--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 62 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 62. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62/" --- # City of God · De civitate Dei *Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods* “Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter. > Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted. > English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887). > Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position. ## 62. That Adam in His Sin Forsook God Ere God Forsook Him, and that His Falling Away From God Was the First Death of the Soul. Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62/#p-N [¶0] Chapter 15.—That Adam in His Sin Forsook God Ere God Forsook Him, and that His Falling Away From God Was the First Death of the Soul. > Latin: Caput XV. Quod Adam peccaturus prius ipse reliquerit Deum, quam relinqueretur a Deo, et primam fuisse animae mortem a Deo recessisse. [¶1] It may perhaps be supposed that because God said, “Ye shall die the death,” and not “deaths,” we should understand only that death which occurs when the soul is deserted by God, who is its life; for it was not deserted by God, and so deserted Him, but deserted Him, and so was deserted by Him. For its own will was the originator of its evil, as God was the originator of its motions towards good, both in making it when it was not, and in remaking it when it had fallen and perished. But though we suppose that God meant only this death, and that the words, “In the day ye eat of it ye shall die the death,” should be understood as meaning, “In the day ye desert me in disobedience, I will desert you in justice,” yet assuredly in this death the other deaths also were threatened, which were its inevitable consequence. For in the first stirring of the disobedient motion which was felt in the flesh of the disobedient soul, and which caused our first parents to cover their shame, one death indeed is experienced, that, namely, which occurs when God forsakes the soul. (This was intimated by the words He uttered, when the man, stupefied by fear, had hid himself, “Adam, where art thou?”—words which He used not in ignorance of inquiry, but warning him to consider where he was, since God was not with him.) But when the soul itself forsook the body, corrupted and decayed with age, the other death was experienced of which God had spoken in pronouncing man’s sentence, “Earth thou art, and unto earth shall thou return.” And of these two deaths that first death of the whole man is composed. And this first death is finally followed by the second, unless man be freed by grace. For the body would not return to the earth from which it was made, save only by the death proper to itself, which occurs when it is forsaken of the soul, its life. And therefore it is agreed among all Christians who truthfully hold the catholic faith, that we are subject to the death of the body, not by the law of nature, by which God ordained no death for man, but by His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, taking vengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return.” > Latin: Quam obrem etiamsi in eo quod dictum est: Morte moriemini, quoniam non est dictum: Mortibus, eam solam intellegamus, quae fit cum anima deseritur sua uita, quod illi Deus est (non enim deserta est ut desereret, sed ut desereretur deseruit; ad malum quippe eius prior est uoluntas eius; ad bonum uero eius prior est uoluntas Creatoris eius; siue ut eam faceret, quae nulla erat, siue ut reficiat, quia lapsa perierat), — etiamsi ergo hanc intellegamus Deum denuntiasse mortem in eo quod ait: Qua die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini, tamquam diceret: Qua die me deserueritis per inoboedientiam, deseram uos per iustitiam: profecto in ea morte etiam ceterae denuntiatae sunt, quae procul dubio fuerant secuturae. Nam in eo, quod inoboediens motus in carne animae inoboedientis exortus est, propter quem pudenda texerunt, sensa est mors una, in qua deseruit animam Deus. Ea significata est uerbis eius, quando timore dementi sese abscondenti homini dixit: Adam, ubi es? non utique ignorando quaerens, sed increpando admonens, ut adtenderet ubi esset, in quo Deus non esset. Cum uero corpus anima ipsa deseruit aetate corruptum et senectute confectum, uenit in experimentum mors altera, de qua Deus peccatum adhuc puniens homini dixerat: Terra es et in terram ibis; ut ex his duabus mors illa prima, quae totius est hominis, conpleretur, quam secunda in ultimo sequitur, nisi homo per gratiam liberetur. Neque enim corpus, quod de terra est, rediret in terram nisi sua morte, quae illi accidit, cum deseritur sua uita, id est anima. Unde constat inter Christianos ueraciter catholicam tenentes fidem etiam ipsam nobis corporis mortem non lege naturae, qua nullam mortem homini Deus fecit, sed merito inflictam esse peccati, quoniam peccatum uindicans Deus dixit homini, in quo tunc omnes eramus: Terra es et in terram ibis. ### Concerning the Philosophers Who Think that the Separation of Soul and Body is Not Penal, Though Plato Represents the Supreme Deity as Promising to the Inferior Gods that They Shall Never Be Dismissed from Their Bodies. [¶3] Chapter 16.—Concerning the Philosophers Who Think that the Separation of Soul and Body is Not Penal, Though Plato Represents the Supreme Deity as Promising to the Inferior Gods that They Shall Never Be Dismissed from Their Bodies. > Latin: Caput XVI. De philosophis, qui animae separationem a corpore non putant esse poenalem, cum Plato inducat summum deum dis minoribus promittentem, quod numquam sint corporibus exuendi. a [¶4] But the philosophers against whom we are defending the city of God, that is, His Church seem to themselves to have good cause to deride us, because we say that the separation of the soul from the body is to be held as part of man’s punishment. For they suppose that the blessedness of the soul then only is complete, when it is quite denuded of the body, and returns to God a pure and simple, and, as it were, naked soul. On this point, if I should find nothing in their own literature to refute this opinion, I should be forced laboriously to demonstrate that it is not the body, but the corruptibility of the body, which is a burden to the soul. Hence that sentence of Scripture we quoted in a foregoing book, “For the corruptible body presseth down the soul.” The word corruptible is added to show that the soul is burdened, not by any body whatsoever, but by the body such as it has become in consequence of sin. And even though the word had not been added, we could understand nothing else. But when Plato most expressly declares that the gods who are made by the Supreme have immortal bodies, and when he introduces their Maker himself, promising them as a great boon that they should abide in their bodies eternally, and never by any death be loosed from them, why do these adversaries of ours, for the sake of troubling the Christian faith, feign to be ignorant of what they quite well know, and even prefer to contradict themselves rather than lose an opportunity of contradicting us? Here are Plato’s words, as Cicero has translated them, in which he introduces the Supreme addressing the gods He had made, and saying, “Ye who are sprung from a divine stock, consider of what works I am the parent and author. These (your bodies) are indestructible so long as I will it; although all that is composed can be destroyed. But it is wicked to dissolve what reason has compacted. But, seeing that ye have been born, ye cannot indeed be immortal and indestructible; yet ye shall by no means be destroyed, nor shall any fates consign you to death, and prove superior to my will, which is a stronger assurance of your perpetuity than those bodies to which ye were joined when ye were born.” Plato, you see, says that the gods are both mortal by the connection of the body and soul, and yet are rendered immortal by the will and decree of their Maker. If, therefore, it is a punishment to the soul to be connected with any body whatever, why does God address them as if they were afraid of death, that is, of the separation, of soul and body? Why does He seek to reassure them by promising them immortality, not in virtue of their nature, which is composite and not simple, but by virtue of His invincible will, whereby He can effect that neither things born die, nor things compounded be dissolved, but preserved eternally? > Latin: Sed philosophi, contra quorum calumnias defendimus ciuitatem Dei, hoc est eius ecclesiam, sapienter sibi uidentur inridere, quod dicimus animae a corpore separationem inter poenas eius esse deputandam, quia uidelicet eius perfectam beatitudinem tunc illi fieri existimant, cum omni prorsus corpore exuta ad Deum simplex et sola et quodam modo nuda redierit. Ubi si nihil, quo ista refelleretur opinio, in eorum litteris inuenirem, operosius mihi disputandum esset, quo demonstrarem non corpus esse animae, sed corruptibile corpus onerosum. Unde illud est quod de scripturis nostris in superiore libro commemorauimus: Corpus enim corruptibile adgrauat animam. Addendo utique corruptibile non qualicumque corpore, sed quale factum est ex peccato consequente uindicta, animam perhibuit adgrauari. Quod etiamsi non addidisset, nihil aliud intellegere deberemus. Sed cum apertissime Plato deos a summo Deo factos habere inmortalia corpora praedicet eisque ipsum Deum, a quo facti sunt, inducat pro magno beneficio pollicentem, quod in aeternum cum suis corporibus permanebunt nec ab eis ulla morte soluentur: quid est quod isti ad exagitandam Christianam fidem fingunt se nescire quod sciunt, aut etiam sibi repugnantes aduersum se ipsos malunt dicere, dum nobis non desinant contradicere? Nempe Platonis haec uerba sunt, sicut ea Cicero in Latinum uertit, quibus inducit summum deum deos quos fecit adloquentem ac dicentem: Vos, qui deorum satu orti estis, adtendite: quorum operum ego parens effectorque sum, haec sunt indissolubilia me inuito, quamquam omne conligatum solui potest; sed haudquaquam bonum est ratione uinctum uelle dissoluere. Sed quoniam estis orti, inmortales uos quidem esse et indissolubiles non potestis; ne utiquam tamen dissoluemini, neque uos ulla mortis fata periment, nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpetuitatem uestram, quam illa quibus estis [tum, cum gignebamini,] conligati). Ecce deos Plato dicit et corporis animaeque conligatione mortales, et tamen inmortales dei a quo facti sunt uoluntate adque consilio. Si ergo animae poena est in qualicumque corpore conligari, quid est quod eos adloquens deus tamquam sollicitos, ne forte moriantur, id est dissoluantur a corpore, de sua facit inmortalitate securos; non propter eorum naturam, quae sit conpacta, non simplex, sed propter suam inuictissimam uoluntatem, qua potens est facere, ut nec orta occidant nec conexa soluantur, sed incorruptibiliter perseuerent? [¶5] Whether this opinion of Plato’s about the stars is true or not, is another question. For we cannot at once grant to him that these luminous bodies or globes, which by day and night shine on the earth with the light of their bodily substance, have also intellectual and blessed souls which animate each its own body, as he confidently affirms of the universe itself, as if it were one huge animal, in which all other animals were contained. But this, as I said, is another question, which we have not undertaken to discuss at present. This much only I deemed right to bring forward, in opposition to those who so pride themselves on being, or on being called Platonists, that they blush to be Christians, and who cannot brook to be called by a name which the common people also bear, lest they vulgarize the philosophers’ coterie, which is proud in proportion to its exclusiveness. These men, seeking a weak point in the Christian doctrine, select for attack the eternity of the body, as if it were a contradiction to contend for the blessedness of the soul, and to wish it to be always resident in the body, bound, as it were, in a lamentable chain; and this although Plato, their own founder and master, affirms that it was granted by the Supreme as a boon to the gods He had made, that they should not die, that is, should not be separated from the bodies with which He had connected them. > Latin: Et hoc quidem utrum Plato uerum de sideribus dicat, alia quaestio est. Neque enim ei continuo concedendum est globos istos luminum siue orbiculos luce corporea super terras seu die seu nocte fulgentes suis quibusdam propriis animis uiuere eisque intellectualibus et beatis, quod etiam de ipso uniuerso mundo, tamquam uno animali maximo, quo cuncta cetera continerentur animalia, instanter adfirmat. Sed haec, ut dixi, alia quaestio est, quam nunc discutiendam non suscepimus. Hoc tantum contra istos commemorandum putaui, qui se Platonicos uocari uel esse gloriantur, cuius superbia nominis erubescunt esse Christiani, ne commune illis cum uulgo uocabulum uilem faciat palliatorum tanto magis inflatam, quanto magis exiguam paucitatem; et quaerentes, quid in doctrina Christiana reprehendant, exagitant aeternitatem corporum, tamquam haec sint inter se contraria, ut et beatitudinem quaeramus animae et eam semper esse uelimus in corpore, uelut aerumnoso uinculo conligatam; cum eorum auctor et magister Plato donum a deo summo dis ab illo factis dicat esse concessum, ne aliquando moriantur, id est a corporibus, quibus eos conexuit, separentur. ### Against Those Who Affirm that Earthly Bodies Cannot Be Made Incorruptible and Eternal. [¶7] Chapter 17.—Against Those Who Affirm that Earthly Bodies Cannot Be Made Incorruptible and Eternal. > Latin: Caput XVII. Contra eos, qui adserunt corpora terrena in cor. ruptibilia fieri et aeterna non posse. [¶8] These same philosophers further contend that terrestrial bodies cannot be eternal though they make no doubt that the whole earth, which is itself the central member of their god,—not, indeed, of the greatest, but yet of a great god, that is, of this whole world,—is eternal. Since, then, the Supreme made for them another god, that is, this world, superior to the other gods beneath Him; and since they suppose that this god is an animal, having, as they affirm, a rational or intellectual soul enclosed in the huge mass of its body, and having, as the fitly situated and adjusted members of its body, the four elements, whose union they wish to be indissoluble and eternal, lest perchance this great god of theirs might some day perish; what reason is there that the earth, which is the central member in the body of a greater creature, should be eternal, and the bodies of other terrestrial creatures should not possibly be eternal if God should so will it? But earth, say they, must return to earth, out of which the terrestrial bodies of the animals have been taken. For this, they say, is the reason of the necessity of their death and dissolution, and this the manner of their restoration to the solid and eternal earth whence they came. But if any one says the same thing of fire, holding that the bodies which are derived from it to make celestial beings must be restored to the universal fire, does not the immortality which Plato represents these gods as receiving from the Supreme evanesce in the heat of this dispute? Or does this not happen with those celestials because God, whose will, as Plato says, overpowers all powers, has willed it should not be so? What, then, hinders God from ordaining the same of terrestrial bodies? And since, indeed, Plato acknowledges that God can prevent things that are born from dying, and things that are joined from being sundered, and things that are composed from being dissolved, and can ordain that the souls once allotted to their bodies should never abandon them, but enjoy along with them immortality and everlasting bliss, why may He not also effect that terrestrial bodies die not? Is God powerless to do everything that is special to the Christian’s creed, but powerful to effect everything the Platonists desire? The philosophers, forsooth, have been admitted to a knowledge of the divine purposes and power which has been denied to the prophets! The truth is, that the Spirit of God taught His prophets so much of His will as He thought fit to reveal, but the philosophers, in their efforts to discover it, were deceived by human conjecture. > Latin: Contendunt etiam isti terrestria corpora sempiterna esse non posse, cum ipsam uniuersam terram dei sui, non quidem summi, sed tamen magni, id est totius huius mundi, membrum in medio positum et sempiternum esse non dubitent. Cum ergo deus ille summus fecerit eis alterum quem putant deum, id est istum mundum, ceteris dis, qui infra eum sunt, praeferendum, eundemque esse existiment animantem, anima scilicet, sicut adserunt, rationali uel intellectuali in tam magna mole corporis eius inclusa, ipsiusque corporis tamquam membra locis suis posita adque digesta quattuor constituerit elementa, quorum iuncturam, ne umquam deus eorum tam magnus moriatur, insolubilem ac sempiternam uelint: quid causae est, ut in corpore maioris animantis tamquam medium membrum aeterna sit terra, et aliorum animantium terrestrium corpora, si Deus sicut illud uelit, aeterna esse non possint? Sed terrae, inquiunt, terra reddenda est, unde animalium terrestria sumta sunt corpora; ex quo fit, inquiunt, ut ea sit necesse dissolui et emori et eo modo terrae stabili ac sempiternae, unde fuerant sumta, restitui. Si quis hoc etiam de igne similiter adfirmet et dicat reddenda esse uniuerso igni corpora, quae inde sumta sunt, ut caelestia fierent animalia: nonne inmortalitas, quam talibus dis, uelut deo summo loquente, promisit Plato, tamquam uiolentia disputationis huius intercidet? An ibi propterea non fit, quia Deus non uult, cuius uoluntatem, ut ait Plato, nulla uis uincit? Quid ergo prohibet, ut hoc etiam de terrestribus corporibus Deus possit efficere, quandoquidem, ut nec ea quae orta sunt occidant nec ea quae sunt uincta soluantur nec ea quae sunt ex elementis sumta reddantur adque ut animae in corporibus constitutae nec umquam ea deserant et cum eis inmortalitate ac sempiterna beatitudine perfruantur, posse Deum facere confitetur Plato? Quur ergo non possit, ut nec terrestria moriantur? An Deus non est potens quo usque Christiani credunt, sed quo usque Platonici uolunt? Nimirum quippe consilium Dei et potestatem potuerunt philosophi, nec potuerunt nosse prophetae; cum potius e contrario Dei prophetas ad enuntiandam eius, quantum dignatus est, uoluntatem Spiritus eius docuerit, philosophos autem in ea cognoscenda coniectura humana deceperit. [¶9] But they should not have been so led astray, I will not say by their ignorance, but by their obstinacy, as to contradict themselves so frequently; for they maintain, with all their vaunted might, that in order to the happiness of the soul, it must abandon not only its earthly body, but every kind of body. And yet they hold that the gods, whose souls are most blessed, are bound to everlasting bodies, the celestials to fiery bodies, and the soul of Jove himself (or this world, as they would have us believe) to all the physical elements which compose this entire mass reaching from earth to heaven. For this soul Plato believes to be extended and diffused by musical numbers, from the middle of the inside of the earth, which geometricians call the centre, outwards through all its parts to the utmost heights and extremities of the heavens; so that this world is a very great and blessed immortal animal, whose soul has both the perfect blessedness of wisdom, and never leaves its own body and whose body has life everlasting from the soul, and by no means clogs or hinders it, though itself be not a simple body, but compacted of so many and so huge materials. Since, therefore, they allow so much to their own conjectures, why do they refuse to believe that by the divine will and power immortality can be conferred on earthly bodies, in which the souls would be neither oppressed with the burden of them, nor separated from them by any death, but live eternally and blessedly? Do they not assert that their own gods so live in bodies of fire, and that Jove himself, their king, so lives in the physical elements? If, in order to its blessedness, the soul must quit every kind of body, let their gods flit from the starry spheres, and Jupiter from earth to sky; or, if they cannot do so, let them be pronounced miserable. But neither alternative will these men adopt. For, on the one hand, they dare not ascribe to their own gods a departure from the body, lest they should seem to worship mortals; on the other hand, they dare not deny their happiness, lest they should acknowledge wretches as gods. Therefore, to obtain blessedness, we need not quit every kind of body, but only the corruptible, cumbersome, painful, dying,—not such bodies as the goodness of God contrived for the first man, but such only as man’s sin entailed. > Latin: Verum non usque adeo decipi debuerunt, non solum ignorantia, uerum etiam peruicacia, ut et sibi apertissime refragentur magnis disputationum uiribus adserentes animae, ut beata esse possit, non terrenum tantum, sed omne corpus esse fugiendum, et deos rursus dicentes habere beatissimas animas et tamen aeternis corporibus inligatas, caelestes quidem igneis, Iouis autem ipsius animam, quem mundum istum uolunt, omnibus omnino corporeis elementis, quibus haec tota moles a terra in caelum surgit, inclusam. Hanc enim animam Plato ab intimo terrae medio, quod geometrae centron uocant, per omnes partes eius usque ad caeli summa et extrema diffundi et extendi per numeros musicos opinatur, ut sit iste mundus animal maximum beatissimum sempiternum, cuius anima et perfectam sapientiae felicitatem teneret et corpus proprium non relinqueret, cuiusque corpus et in aeternum ex illa uiueret et eam quamuis non simplex, sed tot corporibus tantisque conpactum hebetare adque tardare non posset. Cum igitur suspicionibus suis ista permittant, quur nolunt credere, diuina uoluntate adque potentia inmortalia corpora fieri posse terrena, in quibus animae nulla ab eis morte separatae, nullis eorum oneribus adgrauatae sempiterne ac feliciter uiuant, quod deos suos posse adserunt in corporibus igneis Iouemque ipsum eorum regem in omnibus corporeis elementis? Nam si animae, ut beata sit, corpus est omne fugiendum, fugiant di eorum de globis siderum, fugiat Iuppiter de caelo et terra; aut si non possunt, miseri iudicentur. Sed neutrum isti uolunt, qui neque a corporibus separationem audent dare dis suis, ne illos mortales colere uideantur, nec beatitudinis priuationem, ne infelices eos esse fateantur. Non ergo ad beatitudinem consequendam omnia fugienda sunt corpora; sed corruptibilia molesta, grauia moribunda; non qualia fecit primis hominibus bonitas Dei, sed qualia esse conpulit poena peccati. ### Of Earthly Bodies, Which the Philosophers Affirm Cannot Be in Heavenly Places, Because Whatever is of Earth is by Its Natural Weight Attracted to Earth. [¶11] Chapter 18.—Of Earthly Bodies, Which the Philosophers Affirm Cannot Be in Heavenly Places, Because Whatever is of Earth is by Its Natural Weight Attracted to Earth. > Latin: Caput XVIII. De terrenis corporibus, quae philosophi adfirmant in caelestibus esse non posse, quia, quod terrenum est, naturali pondere reuocetur ad terram. [¶12] But it is necessary, they say, that the natural weight of earthly bodies either keeps them on earth or draws them to it; and therefore they cannot be in heaven. Our first parents were indeed on earth, in a well-wooded and fruitful spot, which has been named Paradise. But let our adversaries a little more carefully consider this subject of earthly weight, because it has important bearings, both on the ascension of the body of Christ, and also on the resurrection body of the saints. If human skill can by some contrivance fabricate vessels that float, out of metals which sink as soon as they are placed on the water, how much more credible is it that God, by some occult mode of operation, should even more certainly effect that these earthy masses be emancipated from the downward pressure of their weight? This cannot be impossible to that God by whose almighty will, according to Plato, neither things born perish, nor things composed dissolve, especially since it is much more wonderful that spiritual and bodily essences be conjoined than that bodies be adjusted to other material substances. Can we not also easily believe that souls, being made perfectly blessed, should be endowed with the power of moving their earthy but incorruptible bodies as they please, with almost spontaneous movement, and of placing them where they please with the readiest action? If the angels transport whatever terrestrial creatures they please from any place they please, and convey them whither they please, is it to be believed that they cannot do so without toil and the feeling of burden? Why, then, may we not believe that the spirits of the saints, made perfect and blessed by divine grace, can carry their own bodies where they please, and set them where they will? For, though we have been accustomed to notice, in bearing weights, that the larger the quantity the greater the weight of earthy bodies is, and that the greater the weight the more burdensome it is, yet the soul carries the members of its own flesh with less difficulty when they are massive with health, than in sickness when they are wasted. And though the hale and strong man feels heavier to other men carrying him than the lank and sickly, yet the man himself moves and carries his own body with less feeling of burden when he has the greater bulk of vigorous health, than when his frame is reduced to a minimum by hunger or disease. Of such consequence, in estimating the weight of earthly bodies, even while yet corruptible and mortal, is the consideration not of dead weight, but of the healthy equilibrium of the parts. And what words can tell the difference between what we now call health and future immortality? Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its centre all heavy bodies. But this I say, if the lesser gods, to whom Plato committed the creation of man and the other terrestrial creatures, were able, as he affirms, to withdraw from the fire its quality of burning, while they left it that of lighting, so that it should shine through the eyes; and if to the supreme God Plato also concedes the power of preserving from death things that have been born, and of preserving from dissolution things that are composed of parts so different as body and spirit;—are we to hesitate to concede to this same God the power to operate on the flesh of him whom He has endowed with immortality, so as to withdraw its corruption but leave its nature, remove its burdensome weight but retain its seemly form and members? But concerning our belief in the resurrection of the dead, and concerning their immortal bodies, we shall speak more at large, God willing, in the end of this work. > Latin: Sed necesse est, inquiunt, ut terrena corpora naturale pondus uel in terra teneat uel cogat ad terram et ideo in caelo esse non possint. Primi quidem illi homines in terra erant nemorosa adque fructuosa, quae paradisi nomen obtinuit; sed quia et ad hoc respondendum est uel propter Christi corpus cum quo ascendit in caelum uel propter sanctorum qualia in resurrectione futura sunt, intueantur paulo adtentius pondera ipsa terrena. Si enim ars humana efficit, ut ex metallis, quae in aquis posita continuo submerguntur, quibusdam modis uasa fabricata etiam natare possint: quanto credibilius et efficacius occultus aliquis modus operationis Dei, cuius omnipotentissima uoluntate Plato dicit nec orta interire nec conligata posse dissolui, cum multo mirabilius incorporea corporeis quam quaecumque corpora quibuscumque corporibus copulentur, potest molibus praestare terrenis, ut nullo in ima pondere deprimantur, ipsisque animis perfectissime beatis, ut quamuis terrena, tamen incorruptibilia iam corpora ubi uolunt ponant et quo uolunt agant, situ motuque facillimo! An uero si hoc angeli faciant et quaelibet animalia terrestria rapiant unde libet constituantque ubi libet, aut eos non posse aut onera sentire credendum est? Quur ergo sanctorum perfectos et beatos diuino munere spiritus sine ulla difficultate posse ferre quo uoluerint et sistere ubi uoluerint sua corpora non credamus? Nam cum terrenorum corporum, sicut onera in gestando sentire consueuimus, quanto maior est quantitas, tanto sit maior et grauitas, ita ut plura pondo quam pauciora plus premant: membra tamen suae carnis leuiora portat anima, cum in sanitate robusta sunt quam in languore cum macra sunt. Et cum aliis gestantibus onerosior sit saluus et ualidus quam exilis et morbidus, ipse tamen ad suum corpus mouendum adque portandum agilior est, cum in bona ualetudine plus habet molis, quam cum in peste uel fame minimum roboris. Tantum ualet in habendis etiam terrenis corporibus, quamuis adhuc corruptibilibus adque mortalibus, non quantitatis pondus, sed temperationis modus. Et quis uerbis explicat, quantum distet inter praesentem quam dicimus sanitatem et inmortalitatem futuram? Non itaque nostram fidem redarguunt philosophi de ponderibus corporum. Nolo enim quaerere, quur non credant terrenum esse posse corpus in caelo, cum terra uniuersa libretur in nihilo. Fortassis enim de ipso medio mundi loco, eo quod in eum coeant quaeque grauiora, etiam argumentatio ueri similior habeatur. Illud dico: Si di minores, quibus inter animalia terrestria cetera etiam hominem faciendum commisit Plato, potuerunt, sicut dicit, ab igne remouere urendi qualitatem, lucendi relinquere quae per oculos emicaret: itane Deo summo concedere dubitabimus, cuius ille uoluntati potestatique concessit, ne moriantur quae orta sint, et tam diuersa, tam dissimilia, id est corporea et incorporea, sibimet conexa nulla possint dissolutione seiungi, ut de carne hominis, cui donat inmortalitatem, corruptionem auferat, naturam relinquat, congruentiam figurae membrorumque detineat, detrahat ponderis tarditatem? Sed de fide resurrectionis mortuorum et de corporibus eorum inmortalibus diligentius, si Deus uoluerit, in fine huius operis disserendum est. ### Against the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that the Primitive Men Would Have Been Immortal If They Had Not Sinned. [¶14] Chapter 19.—Against the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that the Primitive Men Would Have Been Immortal If They Had Not Sinned. > Latin: Caput XIX. Contra eorum dogmata, qui primos homines, si non peccassent, inmortales futuros fuisse non credunt, aeternitatem animarum uolunt carere corpori bus. [¶15] At present let us go on, as we have begun, to give some explanation regarding the bodies of our first parents. I say then, that, except as the just consequence of sin, they would not have been subjected even to this death, which is good to the good,—this death, which is not exclusively known and believed in by a few, but is known to all, by which soul and body are separated, and by which the body of an animal which was but now visibly living is now visibly dead. For though there can be no manner of doubt that the souls of the just and holy dead live in peaceful rest, yet so much better would it be for them to be alive in healthy, well-conditioned bodies, that even those who hold the tenet that it is most blessed to be quit of every kind of body, condemn this opinion in spite of themselves. For no one will dare to set wise men, whether yet to die or already dead,—in other words, whether already quit of the body, or shortly to be so,—above the immortal gods, to whom the Supreme, in Plato, promises as a munificent gift life indissoluble, or in eternal union with their bodies. But this same Plato thinks that nothing better can happen to men than that they pass through life piously and justly, and, being separated from their bodies, be received into the bosom of the gods, who never abandon theirs; “that, oblivious of the past, they may revisit the upper air, and conceive the longing to return again to the body.” Virgil is applauded for borrowing this from the Platonic system. Assuredly Plato thinks that the souls of mortals cannot always be in their bodies, but must necessarily be dismissed by death; and, on the other hand, he thinks that without bodies they cannot endure for ever, but with ceaseless alternation pass from life to death, and from death to life. This difference, however, he sets between wise men and the rest, that they are carried after death to the stars, that each man may repose for a while in a star suitable for him, and may thence return to the labors and miseries of mortals when he has become oblivious of his former misery, and possessed with the desire of being embodied. Those, again, who have lived foolishly transmigrate into bodies fit for them, whether human or bestial. Thus he has appointed even the good and wise souls to a very hard lot indeed, since they do not receive such bodies as they might always and even immortally inhabit, but such only as they can neither permanently retain nor enjoy eternal purity without. Of this notion of Plato’s, we have in a former book already said that Porphyry was ashamed in the light of these Christian times, so that he not only emancipated human souls from a destiny in the bodies of beasts but also contended for the liberation of the souls of the wise from all bodily ties, so that, escaping from all flesh, they might, as bare and blessed souls, dwell with the Father time without end. And that he might not seem to be outbid by Christ’s promise of life everlasting to His saints, he also established purified souls in endless felicity, without return to their former woes; but, that he might contradict Christ, he denies the resurrection of incorruptible bodies, and maintains that these souls will live eternally, not only without earthly bodies, but without any bodies at all. And yet, whatever he meant by this teaching, he at least did not teach that these souls should offer no religious observance to the gods who dwelt in bodies. And why did he not, unless because he did not believe that the souls, even though separate from the body, were superior to those gods? Wherefore, if these philosophers will not dare (as I think they will not) to set human souls above the gods who are most blessed, and yet are tied eternally to their bodies, why do they find that absurd which the Christian faith preaches, namely, that our first parents were so created that, if they had not sinned, they would not have been dismissed from their bodies by any death, but would have been endowed with immortality as the reward of their obedience, and would have lived eternally with their bodies; and further, that the saints will in the resurrection inhabit those very bodies in which they have here toiled, but in such sort that neither shall any corruption or unwieldiness be suffered to attach to their flesh, nor any grief or trouble to cloud their felicity? > Latin: Nunc de corporibus primorum hominum quod instituimus explicemus; quoniam nec mors ista, quae bona perhibetur bonis nec tantum paucis intellegentibus siue credentibus, sed omnibus nota est, qua fit animae a corpore separatio, qua certe corpus animantis, quod euidenter uiuebat, euidenter emoritur, eis potuisset accidere, nisi peccati meritum sequeretur. Licet enim iustorum ac piorum animae defunctorum quod in requie uiuant dubitare fas non sit, usque adeo tamen eis melius esset cum suis corporibus bene ualentibus uiuere, ut etiam illi, qui omni modo esse sine corpore beatissimum existimant, hanc opinionem suam sententia repugnante conuincant. Neque enim quisquam audebit illorum sapientes homines, siue morituros siue iam mortuos, id est aut carentes corporibus aut corpora relicturos, dis inmortalibus anteponere. quibus Deus summus aput Platonem munus ingens, indissolubilem scilicet uitam, id est aeternum cum suis corporibus consortium, pollicetur. Optime autem cum hominibus agi arbitratur idem Plato, si tamen hanc uitam pie iusteque peregerint, ut a suis corporibus separati in ipsorum deorum, qui sua corpora numquam deserunt, recipiantur sinum,. Scilicet inmemores supera ut conuexa reuisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti; quod Vergilius ex Platonico dogmate dixisse laudatur. Ita quippe animas mortalium nec in suis corporibus semper esse posse existimat, sed mortis necessitate dissolui, nec sine corporibus durare perpetuo, sed alternantibus uicibus indesinenter uiuos ex mortuis et ex uiuis mortuos fieri putat; ut a ceteris hominibus hoc uideantur differre sapientes, quod post mortem feruntur ad sidera, ut aliquanto diutius in astro sibi congruo quisque requiescat adque inde rursus miseriae pristinae oblitus et cupiditate habendi corporis uictus redeat ad labores aerumnasque mortalium; illi uero, qui stultam duxerint uitam, ad corpora suis meritis debita siue hominum siue bestiarum de proximo reuoluantur. In hac itaque durissima condicione constituit etiam bonas adque sapientes animas, quibus non talia corpora distributa sunt, cum quibus semper adque inmortaliter uiuerent, ut neque in corporibus permanere neque sine his possint in aeterna puritate durare. De quo Platonico dogmate iam in libris superioribus diximus Christiano tempori erubuisse Porphyrium et non solum ab animis humanis remouisse corpora bestiarum, uerum etiam sapientium animas ita uoluisse de corporeis nexibus liberari, ut corpus omne fugientes beatae aput Patrem sine fine teneantur. Itaque ne a Christo uinci uideretur uitam sanctis pollicente perpetuam, etiam ipse purgatas animas sine ullo ad miserias pristinas reditu in aeterna felicitate constituit; et ut Christo aduersaretur, resurrectionem incorruptibilium corporum negans non solum sine terrenis, sed sine ullis omnino corporibus eas adseruit in sempiternum esse uicturas. Nec tamen ista qualicumque opinione praecepit saltem ne dis corporatis religionis obsequio subderentur. Quid ita, nisi quia eas, quamuis nulli corpori sociatas, non credidit illis esse meliores? Quapropter, si non audebunt isti, sicut eos ausuros esse non arbitror, dis beatissimis et tamen in aeternis corporibus constitutis humanas animas anteponere: quur eis uidetur absurdum, quod fides Christiana praedicat, et primos homines ita fuisse conditos, ut, si non peccassent, nulla morte a suis corporibus soluerentur, sed pro meritis oboedientiae custoditae inmortalitate donati cum eis uiuerent in aeternum; et talia sanctos in resurrectione habituros ea ipsa, in quibus hic laborauerunt, corpora, ut nec eorum carni aliquid corruptionis uel difficultatis nec eorum beatitudini aliquid doloris et infelicitatis possit accidere? ### That the Flesh Now Resting in Peace Shall Be Raised to a Perfection Not Enjoyed by the Flesh of Our First Parents. [¶17] Chapter 20.—That the Flesh Now Resting in Peace Shall Be Raised to a Perfection Not Enjoyed by the Flesh of Our First Parents. > Latin: Caput XX. Quod caro sanctorum, quae nunc requiescit in spe, in meliorem reparanda sit qualitatem, quam fuit primorum hominum ante peccatum. [¶18] Thus the souls of departed saints are not affected by the death which dismisses them from their bodies, because their flesh rests in hope, no matter what indignities it receives after sensation is gone. For they do not desire that their bodies be forgotten, as Plato thinks fit, but rather, because they remember what has been promised by Him who deceives no man, and who gave them security for the safe keeping even of the hairs of their head, they with a longing patience wait in hope of the resurrection of their bodies, in which they have suffered many hardships, and are now to suffer never again. For if they did not “hate their own flesh,” when it, with its native infirmity, opposed their will, and had to be constrained by the spiritual law, how much more shall they love it, when it shall even itself have become spiritual! For as, when the spirit serves the flesh, it is fitly called carnal, so, when the flesh serves the spirit, it will justly be called spiritual. Not that it is converted into spirit, as some fancy from the words, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” but because it is subject to the spirit with a perfect and marvellous readiness of obedience, and responds in all things to the will that has entered on immortality,— all reluctance, all corruption, and all slowness being removed. For the body will not only be better than it was here in its best estate of health, but it will surpass the bodies of our first parents ere they sinned. For, though they were not to die unless they should sin, yet they used food as men do now, their bodies not being as yet spiritual, but animal only. And though they decayed not with years, nor drew nearer to death,—a condition secured to them in God’s marvellous grace by the tree of life, which grew along with the forbidden tree in the midst of Paradise,—yet they took other nourishment, though not of that one tree, which was interdicted not because it was itself bad, but for the sake of commending a pure and simple obedience, which is the great virtue of the rational creature set under the Creator as his Lord. For, though no evil thing was touched, yet if a thing forbidden was touched, the very disobedience was sin. They were, then, nourished by other fruit, which they took that their animal bodies might not suffer the discomfort of hunger or thirst; but they tasted the tree of life, that death might not steal upon them from any quarter, and that they might not, spent with age, decay. Other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment, but this their sacrament. So that the tree of life would seem to have been in the terrestrial Paradise what the wisdom of God is in the spiritual, of which it is written, “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her.” > Latin: Proinde nunc sanctorum animae defunctorum ideo non habent grauem mortem, qua separatae sunt a corporibus suis, quia caro eorum requiescit in spe. quaslibet sine ullo iam sensu contumelias accepisse uideatur. Non enim, sicut Platoni uisum est, corpora obliuione desiderant, sed potius, quia meminerunt quid sibi ab eo sit promissum, qui neminem fallit, qui eis etiam de capillorum suorum integritate securitatem dedit, resurrectionem corporum, in quibus multa dura perpessi sunt, nihil in eis ulterius tale sensuri desiderabiliter et patienter expectant. Si enim carnem suam non oderant, quando eam suae menti infirmitate resistentem spiritali iure cohercebant, quanto magis eam diligunt etiam ipsam spiritalem futuram! Sicut enim spiritus carni seruiens non incongrue carnalis, ita caro spiritui seruiens recte appellabitur spiritalis, non quia in spiritum conuertetur, sicut nonnulli putant ex eo quod scriptum est: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale, sed quia spiritui summa et mirabili obtemperandi facilitate subdetur usque ad inplendam inmortalitatis indissolubilis securissimam uoluntatem, omni molestiae sensu, omni corruptibilitate et tarditate detracta. Non solum enim non erit tale, quale nunc est in quauis optima ualetudine, sed nec tale quidem, quale fuit in primis hominibus ante peccatum, qui licet morituri non essent, nisi peccassent, alimentis tamen ut homines utebantur, nondum spiritalia, sed adhuc animalia corpora terrena gestantes. Quae licet senio non ueterescerent, ut necessitate perducerentur ad mortem (qui status eis de ligno uitae, quod in medio paradiso cum arbore uetita simul erat, mirabili Dei gratia praestabatur), tamen et alios sumebant cibos praeter unam arborem, quae fuerat interdicta, non quia ipsa erat malum, sed propter commendandum purae et simplicis oboedientiae bonum, quae magna uirtus est rationalis creaturae sub Creatore Domino constitutae. Nam ubi nullum malum tangebatur, profecto, si prohibitum tangeretur, sola inoboedientia peccabatur. Agebatur ergo aliis quae sumebant, ne animalia corpora molestiae aliquid esuriendo ac sitiendo sentirent; de ligno autem uitae propterea gustabatur, ne mors eis undecumque subreperet uel senectute confecta decursis temporum spatiis interirent; tamquam cetera essent alimento, illud sacramento; ut sic fuisse accipiatur lignum uitae in paradiso corporali, sicut in spiritali, hoc est intellegibili, paradiso sapientia Dei, de qua scriptum est: Lignum uitae est amplectentibus eam. ### Of Paradise, that It Can Be Understood in a Spiritual Sense Without Sacrificing the Historic Truth of the Narrative Regarding The Real Place. [¶20] Chapter 21.—Of Paradise, that It Can Be Understood in a Spiritual Sense Without Sacrificing the Historic Truth of the Narrative Regarding The Real Place. > Latin: Caput XXI. De paradiso, in quo primi homines fuerunt, quod recte per significationem eius spiritale aliquid intellegatur, salua ueritate narrationis historicae de corporali loco. [¶21] On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, “Now that rock was Christ!” No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man’s experience of it is not good. > Latin: Unde nonnulli totum ipsum paradisum, ubi primi homines parentes generis humani sanctae scripturae ueritate fuisse narrantur, ad intellegibilia referunt arboresque illas et ligna fructifera in uirtutes uitae moresque conuertunt; tamquam uisibilia et corporalia illa non fuerint, sed intellegibilium significandorum causa eo modo dicta uel scripta sint. Quasi ‘propterea non potuerit esse paradisus corporalis, quia potest etiam spiritalis intellegi; tamquam ideo non fuerint duae mulieres, Agar et Sarra, et ex eis duo filii Abrahae, unus de ancilla, alius de libera. quia duo testamenta in eis figurata dicit apostolus; aut ideo de nulla petra Moyse percutiente aqua defluxerit, quia potest illic figurata significatione etiam Christus intellegi, eodem apostolo dicente: Petra autem erat Christus. Nemo itaque prohibet intellegere paradisum uitam beatorum, quattuor eius flumina quattuor uirtutes, prudentiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam adque iustitiam, et ligna eius omnes utiles disciplinas, et lignorum fructus mores piorum, et lignum uitae ipsam bonorum omnium matrem sapientiam, et lignum scientiae boni et mali transgressi mandati experimentum. Poenam enim peccatoribus bene utique, quoniam iuste, constituit Deus, sed non suo bono experitur homo. [¶22] These things can also and more profitably be understood of the Church, so that they become prophetic foreshadowings of things to come. Thus Paradise is the Church, as it is called in the Canticles; the four rivers of Paradise are the four gospels; the fruit-trees the saints, and the fruit their works; the tree of life is the holy of holies, Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the will’s free choice. For if man despise the will of God, he can only destroy himself; and so he learns the difference between consecrating himself to the common good and revelling in his own. For he who loves himself is abandoned to himself, in order that, being overwhelmed with fears and sorrows, he may cry, if there be yet soul in him to feel his ills, in the words of the psalm, “My soul is cast down within me,” and when chastened, may say,” Because of his strength I will wait upon Thee.” These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts. > Latin: Possunt haec etiam in ecclesia intellegi, ut ea melius accipiamus tamquam prophetica indicia praecedentia futurorum; paradisum scilicet ipsam ecclesiam, sicut de illa legitur in cantico canticorum; quattuor autem paradisi flumina quattuor euangelia, ligna fructifera sanctos, fructus autem eorum opera eorum, lignum uitae sanctum sanctorum utique Christum, lignum scientiae boni et mali proprium uoluntatis arbitrium. Nec se ipso quippe homo diuina uoluntate contemta nisi perniciose uti potest, adque ita discit, quid intersit, utrum inhaereat communi omnibus bono an proprio delectetur. Se quippe amans donatur sibi, ut inde timoribus maeroribusque conpletus cantet in psalmo, si tamen mala sua sentit: Ad me ipsum turbata est anima mea; correctusque iam dicat: Fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam. Haec et si qua alia commodius dici possunt de intellegendo spiritaliter paradiso nemine prohibente dicantur, dum tamen et illius historiae ueritas fidelissima rerum gestarum narratione commendata credatur.