object:BOOK XIII. - That death is penal, and had its origin in Adam's sin
book class:City of God
author class:Saint Augustine of Hippo
subject class:Christianity
class:chapter
BOOK THIRTEENTH.
ARGUMENT.
IN THIS BOOK IT IS TAUGHT THAT DEATH IS PENAL, AND HAD ITS ORIGIN IN ADAM'S SIN.
1. Of the fall of the first man, through which mortality has been contracted.
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 sentencewhich, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.
2. Of that death which can affect an immortal soul, and of that 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 boththat is, of the whole manoccurs 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[Pg 522] 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 soulsthat is, souls forsaken of Godcan 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.
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.
But a question not to be shirked arises: Whether in very truth death, which separates soul and body, is good to the[Pg 523] 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,[Pg 524] 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 imbecility[576] 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.
4. Why death, the punishment of sin, is not withheld from those who by the grace of regeneration are absolved from sin.
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[Pg 525] 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.
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.
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[Pg 526] 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.
6. Of the evil of death in general, considered 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[Pg 527] 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.
7. Of the death which the unbaptized[580] suffer for the confession of 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[Pg 528] 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.
8. That the saints, by suffering the first death for the truth's sake, are freed from the second.
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.
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.
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[Pg 529] 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.
10. Of the life of mortals, which is rather to be called death 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[Pg 530] 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?
[Pg 531]
11. Whether one can both be living 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[Pg 532] a thing is it, that no skill is sufficient either to explain or to 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.
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[Pg 533] 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.
12. What death God intended, when He threatened our first parents with death if they should disobey 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[Pg 534] 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.
13. What was the first punishment of the transgression 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.
14. In what state man was made by God, and into what estate he fell by the choice of his own will.
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[Pg 535] 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.
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.
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[Pg 536] 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."
16. Concerning the philosophers who think that the separation of soul and body is not penal, though Plato represents the supreme Deity as promising to the inferior gods that they shall never be dismissed from their bodies.
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[Pg 537] 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?
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[Pg 538] 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.
17. Against those who affirm that earthly bodies cannot be made incorruptible 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[Pg 539] 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.
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[Pg 540] 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.
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.
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[Pg 541] 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[Pg 542] 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.
19. Against the opinion of those who do not believe that the primitive men 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[Pg 543] 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 said[598] 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[Pg 544] 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?
20. That the flesh now resting in peace shall be raised to a perfection not enjoyed by the flesh of our first parents.
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[Pg 545] 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]
21. Of Paradise, that it can be understood in a spiritual sense without sacrificing the historic truth of the narrative regarding the real place.
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[Pg 546] 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.
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]
22. That the bodies of the saints shall after the resurrection be spiritual, and yet flesh shall 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[Pg 547] 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.
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.
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[Pg 548] 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.
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[Pg 549] 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.
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[Pg 550] 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.
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[Pg 551] 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?
24. How we must understand that breathing of God by which "the first man was made a living soul," and that also by which the Lord conveyed His Spirit to His disciples when He said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
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[Pg 552] 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 , 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.
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[Pg 553] 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.
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 , 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 , the usual word for the Holy Spirit, but , 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 is sometimes rendered "breath," sometimes "spirit," sometimes "inspiration," sometimes "aspiration," sometimes "soul," even when it is used of God. , 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[Pg 554] 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 used, but , 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 (as it has) but , 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 is 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,[Pg 555] 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 , not , 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 and not is used in the Greek, and where certainly not the Holy Spirit, but their spirit, is signified under that name.
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[Pg 556] 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]
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[Pg 557] 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 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.
MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
[Pg 558]
[Pg 559]
LIST OF WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
SUBSCRIPTION BOOKS.
Foreign Theological Library.
MESSRS. CLARK beg respectfully to intimate that from this time they will allow a Selection of Twenty Volumes (or more at the same ratio) from the various Series, with the exception of the Volumes issued in 1868-69-70. No Duplicates allowed in a Selection of Twelve or Twenty Volumes.
At the Subscription Price of 5, 5s.
Selling Price.
s. d.
Any 12 vols. of First Series (or more at same ratio), 3 3 0
FIRST SERIES, 29 vols. demy 8vo. netto 7 12 0
Hengstenberg's Commentary on the Psalms. 3 vols.
Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. 2 vols.
Gieseler's Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. 5 vols.
Neander's General Church History. 9 vols.
Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts. 4 vols.
Olshausen on the Romans.
Olshausen on the Corinthians.
Olshausen on the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.
Olshausen on Philippians, Titus, and Timothy.
Olshausen and Ebrard on the Hebrews.
Havernick's General Introduction to the Old Testament.
SECOND SERIES, 20 vols. demy 8vo, cloth, 5 5 0
Stier on the Words of the Lord Jesus. 8 vols.
Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament. 4 vols.
Ullmann's Reformers before the Reformation. 2 vols.
Gerlach's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1 vol.
Mller on the Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. (new translation).
[Pg 560]Baumgarten's Apostolic History. 3 vols.
THIRD SERIES, 20 vols. demy 8vo, cloth, 5 5 0
Kurtz's History of the Old Covenant. 3 vols.
Stier on the Words of the Risen Saviour, etc. 1 vol.
Tholuck on the Gospel of St. John. 1 vol.
Hengstenberg on Ecclesiastes, etc. 1 vol.
Tholuck on Christ's Sermon on the Mount. 1 vol.
Ebrard on Epistles of John. 1 vol.
Dorner on the Person of Christ. 5 vols.
Lange on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. 3 vols.
Oosterzee and Lange on St. Luke's Gospel. 2 vols.
Ebrard's Gospel History. 1 vol.
Kurtz's Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament. 1 vol.
FOURTH SERIES (1864-71), 8 8 0
Any two years in this series can be had at Subscription price.
(1864-65.)
Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. 3 vols. 2 2 0
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. 2 vols.
Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. 1 vol.
(1866.)
Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. 1 vol.
Keil and Delitzsch on Job. 2 vols. 1 1 0
Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine. 1 vol.
(1867.)
Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. i.
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. 1 1 0
Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. ii.
Auberlen on Divine Revelation.
(1868.)
Keil's Commentary on the Minor Prophets. 2 vols.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. i. 1 1 0
Harless' System of Christian Ethics. 1 vol.
(1869.)
Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. 1 vol.
Stier on the Words of the Apostles. 1 vol. 1 1 0
Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. i.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. i.
(1870.)
Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. ii.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. ii. 1 1 0
Schmid's New Testament Theology. 1 vol.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. ii.
The First Issue for 1871 comprises
Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms. Vols. i. and ii. 1 1 0
This Subscription includes other two volumes, the names of which will be announced shortly.
The Retail Bookseller is entitled to charge 24 s. if the Subscription is not paid by his Customer in advance.
BENGEL'S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. (Sixth Thousand now ready.) Now first translated into English, with Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative, in five large volumes, demy 8vo, Edited by Rev. Andrew R. Faussett, M.A., Rector of St. Cuthbert's, York, netto 1 11
FOOTNOTES:
[1] a.d. 410.
[2] Retractations, ii. 43.
[3] Letters 132-8.
[4] See some admirable remarks on this subject in the useful work of Beugnot, Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme, ii. 83 et sqq.
[5] As Waterland (iv. 760) does call it, adding that it is "his most learned, most correct, and most elaborate work."
[6] For proof, see the Benedictine Preface.
[7] "Hitherto the Apologies had been framed to meet particular exigencies: they were either brief and pregnant statements of the Christian doctrines; refutations of prevalent calumnies; invectives against the follies and crimes of Paganism; or confutations of anti-Christian works like those of Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, closely following their course of argument, and rarely expanding into general and comprehensive views of the great conflict."Milman, History of Christianity, iii. c. 10. We are not acquainted with any more complete preface to the City of God than is contained in the two or three pages which Milman has devoted to this subject.
[8] See the interesting remarks of Lactantius, Instit. vii. 25.
[9] "Hret vox et singultus intercipiunt verba dictantis. Capitur urbs qu totum cepit orbem."Jerome, iv. 783.
[10] See below, iv. 7.
[11] This is well brought out by Merivale, Conversion of the Roman Empire, p. 145, etc.
[12] Ozanam, History of Civilisation in the Fifth Century (Eng. trans.), ii. 160.
[13] Abstracts of the work at greater or less length are given by Dupin, Bindemann, Bhringer, Poujoulat, Ozanam, and others.
[14] His words are: "Plus on examine la Cit de Dieu, plus on reste convaincu que cet ouvrage dt exercea tres-peu d'influence sur l'esprit des paens" (ii. 122); and this though he thinks one cannot but be struck with the grandeur of the ideas it contains.
[15] History of Ecclesiastical Writers, i. 406.
[16] Huetiana, p. 24.
[17] Flottes, Etudes sur S. Augustin (Paris, 1861), pp. 154-6, one of the most accurate and interesting even of French monographs on theological writers.
[18] These editions will be found detailed in the second volume of Schoenemann's Bibliotheca Pat.
[19] His words (in Ep. vi.) are quite worth quoting: "Cura rogo te, ut excudantur aliquot centena exemplarium istius operis a reliquo Augustini corpore separata; nam multi erunt studiosi qui Augustinum totum emere vel nollent, vel non poterunt, quia non egebunt, seu quia tantum pecuni non habebunt. Scio enim fere a deditis studiis istis elegantioribus prter hoc Augustini opus nullum fere aliud legi ejusdem autoris."
[20] The fullest and fairest discussion of the very simple yet never settled question of Augustine's learning will be found in Nourrisson's Philosophie de S. Augustin, ii. 92-100.
[21] Erasmi Epistol xx. 2.
[22] A large part of it has been translated in Saisset's Pantheism (Clark, Edin.).
[23] By J. H., published in 1610, and again in 1620, with Vives' commentary.
[24] As the letters of Vives are not in every library, we give his comico-pathetic account of the result of his Augustinian labours on his health: "Ex quo Augustinum perfeci, nunquam valui ex sententia; proxim vero hebdomade et hac, fracto corpore cuncto, et nervis lassitudine quadam et debilitate dejectis, in caput decem turres incumbere mihi videntur incidendo pondere, ac mole intolerabili; isti sunt fructus studiorum, et merces pulcherrimi laboris; quid labor et benefacta juvant?"
[25] See the Editor's Preface.
[26] Ps. xciv. 15, rendered otherwise in Eng. ver.
[27] Jas. iv. 6 and 1 Pet. v. 5.
[28] Virgil, neid, vi. 854.
[29] The Benedictines remind us that Alexander and Xenophon, at least on some occasions, did so.
[30] Virgil, neid, ii. 501-2. The renderings of Virgil are from Conington.
[31] Ibid. ii. 166.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Horace, Ep. I. ii. 69.
[34] neid, i. 71.
[35] Ibid. ii. 319.
[36] Ibid. 293.
[37] Non numina bona, sed omina mala.
[38] Virgil, neid, ii. 761.
[39] Though "levis" was the word usually employed to signify the inconstancy of the Greeks, it is evidently here used, in opposition to "immanis" of the following clause, to indicate that the Greeks were more civilised than the barbarians, and not relentless, but, as we say, easily moved.
[40] De Conj. Cat. c. 51.
[41] Sallust, Cat. Conj. ix.
[42] Ps. lxxxix. 32.
[43] Matt. v. 45.
[44] Rom. ii. 4.
[45] So Cyprian (Contra Demetrianum) says, "Pnam de adversis mundi ille sentit, cui et ltitia et gloria omnis in mundo est."
[46] Ezek. xxxiii. 6.
[47] Compare with this chapter the first homily of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch.
[48] Rom. viii. 28.
[49] 1 Pet. iii. 4.
[50] 1 Tim. vi. 6-10.
[51] Job i. 21.
[52] 1 Tim. vi. 17-19.
[53] Matt. vi. 19-21.
[54] Paulinus was a native of Bordeaux, and both by inheritance and marriage acquired great wealth, which, after his conversion in his thirty-sixth year, he distributed to the poor. He became bishop of Nola in a.d. 409, being then in his fifty-sixth year. Nola was taken by Alaric shortly after the sack of Rome.
[55] Much of a kindred nature might be gathered from the Stoics. Antoninus says (ii. 14): "Though thou shouldest be going to live 3000 years, and as many times 10,000 years, still remember that no man loses any other life than this which he now lives, nor lives any other than this which he now loses. The longest and the shortest are thus brought to the same."
[56] Augustine expresses himself more fully on this subject in his tract, De cura pro mortuis gerenda.
[57] Matt. x. 28.
[58] Luke xii. 4.
[59] Ps. lxxix. 2, 3.
[60] Ps. cxvi. 15.
[61] Diogenes especially, and his followers. See also Seneca, De Tranq. c. 14, and Epist. 92; and in Cicero's Tusc. Disp. i. 43, the answer of Theodorus, the Cyrenian philosopher, to Lysimachus, who threatened him with the cross: "Threaten that to your courtiers; it is of no consequence to Theodorus whether he rot in the earth or in the air."
[62] Lucan, Pharsalia, vii. 819, of those whom Csar forbade to be buried after the battle of Pharsalia.
[63] Gen. xxv. 9, xxxv. 29, etc.
[64] Gen. xlvii. 29, l. 24.
[65] Tob. xii. 12.
[66] Matt. xxvi. 10-13.
[67] John xix. 38.
[68] Dan. iii.
[69] Jonah.
[70] "Second to none," as he is called by Herodotus, who first of all tells his well-known story (Clio. 23, 24).
[71] Augustine here uses the words of Cicero ("vigilando peremerunt"), who refers to Regulus, in Pisonem, c. 19. Aulus Gellius, quoting Tubero and Tuditanus (vi. 4), adds some further particulars regarding these tortures.
[72] As the Stoics generally would affirm.
[73] Virgil, neid, vi. 434.
[74] Plutarch's Life of Cato, 72.
[75] 1 Cor. ii. 11.
[76] Ecclus. iii. 27.
[77] Rom. xi. 33.
[78] Ps. xlii. 10.
[79] Ps. xcvi. 4, 5.
[80] Originally the spectators had to stand, and now (according to Livy, Ep. xlviii.) the old custom was restored.
[81] Ps. xciv. 4.
[82] 2 Tim. iii. 7.
[83] "Pluvia defit, causa Christiani." Similar accusations and similar replies may be seen in the celebrated passage of Tertullian's Apol. c. 40, and in the eloquent exordium of Arnobius, C. Gentes.
[84] Augustine is supposed to refer to Symmachus, who similarly accused the Christians in his address to the Emperor Valentinianus in the year 384. At Augustine's request, Paulus Orosius wrote his history in confutation of Symmachus' charges.
[85] Tertullian (Apol. c. 24) mentions Clestis as specially worshipped in Africa. Augustine mentions her again in the 26th chapter of this book, and in other parts of his works.
[86] Berecynthia is one of the many names of Rhea or Cybele. Livy (xxix. 11) relates that the image of Cybele was brought to Rome the day before the ides of April, which was accordingly dedicated as her feast-day. The image, it seems, had to be washed in the stream Almon, a tributary of the Tiber, before being placed in the temple of Victory; and each year, as the festival returned, the washing was repeated with much pomp at the same spot. Hence Lucan's line (i. 600), 'Et lotam parvo revocant Almone Cybelen,' and the elegant verses of Ovid, Fast. iv. 337 et seq.
[87] "Fercula," dishes, or courses.
[88] See Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 24.
[89] Prov. vi. 26.
[90] Fugalia. Vives is uncertain to what feast Augustine refers. Censorinus understands him to refer to a feast celebrating the expulsion of the kings from Rome. This feast, however (celebrated on the 24th February), was commonly called "Regifugium."
[91] Persius, Sat. iii. 66-72.
[92] See below, books viii.-xii.
[93] "Galli," the castrated priests of Cybele, who were named after the river Gallus, in Phrygia, the water of which was supposed to intoxicate or madden those who drank it. According to Vitruvius (viii. 3), there was a similar fountain in Paphlagonia. Apuleius (Golden Ass, viii.) gives a graphic and humorous description of the dress, dancing, and imposture of these priests; mentioning, among other things, that they lashed themselves with whips and cut themselves with knives till the ground was wet with blood.
[94] Persius, Sat. iii. 37.
[95] Ter. Eun. iii. 5. 36; and cf. the similar allusion in Aristoph. Clouds, 1033-4. It may be added that the argument of this chapter was largely used by the wiser of the heathen themselves. Dionysius Hal. (ii. 20) and Seneca (De Brev. Vit. c. xvi.) make the very same complaint; and it will be remembered that his adoption of this reasoning was one of the grounds on which Euripides was suspected of atheism.
[96] This sentence recalls Augustine's own experience as a boy, which he bewails in his Confessions.
[97] Labeo, a jurist of the time of Augustus, learned in law and antiquities, and the author of several works much prized by his own and some succeeding ages. The two articles in Smith's Dictionary on Antistius and Cornelius Labeo should be read.
[98] "Lectisternia," feasts in which the images of the gods were laid on pillows in the streets, and all kinds of food set before them.
[99] According to Livy (vii. 2), theatrical exhibitions were introduced in the year 392 a. u. c. Before that time, he says, there had only been the games of the circus. The Romans sent to Etruria for players, who were called "histriones," "hister" being the Tuscan word for a player. Other particulars are added by Livy.
[100] See the Republic, book iii.
[101] Comp. Tertullian, De Spectac. c. 22.
[102] The Egyptian gods represented with dogs' heads, called by Lucan (viii. 832) semicanes deos.
[103] The Fever had, according to Vives, three altars in Rome. See Cicero, De Nat. Deor. iii. 25, and lian, Var. Hist. xii. 11.
[104] Cicero, De Republica, v. Compare the third Tusculan Qust. c. ii.
[105] In the year a.u. 299, three ambassadors were sent from Rome to Athens to copy Solon's laws, and acquire information about the institutions of Greece. On their return the Decemviri were appointed to draw up a code; and finally, after some tragic interruptions, the celebrated Twelve Tables were accepted as the fundamental statutes of Roman law (fons universi publici privatique juris). These were graven on brass, and hung up for public information. Livy, iii. 31-34.
[106] Possibly he refers to Plautus' Persa, iv. 4. 11-14.
[107] Sallust, Cat. Con. ix. Compare the similar saying of Tacitus regarding the chastity of the Germans: "Plusque ibi boni mores valent, quam alibi bon leges" (Germ. xix.).
[108] The same collocation of words is used by Cicero with reference to the well-known mode of renewing the appetite in use among the Romans.
[109] neid, ii. 351-2.
[110] 2 Cor. xi. 14.
[111] Cicero, C. Verrem, vi. 8.
[112] Cicero, C. Catilinam, iii. 8.
[113] Alluding to the sanctuary given to all who fled to Rome in its early days.
[114] Virgil, neid, i. 278.
[115] Compare Aug. Epist. ad Deogratias, 102, 13; and De Prd. Sanct. 19.
[116] Ch. iv.
[117] Virg. Georg. i. 502, 'Laomedonte luimus perjuria Troj.'
[118] Iliad, xx. 293 et seqq.
[119] neid, v. 810, 811.
[120] Gratis et ingratis.
[121] De Conj. Cat. vi.
[122] Helen's husband.
[123] Venus' husband.
[124] Suetonius, in his Life of Julius Csar (c. 6), relates that, in pronouncing a funeral oration in praise of his aunt Julia, Csar claimed for the Julian gens to which his family belonged a descent from Venus, through Iulus, son of Eneas.
[125] Livy, 83, one of the lost books; and Appian, in Mithridat.
[126] The gates of Janus were not the gates of a temple, but the gates of a passage called Janus, which was used only for military purposes; shut therefore in peace, open in war.
[127] The year of the Consuls T. Manlius and C. Atilius, a. u. c. 519.
[128] Sall. Conj. Cat. ii.
[129] neid, viii. 326-7.
[130] Sall. Cat. Conj. vi.
[131] neid, xi. 532.
[132] Ibid. x. 464.
[133] Livy, x. 47.
[134] Being son of Apollo.
[135] Virgil, n. i. 286.
[136] Pharsal. v. 1.
[137] neid, x. 821, of Lausus:
"But when Anchises' son surveyed The fair, fair face so ghastly made, He groaned, by tenderness unmanned, And stretched the sympathizing hand," etc.
[138] Virgil, neid, vi. 813.
[139] Sallust, Cat. Conj. ii.
[140] Ps. x. 3.
[141] neid, ii. 351-2.
[142] Cicero, De Rep. ii. 10.
[143] Contra Cat. iii. 2.
[144] neid, vi. 820, etc.
[145] His nephew.
[146] Hist. i.
[147] Lectisternia, from lectus, a couch, and sterno, I spread.
[148] Proletarius, from proles, offspring.
[149] The oracle ran: "Dico te, Pyrrhe, vincere posse Romanos."
[150] Troy, Lavinia, Alba.
[151] Under the inscription on the temple some person wrote the line, "Vecordi opus dem facit Concordi"The work of discord makes the temple of Concord.
[152] Cicero, in Catilin. iii. sub. fin.
[153] Lucan, Pharsal. ii. 142-146.
[154] Virgil, neid, i. 417.
[155] In Augustine's letter to Evodius (169), which was written towards the end of the year 415, he mentions that this fourth book and the following one were begun and finished during that same year.
[156] Comp. Bacon's Essay on the Vicissitudes of Things.
[157] Matt. v. 45.
[158] 2 Pet. ii. 19.
[159] Nonius Marcell. borrows this anecdote from Cicero, De Repub. iii.
[160] It was extinguished by Crassus in its third year.
[161] Cloacina, supposed by Lactantius (De falsa relig. i. 20), Cyprian (De Idol. vanit.), and Augustine (infra., c. 23) to be the goddess of the "cloaca," or sewage of Rome. Others, however, suppose it to be equivalent to Cluacina, a title given to Venus, because the Romans after the end of the Sabine war purified themselves (cluere) in the vicinity of her statue.
[171] So called from the consent or harmony of the celestial movements of these gods.
[172] Tusc. Qust. i. 26.
[173] Livy, ii. 36; Cicero, De Divin. 26.
[174] Called by Cicero (De Oratore, i. 39) the most eloquent of lawyers, and the best skilled lawyer among eloquent men.
[175] Superflua non nocent.
[176] Rom. i. 25.
[177] De Divin. ii. 37.
[178] Cic. De Nat. Deorum, lib. ii. c. 28.
[179] Superstition, from superstes. Against this etymology of Cicero, see Lact. Inst. Div. iv. 28.
[180] Balbus, from balbutiens, stammering, babbling.
[181] See Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i. 2.
[182] Plutarch's Numa, c. 8.
[183] Written in the year 415.
[184] On the application of astrology to national prosperity, and the success of certain religions, see Lecky's Rationalism, i. 303.
[185] This fact is not recorded in any of the extant works of Hippocrates or Cicero. Vives supposes it may have found place in Cicero's book, De Fato.
[186] i.e. the potter.
[187] Epist. 107.
[188] Odyssey, xviii. 136, 137.
[189] De Divinat. ii.
[190] Ps. xiv. 1
[191] Book iii.
[192] Ps. lxii. 11, 12.
[193] Sallust, Cat. vii.
[194] Augustine notes that the name consul is derived from consulere, and thus signifies a more benign rule than that of a rex (from regere), or dominus (from dominari).
[195] neid, viii. 646.
[196] neid, i. 279.
[197] Ibid. vi. 847.
[198] Sallust, in Cat. c. xi.
[199] Sallust, in Cat. c. 54.
[200] 2 Cor. i. 12.
[201] Gal. vi. 4.
[202] Sallust, in Cat. c. 52.
[203] Horace, Epist. i. 1. 36, 37.
[204] Hor. Carm. ii. 2.
[205] Tusc. Qust. i. 2.
[206] John v. 44.
[207] John xii. 43.
[208] Matt. x. 33.
[209] Matt. vi. 1.
[210] Matt. v. 16.
[211] Matt. vi. 2.
[212] Jactantia.
[213] neid, vi. 820.
[214] Matt. x. 28.
[215] Matt. viii. 22.
[216] Acts ii. 45.
[217] Rom. viii. 18.
[218] Prov. viii. 15.
[219] neid, vii. 266.
[220] Job xxxiv. 30.
[221] Of the Thrasymene Lake and Cann.
[222] Constantinople.
[223] Constantius, Constantine, and Constans.
[224] Panegyr. de tertio Honorii consulatu.
[225] Tusc. Quaest. v. 19.
[226] Ps. xl. 4.
[227] Plato, in the Timus.
[228] Ch. xi. and xxi.
[229] See Virgil, Ec. iii. 9.
[230] Of the four books De Acad., dedicated to Varro, only a part of the first is extant.
[231] Cicero, De Qust. Acad. i. 3.
[232] In his book De Metris, chapter on phalcian verses.
[233] Tarquin the Proud, having bought the books of the sibyl, appointed two men to preserve and interpret them (Dionys. Halic. Antiq. iv. 62). These were afterwards increased to ten, while the plebeians were contending for larger privileges; and subsequently five more were added.
[234] Ch. 31.
[235] Fabulare.
[236] Fabulosum.
[237] Civile.
[238] Timeri.
[239] Vereri.
[240] Intercido, I cut or cleave.
[241] Paranymphi.
[242] Comp. Tertullian, Adv. Nat. ii. 11; Arnobius, Contra Gent. iv.; Lactantius, Inst. i. 20.
[243] Mentioned also by Tertullian, Apol. 12, but not extant.
[244] Numina. Another reading is nomina; and with either reading another translation is admissible: "One is announcing to a god the names (or gods) who salute him."
[245] Tert. Apol. 13, "Nec electio sine reprobatione;" and Ad Nationes, ii. 9, "Si dei ut bulbi seliguntur, qui non seliguntur, reprobi pronuntiantur."
[246] Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii., distinguishes this Liber from Liber Bacchus, son of Jupiter and Semele.
[247] Januam.
[248] Vivificator.
[249] Sensificator.
[250] As we say, "right-minded."
[251] Ch. 21, 23.
[252] The father Saturn, and the mother Ops, e.g., being more obscure than their son Jupiter and daughter Juno.
[253] Sallust, Cat. Conj. ch. 8.
[254] Vicus argentarius.
[255] Virgil, neid, viii. 357, 358.
[256] Quadrifrons.
[257] Frons.
[258] "Quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret;" being used for the shamelessness of innocence, as we use "face" for the shamelessness of impudence.
[259] Cicero, Tusc. Qust. v. 13.
[260] An interesting account of the changes made in the Roman year by Numa is given in Plutarch's life of that king. Ovid also (Fasti, ii.) explains the derivation of February, telling us that it was the last month of the old year, and took its name from the lustrations performed then: "Februa Romani dixere piamina patres."
[261] Ennius, in Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 18.
[262] John x. 9.
[263] Georgic, ii. 470.
[264] Summa, which also includes the meaning "last."
[265] Virgil, Eclog. iii. 60, who borrows the expression from the Phnomena of Aratus.
[266] Soranus lived about b.c. 100. See Smith's Dict.
[267] Tigillus.
[268] Ruma.
[269] "Pecunia," that is, property; the original meaning of "pecunia" being property in cattle, then property or wealth of any kind. Comp. Augustine, De discipl. Christ. 6.
[270] Sallust, Catil. c. 11.
[271] Quasi medius currens.
[272] Nuncius.
[273] Enunciantur.
[274] Clo.
[275] Clum.
[276] Sc. .
[277] See c. 16.
[278] Varro, De Ling. Lat. v. 68.
[279] Nourisher.
[280] Returner.
[281] In the book De Ratione Naturali Deorum.
[282] Mundum.
[283] Immundum.
[284] Mundus.
[285] Mundum.
[286] Virgil, neid, viii. 319-20.
[287] In the Timus.
[288] Plutarch's Numa; Livy, xl. 29.
[289] Comp. Lactantius, Instit. i. 6.
[290] Egesserit.
[291] Wisdom vii. 24-27.
[292] "Sapiens," that is, a wise man, one who had attained to wisdom.
[293] Finem boni.
[294] Dii majorum gentium.
[295] Book i. 13.
[296] Rom. i. 19, 20.
[297] Col. ii. 8.
[298] Rom. i. 19, 20.
[299] Acts xvii. 28.
[300] Rom. i. 21-23.
[301] De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 43. Comp. Retract. ii. 4, 2.
[302] Liberating Jewish slaves, and sending gifts to the temple. See Josephus, Ant. xii. 2.
[303] Gen. i. 1, 2.
[304] Spiritus.
[305] Ex. iii. 14.
[306] Rom. i. 20.
[307] Ch. 14.
[308] De Deo Socratis.
[309] Virgil, n. 7. 338.
[310] Virgil, n. 4. 492, 493.
[311] Virgil, Ec. 8. 99.
[312] Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxviii. 2) and others quote the law as running: "Qui fruges incantasit, qui malum carmen incantasit.... neu alienam segetem pelexeris."
[313] Before Claudius, the prefect of Africa, a heathen.
[314] Another reading, "whom they could not know, though near to themselves."
[315] These quotations are from a dialogue between Hermes and sculapius, which is said to have been translated into Latin by Apuleius.
[316] Rom. i. 21.
[317] Jer. xvi. 20.
[318] Zech. xiii. 2.
[319] Isa. xix. 1.
[320] Matt. xvi. 16.
[321] Matt. viii. 29.
[322] Ps. xcvi. 1.
[323] Ps. cxv. 5, etc.
[324] 1 Cor. x. 19, 20.
[325] Ps. xcvi. 1-5.
[326] Jer. xvi. 20.
[327] Ornamenta memoriarum.
[328] Comp. The Confessions, vi. 2.
[329] See Plutarch, on the Cessation of Oracles.
[330] The De Deo Socratis.
[331] De Fin. iii. 20; Tusc. Disp. iii. 4.
[332] The distinction between bona and commoda is thus given by Seneca (Ep. 87, ad fin.): "Commodum est quod plus usus est quam molesti; bonum sincerum debet esse et ab omni parte innoxium."
[333] Book xix. ch. 1.
[334] See Diog. Laert. ii. 71.
[335] Virgil, neid, iv. 449.
[336] Seneca, De Clem. ii. 4 and 5.
[337] Pro. Lig. c. 12.
[338] De Oratore, i. 11, 47.
[339] De Deo Soc.
[340] De Deo Soc.
[341] De Deo Soc.
[342] Cat. Conj. i.
[343] Plotinus died in 270 a.d. For his relation to Plato, see Augustine's Contra Acad. iii. 41.
[344] Ennead. iv. 3. 12.
[345] Apuleius, not Plotinus.
[346] De Deo Socratis.
[347] Apuleius, ibid.
[348] Virgil, Georg. i. 5.
[349] Augustine apparently quotes from memory from two passages of the Enneades, I. vi. 8, and ii. 3.
[350] Or, humanity.
[351] Comp. De Trin. 13. 22.
[352] 1 Tim. ii. 5.
[353] = , knowing; so Plato, Cratylus, 398. b.
[354] 1 Cor. viii. 1.
[355] Mark i. 24.
[356] Matt. iv. 3-11.
[357] Timus.
[358] Ps. l. 1.
[359] Ps. cxxxvi. 2.
[360] Ps. xcv. 3.
[361] Ps. xcvi. 5, 6.
[362] Ps. lxxxii. 6.
[363] 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.
[364] Rom. i. 21.
[365] Eph. vi. 5.
[366] Namely,
: comp. Qust. in Exod. 94; Qust. in Gen. 21; Contra Faustum, 15, 9, etc.
[367] Agricol, coloni, incol.
[368] Virgil, Eneid, i. 12.
[369] 2 Chron. xxx. 9; Eccl. xi. 13; Judith vii. 20.
[370] Ps. lxxxii. 6.
[371] John i. 6-9.
[372] Ibid. 16.
[373] Augustine here remarks, in a clause that cannot be given in English, that the word religio is derived from religere.So Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 28.
[374] Matt. xxii. 37-40.
[375] Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[376] Ex. xxii. 20.
[377] Ps. xvi. 2.
[378] Ps. li. 16, 17.
[379] Ps. l. 12, 13.
[380] Ps. l. 14, 15.
[381] Micah vi. 6-8.
[382] Heb. xiii. 16.
[383] Hos. vi. 6.
[384] Matt. xxii. 40.
[385] On the service rendered to the Church by this definition, see Waterland's Works, v. 124.
[386] Literally, a sacred action.
[387] Ecclus. xxx. 24.
[388] Rom. vi. 13.
[389] Rom. xii. 1.
[390] Rom. xii. 2.
[391] Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[392] Rom. xii. 3-6.
[393] Ps. lxxxvii. 3.
[394] Ex. xxii. 20.
[395] Gen. xviii. 18.
[396] Gen. xv. 17. In his Retractations, ii. 43, Augustine says that he should not have spoken of this as miraculous, because it was an appearance seen in sleep.
[397] Gen. xviii.
[398] Goetia.
[399] 2 Cor. xi. 14.
[400] Virgil, Georg. iv. 411.
[401] Ex. xxxiii. 13.
[402] Plotin. Ennead. III. ii. 13.
[403] Matt. vi. 28-30.
[404] Acts vii. 53.
[405] Ennead. I. vi. 7.
[406] Meaning, officious meddlers.
[407] Pharsal. vi. 503.
[408] Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[409] neid, vii. 310.
[410] neid, iii. 438, 439.
[411] Teletis.
[412] The Platonists of the Alexandrian and Athenian schools, from Plotinus to Proclus, are at one in recognising in God three principles or hypostases: 1st, the One or the Good, which is the Father; 2d, the Intelligence or Word, which is the Son; 3d, the Soul, which is the universal principle of life. But as to the nature and order of these hypostases, the Alexandrians are no longer at one with the school of Athens. On the very subtle differences between the Trinity of Plotinus and that of Porphyry, consult M. Jules Simon, ii. 110, and M. Vacherot, ii. 37.Saisset.
[413] See below, c. 28.
[414] Ennead. v. 1.
[415] John i. 14.
[416] John vi. 60-64.
[417] John viii. 25; or "the beginning," following a different reading from ours.
[418] Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[419] Ps. lxxxiv. 2.
[420] Matt. xxiii. 26.
[421] Rom. viii. 24, 25.
[422] See above, c. 9.
[423] Virgil, Eclog. iv. 13, 14.
[424] Isa. xxix. 14.
[425] 1 Cor. i. 19-25.
[426] According to another reading, "You might have seen it to be," etc.
[427] John i. 1-5.
[428] John i. 14.
[429] Comp. Euseb. Prp. Evan. xiii. 16.
[430] Ennead. iii. 4. 2.
[431] neid, vi. 750, 751.
[432] Inductio.
[433] Namely, under Diocletian and Maximian.
[434] Gen. xxii. 18.
[435] Gal. iii. 19.
[436] Ps. lxvii. 1, 2.
[437] John xiv. 6.
[438] Isa. ii. 2, 3.
[439] Luke xxiv. 44-47.
[440] Written in the year 416 or 417.
[441] Ps. lxxxvii. 3.
[442] Ps. xlviii. 1.
[443] Ps. xlvi. 4.
[444] Homine assumto, non Deo consumto.
[445] Quo itur Deus, qua itur homo.
[446] A clause is here inserted to give the etymology of prsentia from pr vensibus.
[447] Another derivation, sententia from sensus, the inward perception of the mind.
[448] Gen. i. 1.
[449] Prov. viii. 27.
[450] Matt. xviii. 10.
[451] A common question among the Epicureans; urged by Velleius in Cic. De Nat. Deor. i. 9; adopted by the Manichans and spoken to by Augustine in the Conf. xi. 10, 12, also in De Gen. contra Man. i. 3.
[452] The Neo-Platonists.
[453] Number begins at one, but runs on infinitely.
[454] Gal. iv. 26.
[455] 1 Thess. v. 5.
[456] Comp. de Gen. ad lit. i. and iv.
[457] Ver. 35.
[458] Ps. cxlviii. 1-5.
[459] Job xxxviii. 7.
[460] Vives here notes that the Greek theologians and Jerome held, with Plato, that spiritual creatures were made first, and used by God in the creation of things material. The Latin theologians and Basil held that God made all things at once.
[461] John i. 9.
[462] Mali enim nulla natura est: sed amissio boni, mali nomen accepit.
[463] Plutarch (De Plac. Phil. i. 3, and iv. 3) tells us that this opinion was held by Anaximenes of Miletus, the followers of Anaxagoras, and many of the Stoics. Diogenes the Cynic, as well as Diogenes of Apollonia, seems to have adopted the same opinion. See Zeller's Stoics, pp. 121 and 199.
[464] "Ubi lux non est, tenebr sunt, non quia aliquid sunt tenebr, sed ipsa lucis absentia tenebr dicuntur."Aug. De Gen. contra Man. 7.
[465] Wisdom vii. 22.
[466] The strongly Platonic tinge of this language is perhaps best preserved in a bare literal translation.
[467] Vives remarks that the ancients defined blessedness as an absolutely perfect state in all good, peculiar to God. Perhaps Augustine had a reminiscence of the remarkable discussion in the Tusc. Disp. lib. v., and the definition "Neque ulla alia huic verbo, quum beatum dicimus, subjecta notio est, nisi, secretis malis omnibus, cumulata bonorum complexio."
[468] With this chapter compare the books De Dono Persever. and De Correp. et Gratia.
[469] Matt. xxv. 46.
[470] John viii. 44.
[471] 1 John iii. 8.
[472] Cf. Gen. ad Lit. xi. 27 et seqq.
[473] Ps. xvii. 6.
[474] 1 John iii. 8.
[475] The Manichans.
[476] Isa. xiv. 12.
[477] Ezek. xxviii. 13.
[478] Job xl. 14 (LXX.).
[479] Ps. civ. 26.
[480] Job. xl. 14 (LXX.).
[481] It must be kept in view that "vice" has, in this passage, the meaning of sinful blemish.
[482] Ps. civ. 26.
[483] Quintilian uses it commonly in the sense of antithesis.
[484] 2 Cor. vi. 7-10.
[485] Ecclus. xxxiii. 15.
[486] Gen. i. 14-18.
[487] The reference is to the Timus, p. 37 C., where he says, "When the parent Creator perceived this created image of the eternal gods in life and motion, He was delighted, and in His joy considered how He might make it still liker its model."
[488] Jas. i. 17.
[489] The passage referred to is in the Timus, p. 29 D.: "Let us say what was the cause of the Creator's forming this universe. He was good; and in the good no envy is ever generated about anything whatever. Therefore, being free from envy, He desired that all things should, as much as possible, resemble Himself."
[490] The Manichans, to wit.
[491] Gen. i. 31.
[492] Proprietas.
[493] This is one of the passages cited by Sir William Hamilton, along with the "Cogito, ergo sum" of Descartes, in confirmation of his proof, that in so far as we are conscious of certain modes of existence, in so far we possess an absolute certainty that we exist. See note A in Hamilton's Reid, p. 744.
[494] Compare the Confessions, xiii. 9.
[495] Ch. 7.
[496] Or aliquot parts.
[497] Comp. Aug. Gen. ad Lit. iv. 2, and De Trinitate, iv. 7.
[498] For passages illustrating early opinions regarding numbers, see Smith's Dict. Art. number.
[499] Wisd. xi. 20.
[500] Prov. xxiv. 16.
[501] Ps. cxix. 164.
[502] Ps. xxxiv. 1.
[503] John xvi. 13.
[504] In Isa. xi. 2, as he shows in his eighth sermon, where this subject is further pursued; otherwise, one might have supposed he referred to Rev. iii. 1.
[505] 1 Cor. xiii. 10.
[506] Augustine refers to John viii. 25; see p. 415. He might rather have referred to Rev. iii. 14.
[507] Ps. civ. 24.
[508] Matt. xxii. 30.
[509] Matt. xviii. 10.
[510] 2 Peter ii. 4.
[511] Eph. v. 8.
[512] Ps. cxlviii. 2.
[513] Matt. iv. 9.
[514] Jas. iv. 6.
[515] 1 Thess. v. 5
[516] Augustine himself published this idea in his Conf. xiii. 32, but afterwards retracted it, as "said without sufficient consideration" (Retract. II. vi. 2). Epiphanius and Jerome ascribe it to Origen.
[517] Gen. i. 6.
[518] Namely, the Audians and Sampsans, insignificant heretical sects mentioned by Theodoret and Epiphanius.
[519] Ps. xcv. 5.
[520] Vitium: perhaps "fault" most nearly embraces all the uses of this word.
[521] Essentia.
[522] Ex. iii. 14.
[523] Quintilian calls it dura.
[524] With this may be compared the argument of Socrates in the Gorgias, in which it is shown that to escape punishment is worse than to suffer it, and that the greatest of evils is to do wrong and not be chastised.
[525] Eccles. x. 13.
[526] Specie.
[527] Ps. xix. 12.
[528] C. 13.
[529] Rom. v. 5.
[530] Ps. lxxiii. 28.
[531] De Deo Socratis.
[532] Augustine no doubt refers to the interesting account given by Critias, near the beginning of the Timus, of the conversation of Solon with the Egyptian priests.
[533] Augustine here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons 5611 years from the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths; adopting the Septuagint version of the patriarchal ages.
[534] See above, viii. 5.
[535] It is not apparent to what Augustine refers. The Arcadians, according to Macrobius (Saturn. i. 7), divided their year into three months, and the Egyptians divided theirs into three seasons: each of these seasons having four months, it is possible that Augustine may have referred to this. See Wilkinson's excursus on the Egyptian year, in Rawlinson's Herod. Book ii.
[536] The former opinion was held by Democritus and his disciple Epicurus; the latter by Heraclitus, who supposed that "God amused Himself" by thus renewing worlds.
[537] The Alexandrian Neo-Platonists endeavoured in this way to escape from the obvious meaning of the Timus.
[538] Antoninus says (ii. 14), "All things from eternity are of like forms, and come round in a circle." Cf. also ix. 28, and the references to more ancient philosophical writers in Gataker's notes on these passages.
[539] Eccles. i. 9, 10. So Origen, de Prin. iii. 5, and ii. 3.
[540] Rom. vi. 9.
[541] 1 Thess. iv. 16.
[542] Ps. xii. 7.
[543] Cf. de Trin. v. 17.
[544] Wisdom ix. 13-15.
[545] Gen. i. 1.
[546] Gen. i. 14.
[547] Rom. xii. 3.
[548] Titus i. 2, 3. Augustine here follows the version of Jerome, and not the Vulgate. Comp. Contra Priscill. 6, and de Gen. c. Man. iv. 4.
[549] 2 Cor. x. 12. Here, and in Enar. in Ps. xxxiv., and also in Cont. Faust. xxii. 47, Augustine follows the Greek, and not the Vulgate.
[550] i.e. indefinite, or an indefinite succession of things.
[551] Again in the Timus.
[552] Wisdom xi. 20.
[553] Isa. xl. 26.
[554] Matt. x. 30.
[555] Ps. cxlvii. 5.
[556] De sculis sculorum.
[557] Ps. cxlviii. 4.
[558] Cicero has the same (de Amicitia, 16): "Quonam modo quisquam amicus esse poterit, cui se putabit inimicum esse posse?" He also quotes Scipio to the effect that no sentiment is more unfriendly to friendship than this, that we should love as if some day we were to hate.
[559] C. 30.
[560] Coquus remarks that this is levelled against the Pelagians.
[561]
"Quando leoni Fortior eripuit vitam leo? quo nemore unquam Exspiravit aper majoris dentibus apri? Indica tigris agit rabida cum tigride pacem Perpetuam; svis inter se convenit ursis. Ast homini," etc. Juvenal, Sat. xv. 160-5.
See also the very striking lines which precede these.
[562] See this further discussed in Gen. ad Lit. vii. 35, and in Delitzsch's Bibl. Psychology.
[563] Jer. xxiii. 24.
[564] Wisdom viii. 1.
[565] 1 Cor. iii. 7.
[566] 1 Cor. xv. 38.
[567] Jer. i. 5.
[568] Compare de Trin. iii. 13-16.
[569] See Book xi. 5.
[570] "The Deity, desirous of making the universe in all respects resemble the most beautiful and entirely perfect of intelligible objects, formed it into one visible animal, containing within itself all the other animals with which it is naturally allied."Timus, c. xi.
[571] Ps. xlvi. 8.
[572] Ps. xxv. 10.
[573] Matt. x. 28.
[574] On this question compare the 24th and 25th epistles of Jerome, de obitu Le, and de obitu Blesill fili. Coquus.
[575] Ps. xlix. 12.
[576] On which see further in de Peccat. Mer. i. 67 et seq.
[577] De Baptismo Parvulorum is the second half of the title of the book, de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione.
[578] 1 Cor. xv. 56.
[579] Rom. vii. 12, 13.
[580] Literally, unregenerate.
[581] John iii. 5.
[582] Matt. x. 32.
[583] Matt. xvi. 25.
[584] Ps. cxvi. 15.
[585] Much of this paradoxical statement about death is taken from Seneca. See, among other places, his epistle on the premeditation of future dangers, the passage beginning, "Quotidie morimur, quotidie enim demitur aliqua pars vit."
[586] Ecclus. xi. 28.
[587] Ps. vi. 5.
[588] Gen. ii. 17.
[589] Gal. v. 17.
[590] Gen. ii. 17.
[591] Gen. iii. 9.
[592] Gen. iii. 19.
[593] Wisdom ix. 15.
[594] A translation of part of the Timus, given in a little book of Cicero's, De Universo.
[595] Plato, in the Timus, represents the Demiurgus as constructing the kosmos or universe to be a complete representation of the idea of animal. He planted in its centre a soul, spreading outwards so as to pervade the whole body of the kosmos; and then he introduced into it those various species of animals which were contained in the idea of animal. Among these animals stand first the celestial, the gods embodied in the stars; and of these the oldest is the earth, set in the centre of all, close packed round the great axis which traverses the centre of the kosmos.See the Timus and Grote's Plato, iii. 250 et seq.
[596] On these numbers see Grote's Plato, iii. 254.
[597] Virgil, neid, vi. 750, 751.
[598] Book x. 30.
[599] A catena of passages, showing that this is the catholic Christian faith, will be found in Bull's State of Man before the Fall (Works, vol. ii.).
[600] 1 Cor. xv. 42.
[601] Prov. iii. 18.
[602] 1 Cor. x. 4.
[603] Cant. iv. 13.
[604] Ps. xlii. 6.
[605] Ps. lix. 9.
[606] Those who wish to pursue this subject will find a pretty full collection of opinions in the learned commentary on Genesis by the Jesuit Pererius. Philo was, of course, the leading culprit, but Ambrose and other Church fathers went nearly as far. Augustine condemns the Seleucians for this among other heresies, that they denied a visible Paradise.De Hres. 59.
[607] Tobit xii. 19.
[608] Gen. ii. 17.
[609] Rom. viii. 10, 11.
[610] Gen. iii. 19.
[611] "In uno commune factum est omnibus."
[612] Rom. viii. 28, 29.
[613] 1 Cor. xv. 42-45.
[614] Gen. ii. 7.
[615] 1 Cor. xv. 47-49.
[616] Gal. iii. 27.
[617] Rom. viii. 24.
[618] 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.
[619] Gen. ii. 7.
[620] John xx. 22.
[621] Gen. ii. 6.
[622] 2 Cor. iv. 16.
[623] 1 Cor. ii. 11.
[624] Eccles. iii. 21.
[625] Ps. cxlviii. 8.
[626] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[627] John iv. 24.
[628] "Breath," Eng. ver.
[629] Gen. i. 24.
[630] Ecclus. xxiv. 3.
[631] Rev. iii. 16.
[632] 1 Cor. xv. 44-49.
Transcriber's Notes:
Obvious punctuation and spelling errors have been fixed throughout.
Inconsistent hyphenation is as in the original.
End of Project Gutenberg's The City of God, Volume I, by Aurelius Augustine
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CITY OF GOD, VOLUME I ***
***** This file should be named 45304-h.htm or 45304-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/5/3/0/45304/
Produced by Douglas L. Alley, III, Charlene Taylor, Joe
C and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
questions, comments, suggestions/feedback, take-down requests, contribute, etc
contact me @ integralyogin@gmail.com or via the comments below
or join the integral discord server (chatrooms)
if the page you visited was empty, it may be noted and I will try to fill it out. cheers