Book Thirteen

IN THIS BOOK IT IS TAUGHT THAT DEATH IS PENAL, AND HAD ITS ORIGIN IN ADAM'S SIN.

THIS BOOK TEACHES THAT DEATH IS A PUNISHMENT AND BEGAN WITH ADAM'S SIN.

1. Of the fall of the first man, through which mortality has been contracted.

1. The fall of the first man, through which humanity became mortal.

Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.

Having addressed the very difficult questions about the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, we should now turn to the fall of the first man, or rather, the first humans. We should also discuss the origin and spread of human death. God did not make humans like the angels, who could not die even if they sinned. He made humans so that, if they obeyed him, they could attain angelic immortality and a blessed eternity without dying. But if they disobeyed, they would be justly sentenced to death. This was also discussed in the previous book.

2. Of that death which can affect an immortal soul, and of that to which the body is subject.

2. On the death that can affect an immortal soul, and the death to which the body is subject.

But I see I must speak a little more carefully of the nature of death. For although the human soul is truly affirmed to be immortal, yet it also has a certain death of its own. For it is therefore called immortal, because, in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal, because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both—that is, of the whole man—occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the body. For, in this case, neither is God the life of the soul, nor the soul the life of the body. And this death of the whole man is followed by that which, on the authority of the divine oracles, we call the second death. This the Saviour referred to when He said, "Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."⁵⁷³ And since this does not happen before the soul is so joined to its body that they cannot be separated at all, it may be matter of wonder how the body can be said to be killed by that death in which it is not forsaken by the soul, but, being animated and rendered sensitive by it, is tormented. For in that penal and everlasting punishment, of which in its own place we are to speak more at large, the soul is justly said to die, because it does not live in connection with God; but how can we say that the body is dead, seeing that it lives by the soul? For it could not otherwise feel the bodily torments which are to follow the resurrection. Is it because life of every kind is good, and pain an evil, that we decline to say that that body lives, in which the soul is the cause, not of life, but of pain? The soul, then, lives by God when it lives well, for it cannot live well unless by God working in it what is good; and the body lives by the soul when the soul lives in the body, whether itself be living by God or no. For the wicked man's life in the body is a life not of the soul, but of the body, which even dead souls—that is, souls forsaken of God—can confer upon bodies, how little soever of their own proper life, by which they are immortal, they retain. But in the last damnation, though man does not cease to feel, yet because this feeling of his is neither sweet with pleasure nor wholesome with repose, but painfully penal, it is not without reason called death rather than life. And it is called the second death because it follows the first, which sunders the two cohering essences, whether these be God and the soul, or the soul and the body. Of the first and bodily death, then, we may say that to the good it is good, and evil to the evil. But, doubtless, the second, as it happens to none of the good, so it can be good for none.

But I see that I must speak more carefully about the nature of death. Although the human soul is truly said to be immortal, it also has a death of its own. It is called immortal because, in a sense, it never stops living and feeling. The body, however, is called mortal because all life can leave it, and it cannot live by itself. The soul dies when God leaves it, just as the body dies when the soul leaves it. Both die, that is, the whole person dies, when the soul, abandoned by God, leaves the body. In that case, God is no longer the life of the soul, nor is the soul the life of the body. This death of the whole person is followed by what we call the second death, on the authority of Scripture. The Savior spoke of it when he said, "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."⁵⁷³ This does not happen until the soul is joined to its body so completely that they cannot be separated. We may therefore wonder how the body can be said to be killed by this death. The soul does not leave it. Instead, the soul gives it life and sensation, and it is tormented. We will speak more fully elsewhere about this everlasting punishment. There the soul is rightly said to die because it does not live in union with God. But how can we say that the body is dead, when it lives through the soul? Otherwise, it could not feel the bodily torments that follow the resurrection. Is it because life of every kind is good, and pain is evil? Is that why we hesitate to say that the body lives when the soul causes it pain rather than life? The soul lives through God when it lives well. It cannot live well unless God brings about what is good in it. The body lives through the soul when the soul lives in it, whether or not the soul itself lives through God. For a wicked person's life in the body is not the life of the soul, but of the body. Even dead souls, souls abandoned by God, can give life to bodies. They can do so however little they retain of their own proper life, by which they are immortal. In the final damnation, a person does not cease to feel. Yet this feeling brings neither the sweetness of pleasure nor the health of rest. Instead, it is painful punishment. So it is not without reason called death rather than life. It is called the second death because it follows the first, which separates two things joined together. These may be God and the soul, or the soul and the body. Of the first, bodily death, then, we may say that it is good for the good and evil for the evil. But the second death comes to none of the good, and it can be good for no one.

3. Whether death, which by the sin of our first parents has passed upon all men, is the punishment of sin, even to the good.

3. Whether death, which came to all people through the sin of our first parents, is punishment for sin, even for the good.

But a question not to be shirked arises: Whether in very truth death, which separates soul and body, is good to the good?⁵⁷⁴ For if it be, how has it come to pass that such a thing should be the punishment of sin? For the first men would not have suffered death had they not sinned. How, then, can that be good to the good, which could not have happened except to the evil? Then, again, if it could only happen to the evil, to the good it ought not to be good, but non-existent. For why should there be any punishment where there is nothing to punish? Wherefore we must say that the first men were indeed so created, that if they had not sinned, they would not have experienced any kind of death; but that, having become sinners, they were so punished with death, that whatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punished with the same death. For nothing else could be born of them than that which they themselves had been. Their nature was deteriorated in proportion to the greatness of the condemnation of their sin, so that what existed as punishment in those who first sinned, became a natural consequence in their children. For man is not produced by man, as he was from the dust. For dust was the material out of which man was made: man is the parent by whom man is begotten. Wherefore earth and flesh are not the same thing, though flesh be made of earth. But as man the parent is, such is man the offspring. In the first man, therefore, there existed the whole human nature, which was to be transmitted by the woman to posterity, when that conjugal union received the divine sentence of its own condemnation; and what man was made, not when created, but when he sinned and was punished, this he propagated, so far as the origin of sin and death are concerned. For neither by sin nor its punishment was he himself reduced to that infantine and helpless infirmity of body and mind which we see in children. For God ordained that infants should begin the world as the young of beasts begin it, since their parents had fallen to the level of the beasts in the fashion of their life and of their death; as it is written, "Man when he was in honour understood not; he became like the beasts that have no understanding."⁵⁷⁵ Nay more, infants, we see, are even feebler in the use and movement of their limbs, and more infirm to choose and refuse, than the most tender offspring of other animals; as if the force that dwells in human nature were destined to surpass all other living things so much the more eminently, as its energy has been longer restrained, and the time of its exercise delayed, just as an arrow flies the higher the further back it has been drawn. To this infantine imbecility⁵⁷⁶ the first man did not fall by his lawless presumption and just sentence; but human nature was in his person vitiated and altered to such an extent, that he suffered in his members the warring of disobedient lust, and became subject to the necessity of dying. And what he himself had become by sin and punishment, such he generated those whom he begot; that is to say, subject to sin and death. And if infants are delivered from this bondage of sin by the Redeemer's grace, they can suffer only this death which separates soul and body; but being redeemed from the obligation of sin, they do not pass to that second endless and penal death.

But we must face a question. Is death, which separates the soul from the body, truly good for good people?⁵⁷⁴ If it is, how did it become the punishment for sin? The first humans would not have suffered death if they had not sinned. How, then, can something be good for good people when it could have happened only to the wicked? And if it could happen only to the wicked, it should not be good for good people. It should not exist for them at all. Why should there be any punishment where there is nothing to punish? We must therefore say that the first humans were created so that they would experience no kind of death if they did not sin. But they became sinners and were punished with death. As a result, all their descendants would be punished with the same death. They could produce offspring only like themselves. Their nature was corrupted in proportion to the severity of the condemnation for their sin. Thus, what was punishment for those who first sinned became a natural consequence for their children. One human being does not come from another as the first came from dust. Dust was the material from which a human being was made. A human being is the parent who produces another human being. Earth and flesh are therefore not the same thing, although flesh was made from earth. But the child is like the human parent. The whole of human nature was present in the first man, to be passed on through the woman to their descendants. This was so when God pronounced the sentence condemning their union. The man passed on what he had become, not when he was created, but when he sinned and was punished. He passed this on as the source of sin and death. Neither sin nor its punishment reduced him to the weakness of body and mind we see in infants. God ordained that infants should begin life as young animals do. For their parents had fallen to the level of animals in the way they lived and died. As it is written, "Man when he was in honour understood not; he became like the beasts that have no understanding."⁵⁷⁵ Indeed, we see that infants are even weaker than the youngest offspring of other animals. They are less able to use and move their limbs, and less able to choose or refuse. It is as though the power in human nature were destined to surpass all other living things even more greatly because it has been held back longer and delayed in its exercise. An arrow, too, flies higher the farther back it has been drawn. The first man did not fall into this infant weakness⁵⁷⁶ through his lawless presumption and just sentence. But human nature was corrupted and changed in him. As a result, he suffered in his body from the conflict caused by disobedient desire, and he became subject to inevitable death. He passed on to his children what he had become through sin and punishment. They too were subject to sin and death. If the Redeemer's grace frees infants from this bondage to sin, they can suffer only the death that separates soul and body. Once freed from their liability for sin, they do not pass on to the second death, which is endless and a punishment.

4. Why death, the punishment of sin, is not withheld from those who by the grace of regeneration are absolved from sin.

4. Why death, the punishment for sin, still comes to those freed from sin by the grace of regeneration.

If, moreover, any one is solicitous about this point, how, if death be the very punishment of sin, they whose guilt is cancelled by grace do yet suffer death, this difficulty has already been handled and solved in our other work which we have written on the baptism of infants.⁵⁷⁷ There it was said that the parting of soul and body was left, though its connection with sin was removed, for this reason, that if the immortality of the body followed immediately upon the sacrament of regeneration, faith itself would be thereby enervated. For faith is then only faith when it waits in hope for what is not yet seen in substance. And by the vigour and conflict of faith, at least in times past, was the fear of death overcome. Specially was this conspicuous in the holy martyrs, who could have had no victory, no glory, to whom there could not even have been any conflict, if, after the laver of regeneration, saints could not suffer bodily death. Who would not, then, in company with the infants presented for baptism, run to the grace of Christ, that so he might not be dismissed from the body? And thus faith would not be tested with an unseen reward; and so would not even be faith, seeking and receiving an immediate recompense of its works. But now, by the greater and more admirable grace of the Saviour, the punishment of sin is turned to the service of righteousness. For then it was proclaimed to man, "If thou sinnest, thou shalt die;" now it is said to the martyr, "Die, that thou sin not." Then it was said, "If ye transgress the commandments, ye shall die;" now it is said, "If ye decline death, ye transgress the commandment." That which was formerly set as an object of terror, that men might not sin, is now to be undergone if we would not sin. Thus, by the unutterable mercy of God, even the very punishment of wickedness has become the armour of virtue, and the penalty of the sinner becomes the reward of the righteous. For then death was incurred by sinning, now righteousness is fulfilled by dying. In the case of the holy martyrs it is so; for to them the persecutor proposes the alternative, apostasy or death. For the righteous prefer by believing to suffer what the first transgressors suffered by not believing. For unless they had sinned, they would not have died; but the martyrs sin if they do not die. The one died because they sinned, the others do not sin because they die. By the guilt of the first, punishment was incurred; by the punishment of the second, guilt is prevented. Not that death, which was before an evil, has become something good, but only that God has granted to faith this grace, that death, which is the admitted opposite to life, should become the instrument by which life is reached.

If anyone is troubled by a question about death, we have already addressed it in our other work on infant baptism.⁵⁷⁷ The question is this: if death is the punishment for sin, why do those whose guilt is removed by grace still die? There we explained that the separation of soul and body remained, although its connection with sin was removed. If bodily immortality followed immediately upon the sacrament of rebirth, faith itself would be weakened. Faith is faith only when it waits in hope for what cannot yet be seen. Through the strength and struggle of faith, the fear of death was overcome, at least in times past. This was especially clear in the holy martyrs. They could have won no victory or glory, and could not even have faced a struggle, if saints could not die bodily after the washing of rebirth. Who would not then run to receive Christ’s grace, along with the infants brought for baptism, to avoid leaving the body? Faith would not be tested by a reward that cannot be seen. Indeed, it would no longer be faith, since it would seek and receive an immediate reward for its works. But now, through the greater and more wonderful grace of the Savior, the punishment for sin serves the cause of righteousness. Then God declared to humanity, "If you sin, you will die." Now he says to the martyr, "Die, so that you do not sin." Then he said, "If you break the commandments, you will die." Now he says, "If you refuse death, you break the commandment." What was once held up as a terror to keep people from sin must now be endured to avoid sin. Through God’s mercy, which words cannot express, even the punishment for wickedness has become the armor of virtue. The sinner’s penalty becomes the reward of the righteous. Then death was incurred through sin. Now righteousness is fulfilled through dying. This is true of the holy martyrs. Their persecutor offers them a choice: renounce their faith or die. For the righteous prefer to suffer through belief what the first sinners suffered through disbelief. If the first sinners had not sinned, they would not have died. But the martyrs sin if they do not die. The first died because they sinned. The others do not sin because they die. The guilt of the first brought punishment. The punishment of the second prevents guilt. This does not mean that death, once an evil, has become something good. Rather, God has given faith this grace: death, which is clearly the opposite of life, can become the means by which life is reached.

5. As the wicked make an ill use of the law, which is good, so the good make a good use of death, which is an ill.

5. The wicked misuse the law, which is good. In the same way, the good make good use of death, which is an evil.

The apostle, wishing to show how hurtful a thing sin is, when grace does not aid us, has not hesitated to say that the strength of sin is that very law by which sin is prohibited. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law."⁵⁷⁸ Most certainly true; for prohibition increases the desire of illicit action, if righteousness is not so loved that the desire of sin is conquered by that love. But unless divine grace aid us, we cannot love nor delight in true righteousness. But lest the law should be thought to be an evil, since it is called the strength of sin, the apostle, when treating a similar question in another place, says, "The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is holy made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."⁵⁷⁹ Exceeding, he says, because the transgression is more heinous when through the increasing lust of sin the law itself also is despised. Why have we thought it worth while to mention this? For this reason, because, as the law is not an evil when it increases the lust of those who sin, so neither is death a good thing when it increases the glory of those who suffer it, since either the former is abandoned wickedly, and makes transgressors, or the latter is embraced for the truth's sake, and makes martyrs. And thus the law is indeed good, because it is prohibition of sin, and death is evil because it is the wages of sin; but as wicked men make an evil use not only of evil, but also of good things, so the righteous make a good use not only of good, but also of evil things. Whence it comes to pass that the wicked make an ill use of the law, though the law is good; and that the good die well, though death is an evil.

The apostle wanted to show how harmful sin is when grace does not help us. He did not hesitate to say that the very law forbidding sin gives sin its strength. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law."⁵⁷⁸ This is certainly true. A prohibition increases our desire to do what is forbidden, unless our love of righteousness overcomes that desire. But without the help of divine grace, we cannot love or delight in true righteousness. Calling the law the strength of sin might make people think it is evil. So, when discussing a similar question elsewhere, the apostle says, "The law is indeed holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good. Did what is holy then bring death to me? God forbid. Rather, sin used what is good to bring death to me, so that sin might be shown as sin. Through the commandment, sin became exceedingly sinful."⁵⁷⁹ He says exceedingly because the offense is more wicked when growing desire for sin leads people to despise the law itself. Why have we thought it worthwhile to mention this? Because the law is not evil when it increases the desire of those who sin. Likewise, death is not good when it increases the glory of those who suffer it. People wickedly abandon the law and become lawbreakers. Others embrace death for the sake of truth and become martyrs. The law is good because it forbids sin, and death is evil because it is the wages of sin. Wicked people make evil use of both evil and good things. In the same way, righteous people make good use of both good and evil things. Thus, the wicked make bad use of the law, though the law is good. And the good die well, though death is evil.

6. Of the evil of death in general, considered as the separation of soul and body.

6. On the evil of death in general, understood as the separation of soul and body.

Wherefore, as regards bodily death, that is, the separation of the soul from the body, it is good unto none while it is being endured by those whom we say are in the article of death. For the very violence with which body and soul are wrenched asunder, which in the living had been conjoined and closely intertwined, brings with it a harsh experience, jarring horridly on nature so long as it continues, till there comes a total loss of sensation, which arose from the very interpenetration of spirit and flesh. And all this anguish is sometimes forestalled by one stroke of the body or sudden flitting of the soul, the swiftness of which prevents it from being felt. But whatever that may be in the dying which with violently painful sensation robs of all sensation, yet, when it is piously and faithfully borne, it increases the merit of patience, but does not make the name of punishment inapplicable. Death, proceeding by ordinary generation from the first man, is the punishment of all who are born of him, yet, if it be endured for righteousness' sake, it becomes the glory of those who are born again; and though death be the award of sin, it sometimes secures that nothing be awarded to sin.

Bodily death, the separation of the soul from the body, is good for no one while they are dying. Body and soul, joined and closely intertwined in life, are violently torn apart. This is a harsh experience, painfully disturbing to nature as long as it lasts. It continues until all sensation is lost, for sensation comes from the close union of spirit and flesh. Sometimes a single blow to the body or the sudden departure of the soul prevents all this anguish. It happens too quickly to be felt. Whatever it is in dying that painfully robs us of all sensation, bearing it with devotion and faith increases the merit of patience. But that does not mean it is no longer a punishment. Death comes to all through ordinary descent from the first man. It is the punishment of all who are born of him. Yet, when endured for the sake of righteousness, it becomes the glory of those who are born again. Though death is the penalty for sin, it sometimes ensures that sin receives no further penalty.

7. Of the death which the unbaptized⁵⁸⁰ suffer for the confession of Christ.

7. On the death that unbaptized people⁵⁸⁰ suffer for confessing Christ.

For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,"⁵⁸¹ made also an exception in their favour, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;"⁵⁸² and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."⁵⁸³ And this explains the verse, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints."⁵⁸⁴ For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.

When unbaptized people die confessing Christ, their confession is just as effective in forgiving sins as baptism in the sacred font. He said, "Unless a person is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."⁵⁸¹ But he also made an exception for them. He spoke just as absolutely when he said, "Whoever confesses me before others, I will also confess before my Father in heaven."⁵⁸² Elsewhere he said, "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."⁵⁸³ This explains the verse, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints."⁵⁸⁴ What is more precious than a death that brings forgiveness of all a person's sins and increases his merits a hundredfold? Some people are baptized when they can no longer escape death, and they leave this life with all their sins erased. But their merit is not equal to that of those who could have postponed death but did not. These chose to end their lives confessing Christ rather than deny him to gain an opportunity for baptism. Even if fear of death had forced them to deny him, baptism would have forgiven this too. For baptism forgave even the enormous wickedness of those who killed Christ. How abundant the grace of the Spirit must have been in these people! The Spirit breathes where he chooses. They loved Christ so dearly that they could not deny him, even in such a desperate situation and with such a sure hope of pardon. The death of the saints is therefore precious. Christ's grace has worked so graciously in them that they do not hesitate to meet death if it means meeting him. Their death is also precious because it has shown that what was first intended to punish sinners has produced a richer harvest of righteousness. But we should not therefore regard death as a good thing. It serves these useful purposes not through any virtue of its own, but through God's intervention. Death was first set before us as something to fear, so that sin would not be committed. Now it must be endured so that sin will not be committed, or, if it has been committed, will be forgiven. Then the reward of righteousness is given to the person whose victory has earned it.

8. That the saints, by suffering the first death for the truth's sake, are freed from the second.

8. By suffering the first death for the sake of truth, the saints are freed from the second death.

For if we look at the matter a little more carefully, we shall see that even when a man dies faithfully and laudably for the truth's sake, it is still death he is avoiding. For he submits to some part of death, for the very purpose of avoiding the whole, and the second and eternal death over and above. He submits to the separation of soul and body, lest the soul be separated both from God and from the body, and so the whole first death be completed, and the second death receive him everlastingly. Wherefore death is indeed, as I said, good to none while it is being actually suffered, and while it is subduing the dying to its power; but it is meritoriously endured for the sake of retaining or winning what is good. And regarding what happens after death, it is no absurdity to say that death is good to the good, and evil to the evil. For the disembodied spirits of the just are at rest; but those of the wicked suffer punishment till their bodies rise again,—those of the just to life everlasting, and of the others to death eternal, which is called the second death.

If we look more carefully, we see that even someone who dies faithfully and honorably for the truth is avoiding death. He accepts part of death precisely to avoid the whole of it, as well as the second and eternal death. He accepts the separation of soul and body so that his soul will not be separated from both God and his body. Otherwise, the whole first death would be complete, and the second death would claim him forever. Therefore, as I said, death is good for no one while it is actually being suffered and bringing the dying under its power. But enduring it is worthy of merit when done to keep or gain what is good. As for what happens after death, it makes sense to say that death is good for the good and evil for the evil. The spirits of the just, separated from their bodies, are at rest. But the spirits of the wicked suffer punishment until their bodies rise again. The bodies of the just will rise to everlasting life. The bodies of the wicked will rise to eternal death, which is called the second death.

9. Whether we should say that the moment of death, in which sensation ceases, occurs in the experience of the dying or in that of the dead.

9. Whether the moment of death, when sensation ends, is experienced by the dying or by the dead.

The point of time in which the souls of the good and evil are separated from the body, are we to say it is after death, or in death rather? If it is after death, then it is not death which is good or evil, since death is done with and past, but it is the life which the soul has now entered on. Death was an evil when it was present, that is to say, when it was being suffered by the dying; for to them it brought with it a severe and grievous experience, which the good make a good use of. But when death is past, how can that which no longer is be either good or evil? Still further, if we examine the matter more closely, we shall see that even that sore and grievous pain which the dying experience is not death itself. For so long as they have any sensation, they are certainly still alive; and, if still alive, must rather be said to be in a state previous to death than in death. For when death actually comes, it robs us of all bodily sensation, which, while death is only approaching, is painful. And thus it is difficult to explain how we speak of those who are not yet dead, but are agonized in their last and mortal extremity, as being in the article of death. Yet what else can we call them than dying persons? for when death which was imminent shall have actually come, we can no longer call them dying but dead. No one, therefore, is dying unless living; since even he who is in the last extremity of life, and, as we say, giving up the ghost, yet lives. The same person is therefore at once dying and living, but drawing near to death, departing from life; yet in life, because his spirit yet abides in the body; not yet in death, because not yet has his spirit forsaken the body. But if, when it has forsaken it, the man is not even then in death, but after death, who shall say when he is in death? On the one hand, no one can be called dying, if a man cannot be dying and living at the same time; and as long as the soul is in the body, we cannot deny that he is living. On the other hand, if the man who is approaching death be rather called dying, I know not who is living.

At the moment when the souls of good and evil people leave their bodies, are they after death or in death? If they are after death, then death itself is neither good nor evil. Death is over and past. What is good or evil is the life the soul has now entered. Death was an evil while it was present, while the dying were experiencing it. It brought them a painful and distressing experience, which good people put to good use. But once death is past, how can something that no longer exists be either good or evil? If we look more closely, we see that even the severe pain of dying is not death itself. As long as people can feel anything, they are certainly still alive. If they are still alive, they are before death rather than in death. When death actually comes, it takes away all bodily sensation. While death is approaching, that sensation is painful. So it is hard to explain why we say people are in the moment of death when they are not yet dead, but suffering in their final agony. Yet what else can we call them but dying? Once the death that was imminent has actually come, we can no longer call them dying. We must call them dead. No one is dying, then, unless they are living. Even someone at the very end of life, who is, as we say, breathing their last, is still alive. The same person is both dying and living, approaching death and leaving life. Yet they are in life because their spirit is still in their body. They are not yet in death because their spirit has not yet left their body. But if a person is not in death even after the spirit has left, but is instead after death, who can say when that person is in death? On the one hand, no one can be called dying if a person cannot be dying and living at the same time. As long as the soul is in the body, we cannot deny that the person is living. On the other hand, if someone approaching death should be called dying instead, I do not know who is living.

10. Of the life of mortals, which is rather to be called death than life.

10. On the life of mortals, which should be called death rather than life.

For no sooner do we begin to live in this dying body, than we begin to move ceaselessly towards death.⁵⁸⁵ For in the whole course of this life (if life we must call it) its mutability tends towards death. Certainly there is no one who is not nearer it this year than last year, and to-morrow than to-day, and to-day than yesterday, and a short while hence than now, and now than a short while ago. For whatever time we live is deducted from our whole term of life, and that which remains is daily becoming less and less; so that our whole life is nothing but a race towards death, in which no one is allowed to stand still for a little space, or to go somewhat more slowly, but all are driven forwards with an impartial movement, and with equal rapidity. For he whose life is short spends a day no more swiftly than he whose life is longer. But while the equal moments are impartially snatched from both, the one has a nearer and the other a more remote goal to reach with this their equal speed. It is one thing to make a longer journey, and another to walk more slowly. He, therefore, who spends longer time on his way to death does not proceed at a more leisurely pace, but goes over more ground. Further, if every man begins to die, that is, is in death, as soon as death has begun to show itself in him (by taking away life, to wit; for when life is all taken away, the man will be then not in death, but after death), then he begins to die so soon as he begins to live. For what else is going on in all his days, hours, and moments, until this slow-working death is fully consummated? And then comes the time after death, instead of that in which life was being withdrawn, and which we called being in death. Man, then, is never in life from the moment he dwells in this dying rather than living body,—if, at least, he cannot be in life and death at once. Or rather, shall we say, he is in both?—in life, namely, which he lives till all is consumed; but in death also, which he dies as his life is consumed? For if he is not in life, what is it which is consumed till all be gone? And if he is not in death, what is this consumption itself? For when the whole of life has been consumed, the expression "after death" would be meaningless, had that consumption not been death. And if, when it has all been consumed, a man is not in death but after death, when is he in death, unless when life is being consumed away?

As soon as we begin to live in this dying body, we begin to move constantly toward death.⁵⁸⁵ Throughout this life, if we must call it life, its changing nature leads us toward death. Everyone is closer to death this year than last year, tomorrow than today, and today than yesterday. Everyone is closer to it a little while from now than now, and now than a little while ago. Every moment we live is taken from our total span of life. What remains grows shorter every day. So our whole life is nothing but a race toward death. No one can stop for a little while or move more slowly. Everyone is driven forward at the same steady speed. A person with a short life passes through a day no faster than someone with a longer life. Equal moments are taken from both alike. One has a nearer goal and the other a more distant one, but both travel at the same speed. Traveling farther is not the same as walking more slowly. A person who takes longer to reach death does not travel at a slower pace. That person simply covers more ground. A person begins to die, that is, is in death, as soon as death begins to show itself by taking away life. Once all life has been taken away, the person is no longer in death, but after death. If this is so, a person begins to die as soon as he begins to live. What else is happening through all his days, hours, and moments, until this slow-working death is complete? Then comes the time after death. It takes the place of the time when life was being taken away, which we called being in death. From the moment a person lives in this dying rather than living body, he is never in life. This is true, at least, if he cannot be in life and death at the same time. Or should we say that he is in both? He is in life because he lives until all his life is consumed. But he is also in death, which he dies as his life is consumed. If he is not in life, what is being consumed until it is all gone? And if he is not in death, what is this consuming itself? Once all life has been consumed, the expression "after death" would mean nothing if that consuming had not been death. And once it has all been consumed, a person is not in death but after death. So when is he in death, if not while his life is being consumed?

11. Whether one can both be living and dead at the same time.

11. Can someone be both alive and dead at the same time?

But if it is absurd to say that a man is in death before he reaches death (for to what is his course running as he passes through life, if already he is in death?), and if it outrage common usage to speak of a man being at once alive and dead, as much as it does so, to speak of him as at once asleep and awake, it remains to be asked when a man is dying? For, before death comes, he is not dying but living; and when death has come, he is not dying but dead. The one is before, the other after death. When, then, is he in death so that we can say he is dying? For as there are three times, before death, in death, after death, so there are three states corresponding, living, dying, dead. And it is very hard to define when a man is in death or dying, when he is neither living, which is before death, nor dead, which is after death, but dying, which is in death. For so long as the soul is in the body, especially if consciousness remain, the man certainly lives; for body and soul constitute the man. And thus, before death, he cannot be said to be in death; but when, on the other hand, the soul has departed, and all bodily sensation is extinct, death is past, and the man is dead. Between these two states the dying condition finds no place; for if a man yet lives, death has not arrived; if he has ceased to live, death is past. Never, then, is he dying, that is, comprehended in the state of death. So also in the passing of time,—you try to lay your finger on the present, and cannot find it, because the present occupies no space, but is only the transition of time from the future to the past. Must we then conclude that there is thus no death of the body at all? For if there is, where is it, since it is in no one, and no one can be in it? Since, indeed, if there is yet life, death is not yet; for this state is before death, not in death: and if life has already ceased, death is not present; for this state is after death, not in death. On the other hand, if there is no death before or after, what do we mean when we say "after death," or "before death?" This is a foolish way of speaking if there is no death. And would that we had lived so well in Paradise that in very truth there were now no death! But not only does it now exist, but so grievous a thing is it, that no skill is sufficient either to explain or to escape it.

But it seems absurd to say that someone is in death before reaching it. If he is already in death, what is he moving toward as he passes through life? It also goes against ordinary usage to say that someone is both alive and dead. That is as strange as saying he is both asleep and awake. So we must ask when a person is dying. Before death comes, he is not dying but living. Once death has come, he is not dying but dead. One state is before death, the other after it. When, then, is he in death, so that we can say he is dying? Just as there are three times, before death, in death, and after death, there are three corresponding states: living, dying, and dead. It is very hard to say when a person is in death or dying. At that point, he is neither living, which is before death, nor dead, which is after death. He is dying, which is in death. As long as the soul is in the body, the person is certainly alive, especially if he remains conscious. For body and soul together make up the person. So, before death, he cannot be said to be in death. But once the soul has departed and all bodily sensation has ended, death is past, and the person is dead. There is no place for dying between these two states. If a person is still alive, death has not arrived. If he has stopped living, death is past. He is never dying, then, that is, he is never in the state of death. The same is true of passing time. Try to put your finger on the present, and you cannot find it. The present takes up no space. It is only the passage of time from the future into the past. Must we conclude, then, that there is no death of the body at all? For if it exists, where is it? It is in no one, and no one can be in it. If there is still life, death is not yet. That state is before death, not in death. If life has already ended, death is not present. That state is after death, not in death. On the other hand, if there is no death before or after which anything can occur, what do we mean by "after death" or "before death"? These are foolish expressions if there is no death. If only we had lived so well in Paradise that there truly were no death now! But death not only exists now. It is also so grievous that no skill can explain it or escape it.

Let us, then, speak in the customary way,—no man ought to speak otherwise,—and let us call the time before death come, "before death;" as it is written, "Praise no man before his death."⁵⁸⁶ And when it has happened, let us say that "after death" this or that took place. And of the present time let us speak as best we can, as when we say, "He, when dying, made his will, and left this or that to such and such persons,"—though, of course, he could not do so unless he were living, and did this rather before death than in death. And let us use the same phraseology as Scripture uses; for it makes no scruple of saying that the dead are not after but in death. So that verse, "For in death there is no remembrance of thee."⁵⁸⁷ For until the resurrection men are justly said to be in death; as every one is said to be in sleep till he awakes. However, though we can say of persons in sleep that they are sleeping, we cannot speak in this way of the dead, and say they are dying. For, so far as regards the death of the body, of which we are now speaking, one cannot say that those who are already separated from their bodies continue dying. But this, you see, is just what I was saying,—that no words can explain how either the dying are said to live, or how the dead are said, even after death, to be in death. For how can they be after death if they be in death, especially when we do not even call them dying, as we call those in sleep, sleeping; and those in languor, languishing; and those in grief, grieving; and those in life, living? And yet the dead, until they rise again, are said to be in death, but cannot be called dying.

Let us, then, speak in the customary way. No one ought to speak otherwise. Let us call the time before death comes "before death," as it is written, "Praise no man before his death."⁵⁸⁶ Once death has occurred, let us say that this or that happened "after death." And let us speak of the present time as best we can. For example, we say, "When he was dying, he made his will and left certain things to certain people." Of course, he could not have done this unless he were alive. So he did it before death rather than in death. Let us also use the language of Scripture. It has no hesitation in saying that the dead are not after death but in death. Consider the verse, "For in death there is no remembrance of you."⁵⁸⁷ Until the resurrection, people are rightly said to be in death. In the same way, everyone is said to be in sleep until they wake. Yet although we can say that those in sleep are sleeping, we cannot say that the dead are dying. We are speaking here of the death of the body. Those already separated from their bodies cannot be said to continue dying. But this is just what I was saying. No words can explain how the dying are said to live, or how the dead are said to be in death even after death. How can they be after death if they are in death? This is especially puzzling because we do not even call them dying. We call those in sleep sleeping, those in weakness languishing, those in grief grieving, and those in life living. Yet the dead are said to be in death until they rise again, but they cannot be called dying.

And therefore I think it has not unsuitably nor inappropriately come to pass, though not by the intention of man, yet perhaps with divine purpose, that this Latin word moritur cannot be declined by the grammarians according to the rule followed by similar words. For oritur gives the form ortus est for the perfect; and all similar verbs form this tense from their perfect participles. But if we ask the perfect of moritur, we get the regular answer, mortuus est with a double u. For thus mortuus is pronounced, like fatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and similar words, which are not perfect participles but adjectives, and are declined without regard to tense. But mortuus, though in form an adjective, is used as perfect participle, as if that were to be declined which cannot be declined; and thus it has suitably come to pass that, as the thing itself cannot in point of fact be declined, so neither can the word significant of the act be declined. Yet, by the aid of our Redeemer's grace, we may manage at least to decline the second. For that is more grievous still, and, indeed, of all evils the worst, since it consists not in the separation of soul and body, but in the uniting of both in death eternal. And there, in striking contrast to our present conditions, men will not be before or after death, but always in death; and thus never living, never dead, but endlessly dying. And never can a man be more disastrously in death than when death itself shall be deathless.

I think it is fitting that the Latin word moritur cannot be declined by grammarians according to the usual rule for similar words. This did not happen by human design, but perhaps by divine purpose. For example, oritur has the perfect form ortus est. All similar verbs form this tense from their perfect participles. But if we ask for the perfect of moritur, the usual answer is mortuus est, with a double u. For mortuus is pronounced like fatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and similar words. These are adjectives, not perfect participles, and they are declined without regard to tense. But mortuus, though an adjective in form, is used as a perfect participle. It is as if something that cannot be declined were being declined. So it is fitting that the word for the act cannot be declined, just as the thing itself cannot in fact be avoided. Yet, with the help of our Redeemer’s grace, we may at least avoid the second death. That death is more terrible still. Indeed, it is the worst of all evils. It consists not in the separation of soul and body, but in their union in eternal death. There, unlike in our present condition, people will not be before death or after it. They will always be in death, never living, never dead, but endlessly dying. A person can never be more disastrously in death than when death itself is deathless.

12. What death God intended, when He threatened our first parents with death if they should disobey His commandment.

12. What kind of death God meant when he warned our first parents that they would die if they disobeyed his commandment.

When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which is called second death,—we must answer, It is all. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death, which consists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the Church universal of many churches, so death universal consists of all deaths. The first consists of two, one of the body, and another of the soul. So that the first death is a death of the whole man, since the soul without God and without the body suffers punishment for a time; but the second is when the soul, without God but with the body, suffers punishment everlasting. When, therefore, God said to that first man whom he had placed in Paradise, referring to the forbidden fruit, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,"⁵⁸⁸ that threatening included not only the first part of the first death, by which the soul is deprived of God; nor only the subsequent part of the first death, by which the body is deprived of the soul; nor only the whole first death itself, by which the soul is punished in separation from God and from the body;—but it includes whatever of death there is, even to that final death which is called second, and to which none is subsequent.

When we ask what death God threatened our first parents with if they disobeyed his command, we must answer: all deaths. Was it death of the soul, death of the body, death of the whole person, or the second death? It was all of these. The first death consists of two deaths. The second is complete death, which includes all deaths. Just as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the universal Church of many churches, so universal death consists of all deaths. The first death consists of two deaths, one of the body and one of the soul. It is therefore the death of the whole person. The soul, separated from God and from the body, suffers punishment for a time. The second death occurs when the soul, separated from God but joined to the body, suffers everlasting punishment. God spoke to the first man, whom he had placed in Paradise, about the forbidden fruit. He said, "In the day that you eat it, you will surely die."⁵⁸⁸ This threat included more than the first part of the first death, when the soul is deprived of God. It also included more than the later part, when the body is deprived of the soul. It included more than the whole first death, when the soul is punished apart from God and the body. It included every kind of death, even the final death, called the second death. No death follows it.

13. What was the first punishment of the transgression of our first parents?

13. What was the first punishment for the sin of our first parents?

For, as soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment, divine grace forsook them, and they were confounded at their own wickedness; and therefore they took fig-leaves (which were possibly the first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind), and covered their shame; for though their members remained the same, they had shame now where they had none before. They experienced a new motion of their flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul, revelling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was itself deprived of the command it had formerly maintained over the body. And because it had wilfully deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant; neither could it hold the flesh subject, as it would always have been able to do had it remained itself subject to God. Then began the flesh to lust against the Spirit,⁵⁸⁹ in which strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression a seed of death, and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated nature, the contest or even victory of the flesh.

As soon as our first parents broke the commandment, divine grace left them. They were ashamed of their own wickedness. So they took fig leaves, perhaps the first leaves they found in their troubled state of mind, and covered their shame. Their bodies remained the same, but now they felt shame where they had felt none before. They experienced a new movement of the flesh, which had become disobedient to them. This was a fitting punishment for their own disobedience to God. The soul delighted in its own freedom and scorned serving God. As a result, it lost the control it had once held over the body. Because it had willingly abandoned its superior Lord, it could no longer control its own inferior servant. It could no longer keep the flesh obedient. It would always have been able to do so if it had remained obedient to God. Then the flesh began to desire what was contrary to the Spirit.⁵⁸⁹ We are born into this struggle, inheriting a seed of death from the first transgression. In our bodies and our corrupted nature, we bear the struggle of the flesh, or even its victory.

14. In what state man was made by God, and into what estate he fell by the choice of his own will.

14. The state in which God made man, and the state into which he fell by his own choice.

For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright; but man, being of his own will corrupted, and justly condemned, begot corrupted and condemned children. For we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man who fell into sin by the woman who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was there from which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus, from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, which, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its depraved origin, as from a corrupt root, on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, those only being excepted who are freed by the grace of God.

God is the creator of natures, not of vices, and he created man upright. But man corrupted himself by his own will and was justly condemned. He then fathered children who were corrupted and condemned. We were all in that one man, since we all were that one man. He fell into sin through the woman who was made from him before he sinned. The particular forms in which we would live as individuals had not yet been created and given to us. But the seed of human nature, from which we would all descend, was already there. Sin corrupted that nature. It was bound by the chain of death and justly condemned. Therefore, no human being could be born of another in any other condition. In this way, the misuse of free will brought about the whole train of evil. This train, with its chain of miseries, carries the human race from its depraved beginning, as from a corrupt root, to the destruction of the second death, which has no end. Only those freed by the grace of God are spared.

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.

15. Adam abandoned God by sinning before God abandoned him, and his turning away from God was the soul's first death.

It may perhaps be supposed that because God said, "Ye shall die the death,"⁵⁹⁰ 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 re-making 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?"⁵⁹¹—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 shalt thou return."⁵⁹² 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 shalt thou return."

Perhaps someone might suppose that God meant only one kind of death when he said, "You shall die,"⁵⁹⁰ not "deaths." On this reading, he meant the death that occurs when God, the soul’s life, abandons it. The soul did not abandon God because he had first abandoned it. Rather, it abandoned him and was therefore abandoned by him. The soul’s own will caused its evil. God, however, caused its movements toward good. He made it when it did not exist, and he remade it after it had fallen and perished. But suppose God meant only this death. His words, "On the day you eat of it, you shall die," would then mean, "On the day you abandon me through disobedience, I will justly abandon you." Even so, this death surely implied the threat of the other deaths that would inevitably follow. Our first parents felt the first stirrings of disobedience in their flesh, reflecting their soul’s disobedience. These stirrings led them to cover their shame. In this, they experienced one death, the death that occurs when God abandons the soul. God hinted at this when he spoke to Adam, who had hidden himself, stunned by fear. He said, "Adam, where are you?"⁵⁹¹ God did not ask because he lacked knowledge. He warned Adam to consider where he was, now that God was not with him. The other death occurred when the soul itself left the body, corrupted and worn down by age. God had spoken of this death when he pronounced the sentence on the man: "You are earth, and to earth you shall return."⁵⁹² Together, these two deaths make up the first death of the whole human being. The second death finally follows this first death, unless a person is freed by grace. The body returns to the earth from which it was made only through the death proper to it. This occurs when the soul, its life, leaves it. Therefore, all Christians who truly hold the catholic faith agree that we are subject to bodily death. This is not because of a law of nature, for God ordained no death for humanity through nature. Rather, God justly imposed death because of sin. Taking vengeance on sin, God said to the man, in whom we all then existed, "You are dust, and to dust you shall return."

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."⁵⁹³ 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,⁵⁹⁴ 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?

The philosophers against whom we defend the city of God, that is, his Church, think they have good reason to mock us. We say that the separation of the soul from the body is part of humanity’s punishment. They suppose that the soul is fully blessed only when it is completely freed from the body. They believe it then returns to God pure and simple, a naked soul, so to speak. If I found nothing in their own writings to refute this view, I would have to argue the point at length. I would have to show that the burden on the soul is not the body itself, but its corruptibility. This is why Scripture says, in the passage we quoted in an earlier book, "For the corruptible body weighs down the soul."⁵⁹³ The word "corruptible" shows that the soul is not burdened by just any body. It is burdened by the body as it has become because of sin. Even without that word, we could understand the passage in no other way. But Plato states very clearly that the gods made by the Supreme have immortal bodies. He even presents their maker promising them a great gift. They will remain in their bodies forever and will never be separated from them by death. Why, then, do our opponents pretend not to know what they know very well, just to trouble the Christian faith? Why do they prefer to contradict themselves rather than lose a chance to contradict us? Here are Plato’s words, as Cicero translated them.⁵⁹⁴ Plato presents the Supreme addressing the gods he had made: "You who come from a divine line, consider the works of which I am the parent and author. These, your bodies, are indestructible as long as I will it, although everything made of parts can be destroyed. But it is wrong to dissolve what reason has joined together. Since you have been born, you cannot indeed be immortal and indestructible. Yet you will certainly not be destroyed, nor will any fate condemn you to death and overcome my will. My will is a stronger guarantee that you will endure than those bodies to which you were joined when you were born." You see that Plato says the gods are mortal because body and soul are joined in them. Yet they are made immortal by the will and decree of their maker. If joining the soul to any body is a punishment, why does God speak to them as if they feared death? That is, why would they fear the separation of soul and body? Why does he reassure them by promising them immortality? He does not promise it because of their nature, which is composite rather than simple. He promises it because of his unconquerable will. By that will, he can ensure that things born do not die, and things made of parts do not fall apart, but are preserved forever.

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.⁵⁹⁵ 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.

Whether Plato’s opinion about the stars is true is another question. We cannot simply accept his claim that these shining bodies, or spheres, have intelligent and blessed souls. Their physical substance gives light to the earth by day and night. Plato claims that each has a soul that gives life to its own body. He confidently says the same of the universe itself. He treats it as one enormous living creature containing all other living creatures.⁵⁹⁵ But as I said, that is another question, which we have not undertaken to discuss here. I thought it right to raise this point against certain people. They take such pride in being Platonists, or being called Platonists, that they are ashamed to be Christians. They cannot bear to share a name with ordinary people. They fear this would make their circle of philosophers seem common. Its pride grows with its exclusiveness. These people look for a weak point in Christian teaching and attack the claim that the body is eternal. They treat it as a contradiction to defend the soul’s blessedness while wishing it to remain forever in the body. They say the soul would be bound there, as if by a miserable chain. Yet Plato, their own founder and master, says the Supreme granted a gift to the gods he had made. He granted that they would not die, meaning that they would not be separated from the bodies he had joined them to.

17. Against those who affirm that earthly bodies cannot be made incorruptible and eternal.

17. Against those who claim that earthly bodies cannot be made immune to decay and eternal.

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.

These same philosophers also claim that earthly bodies cannot last forever. Yet they have no doubt that the whole earth is eternal. It forms the central part of their god, the whole world. This is not the greatest god, but it is a great one. They hold that the Supreme made this world as another god, above the other gods beneath him. They also suppose that this god is a living being. They say it has a rational or intellectual soul enclosed in its enormous body. The four elements form the properly placed and arranged parts of that body. They want the union of these elements to be unbreakable and eternal. Otherwise, their great god might someday perish. Why, then, should the earth, the central part of a greater creature’s body, be eternal? And why could the bodies of other earthly creatures not be eternal too, if God so willed? But, they say, earth must return to earth, from which the bodies of earthly animals were taken. This, they say, is why these creatures must die and their bodies must dissolve. In this way, they return to the solid and eternal earth from which they came. But suppose someone says the same about fire. He might hold that the bodies drawn from fire to make heavenly beings must return to the universal fire. Would not the immortality that Plato says these gods received from the Supreme vanish in the heat of this dispute? Or are the heavenly beings spared because God has willed it so? For Plato says that God’s will overcomes every power. What, then, prevents God from ordaining the same for earthly bodies? Plato acknowledges that God can keep things that are born from dying. He can keep joined things from being separated and composed things from dissolving. He can also ordain that souls, once assigned to bodies, never leave them. Instead, they can enjoy immortality and everlasting bliss together with their bodies. Why, then, can he not also make earthly bodies undying? Is God powerless to do everything distinctive to the Christian faith, but able to do everything the Platonists desire? Apparently, the philosophers have been granted knowledge of God’s purposes and power that was denied to the prophets! The truth is that the Spirit of God taught his prophets as much of his will as he thought fit to reveal. But the philosophers, trying to discover it, were misled by human guesswork.

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,⁵⁹⁶ 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.

But they should not have been led so far astray, not by ignorance, I would say, but by stubbornness. They should not contradict themselves so often. They insist with all their much-praised powers that a soul must leave every kind of body to be happy, not just an earthly one. Yet they also hold that the gods, whose souls are supremely blessed, are bound to everlasting bodies. The heavenly gods are bound to bodies of fire. The soul of Jove himself, or of this world, as they would have us believe, is bound to all the physical elements that make up this whole mass, extending from earth to heaven. Plato believes this soul is spread and diffused according to musical numbers.⁵⁹⁶ It extends from the middle of the earth, which geometers call the center, outward through every part of the world to the farthest heights and edges of heaven. Thus, the world is a vast, blessed, immortal living creature. Its soul enjoys the perfect happiness of wisdom and never leaves its body. Its body receives everlasting life from the soul and in no way weighs it down or hinders it. This is so even though the body is not made of one simple substance, but of so many vast materials. Since they grant so much to their own guesses, why do they refuse to believe that God can make earthly bodies immortal by his will and power? In those bodies, souls would not be weighed down by their burden or separated from them by any death. They would live forever in blessedness. Do these men not claim that their own gods live this way in bodies of fire? And do they not claim that Jove himself, their king, lives this way in the physical elements? If a soul must leave every kind of body to be blessed, then let their gods fly away from the starry spheres, and let Jupiter leave everything from earth to sky. Or, if they cannot do so, let them be declared miserable. But these men will accept neither choice. They dare not say that their gods leave their bodies, for then they would seem to worship mortals. Nor do they dare deny that their gods are happy, for then they would be admitting that miserable beings are gods. Therefore, to gain blessedness, we need not leave every kind of body. We need only leave bodies that decay, weigh us down, suffer pain, and die. These are not the bodies that God in his goodness designed for the first man, but those that man's sin brought upon us.

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.

18. On earthly bodies, which philosophers say cannot be in heaven. They say that everything made of earth is naturally drawn to earth by its weight.

But it is necessary, they say, that the natural weight of earthly bodies either keep them on earth or draw 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.

But they say that the natural weight of earthly bodies must either keep them on earth or pull them down to it. Therefore, they cannot be in heaven. Our first parents were indeed on earth, in a wooded and fruitful place called Paradise. But our opponents should consider the weight of earthly bodies more carefully. It has important implications for the ascent of Christ’s body and for the resurrected bodies of the saints. Human skill can make floating vessels from metals that sink as soon as they are placed in water. How much more believable, then, is it that God can free these earthly bodies from the downward pull of their weight? He can do so even more certainly, by some hidden means. This cannot be impossible for God. According to Plato, his almighty will prevents things that are born from perishing and things made of parts from coming apart. It is far more wonderful that spiritual and bodily natures should be joined than that bodies should be adapted to other material substances. Can we not also easily believe that souls made perfectly blessed will be able to move their earthly but incorruptible bodies as they please? They could move them almost spontaneously and place them wherever they wish with the greatest ease. Angels can transport any earthly creatures they please, from any place to any other place. Should we believe that they cannot do this without effort or a sense of burden? Why, then, may we not believe that the spirits of the saints can carry their own bodies wherever they please? Made perfect and blessed by divine grace, they can surely place them wherever they wish. When we carry earthly bodies, we are accustomed to finding that the larger they are, the more they weigh. We also find that the heavier they are, the more burdensome they are. Yet the soul carries the limbs of its own body more easily when they are full and healthy than when sickness has wasted them. A healthy, strong person feels heavier to others who carry him than a thin, sickly person does. Yet he moves and carries his own body with less sense of burden when he has the greater bulk of vigorous health. He feels more burdened when hunger or disease has reduced his body to its smallest size. Thus, even with earthly bodies that are still corruptible and mortal, healthy balance among the parts matters more than sheer weight. And what words can express the difference between what we now call health and the immortality to come? Let philosophers not think, then, that arguments about the weight of bodies can overturn our faith. I do not care to ask why they cannot believe that an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth hangs on nothing. Perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that draws all heavy bodies toward its center. Plato entrusted the creation of humans and other earthly creatures to the lesser gods. He says they could take away fire’s power to burn while leaving its power to give light, so that it could shine through the eyes. Plato also grants that the supreme God can keep things that have been born from dying. He can also keep things made of parts as different as body and spirit from coming apart. Should we then hesitate to grant that this same God can act on the flesh of a person he has made immortal? He can take away its corruption while leaving its nature, and remove its burdensome weight while retaining its fitting form and limbs. God willing, we shall speak more fully at the end of this work about our belief in the resurrection of the dead and their immortal bodies.

19. Against the opinion of those who do not believe that the primitive men would have been immortal if they had not sinned.

19. Against those who do not believe that the first humans would have been immortal if they had not sinned.

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."⁵⁹⁷ 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 labours 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 said⁵⁹⁸ 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,⁵⁹⁹ 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?

For now, let us continue as we began, and say something about the bodies of our first parents. I say that, except as the just consequence of sin, they would not have suffered even this death. This is the death that is good for the good. It is not known and believed in by only a few, but is known to everyone. By it, soul and body are separated. An animal that was visibly alive a moment ago is now visibly dead. There can be no doubt that the souls of the righteous and holy dead live in peaceful rest. Yet it would be much better for them to live in healthy, sound bodies. Even those who believe it is most blessed to be free of every kind of body condemn that belief despite themselves. No one will dare to place wise people above the immortal gods. This is true whether those wise people have yet to die or are already dead, whether they are already free of the body or soon will be. In Plato, the Supreme promises those gods an unending life, eternally united with their bodies, as a generous gift. Yet Plato also thinks that the best thing for people is to live devoutly and justly. Then, separated from their bodies, they are received into the company of the gods, who never leave their own bodies. There, "forgetful of the past, they may return to the world above and long to enter a body again."⁵⁹⁷ Virgil is praised for borrowing this from Plato's philosophy. Plato certainly thinks that mortal souls cannot always remain in their bodies, but must leave them at death. On the other hand, he thinks they cannot remain without bodies forever. Instead, they pass endlessly from life to death and from death to life. But Plato makes this distinction between wise people and everyone else. After death, the wise are carried to the stars. Each rests for a time in a star suited to him. From there, he returns to the work and miseries of mortal life. This happens when he has forgotten his former misery and longs to enter a body again. Those who have lived foolishly pass into bodies suited to them, whether human or animal. In this way, Plato has assigned even good and wise souls a very harsh fate. They do not receive bodies they can inhabit forever, as immortals. Instead, they receive bodies they cannot keep permanently, yet without which they cannot enjoy eternal purity. In an earlier book, we have already said⁵⁹⁸ that Porphyry was ashamed of this idea of Plato's in these Christian times. He not only freed human souls from a fate in the bodies of animals. He also argued that the souls of the wise are freed from all ties to the body. Escaping all flesh, they would dwell forever with the Father as disembodied and blessed souls. He did not want to seem to offer less than Christ's promise of everlasting life to his saints. So he too placed purified souls in endless happiness, with no return to their former troubles. But, to contradict Christ, he denies the resurrection of bodies that cannot decay. He maintains that these souls will live forever without earthly bodies, indeed without any bodies at all. Yet whatever he meant by this teaching, he did not teach that these souls should withhold religious worship from gods who lived in bodies. Why did he not? Surely because he did not believe that souls, even when separated from the body, were superior to those gods. These philosophers will not dare, I think, to place human souls above the gods. For the gods are most blessed, yet eternally bound to their bodies. Why, then, do they find absurd what the Christian faith teaches?⁵⁹⁹ It teaches that our first parents were created so that, had they not sinned, death would never have separated them from their bodies. They would have received immortality as the reward for obedience and lived forever with their bodies. It also teaches that, in the resurrection, the saints will inhabit the very bodies in which they have labored here. But their flesh will suffer no decay or heaviness, and no grief or trouble will cloud their happiness.

20. That the flesh now resting in peace shall be raised to a perfection not enjoyed by the flesh of our first parents.

20. The flesh now resting in peace will be raised to a perfection that the flesh of our first parents never enjoyed.

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,"⁶⁰⁰ 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."⁶⁰¹

The souls of departed saints are not harmed by death when it separates them from their bodies. Their flesh rests in hope, whatever indignities it suffers after it can no longer feel. They do not wish their bodies to be forgotten, as Plato thinks they should. Instead, they remember what was promised by him who deceives no one. He assured them that even the hairs of their heads would be kept safe. So they wait with longing and patience, hoping for the resurrection of their bodies. In those bodies they suffered many hardships, but they will never suffer again. Their flesh, with its natural weakness, once opposed their will and had to be restrained by spiritual law. Yet even then they did not “hate their own flesh.” How much more will they love it when it has itself become spiritual! When the spirit serves the flesh, it is rightly called fleshly. Likewise, when the flesh serves the spirit, it will rightly be called spiritual. This does not mean that flesh turns into spirit, as some imagine from the words, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.”⁶⁰⁰ Rather, the flesh will obey the spirit with perfect and wonderful readiness. It will respond in every way to the will that has entered immortality. All resistance, all corruption, and all slowness will be gone. The body will be better than it was here, even at its healthiest. It will also surpass the bodies of our first parents before they sinned. They would not have died unless they sinned, yet they ate as people do now. Their bodies were not yet spiritual, but only animal. They did not decline with age or draw nearer to death. God, in his wonderful grace, secured this condition for them through the tree of life. It grew beside the forbidden tree in the middle of Paradise. Yet they ate other food, though not from that one tree. It was forbidden not because it was bad in itself, but to teach pure and simple obedience. This is the great virtue of rational creatures who live under the Creator as their Lord. The thing they touched was not evil, but it was forbidden. The disobedience itself was sin. They ate other fruit to keep their animal bodies from suffering hunger or thirst. But they tasted the tree of life so that death could not steal upon them from any direction. It also kept them from becoming worn out and declining with age. The other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment, but this was their sacrament. So the tree of life in the earthly Paradise seems to have been what God’s wisdom is in the spiritual Paradise. Of that wisdom it is written, “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her.”⁶⁰¹

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!"⁶⁰² 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.

For this reason, some interpret everything about Paradise as allegory. Yet holy Scripture truly records that the first humans, the parents of the human race, lived there. These interpreters understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life. They treat them as if they had no existence in the physical world, but were described only to convey spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real earthly Paradise! By that reasoning, Sarah and Hagar never existed, nor did the two sons born to Abraham. One son was born to the enslaved woman, and the other to the free woman. Yet the apostle says that they foreshadowed the two covenants. Or, by the same reasoning, water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it. For Christ can be seen in that rock as a symbol, as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ!"⁶⁰² No one, then, denies that Paradise may represent the life of the blessed. Its four rivers may represent the four virtues: prudence, courage, self-control, and justice. Its trees may represent all useful knowledge, and its fruits the practices of the godly. The tree of life may represent wisdom herself, the mother of all good. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil may represent the experience of breaking a commandment. The punishment God appointed was just in itself, and therefore good. But a person’s experience of that punishment is not good.

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;⁶⁰³ 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,"⁶⁰⁴ and when chastened, may say, "Because of his strength I will wait upon Thee."⁶⁰⁵ 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.⁶⁰⁶

These things can also be understood as referring to the Church, and this understanding is more fruitful. In this way, they become prophetic signs of things to come. Paradise is the Church, as it is called in the Song of Songs.⁶⁰³ The four rivers of Paradise are the four Gospels. The fruit trees are the saints, and the fruit is their works. The tree of life is the holy of holies, Christ. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the will’s freedom to choose. If a person rejects God’s will, he can only destroy himself. In this way he learns the difference between dedicating himself to the common good and indulging in his own good. For the person who loves himself is abandoned to himself. Then, overwhelmed by fears and sorrows, he may cry out in the words of the psalm. He may do so if he still has enough soul left to feel his suffering: "My soul is cast down within me."⁶⁰⁴ And when he has been corrected, he may say, "Because of his strength I will wait upon Thee."⁶⁰⁵ These and similar allegorical interpretations can be applied to Paradise without offending anyone. At the same time, we believe that the history is literally true, as its detailed account of events confirms.⁶⁰⁶

22. That the bodies of the saints shall after the resurrection be spiritual, and yet flesh shall not be changed into spirit.

22. The bodies of the saints will be spiritual after the resurrection, but their flesh will not be changed into spirit.

The bodies of the righteous, then, such as they shall be in the resurrection, shall need neither any fruit to preserve them from dying of disease or the wasting decay of old age, nor any other physical nourishment to allay the cravings of hunger or of thirst; for they shall be invested with so sure and every way inviolable an immortality, that they shall not eat save when they choose, nor be under the necessity of eating, while they enjoy the power of doing so. For so also was it with the angels who presented themselves to the eye and touch of men, not because they could do no otherwise, but because they were able and desirous to suit themselves to men by a kind of manhood ministry. For neither are we to suppose, when men receive them as guests, that the angels eat only in appearance, though to any who did not know them to be angels they might seem to eat from the same necessity as ourselves. So these words spoken in the Book of Tobit, "You saw me eat, but you saw it but in vision;"⁶⁰⁷ that is, you thought I took food as you do for the sake of refreshing my body. But if in the case of the angels another opinion seems more capable of defence, certainly our faith leaves no room to doubt regarding our Lord Himself, that even after His resurrection, and when now in spiritual but yet real flesh, He ate and drank with His disciples; for not the power, but the need, of eating and drinking is taken from these bodies. And so they will be spiritual, not because they shall cease to be bodies, but because they shall subsist by the quickening spirit.

The bodies of the righteous after the resurrection will need no fruit to keep them from dying. Neither disease nor the decay of old age will threaten them. They will need no other physical food to satisfy hunger or thirst. They will have an immortality so certain and secure in every way that they will eat only when they choose. They will still be able to eat, but they will not need to. It was the same with the angels who appeared to people and could be touched by them. They did this not because they had no choice, but because they could and wanted to serve people in human form. When people welcome angels as guests, we should not suppose that the angels only appear to eat. Yet those who did not know they were angels might think they ate out of the same need as we do. Thus the Book of Tobit says, "You saw me eat, but you saw it but in vision."⁶⁰⁷ This means, you thought I took food as you do, to refresh my body. But even if another view about the angels seems easier to defend, our faith leaves no room for doubt about our Lord himself. After his resurrection, when he had spiritual but still real flesh, he ate and drank with his disciples. These bodies lose the need to eat and drink, not the ability. They will be spiritual, not because they cease to be bodies, but because they will live through the life-giving spirit.

23. What we are to understand by the animal and spiritual body; or of those who die in Adam, and of those who are made alive in Christ.

23. What the natural and spiritual bodies mean, and who dies in Adam and is made alive in Christ.

For as those bodies of ours, that have a living soul, though not as yet a quickening spirit, are called soul-informed bodies, and yet are not souls but bodies, so also those bodies are called spiritual,—yet God forbid we should therefore suppose them to be spirits and not bodies,—which, being quickened by the Spirit, have the substance, but not the unwieldiness and corruption of flesh. Man will then be not earthly but heavenly,—not because the body will not be that very body which was made of earth, but because by its heavenly endowment it will be a fit inhabitant of heaven, and this not by losing its nature, but by changing its quality. The first man, of the earth earthy, was made a living soul, not a quickening spirit,—which rank was reserved for him as the reward of obedience. And therefore his body, which required meat and drink to satisfy hunger and thirst, and which had no absolute and indestructible immortality, but by means of the tree of life warded off the necessity of dying, and was thus maintained in the flower of youth,—this body, I say, was doubtless not spiritual, but animal; and yet it would not have died but that it provoked God's threatened vengeance by offending. And though sustenance was not denied him even outside Paradise, yet, being forbidden the tree of life, he was delivered over to the wasting of time, at least in respect of that life which, had he not sinned, he might have retained perpetually in Paradise, though only in an animal body, till such time as it became spiritual in acknowledgment of his obedience.

Our present bodies have a living soul, though not yet a life-giving spirit. They are called bodies animated by a soul, yet they are bodies, not souls. In the same way, those future bodies are called spiritual. God forbid that we should therefore suppose they are spirits rather than bodies. Made alive by the Spirit, they retain the substance of flesh, but not its heaviness or decay. Man will then be heavenly, not earthly. This does not mean that his body will cease to be the very body made from earth. Rather, its heavenly gifts will make it fit to dwell in heaven. Its nature will not be lost, but its qualities will change. The first man was made from the earth and was earthly. He was made a living soul, not a life-giving spirit. That higher state was reserved for him as a reward for obedience. His body needed food and drink to satisfy hunger and thirst. It did not possess absolute and indestructible immortality. Instead, the tree of life protected it from the necessity of death and kept it in the flower of youth. This body was certainly not spiritual, but animal. Yet it would not have died if he had not offended God and brought upon himself the vengeance God had threatened. Even outside Paradise, man was not denied food. But once he was barred from the tree of life, he was left to waste away with time. At least, this was true of the life he might have kept forever in Paradise had he not sinned. He would have retained it in an animal body until it became spiritual in recognition of his obedience.

Wherefore, although we understand that this manifest death, which consists in the separation of soul and body, was also signified by God when He said, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,"⁶⁰⁸ it ought not on that account to seem absurd that they were not dismissed from the body on that very day on which they took the forbidden and death-bringing fruit. For certainly on that very day their nature was altered for the worse and vitiated, and by their most just banishment from the tree of life they were involved in the necessity even of bodily death, in which necessity we are born. And therefore the apostle does not say, "The body indeed is doomed to die on account of sin," but he says, "The body indeed is dead because of sin." Then he adds, "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you."⁶⁰⁹ Then accordingly shall the body become a quickening spirit which is now a living soul; and yet the apostle calls it "dead," because already it lies under the necessity of dying. But in Paradise it was so made a living soul, though not a quickening spirit, that it could not properly be called dead, for, save through the commission of sin, it could not come under the power of death. Now, since God by the words, "Adam, where art thou?" pointed to the death of the soul, which results when He abandons it, and since in the words, "Earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return,"⁶¹⁰ He signified the death of the body, which results when the soul departs from it, we are led, therefore, to believe that He said nothing of the second death, wishing it to be kept hidden, and reserving it for the New Testament dispensation, in which it is most plainly revealed. And this He did in order that, first of all, it might be evident that this first death, which is common to all, was the result of that sin which in one man became common to all.⁶¹¹ But the second death is not common to all, those being excepted who were "called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren."⁶¹² Those the grace of God has, by a Mediator, delivered from the second death.

Therefore, we understand that God also meant this visible death, the separation of soul and body, when he said, "On the day you eat it, you will surely die."⁶⁰⁸ But this does not make it absurd that they did not leave their bodies that very day. It was the day they ate the forbidden fruit that brought death. On that day, their nature certainly changed for the worse and became corrupted. Their banishment from the tree of life was entirely just. It also made bodily death inevitable for them, and we are born under that same necessity. Therefore, the apostle does not say, "The body is doomed to die because of sin." Instead, he says, "The body is dead because of sin." He then adds, "But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you."⁶⁰⁹ Then the body, which is now a living soul, will become a life-giving spirit. Yet the apostle calls it "dead" because it is already bound to die. In Paradise, it was made a living soul, though not a life-giving spirit. Yet it could not properly be called dead, for it could come under death's power only through sin. When God said, "Adam, where are you?" he pointed to the death of the soul, which occurs when he abandons it. And when he said, "You are earth, and to earth you shall return,"⁶¹⁰ he meant the death of the body. This occurs when the soul leaves it. We are therefore led to believe that he said nothing about the second death because he wished to keep it hidden. He reserved it for the New Testament age, in which it is revealed most plainly. He did this so that, first of all, it would be clear that the first death is the result of that sin. This death is common to all, and the sin became common to all through one man.⁶¹¹ But the second death is not common to all. It does not come to those who were "called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."⁶¹² Through a Mediator, God's grace has delivered them from the second death.

Thus the apostle states that the first man was made in an animal body. For, wishing to distinguish the animal body which now is from the spiritual, which is to be in the resurrection, he says, "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Then, to prove this, he goes on, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." And to show what the animated body is, he says, "Thus it was written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."⁶¹³ He wished thus to show what the animated body is, though Scripture did not say of the first man Adam, when his soul was created by the breath of God, "Man was made in an animated body," but "Man was made a living soul."⁶¹⁴ By these words, therefore, "The first man was made a living soul," the apostle wishes man's animated body to be understood. But how he wishes the spiritual body to be understood he shows when he adds, "But the last Adam was made a quickening spirit," plainly referring to Christ, who has so risen from the dead that He cannot die any more. He then goes on to say, "But that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." And here he much more clearly asserts that he referred to the animal body when he said that the first man was made a living soul, and to the spiritual when he said that the last man was made a quickening spirit. The animal body is the first, being such as the first Adam had, and which would not have died had he not sinned, being such also as we now have, its nature being changed and vitiated by sin to the extent of bringing us under the necessity of death, and being such as even Christ condescended first of all to assume, not indeed of necessity, but of choice; but afterwards comes the spiritual body, which already is worn by anticipation by Christ as our head, and will be worn by His members in the resurrection of the dead.

The apostle says that the first man was made with a natural body. He wanted to distinguish the natural body we have now from the spiritual body we will have in the resurrection. So he says, "It is sown in decay, it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." To establish this, he continues, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." To show what the natural body is, he says, "So it was written, The first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."⁶¹³ In this way, he wanted to show what the natural body is. Yet Scripture did not say, "Man was made with a natural body." It said, "Man became a living soul."⁶¹⁴ It said this of the first man, Adam, when his soul was created by the breath of God. So when the apostle says, "The first man became a living soul," he means us to understand man's natural body. He shows what he means by the spiritual body when he adds, "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." He plainly refers to Christ, who has risen from the dead and can never die again. The apostle then says, "The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual." Here he makes his meaning even clearer. When he said that the first man became a living soul, he referred to the natural body. When he said that the last man became a life-giving spirit, he referred to the spiritual body. The natural body comes first. It is the kind of body the first Adam had, which would not have died if he had not sinned. It is also the kind we now have. Sin has changed and corrupted its nature, making death inevitable for us. Christ also condescended to take on such a body first, not out of necessity, but by choice. Afterward comes the spiritual body. Christ, our head, already wears it in anticipation of what is to come. His members will wear it at the resurrection of the dead.

Then the apostle subjoins a notable difference between these two men, saying, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."⁶¹⁵ So he elsewhere says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;"⁶¹⁶ but in very deed this shall be accomplished when that which is animal in us by our birth shall have become spiritual in our resurrection. For, to use his words again, "We are saved by hope."⁶¹⁷ Now we bear the image of the earthly man by the propagation of sin and death, which pass on us by ordinary generation; but we bear the image of the heavenly by the grace of pardon and life eternal, which regeneration confers upon us through the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. And He is the heavenly Man of Paul's passage, because He came from heaven to be clothed with a body of earthly mortality, that He might clothe it with heavenly immortality. And he calls others heavenly, because by grace they become His members, that, together with them, He may become one Christ, as head and body. In the same epistle he puts this yet more clearly: "Since by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,"⁶¹⁸—that is to say, in a spiritual body which shall be made a quickening spirit. Not that all who die in Adam shall be members of Christ,—for the great majority shall be punished in eternal death,—but he uses the word "all" in both clauses, because, as no one dies in an animal body except in Adam, so no one is quickened a spiritual body save in Christ. We are not, then, by any means to suppose that we shall in the resurrection have such a body as the first man had before he sinned, nor that the words, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy," are to be understood of that which was brought about by sin; for we are not to think that Adam had a spiritual body before he fell, and that, in punishment of his sin, it was changed into an animal body. If this be thought, small heed has been given to the words of so great a teacher, who says, "There is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body; as it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul." Was it after sin he was made so? or was not this the primal condition of man from which the blessed apostle selects his testimony to show what the animal body is?

The apostle then points out an important difference between these two men. He says, "The first man is from the earth, earthly. The second man is the Lord from heaven. Those who are earthly are like the earthly man. Those who are heavenly are like the heavenly man. Just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man."⁶¹⁵ Elsewhere he says, "All of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."⁶¹⁶ But this will be fully accomplished at our resurrection, when our natural body, received at birth, becomes spiritual. As he also says, "We are saved by hope."⁶¹⁷ We now bear the image of the earthly man because sin and death pass to us through ordinary birth. But we bear the image of the heavenly man through the grace of forgiveness and eternal life. This grace is given to us through rebirth, through the mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus. He is the heavenly man in Paul's words because he came from heaven to take on an earthly, mortal body. He did this so that he might clothe it with heavenly immortality. Paul calls others heavenly because, by grace, they become members of Christ. Together with them, he becomes one Christ, as head and body. In the same letter, Paul makes this even clearer: "Since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. For as all die in Adam, so all shall be made alive in Christ."⁶¹⁸ That is, all shall be made alive in a spiritual body that will become a life-giving spirit. This does not mean that all who die in Adam will be members of Christ. The great majority will be punished with eternal death. Paul uses the word "all" in both statements for this reason: no one dies in a natural body except in Adam, and no one is given life in a spiritual body except in Christ. We must not suppose, then, that our resurrection bodies will be like the first man's body before he sinned. Nor should we understand the words, "Those who are earthly are like the earthly man," as referring to what sin brought about. We must not think that Adam had a spiritual body before he fell, which became a natural body as punishment for his sin. Anyone who thinks this has paid little attention to the words of so great a teacher. Paul says, "There is a natural body, and there is also a spiritual body. As it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul." Was Adam made this way after he sinned? Was this not humanity's original condition? The blessed apostle chose this testimony from the account of that condition to show what the natural body is.

Some have hastily supposed from the words, "God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul,"⁶¹⁹ that a soul was not then first given to man, but that the soul already given was quickened by the Holy Ghost. They are encouraged in this supposition by the fact that the Lord Jesus after His resurrection breathed on His disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit."⁶²⁰ From this they suppose that the same thing was effected in either case, as if the evangelist had gone on to say, And they became living souls. But if he had made this addition, we should only understand that the Spirit is in some way the life of souls, and that without Him reasonable souls must be accounted dead, though their bodies seem to live before our eyes. But that this was not what happened when man was created, the very words of the narrative sufficiently show: "And God made man dust of the earth;" which some have thought to render more clearly by the words, "And God formed man of the clay of the earth." For it had before been said that "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground,"⁶²¹ in order that the reference to clay, formed of this moisture and dust, might be understood. For on this verse there immediately follows the announcement, "And God created man dust of the earth;" so those Greek manuscripts have it from which this passage has been translated into Latin. But whether one prefers to read "created" or "formed," where the Greek reads ἔπλασεν, is of little importance; yet "formed" is the better rendering. But those who preferred "created" thought they thus avoided the ambiguity arising from the fact, that in the Latin language the usage obtains that those are said to form a thing who frame some feigned and fictitious thing. This man, then, who was created of the dust of the earth, or of the moistened dust or clay,—this "dust of the earth" (that I may use the express words of Scripture) was made, as the apostle teaches, an animated body when he received a soul. This man, he says, "was made a living soul;" that is, this fashioned dust was made a living soul.

Some have hastily drawn a conclusion from the words, "God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."⁶¹⁹ They suppose that man was not given a soul for the first time then. Instead, they think the Holy Spirit gave life to a soul he had already received. They find support for this idea in what the Lord Jesus did after his resurrection. He breathed on his disciples and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit."⁶²⁰ From this, they suppose that the same thing happened in both cases. They reason as though the evangelist had continued, "And they became living souls." But even if he had added this, we would understand only that the Spirit is in some way the life of souls. Without him, rational souls must be considered dead, even though their bodies appear alive before our eyes. The words of the account itself make clear that this was not what happened when man was created: "And God made man dust of the earth." Some have thought it clearer to translate this as "And God formed man of the clay of the earth." Earlier, the account had said that "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."⁶²¹ This helps us understand the reference to clay, which was formed from this moisture and dust. Immediately after that verse comes the statement, "And God created man dust of the earth." This is how the Greek manuscripts used for the Latin translation read. It matters little whether one translates the Greek ἔπλασεν as "created" or "formed." Yet "formed" is the better translation. Those who preferred "created" thought it avoided an ambiguity. In Latin, people are said to form something when they make up something false or imaginary. This man was created from the dust of the earth, or from moistened dust, that is, clay. To use the exact words of Scripture, this "dust of the earth" became a living body when it received a soul, as the apostle teaches. He says that this man "was made a living soul." In other words, this shaped dust was made a living soul.

They say, Already he had a soul, else he would not be called a man; for man is not a body alone, nor a soul alone, but a being composed of both. This, indeed, is true, that the soul is not the whole man, but the better part of man; the body not the whole, but the inferior part of man; and that then, when both are joined, they receive the name of man,—which, however, they do not severally lose even when we speak of them singly. For who is prohibited from saying, in colloquial usage, "That man is dead, and is now at rest or in torment," though this can be spoken only of the soul; or "He is buried in such and such a place," though this refers only to the body? Will they say that Scripture follows no such usage? On the contrary, it so thoroughly adopts it, that even while a man is alive, and body and soul are united, it calls each of them singly by the name "man," speaking of the soul as the "inward man," and of the body as the "outward man,"⁶²² as if there were two men, though both together are indeed but one. But we must understand in what sense man is said to be in the image of God, and is yet dust, and to return to the dust. The former is spoken of the rational soul, which God by His breathing, or, to speak more appropriately, by His inspiration, conveyed to man, that is, to his body; but the latter refers to his body, which God formed of the dust, and to which a soul was given, that it might become a living body, that is, that man might become a living soul.

They say, “He already had a soul. Otherwise, he would not be called a man. A man is not a body alone, or a soul alone, but a being made up of both.” This is true. The soul is not the whole man, but the better part of him. The body is not the whole man, but the lesser part. When the two are joined, they are called a man. Yet neither loses that name when we speak of it separately. In everyday speech, who would forbid us to say, “That man is dead, and is now at rest or in torment”? Yet this can be said only of the soul. Or who would forbid us to say, “He is buried in such and such a place”? Yet this refers only to the body. Will they say that Scripture does not use language in this way? On the contrary, Scripture follows this usage thoroughly. Even while a man is alive, with body and soul united, it calls each of them separately “man.” It calls the soul the “inward man” and the body the “outward man,”⁶²² as if there were two men. Yet together they are indeed only one. But we must understand how man is said to be in the image of God, and yet is dust and returns to dust. The first statement refers to the rational soul. God conveyed it to man, that is, to his body, by breathing, or, more appropriately, by his inspiration. The second statement refers to the body, which God formed from dust. A soul was given to the body so that it might become a living body. In other words, this was so that man might become a living soul.

Wherefore, when our Lord breathed on His disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He certainly wished it to be understood that the Holy Ghost was not only the Spirit of the Father, but of the only-begotten Son Himself. For the same Spirit is, indeed, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, making with them the trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, not a creature, but the Creator. For neither was that material breath which proceeded from the mouth of His flesh the very substance and nature of the Holy Spirit, but rather the intimation, as I said, that the Holy Spirit was common to the Father and to the Son; for they have not each a separate Spirit, but both one and the same. Now this Spirit is always spoken of in sacred Scripture by the Greek word πνεῦμα, as the Lord, too, named Him in the place cited when He gave Him to His disciples, and intimated the gift by the breathing of His lips; and there does not occur to me any place in the whole Scriptures where He is otherwise named. But in this passage where it is said, "And the Lord formed man dust of the earth, and breathed, or inspired, into his face the breath of life;" the Greek has not πνεῦμα, the usual word for the Holy Spirit, but πνοή, a word more frequently used of the creature than of the Creator; and for this reason some Latin interpreters have preferred to render it by "breath" rather than "spirit." For this word occurs also in the Greek in Isa. lvii. 16, where God says, "I have made all breath," meaning, doubtless, all souls. Accordingly, this word πνοή is sometimes rendered "breath," sometimes "spirit," sometimes "inspiration," sometimes "aspiration," sometimes "soul," even when it is used of God. Πνεῦμα, on the other hand, is uniformly rendered "spirit," whether of man, of whom the apostle says, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?"⁶²³ or of beast, as in the book of Solomon, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"⁶²⁴ or of that physical spirit which is called wind, for so the Psalmist calls it: "Fire and hail; snow and vapours; stormy wind;"⁶²⁵ or of the uncreated Creator Spirit, of whom the Lord said in the gospel, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," indicating the gift by the breathing of His mouth; and when He says, "Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"⁶²⁶ words which very expressly and excellently commend the Trinity; and where it is said, "God is a Spirit;"⁶²⁷ and in very many other places of the sacred writings. In all these quotations from Scripture we do not find in the Greek the word πνοή used, but πνεῦμα, and in the Latin, not flatus, but spiritus. Wherefore, referring again to that place where it is written, "He inspired," or, to speak more properly, "breathed into his face the breath of life," even though the Greek had not used πνοή (as it has) but πνεῦμα, it would not on that account necessarily follow that the Creator Spirit, who in the Trinity is distinctively called the Holy Ghost, was meant, since, as has been said, it is plain that πνεῦμα is used not only of the Creator, but also of the creature.

When our Lord breathed on his disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," he clearly meant to teach them something. The Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father, but also of the only-begotten Son himself. The same Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. Together they are the Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, not a creature, but the Creator. The physical breath that came from his human mouth was not the substance and nature of the Holy Spirit. Rather, as I said, it indicated that the Holy Spirit belonged to both the Father and the Son. They do not each have a separate Spirit, but both have one and the same Spirit. In sacred Scripture, this Spirit is always called by the Greek word πνεῦμα. The Lord used this word in the passage cited when he gave the Spirit to his disciples. He indicated the gift by breathing from his lips. I cannot recall any passage in the whole of Scripture where the Spirit is called by another name. But consider this passage: "And the Lord formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed, or inspired, into his face the breath of life." The Greek does not use πνεῦμα, the usual word for the Holy Spirit, but πνοή. This word is used more often for the creature than for the Creator. For this reason, some Latin translators have preferred to render it as "breath" rather than "spirit." The same word also appears in the Greek of Isaiah 57:16, where God says, "I have made all breath." He undoubtedly means all souls. Thus πνοή is sometimes translated as "breath," sometimes "spirit," "inspiration," "aspiration," or "soul," even when used of God. Πνεῦμα, on the other hand, is always translated as "spirit." It can refer to the spirit of a person, as when the apostle says, "For what person knows the things of a person, except the spirit of that person within him?"⁶²³ It can also refer to the spirit of an animal, as in the book of Solomon: "Who knows whether the spirit of a person goes upward, and the spirit of an animal goes downward to the earth?"⁶²⁴ It can refer to the physical spirit called wind, as the Psalmist calls it: "Fire and hail, snow and vapors, stormy wind."⁶²⁵ Or it can refer to the uncreated Creator Spirit. The Lord spoke of this Spirit in the gospel when he said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," indicating the gift by breathing from his mouth. He also spoke of the Spirit when he said, "Go and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."⁶²⁶ These words express the Trinity very clearly and excellently. The same word is used where it says, "God is a Spirit,"⁶²⁷ and in many other places in the sacred writings. In all these quotations from Scripture, the Greek uses not πνοή but πνεῦμα. The Latin uses not flatus but spiritus. Let us return, then, to the passage where it is written, "He inspired," or, more properly, "breathed into his face the breath of life." Even if the Greek had used πνεῦμα instead of πνοή, as it does, the meaning would not necessarily be the Creator Spirit. This is the Spirit distinctively called the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. For, as I have said, πνεῦμα is plainly used not only of the Creator, but also of the creature.

But, say they, when the Scripture used the word "spirit,"⁶²⁸ it would not have added "of life" unless it meant us to understand the Holy Spirit; nor, when it said, "Man became a soul," would it also have inserted the word "living" unless that life of the soul were signified which is imparted to it from above by the gift of God. For, seeing that the soul by itself has a proper life of its own, what need, they ask, was there of adding living, save only to show that the life which is given it by the Holy Spirit was meant? What is this but to fight strenuously for their own conjectures, while they carelessly neglect the teaching of Scripture? Without troubling themselves much, they might have found in a preceding page of this very book of Genesis the words, "Let the earth bring forth the living soul,"⁶²⁹ when all the terrestrial animals were created. Then at a slight interval, but still in the same book, was it impossible for them to notice this verse, "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died," by which it was signified that all the animals which lived on the earth had perished in the deluge? If, then, we find that Scripture is accustomed to speak both of the "living soul" and the "spirit of life" even in reference to beasts; and if in this place, where it is said, "All things which have the spirit of life," the word πνοή, not πνεῦμα, is used; why may we not say, What need was there to add "living," since the soul cannot exist without being alive? or, What need to add "of life" after the word spirit? But we understand that Scripture used these expressions in its ordinary style so long as it speaks of animals, that is, animated bodies, in which the soul serves as the residence of sensation; but when man is spoken of, we forget the ordinary and established usage of Scripture, whereby it signifies that man received a rational soul, which was not produced out of the waters and the earth like the other living creatures, but was created by the breath of God. Yet this creation was so ordered that the human soul should live in an animal body, like those other animals of which the Scripture said, "Let the earth produce every living soul," and regarding which it again says that in them is the breath of life, where the word πνοή and not πνεῦμα is used in the Greek, and where certainly not the Holy Spirit, but their spirit, is signified under that name.

But they say that Scripture would not have added “of life” to the word “spirit”⁶²⁸ unless it meant the Holy Spirit. Likewise, it says, “Man became a soul,” but also adds “living.” They claim this must mean the soul’s life, given to it from above as a gift from God. The soul already has a life of its own. So why, they ask, add “living” unless it means the life given by the Holy Spirit? What is this but a determined defense of their own guesses, while they carelessly ignore Scripture’s teaching? Without much trouble, they could have found an earlier passage in this same book of Genesis. When all the land animals were created, it says, “Let the earth bring forth the living soul.”⁶²⁹ A little later in the same book, could they not have noticed this verse? “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” This means that all the animals living on the earth perished in the flood. Scripture, then, speaks of both the “living soul” and the “spirit of life” even when referring to animals. And in this passage, which speaks of “all things which have the spirit of life,” it uses πνοή, not πνεῦμα. So why could we not ask the same questions? Why add “living,” since the soul cannot exist without being alive? Or why add “of life” after “spirit”? We understand that Scripture uses these expressions in its ordinary way when speaking of animals. These are bodies with life, in which the soul is the seat of sensation. But when Scripture speaks of man, we forget its ordinary and established usage. It tells us that man received a rational soul. Unlike the souls of other living creatures, it did not come from the waters or the earth. It was created by the breath of God. Yet God ordered this creation so that the human soul would live in an animal body. This body was like those of the other animals, of which Scripture said, “Let the earth produce every living soul.” Scripture also says that the breath of life is in them. Here the Greek uses πνοή, not πνεῦμα. And this word certainly means their spirit, not the Holy Spirit.

But, again, they object that breath is understood to have been emitted from the mouth of God; and if we believe that is the soul, we must consequently acknowledge it to be of the same substance, and equal to that wisdom, which says, "I come out of the mouth of the Most High."⁶³⁰ Wisdom, indeed, does not say it was breathed out of the mouth of God, but proceeded out of it. But as we are able, when we breathe, to make a breath, not of our own human nature, but of the surrounding air, which we inhale and exhale as we draw our breath and breathe again, so almighty God was able to make breath, not of His own nature, nor of the creature beneath Him, but even of nothing; and this breath, when He communicated it to man's body, He is most appropriately said to have breathed or inspired,—the Immaterial breathing it also immaterial, but the Immutable not also the immutable; for it was created, He uncreated. Yet, that these persons who are forward to quote Scripture, and yet know not the usages of its language, may know that not only what is equal and consubstantial with God is said to proceed out of His mouth, let them hear or read what God says: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."⁶³¹

But they object again that God is understood to have breathed the breath from his mouth. If we believe that breath is the soul, they say, we must accept that it is of the same substance as wisdom and equal to it. For wisdom says, "I come out of the mouth of the Most High."⁶³⁰ But wisdom does not say it was breathed out of God's mouth. It says it came out of his mouth. When we breathe, we can produce a breath that is not made from our own human nature. Instead, it comes from the surrounding air, which we inhale and exhale as we breathe. In the same way, almighty God could make breath, not from his own nature or from any creature beneath him, but even from nothing. When he gave this breath to the human body, he is rightly said to have breathed it into that body. He is immaterial, and the breath he gave was also immaterial. But though he is unchanging, the breath was not. It was created, while he is uncreated. These people are quick to quote Scripture, yet they do not understand how it uses language. They should hear or read what God says, so they may know that not everything said to come from his mouth is equal to him and of the same substance. He says, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."⁶³¹

There is no ground, then, for our objecting, when the apostle so expressly distinguishes the animal body from the spiritual,—that is to say, the body in which we now are from that in which we are to be. He says, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."⁶³² Of all which words of his we have previously spoken. The animal body, accordingly, in which the apostle says that the first man Adam was made, was not so made that it could not die at all, but so that it should not die unless he should have sinned. That body, indeed, which shall be made spiritual and immortal by the quickening Spirit shall not be able to die at all; as the soul has been created immortal, and therefore, although by sin it may be said to die, and does lose a certain life of its own, namely, the Spirit of God, by whom it was enabled to live wisely and blessedly, yet it does not cease living a kind of life, though a miserable, because it is immortal by creation. So, too, the rebellious angels, though by sinning they did in a sense die, because they forsook God, the Fountain of life, which while they drank they were able to live wisely and well, yet they could not so die as to utterly cease living and feeling, for they are immortals by creation. And so, after the final judgment, they shall be hurled into the second death, and not even there be deprived of life or of sensation, but shall suffer torment. But those men who have been embraced by God's grace, and are become the fellow-citizens of the holy angels who have continued in bliss, shall never more either sin or die, being endued with spiritual bodies; yet, being clothed with immortality, such as the angels enjoy, of which they cannot be divested even by sinning, the nature of their flesh shall continue the same, but all carnal corruption and unwieldiness shall be removed.

There is no reason, then, to object. The apostle clearly distinguishes the natural body from the spiritual body. The natural body is the one we have now. The spiritual body is the one we will have. He says, "It is sown a natural body, and raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. So it is written, The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But the spiritual did not come first. The natural came first, and afterward came the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. Those who are of the earth are like the man made of dust. Those who are of heaven are like the heavenly man. Just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man."⁶³² We have discussed all these words of his before. The apostle says that the first man, Adam, was made with a natural body. This body was not made unable to die. Rather, it was made so that it would not die unless he sinned. But the body made spiritual and immortal by the life-giving Spirit will not be able to die at all. The soul, too, was created immortal. By sinning, it may be said to die, and it does lose a kind of life. This life is the Spirit of God, who enabled it to live wisely and happily. Yet the soul does not stop living altogether. It continues to live a miserable kind of life, because it is immortal by creation. The rebellious angels, too, died in a sense when they sinned. They abandoned God, the Fountain of life. While they drank from this fountain, they were able to live wisely and well. Yet they could not die so completely that they stopped living and feeling. They are immortal by creation. After the final judgment, they will be hurled into the second death. Even there, they will not be deprived of life or sensation, but will suffer torment. But those people embraced by God's grace will become fellow citizens of the holy angels who have remained in bliss. They will be given spiritual bodies and will never sin or die again. They will be clothed with immortality like that of the angels, which cannot be taken away even by sin. The nature of their flesh will remain the same, but all bodily corruption and unwieldiness will be removed.

There remains a question which must be discussed, and, by the help of the Lord God of truth, solved: If the motion of concupiscence in the unruly members of our first parents arose out of their sin, and only when the divine grace deserted them; and if it was on that occasion that their eyes were opened to see, or, more exactly, notice their nakedness, and that they covered their shame because the shameless motion of their members was not subject to their will,—how, then, would they have begotten children had they remained sinless as they were created? But as this book must be concluded, and so large a question cannot be summarily disposed of, we may relegate it to the following book, in which it will be more conveniently treated.

One question remains to be discussed and, with the help of the Lord God of truth, answered. The lustful movements of our first parents’ unruly bodies arose from their sin, after divine grace had left them. Only then were their eyes opened to see, or rather notice, their nakedness. They covered their shame because their bodies moved shamelessly, outside their control. If all this is so, how would they have had children if they had remained sinless, as they were created? But this book must now end, and such a large question cannot be settled briefly. We can leave it for the next book, where it can be discussed more conveniently.