Augustine: DE CIVITATE DEI

[I] Cum per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, iudicem uiuorum atque mortuorum, ad debitos fines ambae peruenerint ciuitates, quarum est una Dei, altera diaboli, cuius modi supplicium sit futurum diaboli et omnium ad eum pertinentium, in hoc libro nobis, quantum ope diuina ualebimus, diligentius disputandum est. Ideo autem hunc tenere ordinem malui, et postea disseram de felicitate sanctorum, quoniam utrumque cum corporibus erit et incredibilius uidetur esse in aeternis corpora durare cruciatibus quam sine dolore ullo in aeterna beatitudine permanere; ac per hoc cum illam poenam non debere esse incredibilem demonstrauero, adiuuabit me plurimum, ut multo facilius omni carens molestia inmortalitas corporis in sanctis futura credatur. Nec a diuinis ordo iste abhorret eloquiis, ubi aliquando quidem bonorum beatitudo prius ponitur, ut est illud: Qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae; qui autem mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii; sed aliquando et posterius, ut est: Mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala et mittent in caminum ignis ardentem; illic erit fletus et stridor dentium; tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui, et illud: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam, et in prophetis, quod commemorare longum est, nunc ille, nunc iste ordo, si quis inspiciat, inuenitur.

[1] Since through Jesus Christ our Lord, judge of the living and the dead, both cities—of which one is God’s, the other the devil’s—shall have come to their due ends, of what sort the punishment is going to be of the devil and of all who pertain to him, in this book must be discussed more diligently by us, as far as we shall be able by divine aid. I preferred, however, to keep this order and afterwards to discourse about the felicity of the saints, because both will be with bodies, and it seems more incredible that bodies should endure in eternal torments than that they should remain without any pain in eternal beatitude; and therefore, when I shall have shown that that punishment ought not to be unbelievable, it will help me very much, that the immortality of the body free from every trouble in the saints may be believed much more easily. Nor does this order differ from the divine utterances, where sometimes indeed the beatitude of the good is set first, as is that: Qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae; qui autem mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii; but sometimes also later, as is: Mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala et mittent in caminum ignis ardentem; illic erit fletus et stridor dentium; tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui, and that: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in vitam aeternam; and in the prophets, which to recount would be long, now this, now that order, if one inspect, is found.

Sed ego istum qua causa elegerim, dixi.

But for what cause I have chosen this, I have said.

[II] Quid igitur ostendam, unde conuincantur increduli, posse humana corpora animata atque uiuentia non solum numquam morte dissolui, sed in aeternorum quoque ignium durare tormentis? Nolunt enim hoc ad Omnipotentis nos referre potentiam, sed aliquo exemplo persuaderi sibi flagitant. Quibus si respondebimus esse animalia profecto corruptibilia, quia mortalia, quae tamen in mediis ignibus uiuant; nonnullum etiam genus uermium in aquarum calidarum scaturrigine reperiri, quarum feruorem nemo inpune contrectat; illos autem non solum sine ulla sui laesione ibi esse, sed extra esse non posse: aut nolunt credere, si ostendere non ualemus; aut, si ualuerimus siue oculis demonstrare res ipsas siue per testes idoneos edocere, non satis esse hoc ad exemplum rei, de qua quaestio est, eadem infidelitate contendent, quia haec animalia nec semper uiuunt et in illis feruoribus sine doloribus uiuunt; suae quippe naturae conuenientibus uegetantur illis, non cruciantur elementis; quasi non incredibilius sit uegetari quam cruciari talibus rebus.

[2] What then shall I show, by which the incredulous may be convinced that human bodies, animated and living, can not only never be dissolved by death, but also endure in the torments of eternal fires? For they do not wish us to refer this to the power of the Omnipotent, but demand to be persuaded by some example. If we answer them that there are indeed animals, corruptible because mortal, which nevertheless live in the midst of fires; that also some kind of worms is found in the gush of hot waters, whose fervor no one handles with impunity; yet that they not only are there without any injury to themselves, but cannot be outside: either they are unwilling to believe, if we are not able to show it; or, if we have been able either to demonstrate the very things to their eyes or to instruct them through suitable witnesses, they will contend with the same infidelity that this is not sufficient as an exemplar of the matter about which the question is, because these animals neither live forever and in those fervors live without pains; for they are nourished—convened, as it were, to their own nature—by those things, they are not tormented by the elements; as though it were not more incredible to be sustained than to be tortured by such things.

Mirabile est enim dolere in ignibus et tamen uiuere, sed mirabilius uiuere in ignibus nec dolere. Si autem hoc creditur, cur non et illud?

For it is marvelous to suffer pain in fires and yet to live, but more marvelous to live in fires and not to suffer pain. But if this is believed, why not that as well?

[III] Sed nullum est, inquiunt, corpus, quod dolere possit nec possit mori. Et hoc unde scimus? Nam de corporibus quis certus est daemonum, utrum in eis doleant, quando se affligi magnis cruciatibus confitentur?

[3] But, they say, there is no body that can suffer pain and cannot die. And how do we know this? For who is certain about the bodies of demons, whether they feel pain in them, when they confess themselves to be afflicted with great torments?

Quod si respondetur terrenum corpus solidum scilicet atque conspicuum nullum esse, atque ut uno potius nomine id explicem, nullam esse carnem, quae dolere possit morique non possit: quid aliud dicitur, nisi quod sensu corporis homines et experientia collegerunt? Nullam namque carnem nisi mortalem sciunt; et haec est eorum tota ratio, ut, quod experti non sunt, nequaquam esse posse arbitrentur. Nam cuius rationis est dolorem facere mortis argumentum, cum uitae potius sit indicium?

But if it is replied that there is no earthly body—solid, to be sure, and visible—and, to explain this rather under one term, that there is no flesh which can feel pain and yet cannot die: what else is being said except what men have gathered from bodily sense and experience? For they know no flesh except mortal; and this is their whole rationale, to suppose that what they have not experienced can in no wise be. For what kind of reasoning is it to make pain an argument of death, when it is rather an indication of life?

Etsi enim quaerimus, utrum semper possit uiuere: certum tamen est uiuere omne quod dolet doloremque omnem nisi in re uiuente esse non posse. Necesse est ergo ut uiuat dolens, non est necesse ut occidat dolor, quia nec corpora ista mortalia et utique moritura omnis dolor occidit, et ut dolor aliquis possit occidere, illa causa est, quoniam sic est anima conexa huic corpori, ut summis doloribus cedat atque discedat; quoniam et ipsa compago membrorum atque uitalium sic infirma est, ut eam uim, quae magnum uel summum dolorem facit, non ualeat sustinere. Tunc autem tali corpori anima et eo conectetur modo, ut illud uinculum, sicut nulla temporis longitudine soluetur, ita nullo dolore rumpatur.

Although indeed we inquire whether it can live forever, nevertheless it is certain that everything which suffers pain lives, and that no pain at all can exist except in a living thing. Therefore it is necessary that the one in pain live; it is not necessary that the pain kill, because not every pain kills these mortal bodies that are assuredly destined to die; and that some pain can kill, the cause is this: because the soul is so connected to this body that it yields and departs under extreme pains; because the very compaction of the members and of the vital parts is so weak that it is not able to withstand that force which makes a great or utmost pain. Then, however, the soul will be connected to such a body and in such a mode, that that bond, just as it will be loosed by no length of time, so will be broken by no pain.

Proinde etiamsi caro nunc talis nulla est, quae sensum doloris perpeti possit mortemque non possit: erit tamen tunc talis caro, qualis nunc non est, sicut talis erit et mors qualis nunc non est. Non enim nulla, sed sempiterna mors erit, quando nec uiuere anima poterit Deum non habendo nec doloribus corporis carere moriendo. Prima mors animam nolentem pellit e corpore, secunda mors animam nolentem tenet in corpore; ab utraque morte communiter id habetur, ut quod non uult anima de suo corpore patiatur.

Accordingly, even if now there is no flesh of such a kind as can undergo the sensation of pain and yet cannot die, nevertheless then there will be such flesh as now there is not, just as there will also be such a death as now there is not. For there will be not no death, but a sempiternal death, since the soul, not having God, will be able neither to live nor, by dying, to be free from the pains of the body. The first death expels the unwilling soul from the body, the second death holds the unwilling soul in the body; from both deaths this is had in common, that the soul suffers, with respect to its own body, what it does not will.

Adtendunt autem isti contradictores nullam esse nunc carnem, quae dolorem pati possit mortemque non possit, et non adtendunt esse tamen aliquid tale quod corpore maius sit. Ipse quippe animus, cuius praesentia corpus uiuit et regitur, et dolorem pati potest et mori non potest. Ecce inuenta res est, quae, cum sensum doloris habeat, inmortalis est.

However, these contradictors notice that there is at present no flesh which can suffer pain and not be able to die, and they do not notice that nevertheless there is something of such a kind which is greater than the body. For the very animus, by whose presence the body lives and is governed, both can suffer pain and cannot die. Behold, a thing has been found which, while it has the sense of pain, is immortal.

Hoc igitur erit tunc etiam in corporibus damnatorum, quod nunc esse scimus in animis omnium. Si autem consideremus diligentius, dolor, qui dicitur corporis, magis ad animam pertinet. Animae est enim dolere, non corporis, etiam quando ei dolendi causa existit a corpore, cum in eo loco dolet, ubi laeditur corpus.

Therefore this will then be also in the bodies of the condemned, which we now know to be in the souls of all. But if we consider more diligently, pain, which is said to be of the body, pertains more to the soul. For it is the soul’s to suffer pain, not the body’s, even when the cause of suffering arises for it from the body, since it aches in that place where the body is injured.

Sicut ergo dicimus corpora sentientia et corpora uiuentia, cum ab anima sit corpori sensus et uita: ita corpora dicimus et dolentia, cum dolor corpori nisi ab anima esse non possit. Dolet itaque anima cum corpore in eo loco eius, ubi aliquid contingit ut doleat; dolet et sola, quamuis sit in corpore, cum aliqua causa etiam inuisibili tristis est ipsa corpore incolumi; dolet etiam non in corpore constituta; nam utique dolebat diues ille apud inferos, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma. Corpus autem nec exanime dolet nec animatum sine anima dolet.

Thus, as we say sentient bodies and living bodies, since from the soul there is to the body sense and life, so we also call bodies suffering, since pain cannot be in the body except from the soul. Therefore the soul suffers with the body in that place of it where something happens so that it hurts; it also suffers alone, although it is in the body, when by some even invisible cause it is itself sorrowful while the body is unharmed; it also suffers when not constituted in the body; for surely that rich man was suffering in the infernal regions, when he said: “I am tormented in this flame.” But a body neither when exanimate suffers nor, even when animated, does it suffer without the soul.

Si ergo a dolore argumentum recte sumeretur ad mortem, ut ideo mors possit accidere, quia potuit accidere et dolor, magis ad animam pertineret mori, ad quam magis pertinet et dolere. Cum uero illa, quae magis dolere potest, non possit mori, quid momenti affert cur illa corpora, quoniam futura sunt in doloribus, ideo etiam moritura esse credamus? Dixerunt quidem Platonici ex terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris esse animae et metuere et cupere et dolere atque gaudere; unde Vergilius: "Hinc, inquit, (id est ex moribundis terreni corporis membris) metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque." Sed conuicimus eos in duodecimo huius operis libro, habere animas secundum ipsos ab omni etiam corporis labe purgatas diram cupiditatem, qua rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti.

If, therefore, an argument were rightly taken from pain to death—namely, that death can occur because pain also could occur—it would more pertain to the soul to die, to which it more pertains also to suffer pain. But since that which can suffer pain more cannot die, what weight does this bring, why we should believe that those bodies, since they will be in pains, are therefore also going to die? The Platonists indeed said that it is from earthly bodies and dying members that the soul both fears and desires and suffers pain and rejoices; whence Vergil: “Hence,” he says, (that is, from the dying members of the earthly body) “they fear and desire, they suffer pain and rejoice.” But we convict them in the twelfth book of this work, that, according to them, souls, even when purged from every stain of the body, have a dire cupidity, by which they begin again to will to return into bodies.

Vbi autem potest esse cupiditas, profecto etiam dolor potest. Frustrata quippe cupiditas, siue non perueniendo quo tendebat siue amittendo quo peruenerat, uertitur in dolorem. Quapropter si anima, quae uel sola uel maxime dolet, habet tamen quandam pro suo modo inmortalitatem suam, non ideo mori poterunt illa corpora, quia dolebunt.

Where, however, cupidity can exist, assuredly dolor can also exist. For frustrated cupidity, whether by not reaching where it was tending or by losing what it had reached, is turned into dolor. Wherefore, if the soul, which either alone or most of all suffers dolor, nevertheless has a certain immortality of its own in its own mode, those bodies will not for that reason be able to die, because they will be in pain.

Postremo si corpora faciunt, ut animae doleant, cur eis dolorem possunt, mortem uero inferre non possunt, nisi quia non est consequens, ut mortem faciat quod dolorem facit? Cur ergo incredibile est ita ignes illis corporibus dolorem posse inferre, non mortem, sicut ipsa corpora dolere animas faciunt, quas tamen non ideo mori cogunt? Non est igitur necessarium futurae mortis argumentum dolor.

Finally, if bodies bring it about that souls feel pain, why can they inflict pain on them but cannot inflict death—except because it is not consequent that what causes pain also causes death? Why, then, is it unbelievable that fires could thus inflict pain on those bodies, not death, just as the bodies themselves make souls feel pain, yet do not on that account compel them to die? Therefore pain is not a necessary argument of future death.

[IV] Quapropter si, ut scripserunt qui naturas animalium curiosius indagarunt, salamandra in ignibus uiuit et quidam notissimi Siciliae montes, qui tanta temporis diuturnitate ac uetustate usque nunc ac deinceps flammis aestuant atque integri perseuerant, satis idonei testes sunt non omne, quod ardet, absumi et anima indicat non omne, quod dolere potest, posse etiam mori: quid adhuc a nobis rerum poscuntur exempla, quibus doceamus non esse incredibile, ut hominum corpora sempiterno supplicio punitorum et igne animam non amittant et sine detrimento ardeant et sine interitu doleant? Habebit enim tunc istam carnis substantia qualitatem ab illo inditam, qui tam miras et uarias tot rebus indidit, quas uidemus, ut eas, quia multae sunt, non miremur. Quis enim nisi Deus creator omnium dedit carni pauonis mortui ne putesceret?

[4] Wherefore, if, as those who have more curiously investigated the natures of animals have written, the salamander lives in fires, and certain most-notorious mountains of Sicily, which with so great a length of time and antiquity even now and henceforward seethe with flames and persevere entire, are sufficiently suitable witnesses that not everything which burns is consumed, and the soul indicates that not everything that can suffer pain can also die: what examples of things are still demanded of us, by which we may teach that it is not incredible that the bodies of men punished with sempiternal punishment both do not lose the soul by fire and burn without detriment and feel pain without destruction? For then the substance of flesh will have that quality imparted by Him who has inserted so wondrous and various qualities into so many things which we see, with the result that, because they are many, we do not marvel at them. For who, unless God the creator of all, gave to the flesh of a dead peacock that it should not putrefy?

Quod cum auditu incredibile uideretur, euenit ut apud Carthaginem nobis cocta apponeretur haec auis, de cuius pectore pulparum, quantum uisum est, decerptum seruari iussimus; quod post dierum tantum spatium, quanto alia caro quaecumque cocta putesceret, prolatum atque oblatum nihil nostrum offendit olfactum. Itemque repositum post dies amplius quam triginta idem quod erat inuentum est, idemque post annum, nisi quod aliquantum corpulentiae siccioris et contractioris fuit. Quis paleae dedit uel tam frigidam uim, ut obrutas niues seruet, uel tam feruidam, ut poma inmatura maturet?

Although this seemed incredible to hear, it came to pass that in Carthage this bird, cooked, was set before us, from whose breast we ordered that pulpy pieces of flesh, as much as seemed good, be torn off and kept; which, after just such a span of days as any other cooked meat would putrefy in, when brought forth and presented, did not in any way offend our sense of smell. And likewise, when put away, after more than thirty days it was found the same as it had been, and the same after a year, except that it had somewhat of a drier and more contracted corpulence. Who gave to straw either so frigid a force as to preserve snows when covered, or so fervid a one as to mature unripe fruits?

De ipso igne mira quis explicet, quo quaeque adusta nigrescunt, cum ipse sit lucidus, et paene omnia, quae ambit et lambit, colore pulcherrimus decolorat atque ex pruna fulgida carbonem taeterrimum reddit? Neque id quasi regulariter definitum est; nam e contrario lapides igne candente percocti et ipsi fiunt candidi, et quamuis magis ille rubeat, illi albicent, congruit tamen luci quod album est, sicut nigrum tenebris. Cum itaque ignis in lignis ardeat, ut lapides coquat, contrarios habet non in contrariis rebus effectus.

Who could explain marvels about fire itself, by which whatever is seared turns black, though it is lucid, and it decolors the most beautiful color of almost everything it encircles and licks, and from a shining ember it renders most loathsome charcoal? Nor is this, as it were, defined regularly; for conversely, stones thoroughly baked by a glowing fire themselves become white, and although it is more red, they grow white; yet what is white is congruent with light, just as black with darkness. Therefore, since fire burns in wood in order to cook stones, it has contrary effects not upon contrary things.

Etsi enim lapides et ligna diuersa sunt, contraria tamen non sunt, sicut album et nigrum, quorum in lapidibus unum facit, alterum in lignis, clarus illos clarificans, haec offuscans, cum in illis deficeret, nisi in istis uiueret. Quid, in carbonibus nonne miranda est et tanta infirmitas, ut ictu leuissimo frangantur, pressu facillimo conterantur, et tanta firmitas, ut nullo umore corrumpantur, nulla aetate uincantur, usque adeo ut eos substernere soleant, qui limites figunt, ad conuincendum litigatorem, quisquis post quantalibet tempora extiterit fixumque lapidem limitem non esse contenderit? Quis eos in terra umida infossos, ubi ligna putescerent, tamdiu durare incorruptibiliter posse nisi rerum ille corruptor ignis effecit?

For although stones and wood are diverse, they are not, however, contraries, like white and black, of which in stones he makes the one, in woods the other—being bright, he clarifies those, he obscures these—whereas he would fail in those unless he lived in these. What? Is it not to be wondered at in charcoals both that there is such infirmity that with the slightest blow they are broken, with the easiest pressure they are crushed, and such firmness that by no moisture are they corrupted, by no lapse of time are they overcome, to such a degree that those who fix boundaries are accustomed to lay them underneath, to convict the litigant—whoever may appear after any length of time and contend that the fixed stone is not the boundary-marker? Who would think that they, sunk in moist earth where wood would rot, could endure so long incorruptibly, unless that corrupter of things—fire—had effected it?

Intueamur etiam miraculum calcis. Excepto eo, de quo iam satis diximus, quod igne candicat, quo alia taetra redduntur, etiam occultissime ab igne ignem concipit eumque iam gleba tangentibus frigida tam latenter seruat, ut nulli nostro sensui prorsus appareat, sed compertus experimento, etiam dum non apparet, sciatur inesse sopitus. Propter quod eam uiuam calcem loquimur, uelut ipse ignis latens anima sit inuisibilis uisibilis corporis.

Let us also behold the miracle of lime. Except for that which we have already said enough about—namely, that by fire it grows white-hot, whereas by the same fire other things are rendered foul—it also most secretly from fire conceives fire, and the lump, though now cold to those who touch it, keeps it so latently that it appears to none of our senses at all; yet, discovered by experiment, even while it does not appear, it is known to be present, dormant. On account of which we call it living lime, as though the very fire lurking were the soul, invisible, of a visible body.

Iam uero quam mirum est, quod, cum extinguitur, tunc accenditur! Vt enim occulto igne careat, aquae infunditur aquaue perfunditur, et cum ante sit frigida, inde feruescit, unde feruentia cuncta frigescunt. Velut expirante ergo illa gleba discedens ignis, qui latebat, apparet, ac deinde tamquam morte sic frigida est, ut adiecta unda non sit arsura et quam calcem uocabamus uiuam, uocemus extinctam.

Now indeed how marvelous it is, that when it is extinguished, then it is ignited! For, in order that it may lack the hidden fire, it is poured upon with water or drenched with water, and though before it is cold, from that very thing it seethes, whence all things seething grow cold. Thus, as if that clod were breathing its last, the fire departing, which had lain hidden, appears; and thereafter it is so, as by death, cold, that an added wave will not be about to be scorched; and what we called quicklime, let us call extinct.

Quid est quod huic miraculo addi posse uideatur? et tamen additur. Nam si non adhibeas aquam, sed oleum, quod magis fomes est ignis, nulla eius perfusione uel infusione feruescit.

What is there that seems able to be added to this miracle? and yet it is added. For if you do not apply water, but oil, which is more the tinder of fire, by no drenching or pouring of it does it seethe.

Hoc miraculum si de aliquo Indico lapide legeremus siue audiremus et in nostrum experimentum uenire non posset, profecto aut mendacium putaremus aut certe granditer miraremur. Quarum uero rerum ante nostros oculos cotidiana documenta uersantur, non genere minus mirabili, sed ipsa assiduitate uilescunt, ita ut ex ipsa India, quae remota est pars orbis a nobis, desierimus nonnulla mirari, quae ad nos potuerunt miranda perduci.

If we were to read or hear of this miracle concerning some Indian stone, and it could not come into our experiment, surely we would either think it a mendacity or at any rate greatly marvel. But the daily evidences of things that pass before our eyes, not less marvelous in their kind, grow cheap by their very assiduity, so that from India itself, which is a region of the world remote from us, we have ceased to marvel at certain things which could have been conveyed to us as marvels.

Adamantem lapidem multi apud nos habent et maxime aurifices insignitoresque gemmarum, qui lapis nec ferro nec igni nec alia ui ulla perhibetur praeter hircinum sanguinem uinci. Sed qui eum habent atque nouerunt, numquid ita mirantur ut hi, quibus primum potentia eius ostenditur? Quibus autem non ostenditur, fortasse nec credunt; aut si credunt, inexperta mirantur; et si contigerit experiri, adhuc quidem mirantur insolita, sed assiduitas experiendi paulatim subtrahit admirationis incitamentum.

Many among us have the adamant stone, and especially goldsmiths and engravers of gems; which stone is said to be conquered by neither iron nor fire nor any other force, except by goat’s blood. But those who have and know it—do they marvel as much as those to whom its potency is shown for the first time? But to those to whom it is not shown, perhaps they do not believe; or if they do believe, they marvel at the untried; and if it should happen to make trial, even then indeed they marvel at the unusual, but the assiduity of experiencing gradually withdraws the incitement of admiration.

Magnetem lapidem nouimus mirabilem ferri esse raptorem; quod cum primum uidi, uehementer inhorrui. Quippe cernebam a lapide ferreum anulum raptum atque suspensum; deinde tamquam ferro, quod rapuerat, uim dedisset suam communemque fecisset, idem anulus alteri admotus est eundemque suspendit, atque ut ille prior lapidi, sic alter anulus priori anulo cohaerebat; accessit eodem modo tertius, accessit et quartus; iamque sibi per mutua circulis nexis non implicatorum intrinsecus, sed extrinsecus adhaerentium quasi catena pependerat anulorum. Quis istam uirtutem lapidis non stuperet, quae illi non solum inerat, uerum etiam per tot suspensa transibat et inuisibilibus ea uinculis subligabat?

We know the magnet-stone to be a marvelous raptor of iron; when I first saw this, I shuddered vehemently. For I perceived an iron ring snatched and suspended from the stone; then, as though it had given its own force to the iron which it had snatched and had made it common, that same ring was brought near to another and suspended it as well, and just as the former clung to the stone, so the second ring clung to the first ring; a third joined in the same way, and a fourth joined too; and now, by mutual linkage with their circles knit together, not intertwined on the inside, but adhering on the outside, there hung a chain, as it were, of rings. Who would not be astonished at that virtue of the stone, which not only was inherent in it, but also was passing through so many suspended ones and was binding them with invisible bonds?

Sed multo est mirabilius, quod a fratre et coepiscopo meo Seuero Mileuitano de isto lapide comperi. Se ipsum namque uidisse narrauit, quem ad modum Bathanarius quondam comes Africae, cum apud eum conuiuaretur episcopus, eundem protulerit lapidem et tenuerit sub argento ferrumque super argentum posuerit; deinde sicut subter mouebat manum, qua lapidem tenebat, ita ferrum desuper mouebatur, atque argento medio nihilque patiente concitatissimo cursu ac recursu infra lapis ab homine, supra ferrum rapiebatur a lapide. Dixi quod ipse conspexi, dixi quod ab illo audiui, cui tamquam ipse uiderim credidi.

But far more marvelous is what I learned from my brother and fellow-bishop Severus of Milevis concerning this stone. For he narrated that he himself had seen how Bathanarius, once count of Africa, when the bishop was dining with him, produced that same stone and held it beneath a piece of silver, and placed iron upon the silver; then, just as he moved below the hand with which he held the stone, so the iron above was moved, and with the silver in the middle permitting nothing, with most impetuous course and recourse, below the stone was guided by the man, above the iron was being snatched by the stone. I have said what I myself beheld; I have said what I heard from him, whom I believed as though I myself had seen.

Quid etiam de isto magnete legerim dicam. Quando iuxta eum ponitur adamans, non rapit ferrum, et si iam rapuerat, ut ei propinquauerit, mox remittit. India mittit hos lapides; sed si eos nos cognitos iam desistimus admirari, quanto magis illi, a quibus ueniunt, si eos facillimos habent, sic forsitan habent, ut nos calcem, quam miro modo aqua feruescentem, qua solet ignis extingui, et oleo non feruescentem, quo solet ignis accendi, quia in promptu nobis est, non miramur.

I will also tell what I have read about this magnet. When a diamond is placed next to it, it does not seize iron; and if it had already seized it, as soon as the diamond has approached it, it immediately releases it. India sends these stones; but if we, once acquainted with them, cease to admire them, how much more those from whom they come, if they have them very readily—perhaps they have them as we have lime, which in a wondrous way effervesces with water, by which fire is wont to be extinguished, and does not effervesce with oil, by which fire is wont to be kindled—because it is ready to hand for us, we do not marvel.

[V] Verum tamen homines infideles, qui, cum diuina uel praeterita uel futura miracula praedicamus, quae illis experienda non ualemus ostendere, rationem a nobis earum flagitant rerum, quam quoniam non possumus reddere (excedunt enim uires mentis humanae), existimant falsa esse quae dicimus, ipsi de tot mirabilibus rebus, quas uel uidere possumus uel uidemus, debent reddere rationem. Quod si fieri ab homine non posse peruiderint, fatendum est eis non ideo aliquid non fuisse uel non futurum esse, quia ratio inde non potest reddi, quando quidem sunt ista, de quibus similiter non potest. Non itaque pergo per plurima, quae mandata sunt litteris, non gesta atque transacta, sed in locis quibusque manentia; quo si quisquam ire uoluerit et potuerit, utrum uera sint, explorabit; sed pauca commemoro.

[5] But still the infidel men, who, when we proclaim divine miracles either past or future, which we are not able to show them as to be experienced, demand from us the reason of those things; which, since we cannot render (for they exceed the powers of the human mind), they deem that what we say is false; they themselves ought to render a reason concerning so many marvelous things which we can see or do see. But if they shall perceive that this cannot be done by man, it must be admitted by them that not on that account has something not been or will not be, because a reason thereof cannot be rendered, since there are things about which likewise it cannot be. I do not therefore proceed through the very many things which have been committed to letters, not done and passed away, but remaining in their several places; whither, if anyone shall have wished and been able to go, he will explore whether they are true; but I recall a few.

Agrigentinum Siciliae salem perhibent, cum fuerit admotus igni, uelut in aqua fluescere; cum uero ipsi aquae, uelut in igne crepitare. Apud Garamantas quendam fontem tam frigidum diebus, ut non bibatur, tam feruidum noctibus, ut non tangatur. In Epiro alium fontem, in quo faces, ut in ceteris, extinguuntur accensae, sed, non ut in ceteris, accenduntur extinctae.

They relate that the salt of Agrigentum in Sicily, when it has been brought near to fire, flows as if in water; but when to water itself, crackles as if in fire. Among the Garamantes, there is a certain spring so cold by day that it is not drunk, so fervid by night that it is not touched. In Epirus, another spring, in which torches, as in the others, are extinguished when lit, but, not as in the others, are lit when extinguished.

Asbeston Arcadiae lapidem propterea sic uocari, quod accensus semel iam non possit extingui. Lignum cuiusdam ficus Aegyptiae, non ut ligna cetera in aquis natare, sed mergi; et, quod est mirabilius, cum in imo aliquamdiu fuerit, inde ad aquae superficiem rursus emergere, quando madefactum debuit umoris pondere praegrauari. Poma in terra Sodomorum gigni quidem et ad maturitatis faciem peruenire; sed morsu pressuue temptata in fumum ac fauillam corio fatiscente uanescere.

They say the asbestine stone of Arcadia is so called for this reason: that, once ignited, it can no longer be extinguished. The wood of a certain Egyptian fig, not, like other woods, to float in waters, but to sink; and—what is more marvelous—when it has been for some time at the bottom, from there to re-emerge again to the surface of the water, when, being soaked, it ought to have been weighed down by the burden of moisture. Fruits in the land of Sodom are indeed produced and arrive at the face of maturity; but, tested by a bite or by pressure, they vanish into smoke and cinders, the skin crumbling.

Pyriten lapidem Persicum tenentis manum, si uehementius prematur, adurere, propter quod ab igne nomen accepit. In eadem Perside gigni etiam lapidem seleniten, cuius interiorem candorem cum luna crescere atque deficere. In Cappadocia etiam uento equas concipere, eosdemque fetus non amplius triennio uiuere.

The Persian stone pyrite burns the hand of the holder, if it be pressed more vehemently, on account of which it has received its name from fire. In the same Persia there is also produced the stone selenite, whose interior brightness waxes and wanes with the moon. In Cappadocia also mares conceive from the wind, and those same offspring live no more than three years.

Tylon Indiae insulam eo praeferri ceteris terris, quod omnis arbor, quae in ea gignitur, numquam nudatur tegmine foliorum.

Tylon, the island of India, is for this reason preferred to the other lands, that every tree which is produced in it is never stripped of the covering of leaves.

De his atque aliis innumerabilibus mirabilibus, quae historia non factorum et transactorum, sed manentium locorum tenet, mihi autem aliud agenti ea persequi nimis longum est, reddant rationem, si possunt, infideles isti, qui nolunt diuinis litteris credere; quid aliud quam non putantes eas esse diuinas, eo quod res habeant incredibiles, sicuti hoc est unde nunc agimus. Non enim admittit, inquiunt, ulla ratio, ut caro ardeat neque absumatur, doleat neque moriatur; ratiocinatores uidelicet magni, qui de omnibus rebus, quas esse mirabiles constat, possint reddere rationem. Reddant ergo de his, quae pauca posuimus, quae procul dubio si esse nescirent et ea futura esse diceremus, multo minus crederent, quam quod nunc dicentibus nobis nolunt credere aliquando uenturum.

About these and other innumerable marvels, which history holds not of things done and transacted, but of abiding places, while for me, busied with something else, to pursue them is too long, let those unbelievers render a reason, if they can, who are unwilling to believe the divine letters; what else than that they do not suppose them to be divine, because they contain incredible things, just as this is whereof we are now treating. For, they say, no reason admits that flesh should burn and not be consumed, should suffer pain and not die; great ratiocinators, forsooth, who are able to render a reason about all things which are agreed to be marvelous. Let them therefore render an account concerning those few which we have set forth, which, without doubt, if they did not know to exist and we were saying that they would be, they would believe much less than that which, we saying it now, they are unwilling to believe will sometime come.

Quis enim eorum nobis crederet, si, quem ad modum dicimus futura hominum uiua corpora quae semper arsura atque dolitura nec tamen aliquando moritura sint, ita diceremus in futuro saeculo futurum salem, quem faceret ignis uelut in aqua fluescere, eundemque faceret aqua uelut in igne crepitare; aut futurum fontem, cuius aqua in refrigerio noctis sic ardeat, ut non possit tangi, in aestibus uero diei sic algeat, ut non possit bibi; aut futurum lapidem, uel eum qui suo calore manum constringentis adureret, uel eum qui undecumque accensus extingui omnino non posset, et cetera quae praetermissis aliis innumeris commemoranda interim duxi? Haec ergo in illo saeculo, quod futurum est, si diceremus futura nobisque increduli responderent: "Si uultis ut ea credamus, de singulis reddite rationem": nos non posse confiteremur, eo quod istis et similibus Dei miris operibus infirma mortalium ratiocinatio uinceretur; fixam tamen apud nos esse rationem, non sine ratione Omnipotentem facere, unde animus humanus infirmus rationem non potest reddere; et in multis quidem rebus incertum nobis esse quid uelit, illud tamen esse certissimum, nihil eorum illi esse inpossibile, quaecumque uoluerit; eique nos credere praedicenti, quem neque inpotentem neque mentientem possumus credere. Hi tamen fidei reprehensores exactoresque rationis quid ad ista respondent, de quibus ratio reddi ab homine non potest, et tamen sunt, et ipsi rationi naturae uidentur esse contraria?

Who, indeed, among them would believe us, if—just as we say that in the future there will be living human bodies which will always be burning and suffering pain and yet will never at any time die—we were likewise to say that in the future age there will be a salt which fire would make to flow as if in water, and which water would make to crackle as if in fire; or that there will be a spring whose water in the coolness of night burns in such wise that it cannot be touched, but in the heats of day is so cold that it cannot be drunk; or that there will be a stone, either one which by its own heat would sear the hand of the one grasping it, or one which, once kindled from any source, could by no means be extinguished; and the rest, which, passing over countless others, I have meanwhile judged to be mentioned? Therefore, if we were to say that these things will be in that age which is to come, and the unbelieving should answer us: "If you wish us to believe these things, render a reason for each": we would confess that we are not able, for by these and similar marvelous works of God the feeble ratiocination of mortals would be overcome; yet we have a reason fixed with us, that the Omnipotent does not act without reason, though the weak human mind cannot render the reason; and in many matters indeed it is uncertain to us what he wills, yet this is most certain: that nothing of the things which he shall have willed is impossible for him; and that we believe him when he foretells, whom we can believe to be neither impotent nor lying. What, however, do these reproachers of faith and exactors of reason answer to those things, concerning which a reason cannot be rendered by man, and yet they are, and themselves seem to be contrary to the reason of nature?

Quae si futura esse diceremus, similiter a nobis, sicut eorum quae futura esse dicimus, ab infidelibus ratio posceretur. Ac per hoc, cum in talibus operibus Dei deficiat ratio cordis et sermonis humani, sicut ista non ideo non sunt, sic non ideo etiam illa non erunt, quoniam ratio de utrisque ab homine non potest reddi.

If we were to say that these things are going to be, a reason would likewise be demanded from us by the infidels, just as for those things which we say are going to be. And therefore, since in such works of God the reason of the heart and of human speech fails, just as these are not on that account nonexistent, so neither on that account will those not be, because a reason concerning both cannot be rendered by man.

[VI] Hic forte respondeant: "Prorsus nec ista sunt nec ista credimus; falsa de his dicta, falsa conscripta sunt"; et adiciant ratiocinantes atque dicentes: "Si talia credenda sunt, credite et uos quod in easdem litteras est relatum, fuisse uel esse quoddam Veneris fanum atque ibi candelabrum et in eo lucernam sub diuo sic ardentem, ut eam nulla tempestas, nullus imber extingueret, unde sicut ille lapis, ita istaluxnos asbestos, id est lucerna inextinguibilis, nominata est." Quod propterea poterunt dicere, ut respondendi nobis angustias ingerant; quia si dixerimus non esse credendum, scripta illa miraculorum infirmabimus; si autem credendum esse concesserimus, firmabimus numina paganorum. Sed nos, sicut iam in libro duodeuicensimo huius operis dixi, non habemus necesse omnia credere, quae historia continet gentium, cum et ipsi inter se historici, sicut ait Varro, quasi data opera et quasi ex industria per multa dissentiant; sed ea, si uolumus, credimus, quae non aduersantur libris, quibus non dubitamus oportere nos credere. De his autem miraculorum locis nobis ad ea, quae futura persuadere incredulis uolumus, satis illa sufficiant, quae nos quoque possumus experiri, et eorum testes idoneos non difficile est inuenire.

[6] Here perchance they might answer: "Absolutely neither are those things so, nor do we believe them; false things have been said about them, false things have been conscribed"; and they might add, reasoning and saying: "If such things are to be believed, you too believe what has been reported in those same writings, that there was or is a certain shrine of Venus and there a candelabrum, and on it a lamp burning under the open sky in such a way that no storm, no rain would extinguish it, whence, just as that stone, so this was namedluxnos asbestos, that is, an inextinguishable lamp." This they will be able to say in order to press upon us the straits of replying; because if we say it is not to be believed, we will weaken those writings of miracles; but if we concede that it is to be believed, we will strengthen the numina of the pagans. But we, as I have already said in the eighteenth book of this work, do not have it as a necessity to believe all things which the history of the nations contains, since the historians themselves, as Varro says, as if with set purpose and as if by design, disagree in many matters among themselves; but those things, if we will, we believe, which are not adverse to the books to which we do not doubt we ought to give credence. As for these places of miracles, for our purposes toward persuading the incredulous about things to come, let those suffice which we too can experience, and it is not difficult to find suitable witnesses of them.

De isto autem fano Veneris et lucerna inextinguibili non solum in nullas coartamur angustias, uerum etiam latitudinis nobis campus aperitur. Addimus enim ad istam lucernam inextinguibilem et humanarum et magicarum, id est per homines daemonicarum artium et ipsorum per se ipsos daemonum multa miracula; quae si negare uoluerimus, eidem ipsi cui credimus sacrarum litterarum aduersabimur ueritati. Aut ergo in lucerna illa mechanicum aliquid de lapide asbesto ars humana molita est aut arte magica factum est, quod homines illo mirarentur in templo, aut daemon quispiam sub nomine Veneris tanta se efficacia praesentauit, ut hoc ibi prodigium et appareret hominibus et diutius permaneret.

But concerning that shrine of Venus and the inextinguishable lamp, we are not only constrained into no straits, but even a field of latitude is opened to us. For we add to that inextinguishable lamp many miracles both human and magical—that is, through men, of daemonic arts, and of the daemons themselves by themselves; which, if we should wish to deny, we would be opposing the truth of the sacred writings to which we give credence. Either, then, in that lamp some mechanical contrivance from asbestos stone was wrought by human art, or it was done by magical art, in order that men might marvel at that thing in the temple, or some daemon under the name of Venus presented himself with such efficacy, that this prodigy both appeared there to men and endured for a long time.

Inliciuntur autem daemones ad inhabitandum per creaturas, quas non ipsi, sed Deus condidit, delectabilibus pro sua diuersitate diuersis, non ut animalia cibis, sed ut spiritus signis, quae cuiusque delectationi congruunt, per uaria genera lapidum herbarum, lignorum animalium, carminum rituum. Vt autem inliciantur ab hominibus, prius eos ipsi astutissima calliditate seducunt, uel inspirando eorum cordibus uirus occultum uel etiam fallacibus amicitiis apparendo, eorumque paucos discipulos suos faciunt plurimorumque doctores. Neque enim potuit, nisi primum ipsis docentibus, disci quid quisque illorum appetat, quid exhorreat, quo inuitetur nomine, quo cogatur; unde magicae artes earumque artifices extiterunt.

But demons are enticed to inhabit through creatures which not they themselves but God founded, delightful with diversities according to their own diversity, not as animals by foods, but as spirits by signs which are congruent to each one’s delectation, through various kinds of stones, herbs, woods, animals, incantations, rites. And in order that they may be enticed by human beings, they first seduce them with a most astute cunning, either by breathing a hidden venom into their hearts or even by appearing with deceitful friendships, and they make a few of them their disciples and the teachers of very many. For it could not be learned, unless they themselves first taught, what each of them desires, what he shudders at, by what name he is invited, by what he is constrained; whence the magical arts and the artificers thereof have arisen.

Maxime autem possident corda mortalium, qua potissimum possessione gloriantur, cum se transfigurant in angelos lucis. Sunt ergo facta eorum plurima, quae quanto magis mirabilia confitemur, tanto cautius uitare debemus; sed ad hoc, unde nunc agimus, nobis etiam ipsa proficiunt. Si enim haec inmundi daemones possunt, quanto potentiores sunt sancti angeli, quanto potentior his omnibus Deus, qui tantorum miraculorum effectores etiam ipsos angelos fecit!

But they most of all possess the hearts of mortals—a possession in which they chiefly glory—when they transfigure themselves into angels of light. There are therefore very many of their deeds which, the more we confess to be marvels, the more cautiously we ought to avoid; yet for the point we are now handling, those very things also profit us. For if unclean demons can do these things, how much more powerful are the holy angels; how much more powerful than all these is God, who made even the angels themselves the authors of so many miracles!

Quam ob rem si tot et tanta mirifica, quae *mhxanh/mata appellant, Dei creatura utentibus humanis artibus fiunt, ut ea qui nesciunt opinentur esse diuina (unde factum est, ut in quodam templo lapidibus magnetibus in solo et camera proportione magnitudinis positis simulacrum ferreum aeris illius medio inter utrumque lapidem ignorantibus, quid sursum esset ac deorsum, quasi numinis potestate penderet; quale aliquid etiam in illa lucerna Veneris de lapide asbesto ab artifice fieri potuisse iam diximus); si magorum opera, quos nostra scriptura ueneficos et incantatores uocat, in tantum daemones extollere potuerunt, ut congruere hominum sensibus sibi nobilis poeta uideretur, de quadam femina, quae tali arte polleret, dicens:

Therefore, if so many and so great marvels, which they call *mhxanh/mata*, are wrought by God’s creature making use of human arts, so that those who do not know suppose them to be divine (whence it happened that, in a certain temple, with magnetic stones placed on the floor and the ceiling in proportion of magnitude, an iron simulacrum, in the middle of that air between each stone, to those ignorant of what was up and what was down, seemed to hang as though by the power of a numen; something of the sort we have already said could also have been able to be made by an artificer in that lamp of Venus from the asbestos stone); if by the works of magi, whom our Scripture calls venefici and enchanters, the demons have been able to exalt themselves to such a point that a noble poet deemed it congruent with the senses of men to say about a certain woman who excelled in such an art, saying:

Haec se carminibus promittit soluere mentes
Quas uelit, ast aliis duras inmittere curas,
Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro;
Nocturnosque ciet manes: mugire uidebis

She promises by incantations to loosen minds
whom she will, but to impose harsh cares on others,
to halt the water in rivers and to turn the stars backward;
and she summons the nocturnal shades: you will see them bellow

Sub pedibus terram et descendere montibus ornos: quanto magis Deus potens est facere quae infidelibus sunt incredibilia, sed illius facilia potestati; quando quidem ipse lapidum aliarumque uim rerum et hominum ingenia, qui ea miris utuntur modis, angelicasque naturas omnibus terrenis potentiores animantibus condidit, uniuersa mirabilia mirabili uincente uirtute et operandi iubendi sinendique sapientia, utens omnibus tam mirabiliter, quam creauit.

Under the feet the earth and the mountain-ashes to descend from the mountains: how much more is God powerful to do things which are incredible to infidels, yet easy to His potency; since indeed He Himself created the force of stones and of other things, and the ingenia of men, who use them in wondrous modes, and the angelic natures, more potent than all earthly animate beings, conquering all marvels with a marvelous virtue and with the wisdom of working, commanding, and permitting, using all things as wondrously as He created them.

[VII] Cur itaque facere non possit Deus, ut et resurgant corpora mortuorum et igne aeterno crucientur corpora damnatorum, qui fecit mundum in caelo in terra, in aere in aquis innumerabilibus miraculis plenum, cum sit omnibus quibus plenus est procul dubio maius et excellentius etiam mundus ipse miraculum? Sed isti, cum quibus uel contra quos agimus, qui et Deum esse credunt, a quo factus est mundus, et deos ab illo factos, per quos ab illo administratur mundus, et miraculorum effectrices siue spontaneorum siue cultu et ritu quolibet impetratorum siue etiam magicorum mundanas uel non negant uel insuper et praedicant potestates, quando eis rerum uim mirabilem proponimus aliarum, quae nec animalia sunt rationalia nec ulla ratione praediti spiritus, sicut sunt ea, quorum pauca commemorauimus, respondere adsolent: "Vis est ista naturae, natura eorum sic sese habet, propriarum sunt istae efficaciae naturarum." Tota itaque ratio est, cur Agrigentinum salem flamma fluere faciat, aqua crepitare, quia haec est natura eius. At hoc esse potius contra naturam uidetur, quae non igni, sed aquae dedit salem soluere, torrere autem igni, non aquae.

[7] Why, then, should God not be able to bring it about both that the bodies of the dead rise again and that the bodies of the damned are tormented by eternal fire—He who made the world in heaven and on earth, in the air and in the waters, full of innumerable miracles—since, beyond doubt, among all the things with which it is filled, the world itself is a greater and more excellent miracle? But those with whom, or against whom, we are conducting our case—who both believe that there is a God by whom the world was made, and gods made by Him, through whom the world is administered by Him, and who either do not deny or even proclaim the worldly powers as effectors of miracles, whether spontaneous or impetrated by any cult and rite, or even magical—when we set before them the marvelous force of other things, which are neither rational animals nor spirits endowed with any reason (such as are those of which we have recalled a few), are accustomed to reply: "This is the force of nature; the nature of those things is so constituted; these are the proper efficiencies of natures." Therefore the whole rationale why flame makes Agrigentine salt flow and water crackle is that this is its nature. But this rather seems to be contrary to nature, which has given salt to be dissolved not by fire but by water, and to be parched by fire, not by water.

Sed ista, inquiunt, salis huius naturalis est uis, ut his contraria patiatur. Haec igitur ratio redditur et de illo fonte Garamantico, ubi una uena friget diebus, noctibus feruet, ui utraque molesta tangentibus; haec et de illo alio, qui cum sit contrectantibus frigidus et facem sicut alii fontes extinguat accensam, dissimiliter tamen atque mirabiliter idem ipse accendit extinctam; haec et de lapide asbesto, qui cum ignem nullum habeat proprium, accepto tamen sic ardet alieno, ut non possit extingui; haec de ceteris, quae piget retexere, quibus licet uis insolita contra naturam inesse uideatur, alia tamen de illis non redditur ratio, nisi ut dicatur hanc eorum esse naturam. Breuis sane ista est ratio, fateor, sufficiensque responsio.

But this, they say, is the natural force of this salt, that it undergoes things contrary to these. Therefore this account is rendered also of that Garamantian spring, where one vein is cold by day, hot by night, both conditions troublesome to those who touch; this likewise of that other one, which, though it is cold to those who handle it and, like other springs, extinguishes a torch once lit, yet, differently and wondrously, the very same kindles one that has been quenched; this of the asbestos stone as well, which, though it has no fire proper to itself, yet, having received an alien one, burns so that it cannot be extinguished; and this of the rest, which it wearies me to unravel, in which, although an unusual force seems to inhere contrary to nature, yet no other account is rendered of them except that it be said this is their nature. Brief indeed is this reason, I confess, and a sufficient response.

Sed cum Deus auctor sit naturarum omnium, cur nolunt fortiorem nos reddere rationem, quando aliquid uelut inpossibile nolunt credere eisque redditionem rationis poscentibus respondemus hanc esse uoluntatem omnipotentis Dei? qui certe non ob aliud uocatur omnipotens, nisi quoniam quidquid uult potest, qui potuit creare tam multa, quae nisi ostenderentur aut a credendis hodieque dicerentur testibus, profecto inpossibilia putarentur, non solum quae ignotissima apud nos, uerum etiam quae notissima posui. Illa enim quae [apud nos] praeter eos, quorum de his libros legimus, non habent testem et ab eis conscripta sunt, qui non sunt diuinitus docti atque humanitus falli forte potuerunt, licet cuique sine recta reprehensione non credere.

But since God is the author of all natures, why are they unwilling that we render a stronger reason, when, as though something were impossible, they refuse to believe, and to those demanding a rendering of reason we reply that this is the will of the omnipotent God? who surely is not for any other cause called omnipotent, except that whatever he wills he can, who was able to create so many things which, unless they were shown or were said even today by credible witnesses, would surely be thought impossible—not only those which are most unknown among us, but even those which I have set forth as most well-known. For those things which [among us], apart from those whose books about these matters we read, have no witness, and were written by men who are not divinely taught and could perhaps be deceived humanly, it is allowed to anyone, without just reproach, not to believe.

Nam nec ego uolo temere credi cuncta quae posui, quia nec a me ipso ita creduntur, tamquam nulla de illis sit in mea cogitatione dubitatio, exceptis his, quae uel ipse sum expertus et cuiuis facile est experiri; sicut de calce, quod feruet in aqua, in oleo frigida est; de magnete lapide, quod nescio qua sorbitione insensibili stipulam non moueat et ferrum rapiat; de carne non putescente pauonis, cum putuerit et Platonis; de palea sic frigente, ut fluescere niuem non sinat, sic calente ut maturescere poma compellat; de igne fulgido, quod secundum suum fulgorem lapides coquendo candificet et contra eundem suum fulgorem urendo plurima offuscet. Tale est et quod nigrae maculae offunduntur ex oleo splendido, similiter nigrae lineae de candido inprimuntur argento, de carbonibus etiam, quod accendente igne sic uertantur in contrarium, ut de lignis pulcherrimis taetri, fragiles de duris, inputribiles de putribilibus fiant. Haec ipse quaedam cum multis, quaedam cum omnibus noui, et alia plurima, quae huic libro inserere longum fuit.

Neither do I wish that all the things I have set down be rashly believed, since not even by myself are they so believed, as though there were no doubt about them in my cogitation, except for those which I myself have experienced and which it is easy for anyone to experience; as about lime, that it boils in water, in oil it is cold; about the magnet-stone, that by I-know-not-what insensible sorption it does not move a straw and yet snatches iron; about the non-putrefying flesh of the peacock, whereas even that of Plato putrefied; about chaff being so cold that it does not allow snow to become fluid, and so hot that it compels fruits to ripen; about shining fire, that according to its own fulgor it whitens stones by cooking them, and against that same its fulgor, by burning, it darkens very many things. Such also is that black spots are shed from splendid oil, likewise black lines are imprinted upon bright silver, and about charcoals too, that when the fire is kindled they are so turned into the contrary that from most beautiful woods they become foul, from hard ones fragile, from putrescible ones not-putrescible. These things, some I myself know with many, some with all, and very many others, which it was too long to insert into this book.

De his autem, quae posui non experta, sed lecta, praeter de fonte illo, ubi faces et extinguuntur ardentes et accenduntur extinctae, et de pomis terrae Sodomorum forinsecus quasi maturis, intrinsecus fumeis, nec testes aliquos idoneos, a quibus utrum uera essent audirem, potui reperire. Et illum quidem fontem non inueni qui in Epiro uidisse se dicerent, sed qui in Gallia similem nossent non longe a Gratianopili ciuitate. De fructibus autem arborum Sodomitarum non tantum litterae fide dignae indicant, uerum etiam tam multi se loquuntur expertos, ut hinc dubitare non possim.

But concerning those things which I have set down not as experienced but as read, except for that spring where torches, while burning, are extinguished and, when extinguished, are kindled, and for the apples of the land of Sodom, outwardly as if ripe, inwardly sooty, I was not able to find any suitable witnesses from whom I might hear whether they were true. And as for that spring, indeed I did not find people who said that they had seen it in Epirus, but those who knew a similar one in Gaul not far from the city of Gratianopolis. But about the fruits of the Sodomite trees, not only do writings worthy of faith indicate this, but also so many declare themselves to have experienced it that from this I cannot doubt.

Cetera uero sic habeo, ut neque neganda neque adfirmanda decreuerim; sed ideo etiam ipsa posui, quoniam apud eorum, contra quos agimus, historicos legi, ut ostenderem qualia multa multique illorum nulla reddita ratione in suorum litteratorum scripta litteris credant, qui nobis credere, quando id, quod eorum experientiam sensumque transgreditur, omnipotentem Deum dicimus esse facturum, nec reddita ratione dignantur. Nam quae melior et ualidior ratio de rebus talibus redditur, quam cum Omnipotens ea posse facere perhibetur et facturus dicitur, quae praenuntiasse ibi legitur, ubi alia multa praenuntiauit, quae fecisse monstratur? Ipse quippe faciet, quia se facturum esse praedixit, quae inpossibilia putantur, qui promisit et fecit ut ab incredulis gentibus incredibilia crederentur.

But the rest I hold thus, that I have determined neither to deny nor to affirm; but for this reason I also set them down, because I read among the historians of those against whom we contend, in order to show of what sort and how many are the things which many of them, with no reason rendered, believe as recorded in the writings of their literati—who do not deign to believe us, when we say that the Omnipotent God will do what transcends their experience and sense, nor do they even deem a reason worth rendering. For what better and more valid reason is given about such matters than this: that the Omnipotent is affirmed to be able to do them and is said to be about to do what he is read to have foretold there, where he foretold many other things that he is shown to have done? For he himself will do the things that are thought impossible, because he predicted that he would do them—he who promised and brought it to pass that by unbelieving nations unbelievable things should be believed.

[VIII] Si autem respondent propterea se non credere quae de humanis semper arsuris nec umquam morituris corporibus dicimus, quia humanorum corporum naturam nouimus longe aliter institutam, unde nec illa ratio hinc reddi potest, quae de illis naturis mirabilibus reddebatur, ut dici possit: "Vis ista naturalis est, rei huius ista natura est"; quoniam scimus humanae carnis istam non esse naturam: habemus quidem quod respondeamus de litteris sacris, hanc ipsam scilicet humanam carnem aliter institutam fuisse ante peccatum, id est, ut posset numquam perpeti mortem; aliter autem post peccatum, qualis in aerumna huius mortalitatis innotuit, ut perpetem uitam tenere non possit; sic ergo aliter, quam nobis nota est, instituetur in resurrectione mortuorum. Sed quoniam istis non credunt litteris, ubi legitur qualis in paradiso uixerit homo quantumque fuerit a necessitate mortis alienus (quibus utique si crederent, non cum illis de poena damnatorum, quae futura est, operosius ageremus): de litteris eorum, qui doctissimi apud illos fuerunt, aliquid proferendum est, quo appareat posse fieri, ut aliter se habeat quaeque res, quam prius in rebus innotuerat suae determinatione naturae.

[8] But if they reply that for this reason they do not believe the things we say about human bodies that will always be burning and will never die, because we know the nature of human bodies to have been established far otherwise, whence neither can that reason be given here which used to be given about those marvelous natures, so that it could be said: “This force is natural; this is the nature of this thing,” since we know that this is not the nature of human flesh: we do indeed have something to answer from the sacred letters, namely that this very human flesh was otherwise instituted before sin, that is, so that it could never suffer death; but otherwise after sin, such as it has become known in the distress of this mortality, so that it cannot hold perpetual life; thus therefore otherwise, than it is known to us, will it be instituted in the resurrection of the dead. But since they do not believe those letters, where it is read how the human being lived in paradise and how far he was alien from the necessity of death (and assuredly, if they believed these, we would not labor more elaborately with them about the punishment of the condemned, which is to come), something must be brought forward from their letters, of those who were most learned among them, by which it may appear that it can come to pass that each thing be otherwise disposed than previously it had been known among things by the determination of its nature.

Est in Marci Varronis libris, quorum inscriptio est: De gente populi Romani, quod eisdem uerbis, quibus ibi legitur, et hic ponam: "In caelo, inquit, mirabile extitit portentum; nam <in> stella Veneris nobilissima, quam Plautus Vesperuginem, Homerus Hesperon appellat, pulcherrimam dicens, Castor scribit tantum portentum extitisse, ut mutaret colorem, magnitudinem, figuram, cursum; quod factum ita neque antea nec postea sit. Hoc factum Ogygo rege dicebant Adrastos Cyzicenos et Dion Neapolites, mathematici nobiles." Hoc certe Varro tantus auctor portentum non appellaret, nisi esse contra naturam uideretur. Omnia quippe portenta contra naturam dicimus esse; sed non sunt.

There is in the books of Marcus Varro, whose inscription is: On the Race of the Roman People, something which, in the same words in which it is read there, I will also set down here: “In the sky,” he says, “a marvelous portent stood forth; for <in> the most noble star of Venus, which Plautus calls the Evening-Star, Homer calls Hesperon, calling it most beautiful, Castor writes that so great a portent stood forth that it changed color, magnitude, figure, course; and that such a thing happened neither before nor after. This occurrence, in the reign of Ogyges, Adrastus the Cyzicenian and Dion the Neapolitan, noble mathematicians, used to say.” Surely Varro, so great an auctor, would not call it a portent unless it seemed to be against nature. For indeed we say that all portents are against nature; but they are not.

Quo modo est enim contra naturam, quod Dei fit uoluntate, cum uoluntas tanti utique conditoris conditae rei cuiusque natura sit? Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura. Quis autem portentorum numerat multitudinem, quae historia gentium continetur?

How, indeed, is that against nature which is done by the will of God, when the will of so great a Creator is the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, comes to be not against nature, but against the nature as it is known. And who numbers the multitude of portents which is contained in the history of the nations?

Sed nunc in hoc uno adtendamus, quod ad rem, de qua agimus, pertinet. Quid ita dispositum est ab auctore naturae caeli et terrae, quem ad modum cursus ordinatissimus siderum? Quid tam ratis legibus fixisque firmatum?

But now let us attend to this one thing, which pertains to the matter about which we are dealing. What is so disposed by the author of the nature of heaven and earth as the most orderly course of the stars? What is so established by ratified and fixed laws?

Et tamen, quando ille uoluit, qui summo regit imperio ac potestate quod condidit, stella prae ceteris magnitudine ac splendore notissima colorem, magnitudinem, figuram et (quod est mirabilius) sui cursus ordinem legemque mutauit. Turbauit profecto tunc, si ulli iam fuerunt, canones astrologorum, quos uelut inerrabili computatione de praeteritis ac futuris astrorum motibus conscriptos habent, quos canones sequendo ausi sunt dicere, hoc, quod de Lucifero contigit, nec antea nec postea contigisse. Nos autem in diuinis libris legimus etiam solem ipsum et stetisse, cum hoc a Domino Deo petiuisset uir sanctus Iesus Naue, donec coeptum proelium uictoria terminaret, et retrorsum redisse, ut regi Ezechiae quindecim anni ad uiuendum additi hoc etiam prodigio promissionis Dei significarentur adiuncto.

And yet, when He willed—He who with supreme imperium and power governs what He has founded—a star most noted above the rest for magnitude and splendor changed its color, magnitude, figure, and (what is more marvelous) the order and law of its own course. It surely then threw into confusion, if there already were any, the canons of the astrologers, which they hold as though composed by inerrable computation concerning the past and future motions of the stars; by following which canons they dared to say that this, which befell concerning Lucifer (the Morning Star), happened neither before nor after. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself both stood still, when the holy man Jesus Nave (Joshua) had asked this of the Lord God, until the battle begun was ended with victory, and went backward, so that for King Hezekiah the fifteen years added for living might also be signified by this prodigy appended to the promise of God.

Sed ista quoque miracula, quae meritis sunt concessa sanctorum, quando credunt isti facta, magicis artibus tribuunt. Vnde illud est, quod superius commemoraui dixisse Vergilium:

But these miracles too, which have been granted to the merits of the saints, whenever these people believe them to have been done, they attribute to magical arts. Whence comes that which I mentioned above that Virgil said:

Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro. Nam et fluuium stetisse superius inferiusque fluxisse, cum populus Dei ductore supra memorato Iesu Naue uiam carperet, et Helia propheta transeunte ac postea discipulo eius Helisaeo id esse factum in sacris litteris legimus, et retro uersum fuisse maximum sidus regnante Ezechia modo commemorauimus. Quod uero de Lucifero Varro scripsit, non est illic dictum alicui petenti homini id fuisse concessum.

To make water stand still in rivers and to turn the stars backward. For both that a river stood still upstream and flowed downstream, when the people of God, with the above-mentioned leader Iesus Naue, were pursuing their way, and that, as the prophet Helias was crossing and afterwards his disciple Helisaeus, this was done, we read in the sacred letters; and that the greatest star was turned backward in the reign of Ezechias we have just now recalled. But as to what Varro wrote concerning Lucifer, it is not there said that this was granted to any man who was asking.

Non ergo de notitia naturarum caliginem sibi faciant infideles, quasi non possit in aliqua re diuinitus fieri aliud, quam in eius natura per humanam suam experientiam cognouerunt; quamuis et ipsa, quae in rerum natura omnibus nota sunt, non minus mira sint, essentque stupenda considerantibus cunctis, si solerent homines mirari mira nisi rara. Quis enim consulta ratione non uideat in hominum innumerabili numerositate et tanta naturae similitudine ualde mirabiliter sic habere singulos singulas facies, ut nisi inter se similes essent, non discerneretur species eorum ab animalibus ceteris; et rursum nisi inter se dissimiles essent, non discernerentur singuli ab hominibus ceteris? Quos ergo similes confitemur, eosdem dissimiles inuenimus.

Therefore let not the infidels make for themselves a caliginous obscurity from the knowledge of natures, as if it were not possible that something divinely be done in some matter other than what, in its nature, they have known through their human experience; although those very things which in the nature of things are known to all are no less marvelous, and would be stupendous to all considering, if men were wont to marvel at marvels only when they are rare. For who, consulting reason, does not see, in the innumerable numerousness of men and in so great a likeness of nature, that each individual has an individual face most wondrously arranged in such a way that, unless they were similar among themselves, their species would not be distinguished from the other animals; and in turn, unless they were dissimilar among themselves, individuals would not be distinguished from the other men? Those therefore whom we confess to be similar, the same we find to be dissimilar.

Sed mirabilior est consideratio dissimilitudinis, quoniam similitudinem iustius uidetur exposcere natura communis. Et tamen quoniam quae sunt rara ipsa sunt mira, multo amplius admiramur quando duos ita similes reperimus, ut in eis discernendis aut semper aut frequenter erremus.

But more marvelous is the consideration of dissimilarity, since the common nature seems more justly to demand similarity. And yet, since the things that are rare are themselves marvelous, we admire much more when we find two so similar that, in discerning them, we either always or frequently err.

Sed quod dixi scriptum a Varrone, licet eorum sit historicus idemque doctissimus, fortasse uere factum esse non credunt; aut quia non diu mansit alius eiusdem sideris cursus, sed reditum est ad solitum, minus isto mouentur exemplo. Habent ergo aliud, quod etiam nunc possit ostendi eisque puto debere sufficere, quo commoneantur, cum aliquid aduerterint in aliqua institutione naturae eamque sibi notissimam fecerint, non se inde Deo debere praescribere, quasi eam non possit in longe aliud, quam eis cognita est, uertere atque mutare. Terra Sodomorum non fuit utique ut nunc est, sed iacebat simili ceteris facie eademque uel etiam uberiore fecunditate pollebat; nam Dei paradiso in diuinis eloquiis comparata est.

But as to what I said was written by Varro, although he is their historian and likewise most learned, perhaps they do not believe that it truly was done; or because a different course of the same star did not last long, but there was a return to the customary, they are less moved by that example. They have therefore another, which even now can be shown and which I think ought to suffice for them, whereby they may be reminded that, when they have noticed something in some institution of nature and have made it most well-known to themselves, they ought not from that to prescribe to God, as if He could not turn and change it into something far other than it has been known to them. The land of Sodom certainly was not as it is now, but lay with an appearance similar to the rest and was endowed with the same, or even a richer, fecundity; for in the divine oracles it is compared to the paradise of God.

Haec postea quam tacta de caelo est, sicut illorum quoque adtestatur historia et nunc ab eis qui ueniunt ad loca illa conspicitur, prodigiosa fuligine horrori est et poma eius interiorem fauillam mendaci superficie maturitatis includunt. Ecce non erat talis, et talis est. Ecce a conditore naturarum natura eius in hanc foedissimam diuersitatem mirabili mutatione conuersa est; et quod post tam longum accidit tempus, tam longo tempore perseuerat.

This, after it was touched from heaven, as their history also attests and as is now seen by those who come to those places, is a horror with prodigious soot, and its fruits enclose interior cinders beneath a mendacious surface of ripeness. Behold, it was not such, and such it is. Behold, by the Founder of natures its nature has been turned, by a wondrous mutation, into this most foul diversity; and what happened after so long a time, for so long a time perseveres.

Sicut ergo non fuit inpossibile Deo, quas uoluit instituere, sic ei non est inpossibile, in quidquid uoluerit, quas instituit, mutare naturas. Vnde illorum quoque miraculorum multitudo siluescit, quae monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur; quae recolere et commemorare si uelim, huius operis quis erit finis? Monstra sane dicta perhibent a monstrando, quod aliquid significando demonstrent, et ostenta ab ostendendo, et portenta a portendendo, id est praeostendendo, et prodigia, quod porro dicant, id est futura praedicant.

Just as therefore it was not impossible for God to institute whatever things He willed, so for Him it is not impossible to change into whatever He will the natures which He instituted. Whence also the multitude of those miracles grows wild, which are denominated monsters, ostents, portents, prodigies; which, if I should wish to recollect and commemorate, what end would there be to this work? Monsters, to be sure, are said to be so called from “monstrando” (showing), because by signifying they demonstrate something; and ostents from “ostending” (ostendere, to show); and portents from “portending,” that is, foreshowing; and prodigies, because they “say forth” (porro dicant), that is, they foretell things to come.

Sed uiderint eorum coniectores, quo modo ex eis siue fallantur siue instinctu spirituum, quibus cura est tali poena dignos animos hominum noxiae curiositatis retibus implicare, etiam uera praedicant siue multa dicendo aliquando in aliquid ueritatis incurrant. Nobis tamen ista, quae uelut contra naturam fiunt et contra naturam fieri dicuntur (quo more hominum locutus est et apostolus dicendo contra naturam in olea insitum oleastrum factum esse participem pinguedinis oleae) et monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur, hoc monstrare debent, hoc ostendere uel praeostendere, hoc praedicere, quod facturus sit Deus, quae de corporibus hominum se praenuntiauit esse facturum, nulla impediente difficultate, nulla praescribente lege naturae. Quo modo autem praenuntiauerit, satis in libro superiore docuisse me existimo, decerpendo de scripturis sanctis et nouis et ueteribus non quidem omnia ad hoc pertinentia, sed quae sufficere huic operi iudicaui.

But let their interpreters see how, either being deceived by them, or by the instigation of spirits whose concern it is to entangle with the nets of noxious curiosity the souls of men deserving such a penalty, they even proclaim true things, or, by saying many things, they sometimes run into something of the truth. For us, however, these things which are done as if against nature and are said to be done against nature (in which mode of human speech the Apostle also spoke, saying that the wild olive grafted into the olive against nature was made a participant in the fatness of the olive), and which are named monsters, ostents, portents, prodigies, ought to show this, to point out or pre-show this, to predict this: what God is going to do—things which He has foreannounced He will do concerning the bodies of men—with no hindering difficulty, with no law of nature prescribing beforehand. But in what way He has foreannounced it, I consider that I have taught sufficiently in the preceding book, plucking from the holy Scriptures both new and old, not indeed all things pertaining to this, but those which I judged sufficient for this work.

[IX] Quod igitur de sempiterno supplicio damnatorum per suum prophetam Deus dixit, fiet, omnino fiet: Vermis eorum non morietur et ignis eorum non extinguetur. Ad hoc enim uehementius commendandum etiam Dominus Iesus, cum membra quae hominem scandalizant pro his hominibus poneret, quos ut sua membra dextra quis diligit, eaque praeciperet amputari: Bonum est tibi, inquit, debilem introire in uitam quam duas manus habentem ire in gehennam, in ignem inextinguibilem, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non extinguitur. Similiter de pede: Bonum est tibi, inquit, claudum introire in uitam aeternam quam duos pedes habentem mitti in gehennam ignis inextinguibilis, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non extinguitur.

[9] Therefore what God has said through his prophet about the everlasting punishment of the condemned will happen, it will altogether happen: Their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished. For the more vehement commendation of this, the Lord Jesus also, when he put the members which scandalize a man in place of those human beings whom someone loves as his own right-hand members, and commanded these to be amputated: “It is good for you,” he says, “to enter into life maimed rather than, having two hands, to go into Gehenna, into the inextinguishable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished.” Likewise concerning the foot: “It is good for you,” he says, “to enter into eternal life lame rather than, having two feet, to be sent into Gehenna of inextinguishable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished.”

Non aliter ait et de oculo: Bonum est tibi luscum introire in regnum Dei quam duos oculos habentem mitti in gehennam ignis, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non extinguitur. Non eum piguit uno loco eadem uerba ter dicere. Quem non terreat ista repetitio et illius poenae commendatio tam uehemens ore diuino?

Likewise he says also about the eye: “It is good for you to enter one‑eyed into the kingdom of God rather than, having two eyes, to be sent into the Gehenna of fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished.” He did not shrink from saying the same words three times in one place. Who is not terrified by this repetition, and by the so vehement commendation of that punishment from the divine mouth?

Vtrumque autem horum, ignem scilicet atque uermem, qui uolunt ad animi poenas, non ad corporis pertinere, dicunt etiam uri dolore animi sero atque infructuose paenitentes eos, qui fuerint a regno Dei separati, et ideo ignem pro isto dolore urente non incongrue poni potuisse contendunt; unde illud apostoli est: Quis scandalizatur, et non ego uror? Eundem etiam uermem putant intellegendum esse. Nam scriptum est, inquiunt: Sicut tinea uestimentum et uermis lignum, sic maeror excruciat cor uiri.

Both of these, however—namely the fire and the worm—those who want them to pertain to the punishments of the soul, not of the body, say that those who repent late and fruitlessly, who have been separated from the kingdom of God, are also burned by the pain of the soul; and therefore they contend that fire could not incongruously have been set for that burning pain; whence is that saying of the Apostle: Who is scandalized, and am not I burned? They think the same worm also is to be understood. For it is written, they say: As the moth [does] to a garment and the worm to wood, so grief excruciates a man’s heart.

Qui uero poenas et animi et corporis in illo supplicio futuras esse non dubitant, igne uri corpus, animum autem rodi quodam modo uerme maeroris adfirmant. Quod etsi credibilius dicitur, quia utique absurdum est, ibi dolorem aut corporis aut animi defuturum: ego tamen facilius est ut ad corpus dicam utrumque pertinere quam neutrum, et ideo tacitum in illis diuinae scripturae uerbis animi dolorem, quoniam consequens esse intellegitur, etiamsi non dicatur, ut corpore sic dolente animus quoque sterili paenitentia crucietur. Legitur quippe et in ueteribus scripturis: Vindicta carnis impii ignis et uermis.

But those who do not doubt that penalties both of mind and of body will be in that punishment affirm that the body is burned by fire, but that the mind is in a certain manner gnawed by the worm of grief. Which, even if it is said more credibly—since of course it is absurd that there should there be lacking the pain either of the body or of the mind—yet for me it is easier to say that both pertain to the body rather than neither; and therefore the pain of the mind is tacit in those words of divine Scripture, since it is understood to follow even if it is not said, so that, the body thus suffering, the mind also is tormented with sterile penitence. For it is read also in the ancient Scriptures: The vengeance of the flesh of the impious: fire and worm.

Potuit breuius dici: Vindicta impii. Cur ergo dictum est: carnis impii, nisi quia utrumque, id est et ignis et uermis, poena erit carnis? Aut si uindictam carnis propterea dicere uoluit, quia hoc in homine uindicabitur, quod secundum carnem uixerit (propter hoc enim ueniet in mortem secundam, quam significauit apostolus dicens: Si enim secundum carnem uixeritis, moriemini), eligat quisque quod placet, aut ignem tribuere corpori, animo uermem, hoc proprie, illud tropice, aut utrumque proprie corpori.

It could have been said more briefly: Vengeance of the impious. Why therefore was it said: of the flesh of the impious, unless because both, that is both fire and worm, will be a punishment of the flesh? Or if he wished to say “vengeance of the flesh” for this reason, because this will be avenged in the human being, that he lived according to the flesh (for on account of this he will come into the second death, which the Apostle signified, saying: For if you live according to the flesh, you will die), let each choose what pleases him: either to assign fire to the body, to the soul the worm—this properly, that tropically (figuratively)—or both properly to the body.

Iam enim satis superius disputaui posse animalia etiam in ignibus uiuere, in ustione sine consumptione, in dolore sine morte, per miraculum omnipotentissimi Creatoris; cui hoc possibile esse qui negat, a quo sit quidquid in naturis omnibus miratur ignorat. Ipse est enim Deus, qui omnia in hoc mundo magna et parua miracula, quae commemorauimus, et incomparabiliter plura, quae non commemorauimus fecit, eademque ipso mundo uno atque omnium maximo miraculo inclusit. Eligat ergo unum e duobus quisque quod placet, utrum et uermem ad corpus proprie an ad animum translato a corporalibus ad incorporalia uocabulo existimet pertinere.

Now indeed I have sufficiently argued above that animals can live even in fires, in burning without consumption, in pain without death, by the miracle of the most omnipotent Creator; whoever denies that this is possible for Him does not know from whom is whatever he marvels at in all natures. For He is God, who has done all the great and small miracles in this world which we have commemorated, and incomparably more which we have not commemorated, and has enclosed these same within the world itself, one and the greatest of all miracles. Let each, then, choose one of two as he pleases: whether he thinks that even the worm pertains properly to the body, or to the mind, with the term transferred from corporeal things to incorporeals.

Quid autem horum uerum sit, res ipsa expeditius indicabit, quando erit scientia tanta sanctorum, ut eis cognoscendarum illarum poenarum necessaria non sit experientia, sed ea, quae tunc erit plena atque perfecta, ad hoc quoque sciendum sapientia sola sufficiat (nunc enim ex parte scimus, donec ueniat quod perfectum est); dum tamen nullo modo illa corpora talia futura esse credamus, ut nullis ab igne afficiantur doloribus.

But which of these is true the thing itself will more readily indicate, when there shall be such great knowledge among the saints that for them the experience of learning those punishments will not be necessary, but the wisdom which will then be full and perfect will by itself suffice for knowing this as well (for now we know in part, until what is perfect comes); provided, however, that we by no means believe those bodies will be such as to be affected by no pains from the fire.

[X] Hic occurrit quaerere: Si non erit ignis incorporalis, sicut est animi dolor, sed corporalis, tactu noxius, ut eo possint corpora cruciari: quo modo in eo erit etiam poena spirituum malignorum? Idem quippe ignis erit, supplicio scilicet hominum adtributus et daemonum, dicente Christo: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius. Nisi quia sunt quaedam sua etiam daemonibus corpora, sicut doctis hominibus uisum est, ex isto aere crasso atque umido, cuius inpulsus uento flante sentitur.

[10] Here it occurs to ask: If the fire will not be incorporeal, as is the pain of the mind, but corporeal, harmful to the touch, so that by it bodies can be tormented: in what way in it will there also be the punishment of malign spirits? For the same fire will be, namely assigned for the punishment of men and of daemons, with Christ saying: "Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." Unless it be because there are certain bodies proper even to daemons, as it has seemed to learned men, from this thick and humid air, whose impulses are felt when the wind is blowing.

Quod genus elementi si nihil igne perpeti posset, non ureret feruefactus in balneis. Vt enim urat, prior uritur facitque cum patitur. Si autem quisquam nulla habere corpora daemones adseuerat, non est de hac re aut laborandum operosa inquisitione aut contentiosa disputatione certandum.

Such a kind of element, if it could suffer nothing from fire, would not sear when heated in the baths. For, in order that it may burn, it is first burned, and it acts while it suffers. But if anyone asseverates that the demons have no bodies at all, there is no need about this matter either to labor an operose inquisition or to contend in contentious disputation.

Cur enim non dicamus, quamuis miris, tamen ueris modis etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis affligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi profecto incorporei, et nunc potuerunt includi corporalibus membris et tunc poterunt corporum suorum uinculis insolubiliter alligari? Adhaerebunt ergo, si eis nulla sunt corpora, spiritus daemonum, immo spiritus daemones, licet incorporei corporeis ignibus cruciandi, non ut ignes ipsi, quibus adhaerebunt, eorum iunctura inspirentur et animalia fiant, quae constent spiritu et corpore, sed, ut dixi, miris et ineffabilibus modis adhaerendo, accipientes ex ignibus poenam, non dantes ignibus uitam; quia et iste alius modus, quo corporibus adhaerent spiritus et animalia fiunt, omnino mirus est nec conprehendi ab homine potest, et hoc ipse homo est.

For why should we not say that, although by wondrous yet true modes, even incorporeal spirits can be afflicted by the punishment of corporeal fire, if the spirits of men, they too assuredly incorporeal, both now have been able to be enclosed within bodily members and then will be able to be bound indissolubly by the chains of their own bodies? Therefore the spirits of demons—nay rather, the spirits, demons—will adhere, if there are no bodies for them, although incorporeal, to be tormented by corporeal fires; not in such a way that the fires themselves, to which they will adhere, are inspirited by their conjunction and become animals (animate beings), which consist of spirit and body, but, as I said, by adhering in wondrous and ineffable modes, receiving from the fires punishment, not giving to the fires life; because even that other mode, by which spirits adhere to bodies and become animals, is altogether wondrous and cannot be comprehended by man, and this is man himself.

Dicerem quidem sic arsuros sine ullo suo corpore spiritus, sicut ardebat apud inferos ille diues, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma, nisi conuenienter responderi cernerem talem fuisse illam flammam, quales oculi quos leuauit et Lazarum uidit, qualis lingua cui umorem exiguum desiderauit infundi, qualis digitus Lazari de quo id sibi fieri postulauit; ubi tamen erant sine corporibus animae. Sic ergo incorporalis et illa flamma qua exarsit et illa guttula quam poposcit, qualia sunt etiam uisa dormientium siue in ecstasi cernentium res incorporales, habentes tamen similitudinem corporum. Nam et ipse homo cum spiritu, non corpore, sit in talibus uisis, ita se tamen tunc similem suo corpori uidet, ut discernere omnino non possit.

I would indeed say that spirits will burn thus without any body of their own, just as that rich man was burning in the underworld, when he said: "I am tormented in this flame," unless I perceived it fitting to reply that such was that flame as were the eyes which he lifted up and saw Lazarus, such as the tongue into which he desired a scant moisture to be poured, such as the finger of Lazarus from which he asked that this be done for him; where, nevertheless, the souls were without bodies. Thus, then, both that flame in which he blazed and that little drop which he asked for were incorporeal—such as are also the sights of those sleeping or of those discerning in ecstasy incorporeal things—yet having a similitude of bodies. For even the man himself, when he is with his spirit, not with his body, in such visions, nevertheless then sees himself like to his body, so that he cannot at all discern the difference.

At uero gehenna illa, quod etiam stagnum ignis et sulphuris dictum est, corporeus ignis erit et cruciabit corpora damnatorum, aut et hominum et daemonum, solida hominum, aeria daemonum, aut tantum hominum corpora cum spiritibus, daemones autem spiritus sine corporibus haerentes sumendo poenam, non inpertiendo uitam corporalibus ignibus. Vnus quippe utrisque ignis erit, sicut Veritas dixit.

But indeed that Gehenna, which is also called the lake of fire and sulphur, will be a corporeal fire and will torment the bodies of the damned, either both those of humans and of daemons—the humans’ solid, the daemons’ airy—or only the bodies of humans with their spirits, while the daemons, spirits adhering without bodies, receive punishment, not imparting life to the corporeal fires. For one and the same fire will be for both, as Truth said.

[XI] Si autem quidam eorum, contra quos defendimus ciuitatem Dei, iniustum putant, ut pro peccatis quamlibet magnis, paruo scilicet tempore perpetratis, poena quisque damnetur aeterna, quasi ullius id umquam iustitia legis adtendat, ut tanta mora temporis quisque puniatur, quanta mora temporis unde puniretur admisit: octo genera poenarum in legibus esse scribit Tullius, damnum, uincla, uerbera, talionem, ignominiam, exilium, mortem, seruitutem — quid horum est quod in breue tempus pro cuiusque peccati celeritate coartetur, ut tanta uindicetur morula, quanta deprehenditur perpetratum, nisi forte talio? Id enim agit, ut hoc patiatur quisque quod fecit. Vnde illud est legis: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente.

[11] But if certain of those against whom we defend the City of God think it unjust that, for sins however great, perpetrated, to be sure, in a small time, each should be condemned to an eternal penalty, as though the justice of any law ever regarded this, that each be punished with a delay of time as long as the delay of time in which he admitted that for which he would be punished: Tullius writes that there are eight genera of punishments in the laws—loss (damnum), bonds, lashes, talion, ignominy, exile, death, servitude — which of these is it that is compressed into a brief time according to the swiftness of each sin, so that a little delay be exacted as much as the deed is found to have been perpetrated, unless perhaps the talion? For that brings it about that each suffer what he did. Whence that provision of the law: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

Fieri enim potest, ut tam breui tempore quisque amittat oculum seueritate uindictae, quam tulit ipse alteri inprobitate peccati. Porro autem si alienae feminae osculum infixum rationis sit uerbere uindicare, nonne qui illud puncto temporis fecerit, incomparabili horarum spatio uerberatur et suauitas uoluptatis exiguae diuturno dolore punitur? Quid, in uinculis numquid tamdiu quisque iudicandus est esse debere, quamdiu fecit unde meruit alligari; cum iustissime annosas poenas seruus in compedibus pendat, qui uerbo aut ictu celerrime transeunte uel lacessiuit dominum uel plagauit?

For it can come to pass that one loses an eye, by the severity of vindict, in just so brief a time as that in which he himself bore it to another by the improbity of sin. Moreover, if it be a point of reason to vindicate with a lash a kiss fastened upon another man’s woman, does not he who did that in a point of time get scourged through an incomparable span of hours, and is not the sweetness of a slight pleasure punished by long‑continued pain? What then? In bonds, is each to be judged to have to remain just so long as he spent in doing that for which he deserved to be bound; when most justly a slave pays years‑long penalties in fetters, who, by a word or by a blow passing very swiftly, either provoked his master or struck him?

Iam uero damnum, ignominia, exilium, seruitus cum plerumque sic infliguntur, ut nulla uenia relaxentur, nonne pro huius uitae modo similia poenis uidentur aeternis? Ideo quippe aeterna esse non possunt, quia nec ipsa uita, quae his plectitur, porrigitur in aeternum; et tamen peccata, quae uindicantur longissimi temporis poenis, breuissimo tempore perpetrantur; nec quisquam extitit qui censeret tam cito nocentium finienda esse tormenta, quam cito factum est uel homicidium uel adulterium uel sacrilegium uel quodlibet aliud scelus non temporis longitudine, sed iniquitatis et impietatis magnitudine metiendum. Qui uero pro aliquo grandi crimine morte multatur, numquid mora qua occiditur, quae perbreuis est, eius supplicium leges aestimant et non quod eum in sempiternum auferunt de societate uiuentium?

Now indeed loss, ignominy, exile, servitude, since they are very often inflicted in such a way that by no pardon are they relaxed, do they not, according to the measure of this life, seem similar to eternal punishments? For this reason they cannot be eternal, because neither is the life itself, which is chastised by these, extended into eternity; and yet the sins which are avenged with punishments of the longest time are perpetrated in the briefest time; nor has there existed anyone who would judge that the torments of the guilty ought to be ended as quickly as homicide or adultery or sacrilege or any other crime was done—things to be measured not by the length of time, but by the magnitude of iniquity and impiety. But he who is punished with death for some great crime—do the laws evaluate his penalty by the delay with which he is slain, which is very brief, and not by the fact that they remove him forever from the society of the living?

Quod est autem de ista ciuitate mortali homines supplicio primae mortis, hoc est de illa ciuitate inmortali homines supplicio secundae mortis auferre. Sicut enim non efficiunt leges huius ciuitatis, ut in eam quisque reuocetur occisus: sic nec illius, ut in uitam reuocetur aeternam secunda morte damnatus. Quo modo ergo uerum es.t, inquiunt, quod ait Christus uester: In qua mensura mensi fueritis, in ea remetietur uobis, si temporale peccatum supplicio punitur aeterno?

But what it is for this mortal city to remove men by the punishment of the first death, this it is for that immortal city to remove men by the punishment of the second death. For just as the laws of this city do not bring it about that anyone slain is called back into it, so neither do the laws of that one bring it about that one condemned by the second death is called back into eternal life. How, then, is it true, they say, what your Christ said: “In what measure you shall have measured, in that it shall be measured back to you,” if a temporal sin is punished by an eternal punishment?

Nec adtendunt non propter aequale temporis spatium, sed propter uicissitudinem mali, id est ut qui mala fecerit mala patiatur, eandem dictam fuisse mensuram. Quamuis hoc in ea re proprie possit accipi, de qua Dominus cum hoc diceret loquebatur, id est de iudiciis et condemnationibus. Proinde qui iudicat et condemnat iniuste, si iudicatur et condemnatur iuste, in eadem mensura recipit, quamuis non hoc quod dedit.

Nor do they attend that it was said to be the same measure not on account of an equal span of time, but on account of the vicissitude of evil, that is, that he who has done evils should suffer evils. Although this can be taken properly in regard to that matter of which the Lord, when he said this, was speaking, that is, of judgments and condemnations. Accordingly, he who judges and condemns unjustly, if he is judged and condemned justly, receives in the same measure, although not this very thing which he gave.

Iudicio enim fecit, iudicio patitur; quamuis fecerit damnatione quod iniquum est, patiatur damnatione quod iustum est.

For by judgment he has done, by judgment he suffers; although he has done by condemnation what is iniquitous, let him suffer by condemnation what is just.

[XII] Sed poena aeterna ideo dura et iniusta sensibus uidetur humanis, quia in hac infirmitate moribundorum sensuum deest ille sensus altissimae purissimaeque sapientiae, quo sentiri possit quantum nefas in illa prima praeuaricatione commissum sit. Quanto enim magis homo fruebatur Deo, tanto maiore impietate dereliquit Deum et factus est malo dignus aeterno, qui hoc in se peremit bonum, quod esse posset aeternum. Hinc est uniuersa generis humani massa damnata; quoniam, qui hoc primus admisit, cum ea quae in illo fuerat radicata sua stirpe punitus est, ut nullus ab hoc iusto debitoque supplicio nisi misericordi et indebita gratia liberetur atque ita dispertiatur genus humanum, ut in quibusdam demonstretur quid ualeat misericors gratia, in ceteris quid iusta uindicta.

[12] But eternal punishment for this reason seems harsh and unjust to human senses, because in this infirmity of dying senses there is lacking that sense of the most lofty and most pure wisdom, by which it could be felt how great an impiety was committed in that first transgression. For the more a man enjoyed God, by so much the greater impiety did he abandon God, and he became worthy of eternal evil, who destroyed in himself that good which could have been eternal. Hence the whole mass of the human race is condemned; since he who first admitted this was punished along with his own stock, together with those things which had been rooted in him, so that no one is freed from this just and owed punishment except by merciful and not‑owed grace; and thus the human race is apportioned, so that in some there is shown what merciful grace can avail, in the rest what just vengeance.

Neque enim utrumque demonstraretur in omnibus, quia, si omnes remanerent in poenis iustae damnationis, in nullo appareret misericors gratia; rursus si omnes a tenebris transferrentur in lucem, in nullo appareret ueritas ultionis. In qua propterea multo plures quam in illa sunt, ut sic ostendatur quid omnibus deberetur. Quod si omnibus redderetur, iustitiam uindicantis iuste nemo reprehenderet; quia uero tam multi exinde liberantur, est unde agantur maximae gratiae gratuito muneri liberantis.

For neither would both be demonstrated in all, because, if all were to remain in the punishments of just condemnation, in none would merciful grace appear; conversely, if all were transferred from darkness into light, in none would the truth of vengeance appear. In which therefore there are many more than in that, so that thus it may be shown what would be owed to all. And if this were rendered to all, no one would justly reproach the justice of the one avenging; but since so many are from thence set free, there is ground for the greatest thanks to be rendered to the gratuitous gift of the liberator.

[XIII] Platonici quidem, quamuis inpunita nulla uelint esse peccata, tamen omnes poenas emendationi adhiberi putant, uel humanis inflictas legibus uel diuinis, siue in hac uita siue post mortem, si aut parcatur hic cuique aut ita plectatur ut hic non corrigatur. Hinc est Maronis illa sententia, ubi, cum dixisset de terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris, quod animae

[13] The Platonists indeed, although they would that no sins be unpunished, yet think that all penalties are applied for emendation, whether inflicted by human laws or by divine, whether in this life or after death, if either each one is spared here, or is so punished that he is not corrected here. Hence is that sentence of Maro, where, when he had spoken concerning earthly bodies and moribund members, that the souls

Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque,
nec auras

Hence they fear and they desire, they grieve and they rejoice,
nor the airs

Suspiciunt, clausae tenebris et carcere caeco, secutus adiunxit atque ait:

They look up, shut in by darkness and by a blind prison, following he adjoined and said:

Quin et supremo cum lumine uita reliquit (id est cum die nouissimo reliquit eas ista uita),
Non tamen (inquit) omne malum miseris, nec
funditus omnes
Corporeae excedunt pestes, penitusque necesse est
Multa diu concreta modis inolescere miris.
Ergo exercentur poenis ueterumque malorum
Supplicia expendunt; aliae panduntur inanes
Suspensae ad uentos, aliis sub gurgite uasto
Infectum eluitur scelus aut exuritur igni.

Indeed, even when life has left with the supreme light (that is, when on the last day this life has left them),
Not, however (he says), is every evil [gone] for the wretched, nor
funditus omnes
Bodily plagues depart; and deep within it is necessary
Many, long concreted, to grow in by wondrous modes.
Therefore they are exercised by penalties and pay out the punishments
Of ancient evils; some are spread out, empty,
Suspended to the winds; for others beneath the vast gulf
The tainted crime is washed out, or is burned out by fire.

Qui hoc opinantur, nullas poenas nisi purgatorias uolunt esse post mortem, ut, quoniam terris superiora sunt elementa aqua, aer, ignis, ex aliquo istorum mundetur per expiatorias poenas, quod terrena contagione contractum est. Aer quippe accipitur in eo quod ait: "Suspensae ad uentos"; aqua in eo quod ait: "Sub gurgite uasto"; ignis autem suo nomine expressus est, cum dixit: "Aut exuritur igni." Nos uero etiam in hac quidem mortali uita esse quasdam poenas purgatorias confitemur, non quibus affliguntur, quorum uita uel non inde fit melior uel potius inde fit peior; sed illis sunt purgatoriae, qui eis coherciti corriguntur. Ceterae omnes poenae, siue temporariae siue sempiternae, sicut unusquisque diuina prouidentia tractandus est, inferuntur uel pro peccatis siue praeteritis siue in quibus adhuc uiuit ille qui plectitur, uel pro exercendis declarandisque uirtutibus per homines et angelos seu bonos seu malos.

Those who think this want there to be no penalties after death except purgatorial, on the ground that, since the elements that are above the earth are water, air, fire, what has been contracted by earthly contagion is cleansed through expiatory penalties by some one of these. For air is understood in that he says: “Suspended to the winds”; water in that he says: “Beneath the vast whirlpool”; but fire is expressed by its own name, when he said: “Or it is burned by fire.” We, however, confess that even in this mortal life there are certain purgatorial penalties—not those by which people are afflicted whose life either is not made better thereby or rather is made worse thereby; but they are purgatorial for those who, being coerced by them, are corrected. All the other penalties, whether temporary or sempiternal, are imposed, as each one is to be handled by divine providence, either for sins, whether past or those in which the one who is punished is still living, or for the exercising and declaring of virtues through men and angels, whether good or evil.

Nam etsi quisque mali aliquid alterius inprobitate uel errore patiatur, peccat quidem homo, qui uel ignorantia uel iniustitia cuiquam mali aliquid facit; sed non peccat Deus, qui iusto, quamuis occulto, iudicio fieri sinit. Sed temporarias poenas alii in hac uita tantum, alii post mortem, alii et nunc et tunc, uerum tamen ante iudicium illud seuerissimum nouissimumque patiuntur. Non autem omnes ueniunt in sempiternas poenas, quae post illud iudicium sunt futurae, qui post mortem sustinent temporales.

For even if someone suffers some evil through another’s depravity or error, the man indeed sins who, either by ignorance or by injustice, does some evil to anyone; but God does not sin, who allows it to happen by a just, though hidden, judgment. But temporary punishments some suffer in this life only, others after death, others both now and then—yet still before that most severe and most final judgment. However, not all who after death endure temporal punishments come into eternal punishments, which are to be after that judgment.

Nam quibusdam, quod in isto non remittitur, remitti in futuro saeculo, id est, ne futuri saeculi aeterno supplicio puniantur, iam supra diximus.

For we have already said above that, for some, what is not remitted in this age is remitted in the future age—that is, so that they may not be punished with the eternal punishment of the future age.

[XIV] Rarissimi sunt autem qui nullas in hac uita, sed tantum post eam poenas luunt. Fuisse tamen aliquos, qui usque ad decrepitam senectutem ne leuissimam quidem febriculam senserint quietamque duxerint uitam, et ipsi nouimus et audiuimus; quamquam uita ipsa mortalium tota poena sit, quia tota temptatio est, sicut sacrae litterae personant, ubi scriptum est: Numquid non temptatio est uita humana super terram? Non enim parua poena est ipsa insipientia uel inperitia, quae usque adeo fugienda merito iudicatur, ut per poenas doloribus plenas pueri cogantur quaeque artificia uel litteras discere; ipsumque discere, ad quod poenis adiguntur, tam poenale est eis, ut nonnumquam ipsas poenas, per quas compelluntur discere, malint ferre quam discere.

[14] Very rare are those who pay no penalties in this life, but only after it. That there have been some who up to decrepit old age have not felt not even the lightest little fever and have led a quiet life, both we ourselves have known and have heard; although the life itself of mortals is a total penalty, because it is a total temptation, as the sacred letters resound, where it is written: Is not human life upon the earth a temptation? For not a small penalty is insipience itself or inexperience, which is rightly judged to be so much to be fled that through punishments full of pains boys are compelled to learn the various arts or letters; and the very learning itself, to which they are driven by punishments, is so penal to them that sometimes they prefer to bear the punishments themselves, through which they are compelled to learn, rather than to learn.

Quis autem non exhorreat et mori eligat, si ei proponatur aut mors perpetienda aut rursus infantia? Quae quidem quod non a risu, sed a fletu orditur hanc lucem, quid malorum ingressa sit nesciens prophetat quodam modo. Solum, quando natus est, ferunt risisse Zoroastrem, nec ei boni aliquid monstrosus risus ille portendit.

But who would not shudder and choose to die, if it were set before him either to undergo death or again infancy? Which indeed, because it begins this light not with laughter but with weeping, not knowing what evils it has entered, in a certain way prophesies. They say that Zoroaster alone, when he was born, laughed, nor did that monstrous laughter portend anything of good for him.

Nam magicarum artium fuisse perhibetur inuentor; quae quidem illi nec ad praesentis uitae uanam felicitatem contra suos inimicos prodesse potuerunt; a Nino quippe rege Assyriorum, cum esset ipse Bactrianorum, bello superatus est. Prorsus quod scriptum est: Graue iugum super filios Adam a die exitus de uentre matris eorum usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium, usque adeo impleri necesse est, ut ipsi paruuli per lauacrum regenerationis ab originalis peccati, quo solo tenebantur, uinculo iam soluti mala multa patientes nonnulli et incursus spirituum malignorum aliquando patiantur. Quae quidem passio absit ut eis obsit, si hanc uitam in illa aetate etiam ipsa passione ingrauescente et animam de corpore excludente finierint.

For he is related to have been the inventor of magical arts; which indeed were not able to profit him even toward the vain felicity of this present life against his own enemies; for by Ninus, king of the Assyrians, whereas he himself was of the Bactrians, he was overcome in war. Altogether what is written—A heavy yoke upon the sons of Adam from the day of their exit from their mother’s womb unto the day of burial into the mother of all—must needs be fulfilled to such a degree that little ones themselves, through the laver of regeneration already loosed from the bond of original sin, by which alone they were held, yet suffering many evils, some also suffer the incursions of malign spirits. Which suffering, far be it that it harm them, if they have finished this life in that age, even with that very suffering growing heavy and excluding the soul from the body.

[XV] Verum tamen in graui iugo, quod positum est super filios Adam a die exitus de uentre matris eorum usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium, etiam hoc malum mirabile reperitur, ut sobrii simus atque intellegamus hanc uitam de peccato illo nimis nefario, quod in paradiso perpetratum est, factam nobis esse poenalem totumque, quod nobiscum agitur per testamentum nouum, non pertinere nisi ad noui saeculi hereditatem nouam, ut hic pignore accepto illud cuius hoc pignus est suo tempore consequamur, nunc autem ambulemus in spe et proficientes de die in diem spiritu facta carnis mortificemus. Nouit enim Dominus qui sunt eius; et quotquot spritu Dei aguntur, hi filii sunt Dei, sed gratia, non natura. Vnicus enim natura Dei filius propter nos misericordia factus est hominis filius, ut nos, natura filii hominis, filii Dei per illum gratia fieremus.

[15] Nevertheless, in the heavy yoke which is laid upon the sons of Adam from the day of their exit from their mother’s womb unto the day of burial into the mother of all, even this wondrous evil is found: that we may be sober and understand that this life, from that exceedingly nefarious sin which was perpetrated in Paradise, has been made penal for us, and that the whole of what is transacted with us through the New Testament pertains to nothing except the new inheritance of the new age—so that here, the pledge having been received, we may in its own time obtain that of which this is the pledge; but now let us walk in hope and, advancing from day to day, by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the flesh. For the Lord knows those who are his; and as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God—but by grace, not by nature. For the unique by nature Son of God, on account of us, by mercy was made the son of man, that we, by nature sons of man, through him might by grace become sons of God.

Manens quippe ille inmutabilis naturam nostram, in qua nos susciperet, suscepit a nobis et tenax diuinitatis suae nostrae infirmitatis particeps factus est; ut nos in melius commutati, quod peccatores mortalesque sumus, eius inmortalis et iusti participatione amittamus et, quod in natura nostra bonum fecit, impletum summo bono in eius naturae bonitate seruemus. Sicut enim per unum hominem peccantem in hoc tam graue malum deuenimus, ita per unum hominem eundemque Deum iustificantem ad illud bonum tam sublime ueniemus. Nec quisquam se debet ab isto ad illum transisse confidere, nisi cum ibi fuerit, ubi temptatio nulla erit; nisi pacem tenuerit, quam belli huius, in quo caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem, multis et uariis certaminibus quaerit.

For he, remaining immutable, took from us our nature in which he would take us up, and, holding fast to his divinity, became a sharer in our infirmity; so that we, changed for the better, may lose that, namely that we are sinners and mortals, by participation in him who is immortal and just, and may preserve, fulfilled by the highest good, what he made good in our nature, in the goodness of his nature. For as through one man sinning we have come into this so grave evil, so through one man—and the same also God—justifying, we shall come to that so sublime good. Nor ought anyone trust that he has passed from this to that unless when he shall be there where there will be no temptation; unless he shall have held the peace which, in this war in which the flesh desires against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, he seeks by many and various combats.

Hoc autem bellum numquam ullum esset, si natura humana per liberum arbitrium in rectitudine, in qua facta est, perstitisset. Nunc uero quae pacem felix cum Deo habere noluit, secum pugnat infelix, et cum sit hoc malum miserabile, melius est tamen quam priora uita huius. Melius confligitur quippe cum uitiis, quam sine ulla conflictione dominantur.

But this war would never have been at all, if human nature had stood fast by free will in the rectitude in which it was made. Now, however, that which, happy, refused to have peace with God, unhappy fights with itself; and though this is a miserable evil, yet it is better than this life’s earlier state. For it is better to contend with vices than that, without any conflict, they should dominate.

Melius est, inquam, bellum cum spe pacis aeternae quam sine ulla liberationis cogitatione captiuitas. Cupimus quidem etiam hoc bello carere et ad capessemdam ordinatissimam pacem, ubi firmissima stabilitate potioribus inferiora subdantur, igne diuini amoris accendimur Sed si (quod absit) illius tanti boni spes nulla esset, malle debuimus in huius conflictationis molestia remanere quam uitiis in nos dominationem non eis resistendo permittere.

Better, I say, is war with a hope of eternal peace than captivity without any thought of liberation. We do indeed desire also to be free from this war and, to take hold of the most well‑ordered peace, where by the firmest stability the lower are subjected to the superior, we are kindled by the fire of divine love But if (which God forbid) there were no hope of that so great a good, we ought to have preferred to remain in the trouble of this conflict rather than, by not resisting, to permit a domination of vices over us.

[XVI] Verum tanta est Dei misericordia in uasa misericordiae, quae praeparauit in gloriam, ut etiam prima hominis aetas, id est infantia, quae sine ullo renisu subiacet carni, et secunda, quae pueritia nuncupatur, ubi nondum ratio suscepit hanc pugnam et fere sub omnibus uitiosis delectationibus iacet, quia, licet fari iam ualeat et ideo infantiam transisse uideatur, nondum in ea est praecepti capax infirmitas mentis, si sacramenta Mediatoris acceperit, etiamsi hanc in eis annis uitam finiat, translata scilicet a potestate tenebrarum in regnum Christi non solum poenis non praeparetur aeternis, sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur. Sufficit enim sola spiritalis regeneratio, ne post mortem obsit quod carnalis generatio cum morte contraxit. Cum autem uentum fuerit ad aetatem, quae praeceptum iam capit et subdi potest legis imperio, suscipiendum est bellum contra uitia et gerendum acriter, ne ad damnabilia peccata perducat.

[16] Yet so great is the mercy of God toward the vessels of mercy, which he prepared for glory, that even the first age of man, that is, infancy, which lies subject to the flesh without any resistance, and the second, which is called childhood, where reason has not yet undertaken this combat and almost lies under all vicious delectations—because, although it is already able to speak, and thus seems to have passed beyond infancy, the weakness of mind is not yet capable of a precept—if it has received the sacraments of the Mediator, even if it ends this life in those years, being translated, namely, from the power of darkness into the kingdom of Christ, it is prepared not only for no eternal punishments, but suffers not even any purgatorial torments after death. For spiritual regeneration alone suffices, lest after death there injure what carnal generation contracted together with death. But when one has come to the age which already receives the precept and can be subjected to the empire of the law, the war must be taken up against the vices and waged sharply, lest it lead on to damnable sins.

Et si quidem nondum uictoriarum consuetudine roborata sunt, facilius uincuntur et cedunt; si autem uincere atque imperare consuerunt, laboriosa difficultate superantur. Neque id fit ueraciter atque sinceriter nisi uerae delectatione iustitiae; haec est autem in fide Christi. Nam si lex iubens adsit et spiritus iuuans desit, per ipsam prohibitionem desiderio crescente atque uincente peccati etiam reatus praeuaricationis accedit.

And if indeed they have not yet been strengthened by the habit of victories, they are more easily conquered and yield; but if they have become accustomed to conquer and to rule, they are overcome with toilsome difficulty. Nor is that done truly and sincerely except by the true delectation of justice; and this is in the faith of Christ. For if the law commanding be present and the spirit helping be lacking, through the very prohibition, as the desire of sin grows and prevails, there is added even the guilt of transgression.

Nonnumquam sane apertissima uitia aliis uitiis uincuntur occultis, quae putantur esse uirtutes, in quibus regnat superbia et quaedam sibi placendi altitudo ruinosa. Tunc itaque uicta uitia deputanda sunt, cum Dei amore uincuntur, quem nisi Deus ipse non donat nec aliter nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum, qui factus est particeps mortalitatis nostrae, ut nos participes faceret diuinitatis suae. Paucissimi autem sunt tantae felicitatis, ut ab ipsa ineunte adulescentia nulla damnabilia peccata committant uel in flagitiis uel in facinoribus uel in nefariae cuiusquam impietatis errore, sed magna spiritus largitate opprimant, quidquid eis posset carnali delectatione dominari.

Sometimes indeed the most manifest vices are conquered by other hidden vices, which are thought to be virtues, in which pride reigns and a certain ruinous height of self-pleasing. Then therefore vices are to be reckoned as conquered when they are overcome by the love of God, which none but God himself gives, and not otherwise than through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a participant of our mortality, that he might make us participants of his divinity. But very few are of such felicity that, from the very dawning of adolescence, they commit no damnable sins either in flagitious acts or in crimes or in the error of any nefarious impiety, but by the great largess of the Spirit they suppress whatever could by carnal delectation dominate them.

Plurimi uero praecepto legis accepto, cum prius uicti fuerint praeualentibus uitiis et praeuaricatores eius effecti, tunc ad gratiam confugiunt adiuuantem, qua fiant et amarius paenitendo et uehementius pugnando prius Deo subdita atque ita carni praeposita mente uictores. Quisquis igitur cupit poenas euadere sempiternas, non solum baptizetur, uerum etiam iustificetur in Christo, ac sic uere transeat a diabolo ad Christum. Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque iudicium.

Very many indeed, after receiving the precept of the law, when previously they had been conquered by prevailing vices and made transgressors of it, then flee for refuge to aiding grace, whereby they become—both by repenting more bitterly and by fighting more vehemently—victors, the mind first subjected to God and thus set over the flesh. Whoever therefore desires to evade everlasting penalties, let him not only be baptized, but also be justified in Christ, and so truly pass over from the devil to Christ. But let him suppose that there will be no purgatorial penalties in the future, except before that last and tremendous judgment.

Nequaquam tamen negandum est etiam ipsum aeternum ignem pro diuersitate meritorum quamuis malorum aliis leuiorem, aliis futurum esse grauiorem, siue ipsius uis atque arbor pro poena digna cuiusque uarietur, siue ipse aequaliter ardeat sed non aequali molestia sentiatur.

By no means, however, must it be denied that even the eternal fire itself, according to the diversity of deserts, although evil, will be lighter for some and heavier for others—whether its force and ardor are varied according to the punishment worthy of each, or it burns equally but is not felt with equal affliction.

[XVII] Nunc iam cum misericordibus nostris agendum esse uideo et pacifice disputandum, qui uel omnibus illis hominibus, quos iustissimus iudex dignos. gehennae supplicio iudicabit, uel quibusdam eorum nolunt credere poenam sempiternam futuram, sed post certi temporis metas pro cuiusque peccati quantitate longioris siue breuioris eos inde existimant liberandos. Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum diabolum atque angelos eius post grauiora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus eruendos et sociandos sanctis angelis credidit.

[17] I now see that we must deal with our merciful people and dispute pacifically, who are unwilling to believe that either for all those men whom the most just judge will judge worthy of the punishment of Gehenna, or for some of them, the punishment will be sempiternal, but they suppose that after the bounds of a certain time—longer or shorter in proportion to the quantity of each one’s sin—they will be freed from there. In which matter Origen was indeed more merciful, who believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after punishments more grievous according to their deserts and more long-lasting, are to be rescued from those torments and to be associated with the holy angels.

Sed illum et propter hoc et propter alia nonnulla et maxime propter alternantes sine cessatione beatitudines et miserias et statutis saeculorum interuallis ab istis ad illas atque ab illis ad istas itus ac reditus interminabiles non inmerito reprobauit ecclesia; quia et hoc, quod misericors uidebatur, amisit faciendo sanctis ueras miserias, quibus poenas luerent, et falsas beatitudines, in quibus uerum ac securum, hoc est sine timore certum, sempiterni boni gaudium non haberent. Longe autem aliter istorum misericordia humano errat affectu, qui hominum illo iudicio damnatorum miserias temporales, omnium uero qui uel citius uel tardius liberantur aeternam felicitatem putant. Quae sententia si propterea bona et uera quia misericors est, tanto erit melior et uerior quanto misericordior.

But him, both on account of this and on account of some other things, and especially on account of beatitudes and miseries alternating without cessation and, at fixed intervals of the ages, endless goings and returnings from these to those and from those to these, the Church not undeservedly reprobated; because even this, which seemed merciful, he forfeited by making for the saints true miseries, by which they would pay penalties, and false beatitudes, in which they would not have the true and secure—that is, certain without fear—joy of the eternal good. But far otherwise does the mercy of these err with a human affection, who think that the miseries of men condemned by that judgment are temporal, but that all who are freed, whether sooner or later, have eternal felicity. Which opinion, if for that reason it is good and true because it is merciful, by so much will it be better and truer by how much more merciful.

Extendatur ergo ac profundatur fons huius misericordiae usque ad damnatos angelos saltem post multa atque prolixa quantumlibet saecula liberandos. Cur usque uniuersam naturam manat humanam, et cum ad angelicam uentum fuerit, mox arescit? Non audent tamen se ulterius miserando porrigere et ad liberationem ipsius quoque diaboli peruenire.

Let, then, the fountain of this mercy be extended and deepened even unto the condemned angels, to be liberated at least after many and prolonged ages, however many. Why does it emanate over the whole human nature, and when it has come to the angelic, it straightway dries up? Yet they do not dare to stretch themselves further in compassion and to arrive even at the liberation of the devil himself.

Verum si aliquis audeat, uincit nempe istos. Et tamen tanto inuenitur errare deformius et contra recta Dei uerba peruersius, quanto sibi uidetur sentire clementius.

But indeed, if anyone should dare, he surely surpasses these. And yet he is found to err the more deformedly and the more perversely against the straight words of God, the more clemently he seems to himself to feel.

[XVIII] Sunt etiam, quales in conlocutionibus nostris ipse sum expertus, qui, cum uenerari uideantur scripturas sanctas, moribus inprobandi sunt et agendo causam suam multo maiorem quam isti misericordiam Deo tribuunt erga humanum genus. Dicunt enim de malis et infidelibus hominibus diuinitus quidem uerum praedictum esse, quod digni sunt; sed cum ad iudicium uentum fuerit, misericordiam esse superaturam. Donabit enim eos, inquiunt, misericors Deus precibus et intercessionibus sanctorum suorum.

[18] There are also such men—as I myself have found in our conversations—who, though they seem to venerate the sacred scriptures, are to be disapproved in morals, and by advocating their own cause attribute to God a far greater mercy toward the human race than those others do. For they say concerning evil and unbelieving men that it has indeed been truly predicted by divine authority what they are worthy of; but when it shall have come to the judgment, mercy will prevail. For the merciful God, they say, will grant them as a gift by the prayers and intercessions of his saints.

Si enim orabant pro illis, quando eos patiebantur inimicos, quanto magis quando uidebunt humiles supplicesque prostratos! Neque enim credendum est, aiunt, tunc amissuros sanctos uiscera misericordiae, cum fuerint plenissimae ac perfectissimae sanctitatis, ut, qui tunc orabant pro inimicis suis, quando et ipsi sine peccato non erant, tunc non orent pro supplicibus suis, quando nullum coeperint habere peccatum. Aut uero Deus tunc eos non exaudiet tot et tales filios suos, quando in tanta eorum sanctitate nullum inueniet orationis impedimentum?

If indeed they were praying for them when they were enduring them as enemies, how much more when they will see them humble and prostrate suppliants! For it is not to be believed, they say, that the saints will then lose the bowels of mercy, when they will be of the fullest and most perfect sanctity, so that they who then were praying for their enemies, when they themselves were not without sin, will then not pray for their suppliants, when they will have begun to have no sin. Or truly will God then not hearken to so many and such sons of his, when in the greatness of their sanctity he will find no impediment of prayer?

Testimonium uero psalmi et illi quidem, qui permittunt infideles atque impios homines saltem longo tempore cruciari et postea de mis omnibus erui, sed magis isti pro se dicunt esse, ubi legitur: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? Ira eius est, inquiunt, ut omnes indigni beatitudine sempiterna ipso iudicante puniantur supplicio sempiterno. Sed si uel longum uel prorsus ullum esse permiserit, profecto, ut possit hoc fieri, continebit in ira sua miserationes suas, quod eum psalmus dicit non esse facturum.

But the testimony of the psalm even those indeed claim for themselves who allow that infidels and impious men be at least for a long time tormented and afterwards be rescued from all their miseries; yet more do these say it is on their own behalf, where it is read: “Will God perhaps forget to have mercy, or will he restrain in his wrath his compassions?” His wrath, they say, is that all unworthy of sempiternal beatitude be punished with sempiternal punishment by his own judging. But if he will permit either a long or indeed any to exist, assuredly, in order that this might come to pass, he will restrain in his wrath his compassions—which the psalm says he will not do.

Non enim ait: "Numquid diu continebit in ira sua miserationes suas?" sed quod prorsus non continebit ostendit.

For he does not say, "Will he for a long time contain his miserations in his wrath?" but he shows that he will not contain them at all.

Sic ergo isti uolunt iudicii Dei comminationem non esse mendacem, quamuis sit neminem damnaturus, quem ad modum eius comminationem, qua dixit euersurum se esse Nineuen ciuitatem, mendacem non possumus dicere; et tamen factum non est, inquiunt, quod sine ulla condicione praedixit. Non enim ait: "Nineue euertetur, si non egerint paenitentiam seque correxerint"; sed hoc non addito praenuntiauit futuram euersionem illius ciuitatis. Quam comminationem propterea ueracem putant, quia hoc praedixit Deus quod uere digni erant pati, quamuis hoc non esset ipse facturus.

Thus therefore these men wish the commination of God’s judgment not to be mendacious, although he is going to damn no one, just as we cannot call mendacious his commination by which he said he would overthrow the city of Nineveh; and yet, they say, what he foretold without any condition was not done. For he did not say: "Nineveh shall be overthrown, if they shall not have done penitence and corrected themselves"; but, with this not added, he pre-announced the overthrow of that city as future. This commination they therefore deem veracious, because God foretold that which they were truly worthy to suffer, although this he himself was not going to do.

Nam etsi paenitentibus pepercit, inquiunt, utique illos paenitentiam non ignorabat acturos, et tamen absolute ac definite eorum euersionem futuram esse praedixit. Hoc ergo erat, inquiunt, in ueritate seueritatis, quia id erant digni; sed in ratione miserationis non erat, quam non continuit in ira sua, ut ab ea poena supplicibus parceret, quam fuerat contumacibus comminatus. Si ergo tunc pepercit, aiunt, quando sanctum suum prophetam fuerat parcendo contristaturus, quanto magis tunc miserabilius supplicantibus parcet, quando ut parcat omnes sancti eius orabunt!

For even if he spared the penitent, they say, he surely did not ignore that they would perform repentance, and yet he foretold, absolutely and definitively, that their overthrow would be. This, then, they say, was in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of that; but it did not belong to the rationale of mercy, which he did not restrain in his wrath, so that he spared suppliants from that punishment which he had threatened to the contumacious. If therefore he then spared, they say, when by sparing he was going to sadden his holy prophet, how much more then will he more mercifully spare those supplicating, when, that he may spare, all his saints will pray!

Sed hoc, quod ipsi suis cordibus suspicantur, ideo putant scripturas tacuisse diuinas, ut multi se corrigant uel prolixarum uel aeternarum timore poenarum, et sint qui possint orare pro eis, qui non se correxerint; nec tamen opinantur omni modo id eloquia diuina tacuisse. Nam quo pertinet, inquiunt, quod scriptum est: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te, nisi ut intellegamus propter timorem fuisse absconditam misericordiae diuinae tam multam secretamque dulcedinem? Addunt etiam propterea dixisse apostolum: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur, quo significaret, quod ab illo nemo damnabitur.

But this, which they themselves suspect in their hearts, they therefore think the divine Scriptures kept silent, so that many might correct themselves by fear of punishments either protracted or eternal, and that there might be those who can pray for those who have not corrected themselves; nor yet do they suppose that in every way the divine utterances kept this silent. For to what does it pertain, they say, that it is written: "How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you," unless that we understand that on account of fear so great and secret a sweetness of the divine mercy was hidden? They add also that for this reason the Apostle said: "For God has shut up all in unbelief, so that he may have mercy upon all," whereby he signified that by him no one will be damned.

Nec isti tamen, qui hoc sentiunt, hanc opinationem suam usque ad liberationem uel nullam damnationem diaboli atque angelorum eius extendunt; humana quippe circa solos homines mouentur misericordia et causam maxime agunt suam, per generalem in genus humanum quasi Dei miserationem inpunitatem falsam suis perditis moribus pollicentes; ac per hoc superabunt eos in praedicanda Dei misericordia, qui hanc inpunitatem etiam principi daemonum et eius satellitibus pollicentur.

Nor yet do these, who think this, extend their opinion as far as the liberation or the no damnation of the devil and his angels; for by a human mercy they are moved on behalf of human beings alone, and they most of all plead their own cause, promising, through a general as-it-were divine commiseration toward the human race, a false impunity to their own ruined morals; and by this they will surpass those, in the proclaiming of God’s mercy, who promise this impunity even to the prince of the demons and his satellites.

[XIX] Item sunt alii ab aeterno supplicio liberationem nec ipsis saltem omnibus hominibus promittentes, sed tantummodo Christi baptismate ablutis, qui participes fiunt corporis eius, quomodolibet uixerint, in quacumque haeresi uel impietate fuerint, propter illud quod ait Iesus: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, ut, si quis ex ipso manducauerit, non moriatur. Ego sum panis uiuus, qui de caelo descendi. Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum.

[19] Likewise there are others who do not promise a liberation from eternal punishment even to all human beings themselves, but only to those washed by the baptism of Christ, who become partakers of his body, however they may have lived, in whatever heresy or impiety they may have been, on account of that which Jesus says: “This is the bread that came down from heaven, so that, if anyone eats from it, he may not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever.”

Ab aeterna ergo morte, inquiunt, necesse est istos erui et ad uitam aeternam quandocumque perduci.

From eternal death, therefore, they say, it is necessary that these be extricated and, whensoever it may be, be brought to eternal life.

[XX] Item sunt, qui hoc nec omnibus habentibus baptismatis Christi et eius corporis sacramentum, sed solis catholicis quamuis male uiuentibus pollicentur, quia non solo sacramento, sed re ipsa manducauerunt corpus Christi, in ipso eius corpore constituti, de quo dicit apostolus: Vnus panis, unum corpus multi sumus; ut, etiamsi postea in aliquam haeresim uel etiam in gentilium idolatriam lapsi fuerint, tantum quia in corpore Christi, id est in catholica ecclesia, sumpserunt baptismum Christi et manducauerunt corpus Christi, non moriantur in aeternum, sed uitam quandoque consequantur aeternam; atque illa omnis impietas, quanto maior fuerit, non eis ualeat ad aeternitatem, sed ad diuturnitatem magnitudinemque poenarum.

[20] Likewise, there are those who promise this not to all who have the baptism of Christ and the sacrament of his body, but to Catholics alone, although living badly, because they have eaten the body of Christ not by the sacrament alone, but in reality, being constituted in his very body, of which the apostle says: One bread, one body are we many; so that, even if afterwards they should have fallen into some heresy or even into the idolatry of the gentiles, merely because in the body of Christ, that is, in the catholic church, they received the baptism of Christ and ate the body of Christ, they should not die unto eternity, but at some time obtain eternal life; and that all that impiety, however greater it may have been, may not avail for them as regards eternity, but as regards the long duration and magnitude of punishments.

[XXI] Sunt autem, qui propter id quod scriptum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit, non nisi in ecclesia catholica perseuerantibus, quamuis in ea male uiuentibus, hoc promittunt, per ignem uidelicet saluandis merito fundamenti, de quo ait apostolus: Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id, quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. Si quis autem aedificat super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos, ligna, fenum, stipulam: uniuscuiusque opus manifestabitur; dies enim declarabit, quoniam in igne reuelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit. Si cuius opus permanserit quod superaedificauit, mercedem accipiet, Si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patietur; ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem.

[21] Moreover, there are those who, because it is written: He who shall have persevered unto the end, this man shall be saved, promise this only to those persevering in the Catholic Church, although living badly in it, namely to be saved through fire by the merit of the foundation, about which the apostle says: For no other foundation can anyone lay besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. If, however, anyone builds upon the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, the work of each will be made manifest; for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed in fire, and the fire will prove of what sort each one’s work is. If anyone’s work shall remain which he has built upon, he will receive a reward; but if anyone’s work shall be burned, he will suffer loss; he himself, however, will be saved, yet thus as through fire.

Dicunt ergo cuiuslibet uitae catholicum Christianum Christum habere in fundamento, quod fundamentum nulla haeresis habet a corporis eius unitate praecisa; et ideo propter hoc fundamentum, etiamsi malae uitae fuerit catholicus Christianus, uelut qui superaedificauerit ligna, fenum, stipulam, putant eum saluum fieri per ignem, id est post poenas ignis illius liberari, quo igne in ultimo iudicio punientur mali.

They say, therefore, that a Catholic Christian of whatever manner of life has Christ in the foundation, which foundation no heresy has, having been cut off from the unity of his body; and therefore on account of this foundation, even if the Catholic Christian should be of an evil life, as one who has built upon it wood, hay, stubble, they think him to be saved through fire, that is, to be freed after the punishments of that fire by which, in the last judgment, the wicked will be punished.

[XXII] Comperi etiam quosdam putare eos tantummodo arsuros illius aeternitate supplicii, qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas elemosynas neglegunt, iuxta illud apostoli Iacobi: Iudicium autem sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Qui ergo fecit, inquiunt, quamuis mores in melius non mutauerit, sed inter ipsas suas elemosynas nefarie ac nequiter uixerit, iudicium illi cum misericordia futurum est, ut aut nulla damnatione plectatur aut post aliquod tempus siue paruum siue prolixum ab illa damnatione liberetur. Ideo iudicem ipsum uiuorum atque mortuorum noluisse existimant aliud commemorare se esse dicturum siue dextris, quibus est uitam daturus aeternam, siue sinistris, quos aeterno supplicio damnaturus, nisi elemosynas siue factas siue non factas.

[22] I have also found that some think that only those will burn in the eternity of that punishment who neglect to make alms worthy for their sins, according to that saying of the apostle James: But judgment without mercy to him who has not done mercy. Therefore he who has done it, they say, although he has not changed his morals for the better, but has lived nefariously and wickedly amid those very alms, judgment for him will be with mercy, so that either he is not punished with any condemnation, or after some time, whether small or prolonged, he is freed from that damnation. Therefore they think that the very Judge of the living and the dead willed to recall that he would say nothing else either to the right, to whom he is going to give eternal life, or to the left, whom he is going to condemn to eternal punishment, except alms either done or not done.

Ad hoc pertinere aiunt et in oratione Dominica cotidianam postulationem: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Quisquis enim illi, qui in eum peccauit, dimittit ignoscendo peccatum, procul dubio elemosynam facit. Quam rem Dominus ipse sic commendauit, ut diceret: Si enim dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis et pater uester peccata uestra; si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, neque pater uester, qui in caelis est, dimittet uobis.

They say that to this there pertains also in the Lord’s Prayer the quotidian petition: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” For whoever forgives, by pardoning the sin of him who has sinned against him, without doubt does an alms. This matter the Lord himself so commended, as to say: “For if you forgive sins to men, your Father also will forgive you your sins; but if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father who is in the heavens forgive you.”

Ergo et ad hoc genus elemosynarum pertinet quod ait apostolus Iacobus iudicium futurum sine misericordia ei, qui non fecit misericordiam. Nec dixit Dominus, inquiunt, magna uel parua, sed: Dimittet uobis pater uester peccata uestra, si et uos dimiseritis hominibus. Ac per hoc putant etiam eis, qui perdite uixerint donec claudant diem uitae huius extremum, per hanc orationem, qualiacumque et quantacumque fuerint, omnia cotidie peccata dimitti, sicut ipsa cotidie frequentatur oratio, si hoc tantummodo custodire meminerint, ut, quando ab eis ueniam petunt, qui eos peccato qualicumque laeserunt, ex corde dimittant.

Therefore, to this genus of alms also pertains what the apostle James says: that judgment will be without mercy for him who has not done mercy. Nor did the Lord, they say, specify great or small, but: Your Father will forgive your sins, if you also forgive men. And through this they think that even for those who have lived profligately until they close the last day of this life, through this prayer all sins, of whatever kind and however many they may have been, are forgiven daily, just as the prayer itself is used daily—if only they remember to keep this: that, whenever those who have injured them by any kind of sin ask pardon from them, they forgive from the heart.

Cum ad haec omnia Deo donante respondero, liber iste claudendus est.

When, God granting, I have answered to all these things, this book must be closed.

[XXIII] Ac primum quaeri oportet atque cognosci, cur ecclesia ferre nequiuerit hominum disputationem diabolo etiam post maximas et diuturnissimas poenas purgationem uel indulgentiam pollicentem. Neque enim tot sancti et sacris ueteribus ac nouis litteris eruditi mundationem et regni caelorum beatitudinem post qualiacumque et quantacumque supplicia qualibuscumque et quantiscumque angelis inuiderunt, sed potius uiderunt diuinam uacuari uel infirmari non posse sententiam, quam se Dominus praenuntiauit in iudicio prolaturum atque dicturum: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius (sic quippe ostendit aeterno igne diabolum et angelos eius arsuros); et quod scriptum est in apocalypsi: Diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, quo et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die et nocte in saecula saeculorum. Quod ibi dictum est aeternum, hic dictum est in saecula saeculorum, quibus uerbis nihil scriptura diuina significare consueuit, nisi quod finem non habet temporis.

[23] And first it ought to be asked and ascertained why the Church has been unable to bear the disputation of men promising to the diabolus even after the greatest and most long-enduring penalties a purgation or an indulgence. For so many saints, trained in the sacred letters both Old and New, did not begrudge purification and the beatitude of the kingdom of heaven, after whatever and however many punishments, to whatever and however many angels; rather, they saw that the divine sentence cannot be emptied or enfeebled, which the Lord foretold that he would bring forth in judgment and say: “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (for thus indeed he shows that the devil and his angels will burn in eternal fire); and what is written in the Apocalypse: “The Devil, who was deceiving them, was cast into the lake of fire and sulfur, where also are the Beast and the pseudo-prophet; and they will be tormented day and night unto the ages of ages.” What there is called “eternal,” here is called “unto the ages of ages,” by which words divine Scripture is accustomed to signify nothing except that it has no end of time.

Quam ob rem prorsus nec alia causa nec iustior atque manifestior inueniri potest, cur uerissima pietate teneatur fixum et inmobile nullum regressum ad iustitiam uitamque sanctorum diabolum et angelos eius habituros, nisi quia scriptura, quae neminem fallit, dicit eis Deum non pepercisse, et sic ab illo esse interim praedamnatos, ut carceribus caliginis inferi retrusi traderentur seruandi atque ultimo iudicio puniendi, quando eos aeternus ignis accipiet, ubi cruciabuntur in saecula saeculorum. Quod si ita est, quo modo ab huius aeternitate poenae uel uniuersi uel quidam homines post quantumlibet temporis subtrahentur, ac non statim eneruabitur fides, qua creditur sempiternum daemonum futurum esse supplicium? Si enim quibus dicetur: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius, uel uniuersi uel aliqui eorum non semper ibi erunt, quid causae est cur diabolus et angeli eius semper ibi futuri esse credantur?

Wherefore absolutely neither any other cause nor a more just and more manifest one can be found, why by most true piety it should be held fixed and immovable that the devil and his angels will have no return to righteousness and to the life of the saints, unless because Scripture, which deceives no one, says that God did not spare them, and that thus for the meantime they are pre-condemned by Him, so that, thrust back into the prisons of the infernal gloom, they were delivered to be kept and to be punished at the last judgment, when the eternal fire will receive them, where they will be tormented unto the ages of ages. But if this is so, how will either all men or certain men be withdrawn from the eternity of this punishment after however much time, and will not at once the faith be enervated, by which it is believed that the punishment of the daemons will be sempiternal? For if those to whom it will be said, Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels, either all or some of them will not always be there, what cause is there why the devil and his angels should be believed to be going to be there always?

An forte Dei sententia, quae in malos et angelos et homines proferetur, in angelos uera erit, in homines falsa? Ita plane hoc erit, si non quod Deus dixit, sed quod suspicantur homines plus ualebit. Quod fieri quia non potest, non argumentari aduersus Deum, sed diuino potius, dum tempus est, debent parere praecepto, qui sempiterno cupiunt carere supplicio.

Or perhaps the sentence of God, which will be pronounced upon the wicked and upon angels and men, will be true as to the angels, false as to men? This plainly would be so, if not what God has said, but what men suspect, were to prevail more. Since this cannot be, they who desire to be without the everlasting punishment ought not to argue against God, but rather, while there is time, to obey the divine precept.

Deinde quale est aeternum supplicium pro igne diuturni temporis existimare et uitam aeternam credere sine fine, cum Christus eodem ipso loco, in una eademque sententia dixerit utrumque complexus: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam? Si utrumque aeternum, profecto aut utrumque cum fine diuturnum aut utrumque sine fine perpetuum debet intellegi. Par pari enim relata sunt, hinc supplicium aeternum, inde uita aeterna.

Then what sort of reasoning is it to reckon the eternal punishment as a fire of long duration and to believe eternal life to be without end, when Christ in that very place, in one and the same sentence, having included both, said: “Thus shall these go into eternal punishment, but the just into eternal life”? If both are eternal, surely either both must be understood as long-lasting with an end, or both as perpetual without end. For like has been related to like: here eternal punishment, there eternal life.

Dicere autem in hoc uno eodemque sensu: "Vita aeterna sine fine erit, supplicium aeternum finem habebit" multum absurdum est. Vnde, quia uita aeterna sanctorum sine fine erit, supplicium quoque aeternum quibus erit finem procul dubio non habebit.

But to say in this one and the same sense: "Eternal life will be without end, eternal punishment will have an end" is very absurd. Whence, since the eternal life of the saints will be without end, the eternal punishment also, for those to whom it will be, will without a doubt not have an end.

[XXIV] Hoc autem et aduersus eos ualet, qui suas agentes causas contra Dei uenire uerba uelut misericordia maiore conantur, ut ideo uidelicet uera sint, quia ea, quae dixit homines esse passuros, pati digni sunt, non quia passuri sunt. Donabit enim eos, inquiunt, precibus sanctorum suorum, etiam tunc tanto magis orantium pro inimicis suis, quanto sunt utique sanctiores, eorumque efficacior est oratio et exauditione Dei dignior, iam nullum habentium omnino peccatum. Cur ergo eadem perfectissima sanctitate et cuncta impetrare ualentibus mundissimis et misericordissimis precibus etiam pro angelis non orabunt, quibus paratus est ignis aeternus, ut Deus sententiam suam mitiget et reflectat in melius eosque ab illo igne faciat alienos?

[24] But this also prevails against those who, pleading their own causes, try to make God’s words come out contrary, as though by a greater mercy, so that they are therefore true because those things which he said men are going to suffer they are worthy to suffer, not because they will suffer. “For he will grant them pardon,” they say, “by the prayers of his saints—even then praying so much the more for their enemies, in proportion as they are assuredly holier—and their prayer is more efficacious and more worthy of God’s hearing, since they now have no sin at all.” Why then, with that same most perfect sanctity and with the most spotless and most merciful prayers, able to obtain all things, will they not also pray for the angels for whom the eternal fire is prepared, that God may mitigate his sentence and reflect it for the better and make them alien from that fire?

An erit forsitan quisquam, qui et hoc futurum esse praesumat adfirmans etiam sanctos angelos simul cum sanctis hominibus, qui tunc aequales erunt angelis Dei, pro damnandis et angelis et hominibus oraturos, ut misericordia non patiantur, quod ueritate merentur pati? Quod nemo sanae fidei dixit, nemo dicturus est. Alioquin nulla causa est, cur non etiam nunc pro diabolo et angelis eius oret ecclesia, quam magister Deus pro inimicis suis iussit orare.

Will there perhaps be anyone who presumes even this will come to pass, affirming that even the holy angels, together with holy humans—who then will be equal to the angels of God—are going to pray on behalf of those to be condemned, both angels and humans, that by mercy they may not suffer what by truth they deserve to suffer? Which no one of sound faith has said, no one will say. Otherwise there is no cause why the Church should not even now pray for the devil and his angels, the Church whom the Master, God, commanded to pray for His enemies.

Haec igitur causa, qua fit ut nunc ecclesia non oret pro malis angelis, quos suos esse nouit inimicos, eadem ipsa causa est, qua fiet ut in illo tunc iudicio etiam pro hominibus aeterno igne cruciandis, quamuis perfecta sit sanctitate, non oret. Nunc enim propterea pro eis orat, quos in genere humano habet inimicos, quia tempus est paenitentiae fructuosae. Nam quid maxime pro eis orat, nisi ut det illis Deus, sicut dicit apostolus, paenitentiam et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, a quo captiui tenentur secundum ipsius uoluntatem?

This therefore is the cause, whereby it comes to pass that now the church does not pray for the evil angels, whom she knows to be her own enemies: this very same cause is that whereby it will come to pass that then in that judgment she will not pray even for men to be tortured by eternal fire, although she be perfect in sanctity. For now she prays on behalf of those whom she has as enemies within the human race, because it is a time of fruitful penitence. For what chiefly does she pray for them, except that God may grant to them, as the Apostle says, repentance, and that they may come back to their senses out of the devil’s snares, by whom they are held captive according to his will?

Denique si de aliquibus ita certa esset, ut qui sint illi etiam nosset, qui, licet adhuc in hac uita sint constituti, tamen praedestinati sunt in aeternum ignem ire cum diabolo: tam pro eis non oraret, quam nec pro ipso. Sed quia de nullo certa est, orat pro omnibus dumtaxat hominibus inimicis suis in hoc corpore constitutis; nec tamen pro omnibus exauditur. Pro his enim solis exauditur, qui, etsi aduersantur ecclesiae, ita sunt tamen praedestinati, ut pro eis exaudiatur ecclesia et filii efficiantur ecclesiae.

Finally, if she were so certain about some as even to know who they are who, although still constituted in this life, are nevertheless predestined to go into eternal fire with the devil, she would not pray for them any more than for him. But because she is certain about no one, she prays for all human beings, at least—her enemies—constituted in this body; yet she is not heard for all. For she is heard only for those who, although they oppose the church, are nevertheless so predestined that the church is heard for them and they are made sons of the church.

Si qui autem usque ad mortem habebunt cor impaenitens nec ex inimicis conuertentur in filios, numquid iam pro eis, id est pro talium defunctorum spiritibus, orat ecclesia? Quid ita, nisi quia in parte iam diaboli computatur, qui cum esset in corpore non est translatus ad Christum?

If, however, there are any who will have an impenitent heart even unto death and will not be converted from enemies into sons, does the church now pray for them, that is, for the spirits of such deceased? Why so, except because he is already counted in the party of the devil, who, when he was in the body, was not translated to Christ?

Eadem itaque causa est, cur non oretur tunc pro hominibus aeterno igne puniendis, quae causa est, ut neque nunc neque tunc oretur pro angelis malis; quae itidem causa est, ut, quamuis pro hominibus, tamen iam nec nunc oretur pro infidelibus impiisque defunctis. Nam pro defunctis quibusdam uel ipsius ecclesiae uel quorumdam piorum exauditur oratio, sed pro his, quorum in Christo regeneratorum nec usque adeo uita in corpore male gesta est, ut tali misericordia iudicentur digni non esse, nec usque adeo bene, ut talem misericordiam reperiantur necessariam non habere; sicut etiam facta resurrectione mortuorum non deerunt, quibus post poenas, quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum, inpertiatur misericordia, ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum. Neque enim de quibusdam ueraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittitur in futuro.

The same cause, therefore, is why then no prayer is made for men to be punished with eternal fire, which cause is that neither now nor then is prayer made for evil angels; which likewise is the cause that, although for men, yet now neither is there prayer for infidel and impious deceased. For for certain deceased, either of the Church herself or of certain pious persons, prayer is heard; but for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, have not lived in the body so badly as to be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor so well as to be found not to have such mercy necessary; just as also, when the resurrection of the dead has been accomplished, there will not be lacking those to whom, after the punishments which the spirits of the dead suffer, mercy is imparted, so that they are not sent into the eternal fire. For it would not be said truly concerning some that it is not remitted to them neither in this age nor in the future, unless there were those to whom, if not in this age, yet it is remitted in the future.

Sed cum dictum fuerit a iudice uiuorum atque mortuorum: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi, et aliis e contrario: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius, et ierint isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam: nimiae praesumptionis est dicere cuiquam eorum aeternum supplicium non futurum, quo Deus ituros in supplicium dixit aeternum, et per huius praesumptionis persuasionem facere, ut de ipsa quoque uita uel desperetur uel dubitetur aeterna.

But when it shall have been said by the judge of the living and the dead: Come, blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the constitution of the world, and to others on the contrary: Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels, and these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just into eternal life: it is excessive presumption to say of any of them that the eternal punishment will not be, those whom God said would go into eternal punishment; and, by the persuasion of this presumption, to bring it about that concerning life itself, too, either there is despair or there is doubt that it is eternal.

Nemo itaque sic intellegat psalmum canentem: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus, aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? ut opinetur de hominibus bonis ueram, de malis falsam, aut de bonis hominibus et malis angelis ueram, de malis autem hominibus falsam Dei esse sententiam. Hoc enim, quod ait psalmus, ad uasa misericordiae pertinet et ad filios promissionis, quorum erat unus etiam ipse propheta, qui cum dixisset: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas?

No one, therefore, should thus understand the psalm singing: Will God forget to show mercy, or will he restrain in his wrath his compassions? so as to suppose that of good men it is true, of evil men false, or that of good men and evil angels it is true, but of evil men the sentence of God is false. For this which the psalm says pertains to the vessels of mercy and to the sons of the promise, of whom even the prophet himself was one, who, when he had said: Will God forget to show mercy, or will he restrain in his wrath his compassions?

continuo subiecit: Et dixi: Nunc coepi, haec est inmutatio dexterae Excelsi. Exposuit profecto quid dixerit: Numquid continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? Ira enim Dei est etiam ista uita mortalis, ubi homo uanitati similis factus est; dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt.

straightway he subjoined: And I said: Now I have begun; this is the mutation of the right hand of the Most High. He indeed expounded what he had said: Will He restrain in His wrath His compassions? For the wrath of God is even this mortal life, where man has been made like unto vanity; his days pass by like a shadow.

In qua tamen ira non obliuiscitur misereri Deus, faciendo solem suum oriri super bonos et malos et pluendo super iustos et iniustos, ac sic non continet in ira sua miserationes suas; maximeque in eo, quod expressit hic psalmus dicendo: Nunc coepi, haec est inmutatio dexterae Excelsi, quoniam in hac ipsa aerumnosissima uita, quae ira Dei est, uasa misericordiae mutat in melius, quamuis adhuc in huius corruptionis miseria maneat ira eius, quia nec in ipsa ira sua continet miserationes suas. Cum ergo isto modo compleatur diuini illius cantici ueritas, non est eam necesse etiam illic intellegi, ubi non pertinentes ad ciuitatem Dei sempiterno supplicio punientur. Sed quibus placet istam sententiam usque ad illa impiorum tormenta protendere, saltem sic intellegant, ut manente in eis ira Dei, quae in aeterno est praenuntiata supplicio, non contineat Deus in hac ira sua miserationes suas et faciat eos non tanta quanta digni sunt poenarum atrocitate cruciari; non ut eas poenas uel numquam subeant uel aliquando finiant, sed ut eas mitiores quam merita sunt eorum leuioresque patiantur.

In which wrath, nevertheless, God does not forget to be merciful, by making his sun rise over the good and the bad and by raining upon the just and the unjust, and thus he does not contain (withhold) in his wrath his compassions; and most especially in that which this psalm expressed by saying: Now I have begun, this is the mutation of the Right Hand of the Most High, since in this very most burdensome life, which is the wrath of God, he changes for the better the vessels of mercy, although as yet in the misery of this corruption his wrath remains, because not even in his very wrath does he contain his compassions. Since therefore in this way the truth of that divine canticle is fulfilled, it is not necessary that it be understood even there, where those not pertaining to the City of God will be punished with sempiternal punishment. But for those whom it pleases to extend that opinion even to those torments of the impious, let them at least understand it thus: that, with the wrath of God remaining in them, which has been preannounced in eternal punishment, God does not contain in this his wrath his compassions and makes them be tormented not with so great an atrocity of punishments as they are worthy; not that they either never undergo those punishments or at some time bring them to an end, but that they suffer them milder and lighter than their merits deserve.

Sic enim et ira Dei manebit, et in ipsa ira sua miserationes suas non continebit. Quod quidem non ideo confirmo, quoniam non resisto.

For thus both the wrath of God will remain, and in that very wrath of his he will not contain his mercies. Which indeed I do not on that account confirm, since I do not resist.

Ceterum eos, qui putant minaciter potius quam ueraciter dictum: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, et: ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, et: Cruciabuntur in saecula saeculorum, et: Vermis eorum non morietur et ignis non extinguetur, et cetera huius modi, non tam ego, quam ipsa scriptura diuina planissime atque plenissime redarguit ac refellit. Nineuitae quippe in hac uita egerunt paenitentiam et ideo fructuosam, uelut in hoc agro seminantes, in quo Deus uoluit cum lacrimis seminari, quod postea cum laetitia meteretur; et tamen quis negabit, quod Dominus praedixit in eis fuisse completum, nisi parum aduertat, quem ad modum peccatores Deus non solum iratus, uerum etiam miseratus euertat? Euertuntur enim peccatores duobus modis, aut sicut Sodomitae, ut pro peccatis suis ipsi homines puniantur, aut sicut Nineuitae, ut ipsa hominum peccata paenitendo destruantur.

But as for those who think it was said menacingly rather than veraciously: Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire, and: these will go into eternal punishment, and: they will be tormented unto ages of ages, and: their worm will not die and the fire will not be quenched, and other things of this sort, not so much I as the divine Scripture itself most plainly and most fully reproves and refutes. For the Ninevites did penance in this life and therefore to good effect, as if sowing in this field in which God willed that it be sown with tears, that afterward it might be reaped with joy; and yet who will deny that what the Lord foretold was fulfilled in them, unless he pays too little heed to how God overturns sinners not only in anger but also in mercy? For sinners are overthrown in two ways: either like the Sodomites, so that the men themselves are punished for their sins, or like the Ninevites, so that the very sins of men are destroyed by repenting.

Factum est ergo quod praedixit Deus; euersa est Nineue quae mala erat, et bona aedificata est quae non erat. Stantibus enim moenibus atque domibus euersa est ciuitas in perditis moribus. Ac sic, quamuis propheta fuerit contristatus, quia non est factum quod illi homines timuerunt illo prophetante uenturum, factum est tamen quod fuerat Deo praesciente praedictum, quoniam nouerat qui praedixit, quo modo in melius esset implendum.

It came to pass, therefore, which God had predicted; Nineveh, which was evil, was overthrown, and the good which was not was edified. For with the walls and the houses standing, the city was overthrown in its depraved morals. And thus, although the prophet was saddened because that which those men feared would come, when he was prophesying, was not done, nevertheless what had been predicted by God foreknowing was done, since he who predicted knew in what way it was to be fulfilled for the better.

Vt autem nouerint isti in peruersum misericordes quo pertineat quod scriptum est: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te) legant quod sequitur: Perfecisti autem sperantibus in te. Quid est abscondisti timentibus, perfecisti sperantibus, nisi quia illis, qui timore poenarum suam iustitiam uolunt constituere quae in lege est, non est iustitia Dei dulcis, quia nesciunt eam? Non enim gustauerunt eam. In se namque sperant, non in ipso, et ideo eis absconditur multitudo dulcedinis Dei; quoniam timent quidem Deum, sed illo timore seruili, qui non est in caritate, quia perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem.

So that, however, those who are merciful in a perverse way may know to what that which is written pertains: How great the multitude of your sweetness, Lord, which you have hidden for those fearing you) let them read what follows: But you have perfected it for those hoping in you. What is “you have hidden for those fearing, you have perfected for those hoping,” except that for those who, by fear of punishments, wish to constitute their own justice which is in the law, the justice of God is not sweet, because they do not know it? For they have not tasted it. For they hope in themselves, not in him, and therefore the multitude of the sweetness of God is hidden from them; since they do indeed fear God, but with that servile fear, which is not in charity, because perfect charity casts fear outside.

Ideo sperantibus in eum perficit dulcedinem suam inspirando eis caritatem suam, ut timore casto, non quem caritas foras mittit, sed permanente in saeculum saeculi, cum gloriantur, in Domino glorientur. Iustitia quippe Dei Christus est, qui factus est nobis, sicut dicit apostolus, sapientia a Deo et iustitia et sanctificatio et redemptio, ut, quem ad modum scriptum est, qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Hanc Dei iustitiam, quam donat gratia sine meritis, nesciunt illi, qui suam iustitiam uolunt constituere, et ideo iustitiae Dei, quod est Christus, non sunt subiecti.

Therefore to those who hope in him he perfects his sweetness by inspiring into them his charity, so that with chaste fear—not the kind which charity casts out, but one remaining unto the age of ages—when they glory, let them glory in the Lord. For indeed the Justice of God is Christ, who has been made for us, as the apostle says, wisdom from God and justice and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, he who glories, let him glory in the Lord. This Justice of God, which grace gives without merits, is not known by those who wish to establish their own justice, and therefore to the Justice of God, which is Christ, they are not subject.

In qua iustitia est multa multitudo dulcedinis Dei, propter quam dicitur in psalmo: Gustate et uidete quam dulcis est Dominus. Et hanc quidem in hac peregrinatione gustantes, non ad satietatem sumentes, esurimus eam potius ac sitimus, ut ea postea saturemur, cum uidebimus eum, sicuti est, et implebitur quod scriptum est: Saturabor, cum manifestabitur gloria tua. Ita perficit Christus multam multitudinem dulcedinis suae sperantibus in eum.

In which justice there is a great multitude of the sweetness of God, on account of which it is said in the psalm: Taste and see how sweet the Lord is. And indeed, tasting this in this peregrination, not taking it to satiety, we hunger and thirst for it rather, that by it we may afterward be sated, when we shall see him just as he is, and what is written will be fulfilled: I shall be satisfied, when your glory shall be manifested. Thus Christ perfects the great multitude of his sweetness for those hoping in him.

Porro autem si eam, quam illi putant, dulcedinem suam Deus abscondit timentibus eum, qua non est impios damnaturus, ut hoc nescientes et damnari timentes recte uiuant ac sic possint esse qui orent pro non recte uiuentibus: quo modo eam perficit sperantibus in eum, quando quidem, sicut somniant, per hanc dulcedinem non damnaturus est eos, qui non sperant in eum? Illa igitur eius dulcedo quaeratur, quam perficit.sperantibus in eum, non quam proficere putatur contemnentibus et blasphemantibus eum. Frustra itaque homo post hoc corpus inquirit, quod in hoc corpore sibi comparare neglexit.

Furthermore, if God hides that sweetness of his, which they suppose, for those fearing him—by which he is not about to condemn the impious—so that, ignorant of this and fearing to be condemned, they may live rightly and thus may be able to be those who pray for those not living rightly: in what way does he perfect it for those hoping in him, since indeed, as they dream, by this sweetness he is not going to condemn those who do not hope in him? Therefore let that sweetness of his be sought, which he perfects for those hoping in him, not that which is thought to profit those contemning and blaspheming him. In vain, therefore, does a man inquire after this body, which in this body he neglected to procure for himself.

Illud quoque apostolicum: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur, non ideo dictum est, quod sit neminem damnaturus, sed superius apparet unde sit dictum. Nam cum de Iudaeis postea credituris apostolus loqueretur ad gentes, ad quas utique iam credentes conscribebat epistulas: Sicut enim uos, inquit, aliquando non credidistis Deo, nunc autem misericordiam consecuti estis illorum incredulitate: sic et hi nunc non crediderunt in uestram misericordiam, ut et ipsi misericordiam consequantur. Deinde subiecit, unde isti sibi errando blandiuntur, atque ait: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur.

Illud quoque apostolicum: For God has shut up all in infidelity, that He may have mercy upon all, was not for this reason said, that He is going to damn no one, but above it appears whence it was said. For when the Apostle was speaking to the Gentiles— to whom, indeed, now believing, he was writing epistles—about the Jews who would afterwards believe: For just as you, he says, once did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy by their incredulity; so also these now have not believed with a view to your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy. Then he subjoined that from which these men, by erring, flatter themselves, and said: For God has shut up all in infidelity, that He may have mercy upon all.

Quos omnes, nisi de quibus loquebatur, tamquam dicens: Et uos et illos? Deus ergo et gentiles et Iudaeos, quos praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, omnes in infidelitate conclusit, ut de amaritudine infidelitatis suae paenitendo confusi et ad dulcedinem misericordiae Dei credendo conuersi clamarent illud in psalmo: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te, perfecisti autem sperantibus, non in se, sed in te ) Omnium itaque miseretur uasorum misericordiae. Quid est omnium?

Whom all, unless those of whom he was speaking, as if saying: Both you and those others? Therefore God both the Gentiles and the Jews, whom he foreknew and predestined conform to the image of his Son, enclosed all in unbelief, so that, being confounded by repenting of the bitterness of their own unbelief and, by believing, converted to the sweetness of the mercy of God, they might cry that thing in the Psalm: How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you; but you have perfected it for those who hope, not in themselves, but in you ) Therefore he has mercy on all the vessels of mercy. What is “all”?

Et eorum scilicet quos ex gentibus, et eorum quos ex Iudaeis praedestinauit uocauit, iustificauit glorificauit, non hominum omnium, sed istorum omnium neminem damnaturus.

And of those—namely, those whom from the Gentiles, and those whom from the Jews, he predestined, called, justified, glorified—he is going to damn no one: not of all men, but of all these.

[XXV] Sed iam respondeamus etiam illis, qui non solum diabolo et angelis eius, sicut nec isti, sed ne ipsis quidem omnibus hominibus liberationem ab aeterno igne promittunt, uerum eis tantum, qui Christi baptismate abluti et corporis eius et sanguinis participes facti sunt, quomodolibet uixerint, in quacumque haeresi uel impietate fuerint. Sed contradicit eis apostolus dicens: Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, inmunditia, luxuria, idolorum seruitus, ueneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidiae, ebrietates, comisationes et his similia; quae praedico uobis, sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt. Haec profecto apostolica falsa sententia est, si tales post quantalibet tempora liberati regnum Dei possidebunt.

[25] But now let us also answer those who promise liberation from eternal fire not only not to the devil and his angels, as neither do these, but not even to all human beings themselves—rather only to those who, washed by the baptism of Christ and made participants of his body and blood, however they may have lived, in whatever heresy or impiety they may have been. But the Apostle contradicts them, saying: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, servitude of idols, sorceries, enmities, contentions, emulations, animosities, dissensions, heresies, envies, drunkennesses, revelries, and things like these; which I forewarn you, as I forewarned, that those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God. This apostolic sentence is assuredly false, if such persons, after however long a time, having been freed, will possess the kingdom of God.

Sed quoniam falsa non est, profecto regnum Dei non possidebunt. Et si in regni Dei possessione numquam erunt, aeterno supplicio tenebuntur; quoniam non est medius locus, ubi non sit in supplicio, qui illo non fuerit constitutus in regno.

But since it is not false, assuredly they will not possess the kingdom of God. And if they will never be in the possession of the kingdom of God, they will be held in eternal punishment; since there is no middle place, where one is not in punishment, who has not been constituted in that kingdom.

Quam ob rem quod ait Dominus Iesus: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, ut, si quis ex ipso manducauerit, non moriatur. Ego sum panis uiuus, qui de caelo descendi; si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, quo modo sit accipiendum, merito quaeritur. Et ab istis quidem, quibus nunc respondemus, hunc intellectum auferunt illi, quibus deinde respondendum est; hi sunt autem, qui hanc liberationem nec omnibus habentibus sacramentum baptismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis catholicis, quamuis male uiuentibus, pollicentur, quia non solo, inquiunt, sacramento, sed re ipsa manducauerunt corpus Christi, in ipso scilicet eius corpore constituti; de quo corpore ait apostolus: Vnus panis, unum corpus multi sumus.

Therefore, as to what the Lord Jesus says: “This is the bread which came down from heaven, that, if anyone shall have eaten of it, he may not die. I am the living bread, who came down from heaven; if anyone shall have eaten of this bread, he will live unto eternity,” in what way it is to be taken is rightly asked. And indeed this understanding is taken away from these men, to whom we are now replying, by those to whom we must reply afterwards; these are, however, they who promise this liberation not even to all who have the sacrament of baptism and of the body of Christ, but to Catholics alone, although living badly, because, they say, they have eaten the body of Christ not by the sacrament only, but in the very reality, being constituted, namely, in his very body; of which body the apostle says: “One bread, one body are we many.”

Qui ergo est in eius corporis unitate, id est in Christianorum compage membrorum, cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consuerunt, ipse uere dicendus est manducare corpus Christi et bibere sanguinem Christi. Ac per hoc haeretici et schismatici ab huius unitate corporis separati possunt idem percipere sacramentum, sed non sibi utile, immo uero etiam noxium, quo iudicentur grauius, quam uel tardius liberentur. Non sunt quippe in eo uinculo pacis, quod illo exprimitur sacramento.

Therefore, whoever is in the unity of his body, that is, in the compage of the members of Christians, of which body’s sacrament the faithful, communicating, are accustomed to take from the altar, he himself is truly to be said to eat the body of Christ and to drink the blood of Christ. And through this, heretics and schismatics, separated from the unity of this body, can receive the same sacrament, but not to their benefit—nay rather even harmful—whereby they are judged more grievously, than that they should even be freed more tardily. For indeed they are not in that bond of peace which is expressed by that sacrament.

Sed rursus etiam isti, qui recte intellegunt, non dicendum esse manducare corpus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi, non recte promittunt eis, qui uel in haeresim uel etiam in gentilium superstitionem ex illius corporis unitate labuntur, liberationem quandoque ab aeterni igne supplicii; primum, quia debent adtendere, quam sit intolerabile atque a sana doctrina nimis deuium, ut multi ac paene omnes, qui haereses impias condiderunt exeuntes de catholica ecclesia et facti sunt haeresiarchae, meliores habeant causas, quam hi, qui numquam fuerunt catholici, cum in eorum laqueos incidissent, si illos haeresiarchas hoc facit liberari a supplicio sempiterno, quod in catholica ecclesia baptizati sunt et sacramentum corporis Christi in uero Christi corpore primitus acceperunt; cum peior sit utique desertor fidei et ex desertore oppugnator eius effectus quam ille, qui non deseruit quod numquam tenuit; deinde quia et his occurrit apostolus eadem uerba proferens et enumeratis illis carnis operibus eadem ueritate praedicens: Quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt.

But again, even those who rightly understand that one who is not in the body of Christ is not to be said to eat the body of Christ do not rightly promise to those who slip from the unity of that body either into heresy or even into the superstition of the gentiles a deliverance at some time from the fire of eternal punishment; first, because they ought to attend to how intolerable and how far deviating from sound doctrine it is, that many, indeed almost all, who, going out from the catholic church, founded impious heresies and became heresiarchs, should have better causes than those who were never Catholics, when they had fallen into their snares, if this—that they were baptized in the catholic church and first received the sacrament of the body of Christ in the true body of Christ—makes those heresiarchs be liberated from everlasting punishment; since assuredly a deserter of the faith, and, from a deserter, one who has become its assailant, is worse than he who did not desert what he never held; then because the Apostle also meets these with the same words, and, those works of the flesh having been enumerated, proclaims with the same truth: Because those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God.

Vnde nec illi in perditis et damnabilibus moribus debent esse securi, qui usque in finem quidem uelut in communione ecclesiae catholicae perseuerant, intuentes quod dictum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit, et per uitae iniquitatem ipsam uitae iustitiam, quod eis Christus est, deserunt, siue fornicando siue alias inmunditias flagitiorum, quas nec exprimere apostolus uoluit, in suo corpore perpetrando, siue turpitudine luxuriae diffluendo siue aliquid aliud eorum agendo, de quibus ait: Quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt; ac per hoc, quicumque agunt talia, nisi in sempiterno supplicio non erunt, quia in Dei regno esse non poterunt. In his enim perseuerando usque in huius uitae finem non utique dicendi sunt in Christo perseuerasse usque in finem, quia in Christo perseuerare est in eius fide perseuerare; quae fides, ut eam definit idem apostolus, per dilectionem operatur; dilectio autem, sicut ipse alibi dicit, malum non operatur. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi.

Whence neither should those be secure in lost and damnable morals, who indeed persevere, as it were, in the communion of the Catholic Church unto the end, looking at what has been said: 'He who has persevered unto the end, this man will be saved,' and yet by the iniquity of life desert the very justice of life—which Christ is to them—whether by fornicating or by perpetrating in their own body other uncleannesses of outrages, which the apostle did not even wish to express, or by dissolving in the turpitude of luxury, or by doing any other of those things about which he says: 'For those who do such things shall not possess the kingdom of God'; and therefore, whoever do such things will be in everlasting punishment, because they will not be able to be in the kingdom of God. By persevering in these things unto the end of this life, they certainly are not to be said to have persevered in Christ unto the end, because to persevere in Christ is to persevere in his faith; which faith, as the same apostle defines it, works through love; but love, as he himself says elsewhere, does not work evil. Nor, therefore, are these to be said to eat the body of Christ, since they are not to be counted among the members of Christ.

Vt enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse et membra Christi et membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicit: Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo. Ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus, sed re uera corpus Christi manducare et eius sanguinem bibere; hoc est enim in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tamquam diceret: "Qui non in me manet, et in quo non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem meum." Non itaque manent in Christo, qui non sunt membra eius.

For, to keep silence about other things, they cannot at the same time be both members of Christ and members of a harlot. Finally, he himself says: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. He shows what it is—not merely as to the sacrament, but in reality—to eat the body of Christ and to drink his blood; for this is to abide in Christ, that Christ also may abide in him. For thus he said this, as though he were saying: "Let him who does not abide in me, and in whom I do not abide, not call himself or suppose himself to eat my body or to drink my blood." Therefore they do not abide in Christ who are not his members.

Non sunt autem membra Christi, qui se faciunt membra meretricis, nisi malum illud paenitendo esse destiterint et ad hoc bonum reconciliatione redierint.

But they are not members of Christ, who make themselves members of a harlot, unless by penitence they have desisted from that evil and by reconciliation have returned to this good.

[XXVI] Sed habent, inquiunt, Christiani catholici in fundamento Christum, a cuius unitate non recesserunt, tametsi huic fundamento superaedificauerunt quamlibet pessimam uitam, uelut ligna, fenum, stipulam; recta itaque fides, per quam Christus est fundamentum, quamuis cum damno, quoniam illa, quae superaedificata sunt, exurentur, tamen poterit eos quandoque ab illius ignis perpetuitate saluare. Respondeat eis breuiter apostolus Iacobus: Si quis dicat se fidem habere, opera autem non habeat, numquid poterit fides saluare eum? Et quis est, inquiunt, de quo dicit apostolus Paulus: Ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem?

[26] But, they say, Catholic Christians have Christ on the foundation, from whose unity they have not receded, although upon this foundation they have superedified however most wretched a life, as it were wood, hay, stubble; therefore right faith, through which Christ is the foundation, although with loss, since the things that have been superedified will be burned up, nevertheless will be able at some point to save them from the perpetuity of that fire. Let the apostle James answer them briefly: "If someone says that he has faith, but does not have works, will faith be able to save him?" And who is it, they say, of whom the apostle Paul says: "But he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire?"

Simul quis iste sit, inquiramus; hunc tamen non esse certissimum est, ne duorum apostolorum sententias mittamus in rixam, si unus dicit: "Etiamsi mala opera quis habuerit, saluabit eum per ignem fides"; alius autem: Si opera non habeat, numquid poterit fides saluare eum?

At the same time let us inquire who this is; yet it is most certain that it is not this one, lest we send the sentences of the two apostles into a wrangle, if the one says: "Even if someone should have had evil works, faith will save him through fire"; but the other: If he does not have works, will faith be able to save him?

Inueniemus ergo quis possit saluari per ignem, si prius inuenerimus quid sit habere in fundamento Christum. Quod ut de ipsa similitudine quantocius aduertamus: nihil in aedificio praeponitur fundamento; quisquis itaque sic habet in corde Christum, ut ei terrena et temporaria nec ea quae licita sunt atque concessa praeponat, fundamentum habet Christum; si autem praeponit, etsi uideatur habere fidem Christi, non est tamen in eo fundamentum Christus, cui talia praeponuntur; quanto magis, si salutaria praecepta contemnens committat inlicita, non praeposuisse Christum, sed postposuisse conuincitur, quem posthabuit imperantem siue concedentem, dum contra eius imperata siue concessa suam per flagitia delegit explere libidinem! Si quis itaque Christianus diligit meretricem eique adhaerens unum corpus efficitur, iam in fundamento non habet Christum.

We shall therefore find who can be saved through fire, if we first find what it is to have Christ in the foundation. So that, from the very similitude, we may notice this as quickly as possible: nothing in an edifice is set before the foundation; whoever therefore has Christ in his heart in such a way that he does not prefer to him earthly and temporal things, nor even those that are licit and conceded, has Christ as the foundation; but if he prefers them, even if he seems to have the faith of Christ, nevertheless Christ is not the foundation in him, for such things are preferred to him; how much more, if, despising the salutary precepts, he commits illicit things, he is convicted not of having put Christ before, but of having put him after—since he held after the One commanding or granting, while, against his commands or grants, he chose to fulfill his own lust through shameful acts! If therefore any Christian loves a prostitute and, adhering to her, is made one body, he no longer has Christ as the foundation.

Si quis autem diligit uxorem suam, si secundum Christum, quis ei dubitet in fundamento esse Christum? si uero secundum hoc saeculum, si carnaliter, si in morbo concupiscentiarum, sicut et gentes quae ignorant Deum, etiam hoc secundum ueniam concedit apostolus, immo per apostolum Christus. Potest ergo et iste in fundamento habere Christum.

If, however, someone loves his wife, if according to Christ, who would doubt that he has Christ in the foundation? But if according to this age, if carnally, if in the disease of concupiscences, as also the Gentiles who are ignorant of God, even this the apostle grants by way of indulgence—nay rather Christ through the apostle. Therefore even this man can have Christ in the foundation.

Si enim nihil ei talis affectionis uoluptatisque praeponat, quamuis superaedificet ligna, fenum, stipulam, Christus est fundamentum, propter hoc saluus erit per ignem. Delicias quippe huius modi amoresque terrenos, propter coniugalem quidem copulam non damnabiles, tribulationis ignis exuret; ad quem pertinent ignem et orbitates et quaecumque calamitates quae auferunt haec. Ac per hoc ei, qui aedificauit, erit aedificatio ista damnosa, quia non habebit, quod superaedificauit, et eorum amissione cruciabitur, quibus fruendo utique laetabatur; sed per hunc ignem saluus erit merito fundamenti, quia, etsi utrum id habere mallet an Christum a persecutore proponeretur, illud Christo non praeponeretur.

For if he should put nothing before it of such affection and pleasure, although he build upon it wood, hay, stubble, Christ is the foundation; on account of this he will be saved through fire. For the delights of this sort and earthly loves, not damnable on account of the conjugal union, the fire of tribulation will burn away; and to this fire there also pertain bereavements and whatever calamities which take these away. And therefore to him who has built, this superstructure will be damaging, because he will not have what he built upon, and by the loss of them he will be tormented, in the enjoyment of which he certainly used to rejoice; but through this fire he will be saved by the merit of the foundation, because, even if the choice were proposed by a persecutor, whether he would rather have that or Christ, that would not be preferred to Christ.

Vide in apostoli uerbis hominem aedificantem super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos: Qui sine uxore est, inquit, cogitat quae sunt Dei, quo modo placeat Deo. Vide alium aedificantem ligna, fenum, stipulam: Qui autem matrimonio iunctus est, inquit, cogitat quae sunt mundi, quo modo placeat uxori. Vniuscuiusque opus manifestabitur; dies enim declarabit (dies utique tribulationis), quoniam in igne, inquit, reuelabitur.

See in the apostle’s words a man building upon the foundation gold, silver, precious stones: He who is without a wife, he says, thinks the things that are God’s, how he may please God. See another building wood, hay, stubble: But he who is joined in matrimony, he says, thinks the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. Each one’s work will be made manifest; for the day will declare it (the day, of course, of tribulation), because, he says, it will be revealed in fire.

(Eandem tribulationem ignem uocat, sicut alibi legitur: Vasa figuli probat fornax et homines iustos temptatio tribulationis.) Et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit. Si cuius opus permanserit (permanet enim quod quisque cogitat quae sunt Dei, quo modo placeat Deo), quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiet (id est, unde cogitauit, hoc sumet); si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patietur (quoniam quod dilexerat non habebit), ipse autem saluus erit (quia nulla eum tribulatio ab illius fundamenti stabilitate semouit); sic tamen quasi per ignem (quod enim sine inliciente amore non habuit, sine urente dolore non perdit). Ecce, quantum mihi uidetur, inuentus est ignis, qui nullum eorum damnet, sed unum ditet, alterum damnificet, ambos probet.

(He calls the same tribulation “fire,” as it is read elsewhere: The furnace proves the potter’s vessels, and the temptation of tribulation tests just men.) And the fire will prove of what sort each one’s work is. If anyone’s work shall remain (for that remains which a person thinks on the things of God, how he may please God), he will receive a reward for what he has built upon (that is, from that which he thought, this he will take); but if anyone’s work shall have been burned, he will suffer loss (since he will not have what he had loved), but he himself will be saved (because no tribulation removed him from the stability of that foundation); yet so, as through fire (for what he did not possess without enticing love, he does not lose without burning grief). Behold, so far as it seems to me, a fire has been found which condemns none of them, but enriches the one, damages the other, proves both.

Si autem ignem illum loco isto uoluerimus accipere, de quo Dominus dicet sinistris: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum; ut in eis etiam isti esse credantur, qui aedificant super fundamentum ligna, fenum, stipulam, eosque ex illo igne post tempus pro malis meritis impertitum liberet boni meritum fundamenti: quid arbitrabimur dextros quibus dicetur: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, nisi eos, qui aedificauerunt super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos? Sed in illum ignem, de quo dictum est: Sic tamen quasi per ignem, si hoc modo est intellegendus, utrique mittendi sunt, et dextri scilicet et sinistri. Illo quippe igne utrique probandi sunt, de quo dictum est: Dies enim declarabit, quoniam in igne reuelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit.

But if we should be willing to take that fire in this place, of which the Lord will say to the left: Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire; so that these too are believed to be among those, who build upon the foundation wood, hay, stubble, and that the merit of the good foundation may free them from that fire after a time apportioned for evil deserts: what shall we judge the right-hand ones, to whom it will be said: Come, blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you, to be, unless those who have built upon the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? But into that fire, of which it was said: Yet so as through fire, if it is to be understood in this way, both are to be sent, namely both the right and the left. For by that fire both are to be proved, of which it was said: For the day will declare it, because it will be revealed in fire, and the fire will prove what sort of work each one’s is.

Si ergo utrumque probabit ignis, ut, si cuius opus permanserit, id est non fuerit igne consumptum, quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiat; si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patiatur: profecto non est ipse aeternus ille ignis. In illum enim soli sinistri nouissima et perpetua damnatione mittentur, iste autem dextros probat. Sed alios eorum sic probat, ut aedificium, quod super Christum fundamentum ab eis inuenerit esse constructum, non exurat atque consumat; alios autem aliter, id est, ut quod superaedificauerunt ardeat damnumque inde patiantur, salui fiant autem, quoniam Christum in fundamento stabiliter positum praecellenti caritate tenuerunt.

If therefore the fire will prove both, so that, if anyone’s work shall have remained, that is, shall not have been consumed by fire, he may receive the reward for what he built upon; but if anyone’s work shall have burned, he may suffer loss: assuredly it is not itself that eternal fire. For into that only the left-hand will be sent with final and perpetual damnation, whereas this one tests the right-hand. But it tests some of them thus, that the building which it shall have found to have been constructed by them upon the foundation which is Christ it does not burn up and consume; others, however, in another way, that is, so that what they built upon burns and they suffer loss therefrom, yet they become saved, since with pre-eminent charity they held Christ, set firmly in the foundation.

Si autem salui fient, profecto et ad dexteram stabunt et cum ceteris audient: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, non ad sinistram, ubi illi erunt, qui salui non erunt et ideo audient: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Nemo quippe ab illo igne saluabitur, quia in supplicium aeternum ibunt illi omnes, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non extinguitur, quo cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum.

If, however, they will be saved, assuredly they will stand at the right hand and with the rest will hear: Come, blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you; not at the left, where those will be who will not be saved and therefore will hear: Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire. For indeed no one will be saved from that fire, because they all will go into eternal punishment, where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished, wherein they will be tormented day and night unto ages of ages.

Post istius sane corporis mortem, donec ad illum ueniatur, qui post resurrectionem corporum futurus est damnationis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si hoc temporis interuallo spiritus defunctorum eius modi ignem dicuntur perpeti, quem non sentiant illi, qui non habuerunt tales mores et amores in huius corporis uita, ut eorum ligna et fenum et stipula consumatur; alii uero sentiant, qui eius modi secum aedificia portauerunt, siue ibi tantum siue et hic et ibi siue ideo hic ut non ibi saecularia, quamuis a damnatione uenialia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inueniant: non redarguo, quia forsitan uerum est. Potest quippe ad istam tribulationem pertinere etiam mors ipsa carnis, quae de primi peccati perpetratione concepta est, ut secundum cuiusque aedificium tempus quod eam sequitur ab unoquoque sentiatur. Persecutiones quoque, quibus martyres coronati sunt et quas patiuntur quicumque Christiani, probant utraque aedificia uelut ignis et alia consumunt cum ipsis aedificatoribus, si Christum in eis non inueniunt fundamentum; alia sine ipsis, si inueniunt, quia licet cum damno salui erunt ipsi; alia uero non consumunt, quia talia reperiunt quae maneant in aeternum.

After the death of this body, to be sure, until that day is reached which, after the resurrection of bodies, will be the ultimate day of damnation and remuneration, if in this interval of time the spirits of the departed are said to undergo a fire of such a sort, which those do not feel who did not have such manners and loves in the life of this body that their wood and hay and stubble be consumed; but others do feel, who carried with themselves buildings of such a sort—whether there only, or both here and there, or for this reason here, that not there—they find a secular fire, although venial as regards damnation, burning them in a transitory tribulation: I do not refute it, because perhaps it is true. For indeed even death itself of the flesh, which was conceived from the perpetration of the first sin, can pertain to this tribulation, so that, according to each one’s building, the time which follows it is felt by each. The persecutions also, by which the martyrs were crowned and which whatsoever Christians suffer, test both buildings like fire, and some they consume along with the builders themselves, if they do not find Christ a foundation in them; others they consume without them, if they do find him, because, though with loss, they themselves will be saved; but others they do not consume, because they find such as remain into eternity.

Erit etiam in fine saeculi tribulatio tempore Antichristi, qualis numquam antea fuit. Quam multa erunt tunc aedificia, siue aurea siue fenea, super optimum fundamentum, quod est Christus Iesus, ut ignis ille probet utraque et de aliis gaudium, de aliis inferat damnum, neutros tamen perdat, in quibus haec inueniet, propter stabile fundamentum! Quicumque autem, non dico uxorem, cuius etiam commixtione carnis ad carnalem utitur uoluptatem, sed ipsa quae ab eius modi delectationibus aliena sunt nomina pietatis humano more carnaliter diligendo Christo anteponit, non eum habet in fundamento et ideo non per ignem saluus erit, sed saluus non erit, quia esse cum saluatore non poterit, qui de hac re apertissime loquens ait: Qui amat patrem aut matrem plus quam me, non est me dignus; et qui amat filium aut filiam super me, non est me dignus.

There will also be, at the end of the age, a tribulation in the time of Antichrist, such as never before was. How many edifices will there then be, whether golden or hayen, upon the best foundation, which is Christ Jesus, in order that that fire may prove both, and from some yield joy, from others inflict damage, yet lose neither, in whom it shall find these things, because of the stable foundation! Whoever, moreover—not to say a wife, whose very commixture of flesh he uses for carnal pleasure—but even the very names of piety, alien from delectations of that sort, by loving carnally in a human manner prefers to Christ, does not have him as the foundation, and therefore will not be saved through fire, but will not be saved, because he will not be able to be with the Savior, who, speaking most openly about this matter, said: He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me.

Verum qui has necessitudines sic amat carnaliter, ut tamen eas Christo Domino non praeponat, malitque ipsis carere quam Christo, si ad hunc fuerit articulum temptationis adductus, per ignem erit saluus, quia ex earum amissione tantum necesse est urat dolor, quantum haeserat amor. Porro qui patrem matrem, filios filias secundum Christum dilexerit, ut ad eius regnum obtinendum eique cohaerendum illis consulat, uel hoc in eis diligat, quod membra sunt Christi: absit ut ista dilectio reperiatur in lignis, feno et stipula consumenda, sed prorsus aedificio aureo, argenteo, gemmeo deputabitur. Quo modo autem potest eos plus amare quam Christum, quos amat utique propter Christum?

Truly, the one who so loves these relationships carnally, yet does not set them before Christ the Lord, and would rather be without them than without Christ, if he should be brought to this crisis of temptation, will be saved through fire, because from their loss it must be that pain burns in proportion to how tightly love had adhered. Moreover, whoever has loved father and mother, sons and daughters according to Christ, so that, for the obtaining of his kingdom and for cohering to him, he consults their interests, or loves in them this, that they are members of Christ: far be it that this love be found among the wood, hay, and stubble to be consumed, but it will be altogether reckoned to a building of gold, silver, and precious stones. How, however, can he love them more than Christ, whom he surely loves on account of Christ?

[XXVII] Restat eis respondere, qui dicunt aeterno igne illos tantummodo arsuros, qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas elemosynas neglegunt, propter illud quod ait apostolus Iacobus: Iudicium autem sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Qui ergo fecit, inquiunt, quamuis non correxerit perditos mores, sed nefarie ac nequiter inter ipsas suas elemosynas uixerit, cum misericordia illi futurum est iudicium, ut aut non damnetur omnino aut post aliquod tempus a damnatione nouissima liberetur. Nec ob aliud existimant Christum de solo dilectu atque neglectu elemosynarum discretionem inter dextros et sinistros esse facturum, quorum alios in regnum, alios in supplicium mittat aeternum.

[27] It remains to answer those who say that only those will burn with eternal fire who neglect to give alms adequate for their sins, on account of that which the apostle James says: But judgment without mercy to him who has not shown mercy. Therefore he who has shown it, they say, although he has not corrected his corrupt morals, but has lived nefariously and wickedly even in the very midst of his alms, for him judgment will be with mercy, so that either he is not condemned at all or, after some time, is freed from the ultimate damnation. And for no other reason do they suppose that Christ will make the distinction between the right-hand and the left-hand solely on the loving and the neglecting of alms, sending some into the kingdom, others into eternal punishment.

Vt autem cotidiana sibi opinentur, quae facere omnino non cessant, qualiacumque et quantacumque sint, per elemosynas dimitti posse peccata, orationem, quam docuit ipse Dominus, et suffragatricem sibi adhibere conantur et testem. Sicut enim nullus est, inquiunt, dies, quo a Christianis haec oratio non dicatur: ita nullum est cotidianum qualecumque peccatum, quod per illam non dimittatur, cum dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, si quod sequitur facere curemus: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Non enim ait Dominus, inquiunt: Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis pater uester cotidiana parua peccata, sed: Dimittet, inquit, uobis peccata uestra.

But, that they may suppose that their daily sins—which they by no means cease to commit, of whatever sort and of whatever magnitude they may be—can be remitted through alms, they try to employ the prayer which the Lord himself taught as an advocate and witness for themselves. For, say they, as there is no day on which this prayer is not said by Christians, so there is no quotidian sin of whatever kind which is not remitted by it, when we say: “Forgive us our debts,” provided we take care to do what follows: “As we also forgive our debtors.” For the Lord did not, they say, say: “If you forgive the sins of men, your Father will forgive you your daily small sins,” but: “He will forgive you your sins.”

Qualiacumque ergo uel quantacumque sint, etiamsi cotidie perpetrentur nec ab eis uita discedat in melius commutata: per elemosynam ueniae non negatae remitti sibi posse praesumunt.

Therefore, of whatever sort or however great they may be, even if they are perpetrated daily and life does not depart from them changed for the better: they presume that, by alms, since pardon is not denied, they can have them remitted to themselves.

Sed bene, quod isti dignas pro peccatis elemosynas commonent esse faciendas; quoniam si dicerent qualescumque elemosynas pro peccatis et cotidianis et magnis et quantacumque scelerum consuetudine misericordiam posse impetrare diuinam, ut ea cotidiana remissio sequeretur, uiderent se rem dicere absurdam atque ridiculam. Sic enim cogerentur fateri fieri posse, ut opulentissimus homo decem nummulis diurnis in elemosynas inpensis homicidia et adulteria et nefaria quaeque facta redimeret. Quod si absurdissimum atque insanissimum est dicere, profecto si quaeratur, quae dignae sint pro peccatis elemosynae, de quibus etiam Christi praecursor ille dicebat: Facite ergo fructus dignos paenitentiae, procul dubio non inuenientur eas facere, qui uitam suam usque ad mortem cotidianorum criminum perpetratione confodiunt; primum, quia in auferendis rebus alienis longe plura diripiunt, ex quibus perexigua pauperibus largiendo Christum se ad hoc pascere existimant, ut licentiam malefactorum ab illo se emisse uel cotidie potius emere credentes securi damnabilia tanta committant.

But well that these men remind us that alms worthy of sins are to be done; for if they were to say that any sort of alms, for sins both daily and great, and however much by a habit of crimes, can obtain divine mercy, so that that daily remission would follow, they would see that they are saying something absurd and ridiculous. For thus they would be forced to confess it could come to pass that a most opulent man, with ten small coins expended daily on alms, would redeem murders and adulteries and whatever nefarious deeds. But if it is most absurd and most insane to say this, then assuredly, if it be asked what alms are worthy for sins—of which even that forerunner of Christ said: Therefore make fruits worthy of repentance—beyond doubt they will not be found to do them who riddle their life, even unto death, by the perpetration of daily crimes; first, because in taking away other people’s goods they plunder far more, from which, by largessing a very scant part to the poor, they suppose that they feed Christ for this purpose: that they may have purchased from Him a license for evildoings—or rather, believing that they are buying it daily—and so, carefree, commit such great damnable acts.

Qui si pro uno scelere omnia sua distribuerent indigentibus membris Christi, nisi desisterent a talibus factis habendo caritatem, quae non agit perperam, aliquid eis prodesse non posset. Qui ergo dignas pro suis peccatis elemosynas facit, prius eas facere incipiat a se ipso. Indignum est enim, ut in se non faciat, qui facit in proximum, cum audiat dicentem Deum: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum; itemque audiat; Miserere animae tuae placens Deo.

Who, even if for one crime they were to distribute all their goods to the needy members of Christ, unless they were to desist from such deeds by having charity, which does not act amiss, nothing could profit them. Therefore, whoever makes alms worthy for his sins, let him first begin to make them from himself. For it is unworthy that he should not do in himself what he does for his neighbor, since he hears God saying: You shall love your neighbor as yourself; and likewise he hears: Have mercy on your soul, pleasing to God.

Hanc elemosynam, id est, ut Deo placeat, non faciens animae suae quo modo dignas pro peccatis suis elemosynas facere dicendus est? Ad hoc enim et illud scriptum est: Qui sibi malignus est, cui bonus erit? Orationes quippe adiuuant elemosynae; et utique intuendum est quod legimus: Fili, peccasti, ne adicias iterum et de praeteritis deprecare, ut tibi dimittantur.

If he does not do this alms, that is, so that it may please God, how is he to be said to make worthy alms for his sins for his own soul? For this also it is written: He who is malign to himself, to whom will he be good? For prayers are indeed helped by alms; and surely we must consider what we read: Son, you have sinned; do not add again, and for the things past beseech, that they may be forgiven you.

Propter hoc ergo elemosynae faciendae sunt, ut, cum de praeteritis peccatis deprecamur, exaudiamur; non ut in eis perseuerantes licentiam malefaciendi nos per elemosynas comparare credamus.

For this reason, therefore, alms are to be given, that, when we beseech concerning past sins, we may be heard; not that, persevering in them, we should believe that by alms we procure a license for doing evil.

Ideo autem Dominus et dextris elemosynas ab eis factas et sinistris non factas se inputaturum esse praedixit, ut hinc ostenderet quantum ualeant elemosynae ad priora delenda, non ad perpetua inpune committenda peccata. Tales autem elemosynas non dicendi sunt facere, qui uitam nolunt a consuetudine scelerum in melius commutare. Quia et in hoc quod ait: Quando uni ex minimis meis non fecistis, mihi non fecistis, ostendit eos non facere etiam quando se facere existimant.

Therefore the Lord also foretold that he would impute alms as done by those on the right, and as not done by those on the left, so that from this he might show how much alms avail for blotting out prior things, not for sins to be perpetually committed with impunity. Moreover, such alms are not to be said to be done by those who are unwilling to change their life for the better from the custom of crimes. For also in this which he says: When you did not do it to one of the least of mine, you did not do it to me, he shows them not to do it even when they suppose themselves to be doing it.

Si enim Christiano esurienti panem tamquam Christiano darent, profecto sibi panem iustitiae, quod ipse Christus est, non negarent; quoniam Deus, non cui detur, sed quo animo detur, adtendit. Qui ergo Christum diligit in Christiano, hoc animo ei porrigit elemosynam, quo accedit ad Christum, non quo uult recedere inpunitus a Christo. Tanto enim magis quisque deserit Christum, quanto magis diligit quod inprobat Christus.

If indeed they were giving bread to a Christian who is hungry as to a Christian, surely they would not deny to themselves the bread of justice, which Christ himself is; since God attends not to whom it is given, but with what mind it is given. Therefore he who loves Christ in the Christian, with this mind he extends alms to him, with which he approaches to Christ, not with which he wants to recede unpunished from Christ. For each person deserts Christ so much the more, the more he loves that which Christ disapproves.

Nam quid cuiquam prodest, quod baptizatur, si non iustificatur? Nonne qui dixit: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non intrabit in regnum Dei, ipse etiam dixit: Nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra super scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum? Cur illud timendo multi currunt baptizari, et hoc non timendo non multi curant iustificari?

For what does it profit anyone that he is baptized, if he is not justified? Did not he who said: Unless one be reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of God, he himself also say: Unless your justice abound beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens? Why, fearing that, do many run to be baptized, and, not fearing this, do not many care to be justified?

Sicut ergo non fratri suo dicit: Fatue, qui cum hoc dicit non ipsi fraternitati, sed peccato eius infensus est (alioquin reus erit gehennae ignis): ita e contrario, qui porrigit elemosynam Christiano, non Christiano porrigit, qui non in eo diligit Christum; non autem diligit Christum, qui iustificari recusat in Christo. Et quem ad modum si quis praeoccupatus fuerit hoc delicto, ut fratri suo dicat: Fatue, id est, non eius peccatum uolens auferre conuicietur iniuste, parum est illi ad hoc redimendum elemosynas facere, nisi etiam quod ibi sequitur remedium reconciliationis adiungat (ibi enim sequitur: Si ergo offeres munus tuum ad altare et ibi recordatus fueris, quia frater tuus habet aliquid aduersum te, relinque ibi munus tuum ad altare et uade prius, reconciliare fratri tuo, et tunc ueniens offeres munus tuum); ita parum est elemosynas quantaslibet facere pro quocumque scelere et in consuetudine scelerum permanere.

Thus, he does not say to his brother, “Fool,” who, when he says this, is hostile not to the fraternity itself but to his sin (otherwise he will be guilty of the Gehenna of fire): so, on the contrary, he who extends alms to a Christian does not extend it to a Christian, who does not love Christ in him; and he does not love Christ who refuses to be justified in Christ. And just as, if someone should be overtaken by this offense, so as to say to his brother, “Fool,” that is, reviling unjustly, not willing to remove his sin, it is too little for him, for redeeming this, to do alms, unless he also add the remedy of reconciliation which there follows (for there follows: If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar and there you have remembered that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there at the altar and go first, be reconciled to your brother, and then, coming, you will offer your gift); so it is too little to do alms of whatever quantity for any crime and to remain in the habit of crimes.

Oratio uero cotidiana, quam docuit ipse Iesus, unde et dominica nominatur, delet quidem cotidiana peccata, cum cotidie dicitur: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, atque id quod sequitur non solum dicitur, sed etiam fit: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris; sed quia fiunt peccata, ideo dicitur, non ut ideo fiant, quia dicitur. Per hanc enim nobis uoluit Saluator ostendere, quantumlibet iuste in huius uitae caligine atque infirmitate uiuamus, non nobis deesse peccata, pro quibus dimittendis debeamus orare et eis, qui in nos peccant, ut et nobis ignoscatur, ignoscere. Non itaque propterea Dominus ait: Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis et pater uester peccata uestra, ut de hac oratione confisi securi cotidiana scelera faceremus, uel potentia qua non timeremus hominum leges uel astutia qua ipsos homines falleremus; sed ut per illam disceremus non putare nos esse sine peccatis, etiamsi a criminibus essemus inmunes; sicut etiam legis ueteris sacerdotes hoc ipsum Deus de sacrificiis admonuit, quae iussit eos primum pro suis, deinde pro populi offerre peccatis.

But the daily prayer, which Jesus himself taught, whence also it is named “the Lord’s,” indeed deletes daily sins, when day by day it is said: “Forgive us our debts,” and that which follows is not only said but also done: “As we also forgive our debtors”; but because sins are committed, therefore it is said, not that they are committed because it is said. For through this the Savior willed to show us that, however justly we may live in the gloom and infirmity of this life, sins are not lacking to us, for the remitting of which we ought to pray, and to forgive those who sin against us, that it may also be pardoned to us. Not, therefore, did the Lord say: “If you forgive the sins of men, your Father will also forgive you your sins,” so that, confident on the basis of this prayer, we might securely do daily crimes, either by a potency whereby we would not fear the laws of men, or by an astuteness whereby we would deceive the men themselves; but that through it we might learn not to think ourselves to be without sins, even if we were immune from crimes; just as God also admonished the priests of the old law of this very thing by the sacrifices, which he commanded them first to offer for their own sins, then for the sins of the people.

Nam et ipsa uerba tanti magistri et Domini nostri uigilanter intuenda sunt. Non enim ait: "Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, et pater uester dimittet uobis qualiacumque peccata", sed ait: Peccata uestra. Cotidianam quippe orationem docebat et iustificatis utique discipulis loquebatur.

For the very words of so great a Master and our Lord are to be watched intently. For he did not say: "If you forgive sins to men, your Father also will forgive you whatever sins," but he said: "Your sins." Indeed he was teaching the quotidian prayer, and he was speaking, assuredly, to justified disciples.

Quid est ergo: Peccata uestra nisi "peccata sine quibus nec uos eritis, qui iustificati et sanctificati estis"? Vbi ergo illi, qui per hanc orationem occasionem perpetrandorum cotidie scelerum quaerunt, dicunt Dominum significasse etiam magna peccata, quoniam non dixit: "Dimittet uobis parua", sed peccata uestra: ibi nos considerantes qualibus loquebatur et audientes dictum peccata uestra nihil aliud debemus existimare quam parua, quoniam talium iam non erant magna. Verum tamen nec ipsa magna, a quibus omnino mutatis in melius moribus recedendum est, dimittuntur orantibus, nisi fiat quod ibi dicitur: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Si enim minima peccata, sine quibus non est etiam uita iustorum, aliter non remittuntur: quanto magis multis et magnis criminibus inuoluti, etiamsi ea perpetrare iam desinant, nullam indulgentiam consequuntur, si ad remittendum aliis, quod in eos quisque peccauerit, inexorabiles fuerint, cum dicat Dominus: Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, neque pater uester dimittet uobis.

What then is: Your sins, unless “sins without which not even you will be, you who have been justified and sanctified”? Where then those who through this prayer seek an occasion for perpetrating daily crimes say that the Lord signified even great sins, since he did not say: “He will forgive you small ones,” but “your sins”: there we, considering to whom he was speaking and hearing the phrase “your sins,” ought to think nothing other than small ones, since among such there were no longer great ones. Nevertheless, not even those great ones themselves—from which one must withdraw altogether by manners changed for the better—are remitted to those praying, unless what is said there be done: As we also forgive our debtors. For if the least sins, without which there is not even the life of the just, are not remitted otherwise: how much more those wrapped up in many and great crimes, even if they now cease to perpetrate them, obtain no indulgence, if they are inexorable in remitting to others what each has sinned against them, since the Lord says: But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you.

Ad hoc enim ualet quod etiam Iacobus apostolus ait iudicium futurum sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Venire quippe debet in mentem etiam seruus ille, cui debitori dominus eius relaxauit decem milia talentorum, quae postea iussit ut redderet, quia ipse non misertus est conserui sui, qui ei debebat centum denarios. In his ergo, qui filii sunt promissionis et uasa misericordiae, ualet quod ait idem apostolus consequenter adiungens: Superexultat autem misericordia iudicio, quoniam et illi iusti, qui tanta sanctitate uixerunt, ut alios quoque recipiant in tabernacula aeterna, a quibus amici facti sunt de mammona iniquitatis, ut tales essent, misericordia liberati sunt ab eo, qui iustificat impium, imputans mercedem secundum gratiam, non secundum debitum.

For to this avails also what the apostle James says, that judgment will be without mercy for him who has not done mercy. For there ought to come to mind even that servant, to whose debtor his lord remitted ten thousand talents, which afterward he ordered him to repay, because he himself had not had mercy on his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred denarii. In those, therefore, who are sons of the promise and vessels of mercy, what the same apostle says holds, consequently adding: But mercy exults over judgment; since even those just men who lived with such sanctity that they also receive others into the eternal tabernacles—by whom they made friends for themselves from the mammon of iniquity—were, in order that they might be such, set free by mercy by him who justifies the impious, imputing the reward according to grace, not according to debt.

In eorum quippe numero est apostolus, qui dicit: Misericordiam consecutus sum, ut fidelis essem.

For indeed among their number is the apostle, who says: I have obtained mercy, that I might be faithful.

Illi autem, qui recipiuntur a talibus in tabernacula aeterna, fatendum est quod non sint his moribus praediti, ut eis liberandis sine suffragio sanctorum sua possit uita sufficere, ac per hoc multo amplius in eis superexultat misericordia iudicio. Nec tamen ideo putandus est quisquam sceleratissimus, nequaquam uita uel bona uel tolerabiliore mutatus, recipi in tabernacula aeterna, quoniam obsecutus est sanctis de mammona iniquitatis, id est de pecunia uel diuitiis, quae male fuerant adquisitae, aut etiamsi bene, non tamen ueris, sed quas iniquitas putat esse diuitias, quoniam nescit quae sint uerae diuitiae, quibus illi abundabant, qui et alios recipiunt in tabernacula aeterna. Est itaque quidam uitae modus nec tam malae, ut his qui eam uiuunt nihil prosit ad capessendum regnum caelorum largitas elemosynarum, quibus etiam iustorum sustentatur inopia et fiunt amici qui in tabernacula aeterna suscipiant, nec tam bonae, ut ad tantam beatitudinem adipiscendam eis ipsa sufficiat, nisi eorum meritis, quos amicos fecerint, misericordiam consequantur (Mirari autem soleo etiam apud Vergilium reperiri istam Domini sententiam, ubi ait: Facite uobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis, ut et ipsi recipiant uos in tabernacula aeterna; cui est et illa simillima: Qui recipit prophetam in nomine prophetae, mercedem prophetae accipiet.

But as for those who are received by such men into the eternal tabernacles, it must be confessed that they are not endowed with such morals that their own life could suffice for their being liberated without the suffrage of the saints, and thereby in them mercy exults over judgment far more. Nor, however, for that reason is anyone to be thought so most criminal—being in no way changed to a life either good or more tolerable—as to be received into the eternal tabernacles because he has deferred to the saints from the mammon of iniquity, that is, from money or riches which had been ill-acquired, or even if well, yet not true ones, but such as iniquity thinks to be riches, since it does not know what the true riches are, with which those abounded who also receive others into the eternal tabernacles. There is, therefore, a certain manner of life neither so bad that the largess of alms—by which even the indigence of the just is supported, and friends are made who may receive them into the eternal tabernacles—profits nothing to those who live it for the seizing of the kingdom of heaven; nor so good that, for attaining to so great beatitude, it by itself should suffice for them, unless by the merits of those whom they have made friends they obtain mercy (I am, however, accustomed to marvel that this saying of the Lord is even found in Vergil, where he says: Make for yourselves friends from the mammon of iniquity, that they also may receive you into the eternal tabernacles; to which that is very similar: He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward.

et qui recipit iustum in nomine iusti, mercedem iusti accipiet. Nam cum Elysios campos poeta ille describeret, ubi putant habitare animas beatorum, non solum ibi posuit eos, qui propriis meritis ad illas sedes peruenire potuerunt, sed adiecit atque ait:

and he who receives a just man in the name of a just man will receive the reward of a just man. For when that poet described the Elysian fields, where they suppose the souls of the blessed to dwell, he not only set there those who were able to arrive at those seats by their own merits, but he added and said:

Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo,

and those who by meriting made others mindful of themselves,

id est, qui promeruerunt alios eosque sui memores promerendo fecerunt; prorsus tamquam eis dicerent, quod frequentatur ore Christiano, cum se cuique sanctorum humilis quisque commendat et dicit: "Memor mei esto", atque id ut esse possit promerendo efficit.) Sed quis iste sit modus, et quae sint ipsa peccata, quae ita impediunt peruentionem ad regnum Dei, ut tamen sanctorum amicorum meritis inpetrent indulgentiam, difficillimum est inuenire, periculosissimum definire. Ego certe usque ad hoc tempus cum inde satagerem ad eorum indaginem peruenire non potui. Et fortassis propterea latent, ne studium proficiendi ad omnia cauenda peccata pigrescat.

that is, those who have merited others, and by meriting have made them mindful of them; altogether as if they were saying to them what is frequent on the Christian mouth, when any humble person commends himself to any of the saints and says: “Be mindful of me,” and by meriting brings it about that this can be so.) But what this mode may be, and what the sins themselves are which thus hinder the pervention to the kingdom of God, yet so that by the merits of holy friends they obtain indulgence, is most difficult to discover, most perilous to define. I for my part, up to this time, though I have been striving therein, have not been able to arrive at their investigation. And perhaps for that reason they lie hidden, lest the zeal of making progress toward shunning all sins grow slothful.

Quoniam si scirentur quae uel qualia sint delicta, pro quibus etiam permanentibus nec prouectu uitae melioris absumptis intercessio sit inquirenda et speranda iustorum, eis secura se obuolueret humana segnitia, nec euolui talibus implicamentis ullius uirtutis expeditione curaret, sed tantummodo quaereret aliorum meritis liberari, quos amicos sibi de mammona iniquitatis elemosynarum largitate fecisset. Nunc uero dum uenialis iniquitatis, etiamsi perseueret, ignoratur modus, profecto et studium in meliora proficiendi orando et instando uigilantius adhibetur et faciendi de mammona iniquitatis sanctos amicos cura non spernitur.

Since, if it were known what, or of what sort, the delicts are, for which—even while they remain and are not consumed by the advance of a better life—the intercession of the just is to be sought and hoped for, human sloth would securely wrap itself up, nor would it care to unroll itself from such entanglements by any expedition of virtue, but would only seek to be freed by the merits of others, whom it had made its friends by the largess of alms from the mammon of iniquity. But as now the measure of venial iniquity, even if it should persevere, is unknown, assuredly both a more vigilant zeal of advancing to better things is applied, by praying and by pressing on, and the care of making holy friends from the mammon of iniquity is not scorned.

Verum ista liberatio, quae fit siue suis quibusque orationibus siue intercedentibus sanctis, id agit ut in ignem quisque non mittatur aeternum, non ut, cum fuerit missus, post quantumcumque inde tempus eruatur. Nam et illi, qui putant sic intellegendum esse quod scriptum est, adferre terram bonam uberem fructum, aliam tricenum, aliam sexagenum, aliam centenum, ut sancti pro suorum diuersitate meritorum alii tricenos homines liberent, alii sexagenos, alii centenos, hoc in die iudicii futurum suspicari solent, non post iudicium. Qua opinione quidam cum uideret homines inpunitatem sibi peruersissime pollicentes, eo quod omnes isto modo ad liberationem pertinere posse uideantur, elegantissime respondisse perbibetur, bene potius esse uiuendum, ut inter eos quisque reperiatur, qui pro aliis intercessuri sunt liberandis, ne tam pauci sint, ut cito ad numerum suum uel tricenum uel sexagenum uel centenum unoquoque eorum perueniente multi remaneant, qui erui iam de poenis illorum intercessione non possint et in eis inueniatur quisquis sibi spem fructus alieni temeritate uanissima pollicetur.

Verily that liberation, which is brought about either by each one’s own prayers or by the saints interceding, effects this: that each person is not sent into the eternal fire—not that, once he has been sent, he be extracted from it after whatever length of time. For even those who think that what is written should be understood thus—that the good land brings forth abundant fruit, one thirtyfold, another sixtyfold, another a hundredfold, namely that the saints, according to the diversity of their merits, some free thirty men, others sixty, others a hundred—are accustomed to suspect that this will occur on the day of judgment, not after the judgment. By which opinion, when a certain man saw people most perversely promising impunity to themselves, on the ground that all in this way seem able to pertain to liberation, he is reported to have replied most elegantly, that one ought rather to live well, so that each may be found among those who are going to intercede for others to be liberated, lest they be so few that, as each of them quickly reaches his number—whether thirty or sixty or a hundred—many remain who can no longer be rescued from punishments by the intercession of those; and among them be found whoever promises to himself the hope of another’s fruit with most vain temerity.

Haec me illis respondisse suffecerit, qui sacrarum litterarum, quas communes habemus, auctoritatem non spernunt, sed eas male intellegendo non quod illae loquuntur, sed hoc potius putant futurum esse quod ipsi uolunt. Hac itaque responsione reddita librum, sicut promisimus, terminamus.

Let this have sufficed for me to have answered to those who do not spurn the authority of the sacred Scriptures, which we have in common, but, by ill understanding them, think that not what they speak, but rather what they themselves wish, is going to be. With this response, therefore, rendered, we terminate the book, as we promised.