiantur adque nascantur; sed habent in ratione, non mole; sicut ipsa membra omnia iam sunt latenter in semine, cum etiam natis nonnulla adhuc desint, sicut dentes ac si quid eius modi. In qua ratione uniuscuiusque materiae indita corporali iam quodam modo, ut ita dicam, liciatum uidetur esse, quod nondum est, immo quod latet, sed accessu temporis erit uel potius apparebit. In hac ergo infans iam breuis aut longus est, qui breuis longusue futurus est. Secundum hanc rationem profecto in resurrectione corporis detrimenta corporis non timemus, quia. etsi aequalitas futura esset omnium, ita ut omnes usque ad giganteas magnitudines peruenirent. ne illi, qui maximi fuerunt, minus haberent aliquid in statura, quod eis contra sententiam Christi periret, qui dixit nec capillum capitis esse periturum, Creatori utique, qui creauit cuncta de nihilo, quo modo deesse posset unde adderet quod addendum esse mirus artifex nosset?

Chapter 15.—Whether the Bodies of All the Dead Shall Rise the Same Size as the Lord’s Body.

Caput XV. An ad dominici corporis modum omnium mortuorum resurrectura sint corpora.

It is certain that Christ rose in the same bodily stature in which He died, and that it is wrong to say that, when the general resurrection shall have arrived, His body shall, for the sake of equalling the tallest, assume proportions which it had not when He appeared to the disciples in the figure with which they were familiar. But if we say that even the bodies of taller men are to be reduced to the size of the Lord’s body, there will be a great loss in many bodies, though He promised that, not a hair of their head should perish. It remains, therefore, that we conclude that every man shall receive his own size which he had in youth, though he died an old man, or which he would have had, supposing he died before his prime. As for what the apostle said of the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, we must either understand him to refer to something else, viz., to the fact that the measure of Christ will be completed when all the members among the Christian communities are added to the Head; or if we are to refer it to the resurrection of the body, the meaning is that all shall rise neither beyond nor under youth, but in that vigor and age to which we know that Christ had arrived. For even the world’s wisest men have fixed the bloom of youth at about the age of thirty; and when this period has been passed, the man begins to decline towards the defective and duller period of old age. And therefore the apostle did not speak of the measure of the body, nor of the measure of the stature, but of “the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.”

Sed utique Christus in ea mensura corporis, in qua mortuus est, resurrexit, nec fas est dicere, cum resurrectionis omnium tempus uenerit, accessuram corpori eius eam magnitudinem, quam non habuit, quando in ea discipulis, in qua illis erat notus, apparuit, ut longissimis fieri possit aequalis. Si autem dixerimus ad dominici corporis modum etiam quorumque maiora corpora redigenda, peribit de multorum corporibus plurimum, cum ipse nec capillum periturum esse promiserit. Restat ergo, ut suam recipiat quisque mensuram, quam uel habuit in iuuentute, etiamsi senex est mortuus, uel fuerat habiturus, si est ante defunctus, adque illud, quod commemorauit apostolus de mensura aetatis plenitudinis Christi, aut propter aliud intellegamus dictum esse, id est. ut illi capiti in populis Christianis accedente omnium perfectione membrorum aetatis eius mensura conpleatur, aut, si hoc de resurrectione corporum dictum est, sic accipiamus dictum, ut nec infra nec ultra iuuenalem formam resurgant corpora mortuorum, sed in eius aetate et robore, usque ad quam Christum hic peruenisse cognouimus (circa triginta quippe annos definierunt esse etiam saeculi huius doctissimi homines iuuentutem; quae cum fuerit spatio proprio terminata, inde iam hominem in detrimenta uergere grauioris ac senilis aetatis); et ideo non esse dictum in mensuram corporis uel in mensuram staturae. sed in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi.